On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:05 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <[1]punks@tfwno.gf>
   wrote:

     On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 19:44:03 -0400
     Karl <[2]gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
     > >
     > > > True enough, different people have different opinions; some
     define crime
     > > in
     > > > terms of the state.
     > >
     > >         yeah well. That's what the position of barrett and any
     other
     > > government agent amounts to.  According to them "a crime is
     whatever we say
     > > it is", and if you don't agree, they will murder you.
     >
     >
     > I'm actually used to some anarchists using it that way, maybe my
     memories
     > are confused.
             Not sure what "it" replaces, and "what way" you're referring
     to.
             The very basic nature of anarchism is to reject the
     'authority' of the state and reject the absurd claim that the
     state(a collection of criminals!) gets to define what crime is.
             I don't think there's anything else to add here.

   Ok I guess

     > > >
     > > >         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,
     > >
     > >
     > >         No they can't, because the US legal system is explicitly
     designed
     > > to violate rights.
     > >
     >
     > I'd say it's explicitly designed in a way that violates rights.
             Sounds like a distinction without a difference? The end
     result is the same. Its very nature is pro-crime.

   The difference is the human goals held by the people designing and
   using it.  They think of different things when they focus and act: they
   act with different underlying reasons.

     > > > like a conceptual filter where they only  support the times
     they think
     > > it isn't doing that.
     > >
     > >
     > >         That 'conceptual filter' doesn't exist in reality. What
     you're
     > > calling 'conceptual filter' is actually called intelectual
     dishonesty.
     > > "Doublethink" in 1984.
     >
     >
     > Sounds similar to using the arpanet while deriding it.
             It may sound similar but it's not.

   Sounds pretty doublethinky to me.  You're handing a behavior profile to
   the arpanet with me, like a firehose.  It uses this to make power and
   money off you and anybody similar.

     > Not everything is cut and dry.
     >
             and many things are. This one is.

   I'll imagine splitting everything so tiny that "cut and dry" applies on
   a very very small scale.

     > The legal system is not functioning how David says it is.  We have
     > extensive clear evidence that usually produces injustice.
     >
     > It's hard to remember when replying.  Everything david says
     assumes the
     > legal system is right,
             yes, as mentioned above, the whole non-argument of the
     statists is just this laughable circular idea :  "we are right
     because we define reality, and if you don't obey us then we kill
     you"

   Maybe I'll try to copy paste this into my next reply.  Hard to
   remember, I remember based on what I see a lot in things like this.
   It's in my clipboard now.

     > and then he accuses me using that as one of his
     > assumptions, I get defensive ...  hrm
     >
             well, you certainly should get defensive because barrett is
     the worst kind of threat you could face.

   Eh defensiveness just makes you vulnerable in the real world (the one
   with serious threats).  But ... when I say that, I am just being
   defensive.  I rarely defend myself effectively.

References

   1. mailto:punks@tfwno.gf
   2. mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com