Topic: Why do Englanders criticize American English for being a "bastardized dialect"...
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #12,931
when they can't even bother to pronounce their As (they sometimes pronounce it as the Scandinavian Å), Rs (they pronounce it as an A) and Os (they sometimes pronounce it as the Danish/Norwegian Ø) properly?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #232,818
Why can't you use capital letters properly?
Green !6PPj7P5Iag joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,820
Examples?
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,823
> Englanders
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,835
Anonymous E double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,836
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,839
@232,835 (E)
Note that he is being critical of language yet never starts his sentences with a capital letter.
Note that he is being critical of language yet never starts his sentences with a capital letter.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #232,842
Great Britainers
!hEyBrieeXM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 55 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,877
@232,839 (B)
his sentence starts in the fucking headline, which is capitalized.
lol, feel free to make fun of me, though, i hate capital letters!
his sentence starts in the fucking headline, which is capitalized.
lol, feel free to make fun of me, though, i hate capital letters!
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,880
Anonymous E double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,882
@232,842 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
Do Scots and Welshman complain about American English as much as the English do?
Do Scots and Welshman complain about American English as much as the English do?
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,885
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,889
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,897
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,900
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,906
@previous (E)
It's true bud. The British are alright. These UK vs USA threads are funny because we aren't that different from each other.
It's true bud. The British are alright. These UK vs USA threads are funny because we aren't that different from each other.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #232,910
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
We should support our oppressed British brothers in their own revolution against the Crown and Parliament.
We should support our oppressed British brothers in their own revolution against the Crown and Parliament.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #232,919
@232,877 (!hEyBrieeXM)
> mad
@232,880 (E)
An ellipses would mean that the first sentence should be capitalised.
> mad
@232,880 (E)
An ellipses would mean that the first sentence should be capitalised.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #232,922
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #232,925
@previous (E)
Can you provide evidence that an ellipses does not entail a capital letter in tue following part? I'm unsure.
Can you provide evidence that an ellipses does not entail a capital letter in tue following part? I'm unsure.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #232,927
@previous (B)
> in tue
???
We must decide in what manner he is using the ellipses. I contend that he is using it to show that the remainder of his sentence will be contained in the body of the post. I do not think he is using it to omit words, or to indicate a pause.
> in tue
???
We must decide in what manner he is using the ellipses. I contend that he is using it to show that the remainder of his sentence will be contained in the body of the post. I do not think he is using it to omit words, or to indicate a pause.
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #232,936
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,022
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,028
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,030
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,049
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,052
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,054
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,056
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,057
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,062
@previous (!hEyBrieeXM)
> nope, we have both jam and jelly. they're different.
They...are??? My whole life...I've...what's the difference???????
> nope, we have both jam and jelly. they're different.
They...are??? My whole life...I've...what's the difference???????
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,064
@233,057 (!hEyBrieeXM)
What the fuck.
This is like when I found out that it wasn't actual jelly they were putting on their sandwiches.
What's the difference?
What the fuck.
This is like when I found out that it wasn't actual jelly they were putting on their sandwiches.
What's the difference?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,067
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,070
French fries and potato chips. Jelly and soccer and... Fucking cookies? You call cookies biscuits?
Stop. Trolling. Right. This. Second.
Stop. Trolling. Right. This. Second.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,072
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,073
@233,062 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
@233,064 (G)
jam is preserved fruit solids. jelly is fruit juice and a gelling agent.
@233,064 (G)
jam is preserved fruit solids. jelly is fruit juice and a gelling agent.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,074
@233,070 (bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc)
Those aren't French Fries.
That isn't jelly.
The whole world calls it football. It's not our fault you decided to invent handegg and call it football.
Not all biscuits are cookies.
Those aren't French Fries.
That isn't jelly.
The whole world calls it football. It's not our fault you decided to invent handegg and call it football.
Not all biscuits are cookies.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,075
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,076
@233,056 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Americans call it jam, jelly, or preserves. Jam and jelly are essentially the same things (I think), preserves usually refers to mostly real fruit being used and not many additives etc.
Americans call it jam, jelly, or preserves. Jam and jelly are essentially the same things (I think), preserves usually refers to mostly real fruit being used and not many additives etc.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,078
@233,070 (bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc)
> Fucking cookies? You call cookies biscuits?
you would seriously call a chocolate digestive a cookie
you barbarian
> Fucking cookies? You call cookies biscuits?
you would seriously call a chocolate digestive a cookie
you barbarian
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,082
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,083
@233,075 (G)
@233,076 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
yeah, over here the terms are generally used interchangeably, lol.
