Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

What do you want to talk about?

Moderator: Moderators - Public

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Avshalom Binyamin » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:17 am

Hermitas wrote:
Takamba wrote:
Hermitas wrote:Maybe. But you do tend to speak for dramatic effect and then write lengthy disclaimer posts when confronted. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.


Here’s a test scenario: The NFL won’t allow its players to protest during the U.S. national anthem.

Tyranny?

Rights under Liber Oz?


Commercial property, licensing, contractual obligations. A job. A work place. Semi-public vs public space.

All these issues, your example doesn't exactly fit the jurisdiction of "rights."


Ah... Okay. We agree on that.


The only thing this ignores is that Trump pressured the NFL to create the rule (additionally, NFL team owners have testified under oath that he pressured them not to hire Kaepernick), both of which are in violation of the Supreme Court ruling in United States vs O'Brian (1968) (which says the government can't use its power to suppress free speech) and 18 U.S. Code §227 which bars government agencies from “wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions.”

Takamba's claims about tyranny are inconsistent.
Last edited by Avshalom Binyamin on Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Every man and every woman is a star.
User avatar
Avshalom Binyamin
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:53 am

So, Trump, an actual head of state, worked against free speech laws to deny a man his employment based on his political views.

Interesting.

Relevant.
Last edited by Hermitas on Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:56 am

Avshalom Binyamin wrote:The only thing this ignores is that Trump pressured the NFL to create the rule (additionally, NFL team owners have testified under oath that he pressured them not to hire Kaepernick), both of which are in violation of the Supreme Court ruling in United States vs O'Brian (1968) (which says the government can't use its power to suppress free speech) and 18 U.S. Code §227 which says government agencies can't “wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions.”

Takamba's claims about tyrrany are inconsistent.


Your whining and sense of privilege is inconsistent

Please, since I'm not a football junk head, show me the source of this "under oath" bit and who Kaepernick actually is.

Trump used his power (influence on airwaves etc) to cause the NFL owners to make a decision? Perhaps. Or they made their decisions based on ticket sales and other concerns (my theory about it really, or are they not exactly as greedy as you would proclaim in your #OccupyTheNFL dreams?). The govt has never pressured the NFL, so check one for not scoring a point with that. Check two for not scoring a point with "wrongfully influencing a private entitity's employment decisions" because the "wrongfully" is the question and Mr. Trump expressing his opinion, and deciding for himself what he will endorse (with a handshake or invite to dinner or whatever he wants) and not endorse is not "wrongful influence."

Have any other points you'd like me to check off as not scoring in this context?
"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:00 pm

Hermitas wrote:So, Trump, an actual head of state, worked against free speech laws to deny a man his employment based on his political views.

Interesting.

Relevant.


Trump can express his opinion. Check.
NFL Team owners can agree or disagree. Check.

The government, or an agent of the government, using government means, cannot influence a private person in such a manner, but a person using their own voice? That's "wrongful?" Nope.

Tell me more how Trump worked against the laws? I'm not a Trump supporter (I hope you learn to recognize that the world isn't an all or nothing proposition), so don't start by accusing me of that, just answer my question please. How has he worked against "the laws" of free speech?
"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:05 pm

Yes, Trump is tyrannical. That isn't the question (get over yourself), the question is how is this demonstrating or not demonstrating or related to OZ. Furthermore, how can you prove your claims?
"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:14 pm

Looking at the statute, he didnt officially break it. He just trampled all over the spirit of it.

But technically, there has to be the threat of an official act.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:18 pm

Takamba wrote:Yes, Trump is tyrannical. That isn't the question (get over yourself), the question is how is this demonstrating or not demonstrating or related to OZ. Furthermore, how can you prove your claims?


Actually, I believe I was the one who is saying that it had to be an official governmental act of tyranny, and you were the one saying that it’s defined as anyone who “would thwart” these rights. And the NFL owners have testified that Trump moved to do exactly that.

Anyway, you’ve admitted he’s tyrannical.

So Kaepernick has the right to kill him according to Oz?
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Avshalom Binyamin » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:31 pm

Hermitas wrote:Looking at the statute, he didnt officially break it. He just trampled all over the spirit of it.

But technically, there has to be the threat of an official act.


There was.

Trump tweet (official communication):
“Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country? Change tax law!”
Every man and every woman is a star.
User avatar
Avshalom Binyamin
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:34 pm

Avshalom Binyamin wrote:
Hermitas wrote:Looking at the statute, he didnt officially break it. He just trampled all over the spirit of it.

But technically, there has to be the threat of an official act.


There was.

Trump tweet (official communication):
“Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country? Change tax law!”


