Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

[cecil1]

The last post was abit large so i'll add this here;

Since USA dropped 2 A-bombs on japan there surely must be some human rights cases for us to examine right Arouet? because if there isn't that means it

never happened right? Of course not so it's not an applicable argument. You have raised nothing in your favor.



One more time... Where in the canadian ownership and control determination act 1985 publicly displayed on the department of justice website

does it diferentiate between the certain types of persons affected by this legislation besides the non-eligible and not

non-eligible persons?

I suspect the answer will be this again:

[Arouet]

Cecil - I gave up, remember? We're accepting that you're correct, that these acts together establish legal slavery. So now let's get to the interesting part and discuss all the terrible abuses that have come about from this! I've never heard of them but I'm sure you have. Perhaps you could just give us a single example of how these acts have been used to enforce this slavery on the citizens of Canada?

[cecil1]

Slavery is simply a person(s) owning another person(s) correct?

Well no because fictional entities are considered persons by law, it's when a human person owns another human person it becomes slavery.

Slavery is immoral anytime, what's so hard for you to understand where the abuse comes in?

If I own you, that is immoral, nobody has a higher claim to your life than you, except your beneficial owner according to the canadian ownership and control determination act 1985 regulated further by the trust and loans companies act 1991 if we follow the rule of "law".

Surely if I bought your person and was sipping corona on the beach benefitting from equity holdings on your corporate trust person there would be no abuse hey Arouet?

Can you think of one example of slavery being abusive?

[Arouet]

I'm simply asking for a practical example of something negative that has occurred due to these nefarious acts? Is there a single instance that you can point to where something bad happened because of this?

[cecil1]

yup... hold for it.... slavery.

So you don't think owning another human being is a nefarious act in itself?

You don't believe in innocent until proven guilty?

Wanna sign a contract with me stating I own everything of yours?

If not why not?

It's not nefarious according to you correct?

What would be your problem with me owning everything of yours including yourself?

[Arouet]

So I'll take it that you can't point to a single bad thing that has ever happened because of this.

Can you point to an instance of someone else being concerned about this aside from yourself? Not people you know, mind you. Someone completely unrelated to you?

[cecil1]

So I'll take it that you can't point to a single bad thing that has ever happened because of this.

Can you point to an instance of someone else being concerned about this aside from yourself? Not people you know, mind you. Someone completely unrelated to you?

Seeing as you've given me the victory and I can see why you've done so, intellectually defeated by mere words you have retreated as a man,

so seeing as you've given me the victory what are your plans now?

Writing your MP?

Getting angry?

Frusterated?

Fight?

Or are you under the impression that slavery is not in itself a single nefarious act?

Do go on...

[Arouet]

Well, my current plans are to wait and see if you answer my questions in the post you've just responded to.

[cecil1]

You have conseded that this act seems to spell out some sort of legal predictioment where people don't really own their items.

What's your next plan of attack Arouet?

Or is slavery not a single nefarious act in itself?

Go ahead answer the question.

I am not concerned with what other people are concerned with at the moment why would you be?

If no one else was concerned about this act would that make slavery ok in your mind or is it already ok seeing as you can't seem to accept slavery as a single nerfarious act in itself?

[Arouet]

I've answered a whole slew of your questions. I'd like you to answer some of mine. Do I take it that you are the only person you know of who has voiced this particular concern of yours about these two acts? Newspaper reports? Talk radio? Anyone?

I also take it from your non-answer above that you can't state a single practical abuse that has ever come out of these acts either?

I wonder as well as to whether you believe that legislation establishing slavery in Canada would be considered constitutional under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


I don't want to put words in you mouth, so please correct me if these impressions are false.

[cecil1]

I've answered a whole slew of your questions. I'd like you to answer some of mine. Do I take it that you are the only person you know of who has voiced this particular concern of yours about these two acts? Newspaper reports? Talk radio? Anyone?

I know of others who have spoken very briefly of these acts, well mainly the ownership act, why is that a concern of yours?

Relevancy?

I also take it from your non-answer above that you can't state a single practical abuse that has ever come out of these acts either?

How many times are you going to ignore the answer?

Slavery is the single practical abuse that comes out of these acts.

Do you think slavery is not abusive or nefarious in itself?