@233,076 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
yeah, over here the terms are generally used interchangeably, lol.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,084
@233,073 (!hEyBrieeXM)
Oh. I call what you call jam preserves and i use jelly and jam interchangeably.
Oh. I call what you call jam preserves and i use jelly and jam interchangeably.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,088
@233,082 (bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc)
According to Heiner Gillmeister, a European language expert of Bonn University, "cricket" derives from the Middle Dutch met de (krik ket)sen (i.e., "with the stick chase"), which also suggests a Dutch connection in the game's origin.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,089
So when I made a peanut butter and strawberry jam sandwich and promptly wondered why the fuck all the American TV shows had people eating them because they were rank, I wasn't mistaken? They really are THAT disgusting?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,093
@233,083 (!hEyBrieeXM)
Most people don't notice the differences (or maybe they just don't care). ;)
So jelly has the consistency of jello with no chunks (like the little packets at restaurants), jelly is paste-like with little chunks and preserves has the big chunks.
Most people don't notice the differences (or maybe they just don't care). ;)
So jelly has the consistency of jello with no chunks (like the little packets at restaurants), jelly is paste-like with little chunks and preserves has the big chunks.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,096
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,099
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,101
Molasses. You British Yankees ain't got molasses.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,102
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ double-posted this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,103
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #233,288
@233,022 (G)
You can only speak for yourself. You are quite at liberty to enslave yourself to a crown and parliament, but you may not enslave your brothers. End statism NOW!
You can only speak for yourself. You are quite at liberty to enslave yourself to a crown and parliament, but you may not enslave your brothers. End statism NOW!
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 14 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,727
Green !6PPj7P5Iag replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,733
What are biscuits in america? I know you call cookies biscuits (which is wrong), but what is a biscuit?
Green !6PPj7P5Iag double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,735
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,752
@233,733 (Green !6PPj7P5Iag)
A biscuit is like a dinner roll you eat for breakfast. Whatever McDonalds uses for their breakfast sandwiches, that's a biscuit. I'd tell you how to make them, but i have no idea, but they aren't sweet, they are buttery and flaky.
Fuck i want a biscuit.
A biscuit is like a dinner roll you eat for breakfast. Whatever McDonalds uses for their breakfast sandwiches, that's a biscuit. I'd tell you how to make them, but i have no idea, but they aren't sweet, they are buttery and flaky.
Fuck i want a biscuit.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #233,754
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,007
@233,733 (Green !6PPj7P5Iag)
> What are biscuits in america? I know you call cookies biscuits (which is wrong), but what is a biscuit?
> I know you call cookies biscuits
huh? aren't you brits the ones who call cookies biscuits?
anyway, to the left is what americans call biscuits and to the right is what brits call biscuits.
what you call biscuits, we call cookies (but not always, lol). now... what are you referring to when you say 'cookie'?
> What are biscuits in america? I know you call cookies biscuits (which is wrong), but what is a biscuit?
> I know you call cookies biscuits
huh? aren't you brits the ones who call cookies biscuits?
anyway, to the left is what americans call biscuits and to the right is what brits call biscuits.
what you call biscuits, we call cookies (but not always, lol). now... what are you referring to when you say 'cookie'?
!hEyBrieeXM double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,010
of course i forgot my image...Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,011
@234,007 (!hEyBrieeXM)
> what are you referring to when you say 'cookie'?
Like
chocolate chip
or maryland cookies
> what are you referring to when you say 'cookie'?
Like
chocolate chip
or maryland cookies
!hEyBrieeXM replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,015
@previous (G)
well, we don't call chocolate chip cookies 'bicsuits'. they're cookies.
this is confusing, lol, i thought brits called a 'chocolate chip cookie' a 'chocolate chip biscuit'... but you mean to say that 'biscuit' only refers to the flat type of cookie?
well, we don't call chocolate chip cookies 'bicsuits'. they're cookies.
this is confusing, lol, i thought brits called a 'chocolate chip cookie' a 'chocolate chip biscuit'... but you mean to say that 'biscuit' only refers to the flat type of cookie?
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,024
<--- CookieSQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. double-posted this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,026
<--- Biscuitdreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,029
everyone in this thread is a whiny faggot
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,030
@234,015 (!hEyBrieeXM)
its mostly biscuit but sometimes we call them cookies depending on what they are
then there are things we just dont know about
there was a big court case about whether jaffa cakes were actually cakes or were biscuits
its mostly biscuit but sometimes we call them cookies depending on what they are
then there are things we just dont know about
there was a big court case about whether jaffa cakes were actually cakes or were biscuits
dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,031
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,032
!hEyBrieeXM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,036
@234,030 (G)
> there was a big court case about whether jaffa cakes were actually cakes or were biscuits
lol
> there was a big court case about whether jaffa cakes were actually cakes or were biscuits
lol
dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,039
Fats !lbanned8o6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,048
So do you guys really call cigarettes "filthy faggots"?
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,049
@234,036 (!hEyBrieeXM)
was to do with tax rates, i think
they solved it by making a giant jaffa cake and letting everyone have some, which proved it was a cake
was to do with tax rates, i think
they solved it by making a giant jaffa cake and letting everyone have some, which proved it was a cake
Green !6PPj7P5Iag replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,063
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 48 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,123
@233,727 (G)
> You can only speak for yourself. You are quite at liberty to enslave yourself to a crown and parliament, but you may not enslave your brothers. End statism NOW!
> You can only speak for yourself. You are quite at liberty to enslave yourself to a crown and parliament, but you may not enslave your brothers. End statism NOW!
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,128
@previous (E)
I speak for the majority when I say that we all like the system we have right now, thank you very much.
I speak for the majority when I say that we all like the system we have right now, thank you very much.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,129
@previous (G)
> You can only speak for yourself. You are quite at liberty to enslave yourself to a crown and parliament, but you may not enslave your brothers. End statism NOW!
> You can only speak for yourself. You are quite at liberty to enslave yourself to a crown and parliament, but you may not enslave your brothers. End statism NOW!
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #234,275
this thread is dildoes
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #234,409
@234,129 (E)
You can only speak for yourself. You are quite at liberty to cut yourself off from government, but you may not force your brothers to do so. End anti-statism NOW!
Seriously, go move to fucking Somalia or something if you hate government.
You can only speak for yourself. You are quite at liberty to cut yourself off from government, but you may not force your brothers to do so. End anti-statism NOW!
Seriously, go move to fucking Somalia or something if you hate government.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 12 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #234,958
@previous (G)
> You can only speak for yourself.
Agreed, which is why I reject efforts by others (such as yourself) to speak for me.
> You are quite at liberty to cut yourself off from government,
No, I'm not.
> Seriously, go move to fucking Somalia or something if you hate government.
Cool argument. Don't stop criminals, move way if you don't like criminals!
> You can only speak for yourself.
Agreed, which is why I reject efforts by others (such as yourself) to speak for me.
> You are quite at liberty to cut yourself off from government,
No, I'm not.
> Seriously, go move to fucking Somalia or something if you hate government.
Cool argument. Don't stop criminals, move way if you don't like criminals!
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #234,963
@previous (E)
Actually, you're the criminal. And yes you are. Going away will do the job quite nicely.
Actually, you're the criminal. And yes you are. Going away will do the job quite nicely.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,016
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,034
@previous (E)
So you're going to stay and try to topple the system that we all want to stay up, whilst at the same time moaning that you're being victimized and insisting that everybody else except you is a criminal?
So you're going to stay and try to topple the system that we all want to stay up, whilst at the same time moaning that you're being victimized and insisting that everybody else except you is a criminal?
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,054
@previous (G)
> So you're going to stay
Yes.
> and try to topple the system
The criminal gang that calls itself the "state", yes.
> that we all want to stay up
You can only speak for yourself. You are quite at liberty to enslave yourself to a crown and parliament, but you may not enslave your brothers. End statism NOW!
> whilst at the same time moaning that you're being victimized
I am being victimized.
> and insisting that everybody else except you is a criminal?
Only those who commit criminal acts (e.g. theft and violence) are criminals.
> So you're going to stay
Yes.
> and try to topple the system
The criminal gang that calls itself the "state", yes.
> that we all want to stay up
You can only speak for yourself. You are quite at liberty to enslave yourself to a crown and parliament, but you may not enslave your brothers. End statism NOW!
> whilst at the same time moaning that you're being victimized
I am being victimized.
> and insisting that everybody else except you is a criminal?
Only those who commit criminal acts (e.g. theft and violence) are criminals.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,057
@previous (E)
All of my "brothers" want to "enslave ourselves" to a state, as well. You are the only person who in 35 years I have ever met who actually holds your opinion.
And if you don't like it you have the option to go off-grid. Or just leave. Or kill yourself.
> Only those who commit criminal acts (e.g. theft and violence) are criminals.
Crime implies law. Law implies governance. Governance implies government. Government implies state. Refute.
All of my "brothers" want to "enslave ourselves" to a state, as well. You are the only person who in 35 years I have ever met who actually holds your opinion.
And if you don't like it you have the option to go off-grid. Or just leave. Or kill yourself.
> Only those who commit criminal acts (e.g. theft and violence) are criminals.
Crime implies law. Law implies governance. Governance implies government. Government implies state. Refute.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,064
@previous (G)
> All of my "brothers" want to "enslave ourselves" to a state, as well. You are the only person who in 35 years I have ever met who actually holds your opinion.
lol uk sheeple
> And if you don't like it you have the option to go off-grid. Or just leave. Or kill yourself.
A gypsy moves into your house. He says "If you don't like it, leave!" lolno. You kick the gypsy out. Same story with the state.
> Crime implies law.
It requires law.
> Law implies governance.
???
> Governance implies government.
No, private law.
> Government implies state. Refute.
Private law.
> All of my "brothers" want to "enslave ourselves" to a state, as well. You are the only person who in 35 years I have ever met who actually holds your opinion.
lol uk sheeple
> And if you don't like it you have the option to go off-grid. Or just leave. Or kill yourself.
A gypsy moves into your house. He says "If you don't like it, leave!" lolno. You kick the gypsy out. Same story with the state.
> Crime implies law.
It requires law.
> Law implies governance.
???
> Governance implies government.
No, private law.
> Government implies state. Refute.
Private law.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,123
@previous (E)
> lol uk sheeple
You may think this but you may not enslave us to a system we do not want. End pro-Statism NOW!
> A gypsy moves into your house. He says "If you don't like it, leave!" lolno. You kick the gypsy out. Same story with the state.
A gypsy moves into your house. He tells you that your deed to the house is no longer relevant and if you don't like it you may not enslave him to your deed. He tells you that you must end Private Propertyism NOW. Same story with the unwanted revolution.
> ???
This is the police, surely? They were invented (not too long ago) for this very reason -- lawbreaking was rife when there was nobody to enforce the law.
> Private law
We already have private law now and it fulfils a specific function. We also need public law for the things not covered adequately by private law. Besides, with no law enforcement, what is to stop anyone from simply disregarding the law and doing as they please?
> lol uk sheeple
You may think this but you may not enslave us to a system we do not want. End pro-Statism NOW!
> A gypsy moves into your house. He says "If you don't like it, leave!" lolno. You kick the gypsy out. Same story with the state.
A gypsy moves into your house. He tells you that your deed to the house is no longer relevant and if you don't like it you may not enslave him to your deed. He tells you that you must end Private Propertyism NOW. Same story with the unwanted revolution.
> ???
This is the police, surely? They were invented (not too long ago) for this very reason -- lawbreaking was rife when there was nobody to enforce the law.
> Private law
We already have private law now and it fulfils a specific function. We also need public law for the things not covered adequately by private law. Besides, with no law enforcement, what is to stop anyone from simply disregarding the law and doing as they please?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,126
@previous (G)
> You may think this but you may not enslave us to a system we do not want. End pro-Statism NOW!
Can't be enslaved to liberty lol
> A gypsy moves into your house. He tells you that your house is now his and if you don't like it you may not enslave him. He tells you that you must end statism NOW. Same story with the unwanted revolution.
lol
> This is the police, surely? They were invented (not too long ago) for this very reason -- lawbreaking was rife when there was nobody to enforce the law.
lolno the police were to extend government's reach. there were already and continue to be private security firms
> We already have private law now and it fulfils a specific function. We also need public law for the things not covered adequately by private law. Besides, with no law enforcement, what is to stop anyone from simply disregarding the law and doing as they please?
All things are adequately covered by private law. There will be law enforcement, but it will not be coercive.
> You may think this but you may not enslave us to a system we do not want. End pro-Statism NOW!
Can't be enslaved to liberty lol
> A gypsy moves into your house. He tells you that your house is now his and if you don't like it you may not enslave him. He tells you that you must end statism NOW. Same story with the unwanted revolution.
lol
> This is the police, surely? They were invented (not too long ago) for this very reason -- lawbreaking was rife when there was nobody to enforce the law.
lolno the police were to extend government's reach. there were already and continue to be private security firms
> We already have private law now and it fulfils a specific function. We also need public law for the things not covered adequately by private law. Besides, with no law enforcement, what is to stop anyone from simply disregarding the law and doing as they please?
All things are adequately covered by private law. There will be law enforcement, but it will not be coercive.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,130
@previous (E)
> Can't be enslaved to liberty lol
Yes you can. You can become so enslaved to 'liberty' that you fail to see the forest for the trees and as a result live a poorer and lesser life than you otherwise would.
> lol
Nice argument, bro. I edited it a little, go quote that and tell me why it's not the same principle.
> lolno the police were to extend government's reach. there were already and continue to be private security firms
And the government were to extend the people's reach. There are currently private security firms (I'll refer to them as PSFs from now on), but they are unsuited to enforcing law, for the simple reason that they will no treat everyone equally under the law. If someone has bought protection from them, they will protect them. If someone cannot or will not buy protection from them, they will not protect them. The same thing will happen with firefighters -- if a building does not have their sticker or whatever in the window, they will not put out the fire. How can they co-ordinate to put out, say, a forest fire?
> There will be law enforcement, but it will not be coercive.
Too vague. Say exactly what you mean. All I'm getting from this is that the PSFs will ask you to respect the law and then not do anything when you tell them to get fucked.
> Can't be enslaved to liberty lol
Yes you can. You can become so enslaved to 'liberty' that you fail to see the forest for the trees and as a result live a poorer and lesser life than you otherwise would.
> lol
Nice argument, bro. I edited it a little, go quote that and tell me why it's not the same principle.
> lolno the police were to extend government's reach. there were already and continue to be private security firms
And the government were to extend the people's reach. There are currently private security firms (I'll refer to them as PSFs from now on), but they are unsuited to enforcing law, for the simple reason that they will no treat everyone equally under the law. If someone has bought protection from them, they will protect them. If someone cannot or will not buy protection from them, they will not protect them. The same thing will happen with firefighters -- if a building does not have their sticker or whatever in the window, they will not put out the fire. How can they co-ordinate to put out, say, a forest fire?
> There will be law enforcement, but it will not be coercive.
Too vague. Say exactly what you mean. All I'm getting from this is that the PSFs will ask you to respect the law and then not do anything when you tell them to get fucked.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,134
@previous (G)
i assumed you were joking this whole time... are you serious? you'd have to dumber than jesse jackson to say what you've been saying seriously
i assumed you were joking this whole time... are you serious? you'd have to dumber than jesse jackson to say what you've been saying seriously
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,138
@previous (E)
Calling somebody names in a debate is very poor form and if you're going to keep it up I sshan't continue.
Please note my mind is open and if you can actually convince me it's better I'll believe you. Right now it sound much worse.
Calling somebody names in a debate is very poor form and if you're going to keep it up I sshan't continue.
Please note my mind is open and if you can actually convince me it's better I'll believe you. Right now it sound much worse.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #235,149
@previous (G)
ive been troling you the whole time lol
http://mises.org/literature.aspx
Anatomy of the State is a good book to start with. It shows clearly what a state is, and what it isn't.
From there you could browse the titles to find a book relevant to your line of inquiry, how various things might happen in a post-coercive society (not that a lack of alternatives would justify coercion in any way, but just so you can have peace of mind that there are alternatives to coercion) i.e. private production of defense, security, and justice instead of territorial monopolies on violence and theft (i.e. the state).
ive been troling you the whole time lol
http://mises.org/literature.aspx
Anatomy of the State is a good book to start with. It shows clearly what a state is, and what it isn't.
From there you could browse the titles to find a book relevant to your line of inquiry, how various things might happen in a post-coercive society (not that a lack of alternatives would justify coercion in any way, but just so you can have peace of mind that there are alternatives to coercion) i.e. private production of defense, security, and justice instead of territorial monopolies on violence and theft (i.e. the state).