Comment: Not me

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Sorry, I missed this yesterday (see in situ)

Not me

"Yes, Joe, you and Tucker and every other anarchist are right that every man and woman can do whatever they want ,whenever they want, however they want."

That is not me. I don't think that is Tucker either. In my case, I can tell you, it is not me. You can claim it is me, over, and over, and over, again, and again, and I can tell you over, and over, and over, again, and again, that is not me.

If you think someone is of that mind, then you have to look another place for that someone, it is not me.

“I think each human being has to look in the mirror first.”

When a human looks in the mirror to find evil and hate it, are you saying that we need to self-evaluate and get rid of any evil we find?

I think that Proverbs 8 is that message, and I see that message as being true.

"People have every right to do that which is evil and people will do that which is evil. So it is every person’s right to do evil."

I see no such thing.

"So instead of Tucker saying, you know guys, the Creator created you this certain way, Tucker says, if it feels good, do it."

You can pick a name out of the phone book and attribute those same words to that person. You can create a Man of Straw and attribute your words to that person. Where Tucker has published his thoughts are specific English words to be quoted, understood, or misunderstood as can be the case in any case.

I may be the one misunderstanding what Tucker writes. Your words, however, are yours, not his.

"So instead of Tucker saying, you know guys, the Creator created you this certain way, Tucker says, if it feels good, do it."

Those are your words.

"I have heard that line before. Satan said it:"

So now Tucker, with you speaking for him, is falsely associated with The Devil, and I'm wondering why you find the need to preform this hatchet job.

"So sure everyone has the right to do what they want and pay their own costs:"

Please do not associate me with those words, and I don't think those words apply to Warren, Andrews, Tucker, Spooner, or anyone other than you, since you wrote those words, and they didn't, and I didn't either.

"So even though people have a right to cut their own arm off, I am not going to say that I look forward to the day when everyone does that."

I don't know who you are addressing these words to, but these words have nothing to do with me, so maybe you are not on your soap box and you are speaking to anyone who may want to listen, and I can listen to, but your words have nothing to do with me. I don't know what this "have a right" stuff is, in that context, it is meaningless to me.

"So, how about we promote love?"

I don't think that it helps to attribute thoughts, or ideas, to people who do not earn those thoughts, or ideas, such as the case where you claim that Tucker says this or that, which is not what Tucker actually does write: in English.

Now Tucker is the Devil, or working devilishly, if I understand your words attributed to him.

I don't think that is a good way to live.

I can be wrong, of course.

"I look forward to the day when people know what love is and practice it. Love is not free. Love gives. When one does not give love they pass on the costs."

Here again, apparently, you have this idea of what "free love" means, and so you attach this meaning of your own construction to other people, and since you do it, that makes it right. Your version sticks to those people you target with your version of the meaning of "free love" and no amount of defense against your version of "free love" stuck on those people removes that mud placed upon them.

In the context of Warren, Andrews, and Tucker the word "free" is meant specifically, and unambiguously, free from Man-Made Law Enforcers Enforcing their Man-Made Laws upon individual people.

If you, or anyone, adds unspecified, and ambiguous additions to that definition of what free means, in that context, then that is what you, or anyone, does, and in fact your actions pass on the costs of your error onto those targeted victims who are innocent of these added ideas of what "free" means.

"Or I could look forward to a day like Tucker when people don't understand love and pass on the costs instead."

Tarred and Feathered, run out of town, stones thrown, nailed to the cross, The Devilish Tucker, the goat fornicator, is publicly punished for such evil deeds.

I get it?

Now I am better for knowing just how bad Tucker and his Free Love is, because you can't seem to read plain English?

"I still had a couple of other issues with my Tucker reading that I wanted to go over...before moving onto the Andrews link."

Sure, but you appear not to read a word I write on this subject, so why don't you just pick a name out of the phone book and target that person with your versions of what they don't write?