I Will Be Boycotting the NHUnderground Forums

[KBCraig]

Choke on a donut, you miserable fat fuck.

Could I choke on some bacon instead?
I am not really a donuts kind of guy.

Bacon, donuts. Can't we just all get along?

[MaineShark]

Most of you here respond with the typical mantra "well, it is their property" with the implied "love it or leave it" following close behind it, but I find that to be evasive in that it doesn't actually address what actions are being taken by whatever individual. Simply put, I don't think that actions are automatically justified because it is someones property-- a moral vacuum does not exist once you've entered the realm of private property. As to where this stems from, which you all seem so speculative on-- Mostly my leftist views. Don't forget that I'm one of the few genuine leftists around here, and my philosophies will often clash with yours, in that I don't think property is a panacea to solving conflict or mitigating it.

All rights are property rights, starting with self-ownership.  All other rights derive therefrom.  If you don't believe that property rights exist, you don't believe in any rights.  If you disbelieve in property rights, then you are contradicting yourself, because without the property rights, you don't own your body, and you have no right to defend it.

There's no double standard allowed.  You don't get property rights, which allow you self-defense, while claiming that others do not have their own rights to property.

I think Kat's article was unjustified.  However, just because I disapprove of her opinion, and the way she chose to express it, does not mean that I'm inclined to ignore your stance.  What she has done is aesthetically-displeasing.  What you have implied, above, is immoral.  You'd do well to learn the difference between morality and aesthetics.  I know "leftists" don't like to do that, but really, your personal opinions (or my personal opinions, or the personal opinions of any number of individuals) can never rise to the level of morality.

Kat owns this forum, and that gives her the absolute right to do with it as she will.  That includes doing things that you, I, or both of us might find offensive.  You're going to lose a lot of support if you want to continue your "moral outrage" position over an issue that has nothing to do with morality.  Just look at the horse thievery thread to see who your compatriots are, in that realm.

You certainly have the option to share that road with them, but I think you should consider that there are other roads which might have you in better company, even if you may keep your distance from certain individuals who are also traveling.

Joe

[AnarchoJesse]

Most of you here respond with the typical mantra "well, it is their property" with the implied "love it or leave it" following close behind it, but I find that to be evasive in that it doesn't actually address what actions are being taken by whatever individual. Simply put, I don't think that actions are automatically justified because it is someones property-- a moral vacuum does not exist once you've entered the realm of private property. As to where this stems from, which you all seem so speculative on-- Mostly my leftist views. Don't forget that I'm one of the few genuine leftists around here, and my philosophies will often clash with yours, in that I don't think property is a panacea to solving conflict or mitigating it.

All rights are property rights, starting with self-ownership.  All other rights derive therefrom.  If you don't believe that property rights exist, you don't believe in any rights.  If you disbelieve in property rights, then you are contradicting yourself, because without the property rights, you don't own your body, and you have no right to defend it.

There's no double standard allowed.  You don't get property rights, which allow you self-defense, while claiming that others do not have their own rights to property.

I think Kat's article was unjustified.  However, just because I disapprove of her opinion, and the way she chose to express it, does not mean that I'm inclined to ignore your stance.  What she has done is aesthetically-displeasing.  What you have implied, above, is immoral.  You'd do well to learn the difference between morality and aesthetics.  I know "leftists" don't like to do that, but really, your personal opinions (or my personal opinions, or the personal opinions of any number of individuals) can never rise to the level of morality.

Kat owns this forum, and that gives her the absolute right to do with it as she will.  That includes doing things that you, I, or both of us might find offensive.  You're going to lose a lot of support if you want to continue your "moral outrage" position over an issue that has nothing to do with morality.  Just look at the horse thievery thread to see who your compatriots are, in that realm.

You certainly have the option to share that road with them, but I think you should consider that there are other roads which might have you in better company, even if you may keep your distance from certain individuals who are also traveling.