There it is.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:58 pm

Hermitas wrote:So Kaepernick has the right to kill him according to Oz?


After making an appeal to Liber Legis, any necessary appeals to the writings of the Prophet Ank-af-na-Khonsu, the Prince Priest the Beast (and any other pseudonyms I suppose), and seeing no other lawful means, perhaps. He'd have to be WILLing the consequences of that act, and now considering the full status of the man-boy called Donald Trump, that would be a massive WILLing indeed. Historic.

If he could wind his way through all that, like a time traveler assassinating a baby Hitler, I guess in the eyes of Ra-Hoor, he'd be alright.
"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:08 pm

Avshalom Binyamin wrote:Trump tweet (official communication):
“Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country? Change tax law!”


Aha! The source of the sore!

Well therein is nothing wrong. He's acting how politicians (governors, senators, mayors) all act. They pick an issue, they espouse their political view of it, and since the truth is that everything is political (your income, your housing, your medicine, your entertainment you horny dog you, etc), this should appear to you as nothing new.

But alas it does appear to you as something new.

Me thinks I'll take a new look at you.
"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:27 am

I disagree the legal issue is so clear. Probably needs an official judge. Regardless..

I guess in the eyes of Ra-Hoor he’d be alright.


Hmm.. Do you think that equates to karmic license? A free karmic pass? To me, RHK sort of personifies the lessons of Reality. I’m not sure how that plays out in terms of “rights” or being “alright” in the eyes of the god.

Thoughts?
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:34 am

Hermitas wrote:I disagree the legal issue is so clear. Probably needs an official judge. Regardless..

I guess in the eyes of Ra-Hoor he’d be alright.


Hmm.. Do you think that equates to karmic license? A free karmic pass? To me, RHK sort of personifies the lessons of Reality. I’m not sure how that plays out in terms of “rights” or being “alright” in the eyes of the god.

Thoughts?


That's my point! Yay! "If he can wind his way through all that " (the consequences of actions, reality as it is), then yes.
"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:44 pm

Still pondering.

Current thoughts:

A "right" is something you seek to defend regardless of consequences. It's an ideal. People die defending their rights. I don't think it's about a lack of karmic consequence.

I think as a set of ideals, Liber Oz is supposed to be challenging. We are challenged to discover for ourselves what is worth fighting and possibly dying for.

There is also a practical question here about who would interpret and act on Liber Oz sociopathically. The answer is "a sociopath." And they will do so regardless of my arguments. The rest of us walk a little more circumspectly about it.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:03 pm

Hermitas wrote:Still pondering.

Current thoughts:

A "right" is something you seek to defend regardless of consequences. It's an ideal. People die defending their rights. I don't think it's about a lack of karmic consequence.

I think as a set of ideals, Liber Oz is supposed to be challenging. We are challenged to discover for ourselves what is worth fighting and possibly dying for.

There is also a practical question here about who would interpret and act on Liber Oz sociopathically. The answer is "a sociopath." And they will do so regardless of my arguments. The rest of us walk a little more circumspectly about it.


A right is something you are born with. It cannot be taken away, it can only be given up. If anyone should try to take it from you, they risk death. That's on them. When they cease to resist your right, natural law will protect them. If they refuse to cease, and you must resist them, maximum resistance will be achieved. In this case, it should be their death - but if you are weaker, ill prepared, or otherwise out gunned, natural law will kill you (should have picked a different time for the battle or die happy with it).

I was born with the power of speech and nothing should stop that but me. Hopefully. Well, Death. And speech is all things we do and create. Speech is how we think. Its how we form beliefs. We have nothing but a legitimate right to that. It cannot be taken by force without compliance. It can't.

I do not have a right to sit in someone's chair on their back yard. Never. Not even if they pretend to surrender their rights to it, unless it legitimately becomes my chair, it will always remain the right of the rightful owner what becomes of that chair. That chair would be a jurisdiction issue, not a rights issue unless the rightful owner was being damaged and needed to defend his right. Then it's a rights issue.

The rights of man are not hard pills to swallow. The only word that gets jagged is the little word "slaves." Mulling over that one is probably the hardest in general for people to accomplish. The "I know what's mine and what isn't mine (rights)," doesn't seem to me that difficult.

Liber OZ does mean what I think it means. It means these are everyone's EQUAL rights. Where there is not EQUAL in these places of human interaction, then adjustment must be made and if anyone should attempt to thwart these rights

not "any right"
not "a right"
not "one or more rights"

these rights


then killing is okay (but once an armed man ceases being armed, he's no longer allowed to be killed in the states of the United).
"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest