On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:10 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:45:32 -0400
Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:



>         Everything is criminalized in the US. I'm not talking about other
> > places at the moment.
> >
> >         So again, the key fact is that the most basic personal rights are
> > violated by 100,000 of US 'laws'. Which in turn means that any apologist of the US 'justice' system, like barrett, is an apologist of  organized crime on a global scale.
>
>
> I don't agree with your logic here, but do you think I disagree with your
> view? 


        My view and logic are one and the same. Which logical step do you think I got wrong.

        1) US laws violate personal rights.

Logically true.  Anything exerted unilaterally is going to end up violating personal rights.

        2) Violating personal rights is the very defintion of crime.

True enough, different people have different opinions; some define crime in terms of the state.

        3) People who support the US 'legal system' support crime and are morally responsible for US crimes.

Doesn't quite follow.  They can support the legal system without supporting the violation of personal rights, like a conceptual filter where they only support the times they think it isn't doing that.





> >
> >         there's tons of literature on that.
>
>
> Which does more: an unread book, or a meme people are talking about?
>
> I'm asking you so I can figure out how to support your experiences.  I
> don't know what you want, and it seems very hard to learn.


        what I want is respect for personal rights. But that's not really the topic. The topic is the nature of the US govt, being the biggest example of organized crime on the planet.

Other govts might also demonstrate organised crime?

I agree with you for this reason:  our democracy clearly not functioning, and it is pretty hard to assert direction of an entire democracy.  That's a lot of people to influence.  Way easier in a dictatorship.

> >         I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean, assange is getting
> > the same treatment that any poor/brown/black guy in the US gets. Assange is
> > obviously a more 'valuable' US military target so they are using more
> > resources against him, but assange is better defendend than the average
> > poor/brown/black guy in the US, so assange and the average poor/brown/black
> > victim of US attrocites are more or less equaly fucked. Both will get no
> > justice.
>
>
> I guess I'd tentatively agree with you here.  Not always the case.

        The vast majority of cases.

A little too leftist for my flashbacks to safely relate around.

But yeah, we're agreeing that certain sets of people are getting their lives inhumanly and reasonlessly destroyed without recourse, fairness, or justice yet.

> > > So why are you complaining via one of the same mediums that is causing
> > what
> > > you complain about?
> >
> >
> >         what - I'm not complaining. I am stating facts. Not sure what
> > 'medium' you're referring to? The fucking arpanet?
>
>
> Your facts are possibly a little summarised.
>
> Yes, how are your points helped by what you are saying into the arpanet's
> giant moneyai?

        I'm using the US propaganda machine against the US, as best as I can.

        Just like I would use a 'US gun' to blow up the head of a US soldier.

Both of these behaviors may be teaching your enemy how to defeat you, more than defeating your enemy ...  people do need to live sometimes.

> From punk to david:
> The legal system is not functioning how you claim it is.  It is clearly not
> producing justice, and we have a _lot_ of clear evidence of this.


        Thanks, that sums it up. I'll stop beating this poor dead horse for a couple of days at least.

I still have to figure out how to say it to him.

I said it recently and he erased it and replied without responding to it.