Joe

Joe, I'm a deontological objectivist with a mutualist organizational preference derived from these views. I full well understand the context of morality, and wholeheartedly believe that property does indeed exist. I never for a moment implied that property rights don't exist, or that they don't apply-- all I have said is that people act as if there is a moral vacuum within the context of property rights as they may pertain to individual actions, which I disagree with. Using the same reasoning as the capitalist, I could justify enslaving a man, well because hey... he's on my property. If he doesn't like it, he could always run away or not come onto my property. It totally evades the moral context of what the situation is.

In short, I do believe my approach to be the more morally principled approach, in that I don't think morality ceases once property rights become an "issue".

In any case, I've been told I'm not welcome here, and to leave. I'll take that for what it is worth, but you'll know no peace from me. If you come to Keene, I will harass, harangue, and lambast you unlike anything else you've ever experienced. Since you will be absent your property, and absent any moral justification (according to what I've read here) for me to cease my actions so long as they don't come to force, you and those that are supporting this have no moral justification or even social justification to be critical of my actions. Realize, that this isn't my reasoning, but your own applied back towards you.

[tracysaboe]

Most of you here respond with the typical mantra "well, it is their property" with the implied "love it or leave it" following close behind it, but I find that to be evasive in that it doesn't actually address what actions are being taken by whatever individual. Simply put, I don't think that actions are automatically justified because it is someones property-- a moral vacuum does not exist once you've entered the realm of private property. As to where this stems from, which you all seem so speculative on-- Mostly my leftist views. Don't forget that I'm one of the few genuine leftists around here, and my philosophies will often clash with yours, in that I don't think property is a panacea to solving conflict or mitigating it.

All rights are property rights, starting with self-ownership.  All other rights derive therefrom.  If you don't believe that property rights exist, you don't believe in any rights.  If you disbelieve in property rights, then you are contradicting yourself, because without the property rights, you don't own your body, and you have no right to defend it.

There's no double standard allowed.  You don't get property rights, which allow you self-defense, while claiming that others do not have their own rights to property.

I think Kat's article was unjustified.  However, just because I disapprove of her opinion, and the way she chose to express it, does not mean that I'm inclined to ignore your stance.  What she has done is aesthetically-displeasing.  What you have implied, above, is immoral.  You'd do well to learn the difference between morality and aesthetics.  I know "leftists" don't like to do that, but really, your personal opinions (or my personal opinions, or the personal opinions of any number of individuals) can never rise to the level of morality.

Kat owns this forum, and that gives her the absolute right to do with it as she will.  That includes doing things that you, I, or both of us might find offensive.  You're going to lose a lot of support if you want to continue your "moral outrage" position over an issue that has nothing to do with morality.  Just look at the horse thievery thread to see who your compatriots are, in that realm.

You certainly have the option to share that road with them, but I think you should consider that there are other roads which might have you in better company, even if you may keep your distance from certain individuals who are also traveling.

Joe

What he said.

You're always so eloquent Maine.

Tracy

[MaineShark]

Joe, I'm a deontological objectivist with a mutualist organizational preference derived from these views. I full well understand the context of morality, and wholeheartedly believe that property does indeed exist. I never for a moment implied that property rights don't exist, or that they don't apply-- all I have said is that people act as if there is a moral vacuum within the context of property rights as they may pertain to individual actions, which I disagree with.

If you are an "objectivist," then you must believe that morality comes from objective reality.  Of course, objective reality denies your other claims, so it sounds like you just have a mishmash of "morals" to excuse your own personal preferences.

Using the same reasoning as the capitalist, I could justify enslaving a man, well because hey... he's on my property. If he doesn't like it, he could always run away or not come onto my property. It totally evades the moral context of what the situation is.

If he's trespassing, you certainly can.

In short, I do believe my approach to be the more morally principled approach, in that I don't think morality ceases once property rights become an "issue".

Objective morality cannot contain conflicts.  Property rights are absolute.  Nothing which conflicts with that can possibly be a matter of morality.

In any case, I've been told I'm not welcome here, and to leave. I'll take that for what it is worth, but you'll know no peace from me. If you come to Keene, I will harass, harangue, and lambast you unlike anything else you've ever experienced. Since you will be absent your property, and absent any moral justification (according to what I've read here) for me to cease my actions so long as they don't come to force, you and those that are supporting this have no moral justification or even social justification to be critical of my actions. Realize, that this isn't my reasoning, but your own applied back towards you.