I wonder as well as to whether you believe that legislation establishing slavery in Canada would be considered constitutional under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

What freedom or right guarantees ownership of self? I see a security of the person but that is a rabbit hole of sophistry to walk down but you asked for it.

I don't see how legal slavery is unconstitutional as long as beneficial ownership is possible (your person is secure after all) which is why there is application available after all.

I do however see how legal slavery is immoral and nefarious and a single act of abuse.

How about you Aruoet? Is slavery nefarious, abusive and a single act?

Please do share with us all...

[cecil1]

What would be your problem with me owning everything of yours including yourself?

Due to your non-answer i'll assume nothing.

But I don't want to put words in your mouth correct me if i'm wrong.

what's your fax number so I can send you the contract?

[Arouet]

I know of others who have spoken very briefly of these acts, well mainly the ownership act, why is that a concern of yours?

Relevancy?

I'm wondering if this is an issue that is only of concern to you. If so, I wonder why no-one else has realised its significance. Do you think even members of the government realise that the act allows them to act as slave owners of the citizens of canada? Wait, the members of the government are also citizens of canada. Who is it exactly that does the owning? Just the country itself?

In what manner could whoever does the owning use that to order around their slaves?

Slavery is the single practical abuse that comes out of these acts.

No, slavery is perhaps a conceptual abuse. If no-one exercises their rights as slave owners then its not practical. Can you identify a practical abuse of these Acts?

Do you think slavery is not abusive or nefarious in itself?

Well, let's not talk about slavery in general, let's focus on slavery as set out in these acts. For example: outside of a conceptual legal definition, what would be the practical difference between a slave owned canadian under these acts, and one if these acts were abolished. Would anything change in their lives whatsoever?

What freedom or right guarantees ownership of self?

The one called "liberty". Here, let's look at the definition:

noun /ˈlibərtē/ 
liberties, plural

The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views
- compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty

An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one
- the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties

The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved
- people who have lost property or liberty without due process

The personification of liberty as a female figure

The power or scope to act as one pleases
- individuals should enjoy the liberty to pursue their own interests and preferences

A person's freedom from control by fate or necessity

A presumptuous remark or action
- how did he know what she was thinking?—it was a liberty!

Shore leave granted to a sailor

Just so you don't miss it, one of the definitions of liberty is the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

Would you consider legislation that imposes slavery to contradict the right to be free from slavery?

I do however see how legal slavery is immoral and nefarious and a single act of abuse.

How about you Aruoet? Is slavery nefarious, abusive and a single act?

While I dislike generalizations, I would say that slavery is most likely to be nefarious and abusive, yes.

Please do share with us all...

[/quote]

With pleasure!

[cecil1]

I'm wondering if this is an issue that is only of concern to you. If so, I wonder why no-one else has realised its significance. Do you think even members of the government realise that the act allows them to act as slave owners of the citizens of canada? Wait, the members of the government are also citizens of canada. Who is it exactly that does the owning? Just the country itself?

In what manner could whoever does the owning use that to order around their slaves?

This is why I asked you earlier (which you avoided like the plague) how one would know what the law in an act would be, how would anyone who hasn't read it know for sure?

Controlling the trust is done via the trustee(s), the shareholders control the trustees with voting rights set out in regulation via the trust and loans companies act.

But, why so interested all of a sudden? I thought this was a dry subject for you?

No, slavery is perhaps a conceptual abuse. If no-one exercises their rights as slave owners then its not practical. Can you identify a practical abuse of these Acts?

So then by all means where is the practical abuse in signing everything you own to me? I promise not to exert rights. Why not do it? Surely you have no qualms with a conceptual abuse upon yourself? What tosh, slavery is a practical abuse, deriving equity as a beneficial owner of someone else is a practical abuse depriving the slave from more than just dignity. If slavery is not a practical abuse then by all means sign everything away to me sir. What's holding you back a mere concept? Rethink your load of tosh what a waste of my time responding to you.

Well, let's not talk about slavery in general, let's focus on slavery as set out in these acts. For example: outside of a conceptual legal definition, what would be the practical difference between a slave owned canadian under these acts, and one if these acts were abolished. Would anything change in their lives whatsoever?

Well how about let's talk slavery in general?

If someone was according to law not the owner of themself or all of their items, what would happen according to law if that act was abolished?

The one called "liberty". Here, let's look at the definition:

The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved
- people who have lost property or liberty without due process

Isn't an act of parliament due process regarding government?

Just so you don't miss it, one of the definitions of liberty is the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

Would you consider legislation that imposes slavery to contradict the right to be free from slavery?

Not if by due process according to government, rights are tosh anyways it's a privilege. Didn't you know that the word "rights" is a trap meant to draw in conflict?

While I dislike generalizations, I would say that slavery is most likely to be nefarious and abusive, yes.

But only conceptually right? Why hesitate signing everything you own to me? Don't let a concept scare you away!

So thank you for answering my question, so now on to the meat of the discussion! (not a debate since you've conceded victory to me [and gave up very easily amazingly])

What's your next plan Arouet?

How shall you save canadians from this slavery act?

What is your next plan of attack?

Write your mp?

Get angry?

Scour me for more answers?

I'm ever so curious what you will do now that you acknowledge these laws.

[Arouet]

This is why I asked you earlier (which you avoided like the plague) how one would know what the law in an act would be, how would anyone who hasn't read it know for sure?

I have no idea what you are asking in this question. To know about the existence of a law you need to either see it yourself or be told by someone else. Knowing of the existence of a law and knowing what the words in the law are of course doesn't ensure understanding of that law. Understanding the law requires an understanding of legal principles or being educated by someone who does. Sometimes a law can't be fully understood until a court further defines it.

Controlling the trust is done via the trustee(s), the shareholders control the trustees with voting rights set out in regulation via the trust and loans companies act.

So who controls me, as a citizen of canada? What could they make me do?

But, why so interested all of a sudden? I thought this was a dry subject for you?

Well, at least we're not discussing the minutia of canadian protectonist legislation!

So then by all means where is the practical abuse in signing everything you own to me? I promise not to exert rights. Why not do it? Surely you have no qualms with a conceptual abuse upon yourself?

Well, that's a step further towards practical - there would be a practical document that I signed over to you. But again, rather than ask question, why don't you provide answers. I asked whether you believe someone in the canadian government could exert powers over canadian citizens similar to, say, american slave owners exerted over black slaves pre-civil war? That's what I mean by practical.

Well how about let's talk slavery in general?

Ok, but first let's figure out if we're talking about the same thing. That means you need to specify what kinds of powers these beneficial owners could exercise over the people of canada. Can you list off a couple? How does the slavery get exercised?

If someone was according to law not the owner of themself or all of their items, what would happen according to law if that act was abolished?

Perhaps instead of answering a question with a question, you could answer a question with an answer?

Isn't an act of parliament due process regarding government?

No, that's not what's meant by due process there. They mean due process such as being read one's rights and having a fair trial before being incarcerated. But I'm interested in your opinion on whether a law that took away one's liberty and enslaved them would be unconstitutional under a constitution that specifically protected citizens liberty which includes not being enslaved. You might have missed that in my law post which is why you didn't address it.

Not if by due process according to government, rights are tosh anyways it's a privilege. Didn't you know that the word "rights" is a trap meant to draw in conflict?

I don't know what you mean by the second sentence, but yes, we do take away people's rights when they've committed crimes. That doesn't seem related to what we're talking about here.

But only conceptually right? Why hesitate signing everything you own to me? Don't let a concept scare you away!

Slavery in practice is much worse than slavery conceptually.

So thank you for answering my question, so now on to the meat of the discussion! (not a debate since you've conceded victory to me [and gave up very easily amazingly])

Still more questions for you to answer!

What's your next plan Arouet?

How shall you save canadians from this slavery act?

I have no intention of doing anything about this act.

What is your next plan of attack?

Just to wait for your responses to my queries.

Write your mp?

No. But I assure you that if someone tried to exert authority over me as my master under this act, I would bring a motion to declare the act unconstitutional. I'm not terribly worried about it.

Get angry?

I'm not really angry about this.

Scour me for more answers?

Yes

I'm ever so curious what you will do now that you acknowledge these laws.

I'm trying to learn more about it from you. I can't learn more about it from anyone else since you haven't mentioned anyone else who has this same concern as you. So I'm stuck with you as my fountain of knowledge here.