I can be critical of your actions, just like I can be critical of Kat's actions.  I can be critical of how you act or how you dress or how you smell.  Those are aesthetic issues, which I may or may not have with any given individual.  Aesthetics is personal preference, not morality.

Morality involves violations of rights.  As noted, violations of rights allow for the option of violent response.  If you are arguing that something was immoral, then you are arguing that you might respond violently, by definition.  I don't think you're going to be able to establish some moral basis by which you could respond violently to a critical newspaper article.

Joe

[Caleb]

Simply put, I don't think that actions are automatically justified because it is someones property-- a moral vacuum does not exist once you've entered the realm of private property. As to where this stems from, which you all seem so speculative on-- Mostly my leftist views. Don't forget that I'm one of the few genuine leftists around here, and my philosophies will often clash with yours, in that I don't think property is a panacea to solving conflict or mitigating it.

This is a cop-out Jesse.  You are not the only one with leftist views, but you trying to push the chip on your shoulder on those leftist views is dishonest.

I can only watch from afar, but from what I've seen, you are aggressively confrontational. And you can't try to dismiss that confrontational attitude as a result of some personal philosophy.  I think that was the point of Kat's piece:  that carrying a weapon tends to exacerbate whatever aggressive emotions a person has.  The article wasn't about you.  It was mostly about her.  But your recent situation was an example of such a phenomenon.

Rather than change my mind, your response to this whole situation has only reinforced the impression that you are aggressively confrontational.  (i.e., you have a chip on your shoulder.) While you may not have liked Pat's assessment of the reason for it, there must be a reason for it, and you would do well to address the underlying issue.

[kellie]

What this forum needs is an "Ignore Thread" option 

[Giggan]

Jesse, I see what you mean by the 'moral vacuum' of property rights. I believe the problem is that we live in a very morally confused society which need be reminded all too often that property rights exist, and are absolute. Once a vast portion of the population comes to understand property rights, a new moral philosophy would likely be desired to objectively explain individual ethics.

I disagree with MaineShark in that trespassing can justify full enslavement, unless there was a contract between two people which stipulated trespassing would justify enslavement. Enslaving someone for trespassing is the moral equivalent of seizing 1000 FRNs as retribution for a theft of 20 (minus extenuating circumstances such a violent robbery).

Individual morality re:property rights tends to work itself out on its own, and this is where reputation comes into play. As for whether an idea is 'left' or 'right', I find the designations so confusing as to avoid using them altogether.

[littlehawk]

I agree with Tracy's comments. Kat was dead wrong.
Jesse, it won't be long before you will be banned. That is how Kat deals with people who end up in her crosshairs.

Littlehawk

[Russell Kanning]

I agree with Tracy's comments. Kat was dead wrong.
Jesse, it won't be long before you will be banned. That is how Kat deals with people who end up in her crosshairs.

Littlehawk

actually ... I stand poised over the ban button and Kat makes me back off often.
if you do not like the people than run this forum ... then why not leave it?
a few times Kat has felt like getting rid of the entire forum ... since many people do not contribute towards its maintenance ... and attack those that do ... is it any wonder that every once in a while we ban someone?
it is like some people crash a party ... insult the host ... and wonder why they get thrown out into the outer darkness

[internetintellect]

This thread has really illustrated the problems with this community. Kat could have easily written the article without mentioning Jesse by name and therefore making him a target to the entire local community and ought to be ashamed and apologetic for such a lapse in judgement.  Also, I really am surprised to see how ready to exercise censorship the moderators are here(via bans), and if that is the kind of attitude that the owners of this forum have I would definately like to have my account deleted.  I cannot see any reason my account would not be deleted unless to use my account as another number to try to look like a larger forum than you actually are, because I no longer wish to be associated with this organization. I am very disappointed to see how stubborn the members in this community with power have been and so willing to attempt to dish out punishment when everyone in this group is volunteering their time and support to try to make things better, even if there is a lot of different views and methods being used.  Jesse has done a lot of good and I am really surprised at how much crap he is being given and yet he still tries to resolve the conflict and help out. Good for him, and shame on all the critics who probably haven't done nearly as much as he has.

[MengerFan]

This thread has really illustrated the problems with this community. Kat could have easily written the article without mentioning Jesse by name and therefore making him a target to the entire local community and ought to be ashamed and apologetic for such a lapse in judgement.  Also, I really am surprised to see how ready to exercise censorship the moderators are here(via bans), and if that is the kind of attitude that the owners of this forum have I would definately like to have my account deleted.  I cannot see any reason my account would not be deleted unless to use my account as another number to try to look like a larger forum than you actually are, because I no longer wish to be associated with this organization. I am very disappointed to see how stubborn the members in this community with power have been and so willing to attempt to dish out punishment when everyone in this group is volunteering their time and support to try to make things better, even if there is a lot of different views and methods being used.  Jesse has done a lot of good and I am really surprised at how much crap he is being given and yet he still tries to resolve the conflict and help out. Good for him, and shame on all the critics who probably haven't done nearly as much as he has.

What "organization" or "group" do you think this is? I thought it was just a message board. Weird.

[littlehawk]

I agree with Tracy's comments. Kat was dead wrong.
Jesse, it won't be long before you will be banned. That is how Kat deals with people who end up in her crosshairs.

Littlehawk

actually ... I stand poised over the ban button and Kat makes me back off often.
if you do not like the people than run this forum ... then why not leave it?
a few times Kat has felt like getting rid of the entire forum ... since many people do not contribute towards its maintenance ... and attack those that do ... is it any wonder that every once in a while we ban someone?
it is like some people crash a party ... insult the host ... and wonder why they get thrown out into the outer darkness

Actually, it was Kat who INITIATED the insults and provoked this scenario. So she can dish it out but not take it?
As far as me leaving here? yeah thats a good idea! I choose to carry a weapon and defend myself and heaven forbig Kat should decide to attack me for my personal choice in exercising my freedom.

Littlehawk

[Russell Kanning]

This thread has really illustrated the problems with this community. Kat could have easily written the article without mentioning Jesse by name and therefore making him a target to the entire local community and ought to be ashamed and apologetic for such a lapse in judgement.  Also, I really am surprised to see how ready to exercise censorship the moderators are here(via bans), and if that is the kind of attitude that the owners of this forum have I would definately like to have my account deleted.  I cannot see any reason my account would not be deleted unless to use my account as another number to try to look like a larger forum than you actually are, because I no longer wish to be associated with this organization. I am very disappointed to see how stubborn the members in this community with power have been and so willing to attempt to dish out punishment when everyone in this group is volunteering their time and support to try to make things better, even if there is a lot of different views and methods being used.  Jesse has done a lot of good and I am really surprised at how much crap he is being given and yet he still tries to resolve the conflict and help out. Good for him, and shame on all the critics who probably haven't done nearly as much as he has.

actually this thread shows exactly who wants to contribute and detract from this community
letting people see what jesse actually says about some of us illustrates why we are showing him the door and separating ourselves from him.
if you think he is a wonderful friend and Kat is so messed up ... please go to a different party
i no longer let people spew venom and then delete there accounts which makes it hard to find what you have written. i am making people's words stand up to scrutiny.
We have shown no need to fake membership numbers ... how many times do I have to beg for people to split from us or send people packing to show that a big tent is not our goal here.
This forum was not created to show off our debate skills or to accomodate the free speech of big talkers. This is a place for our friends to hang out, to plan activities, and to recruit likeminded people. If you believe our thinking is wrong, then this is not the place for you.
Have fun in your travels around the internet. Maybe you can find a bigger tent that will welcome you and Jesse.

[Russell Kanning]

What "organization" or "group" do you think this is? I thought it was just a message board. Weird.

very true
this message board does represent a group ... The New Hampshire Underground
but you are right ... he might be thinking we represent some other group