 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Anyone,
Crime is a market
That's impossible. Market is defined as the sum total of voluntary exchanges.
Please note how the dictating libeler responds when the dictating libeler isn't presently producing libel in this market where data is offered for consumption on a public forum. Please note how the dictating libeler defines what he or she is and see how the false fronts do not accurately reflect what he or she is - not the whole truth.
In this forum, in this thread, on this topic, the word crime is employed in context, by me, and the word crime has a very specific meaning that is specifically meant to mean what it means by the person employing that word - me.
Example:
A crime is a act by which a person injures an innocent victim and such a crime is willful, or pre-meditated, where the criminal plans on injuring the innocent victim and then the criminal follows through with that plan to injure the innocent victim.
The criminal defines what he or she is by what the criminal does, in fact.
That is the context by which the word crime is used in this forum, on this topic, by me.
The word "innocent" used before the word "victim" is employed here in this forum, on this topic, for a specific reason and that specific reason is to accurately discriminate between a victim who is innocent of any crimes and a victim who is also a criminal (someone who is also planning on and following through with plans to injure innocent victims on purpose, or for profit).
- A. Victims who are criminals themselves
- B. Victims who are not criminals
- A. Can be victims without the qualification: innocent
- B. Are victims that are accurately divorced from A by the pre-qualification: innocent
Next up, in the effort to be more precise, more accurate, and less specious, less ambiguous, is the employment of the term "market" in context with this forum and this topic on this forum.
Here is one competitive version of the term "market":
Here is another competitive version:
Market is defined as the sum total of voluntary exchanges.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/market
To that definition I find a need to qualify the definition so as to aid in the effort to communicate accurately. I can explain the reasoning for doing so: the word "sale" is replaced with the word "exchange" so as to eliminate some of the confusion associated with markets.
1. A public gathering held for buying and selling merchandise.
2. A place where goods are offered for sale.
The grand total of markets can be all markets; specific markets can be specified precisely as needed.
An example of a free market is "The market of ideas"; except those ideas that are enforced by copyright laws.
- A. Free market of ideas (no copyright law enforcement)
- B. Not A
A person may have an idea, and another person isn't "buying it" and therefore that free market "sale" isn't a sale. Someone else may buy the idea and the exchange occurs without any transfer of money, no "sale" by that exclusive definition, but none the less an exchange from the producer of the idea to the consumer of the idea occurs in that market of ideas, that free market.
In context of this topic on this forum the word "market" does not exclude any exchanges whatsoever for any reason, not for profit, not for any reason whatsoever: market means, in this context, all exchanges anywhere.
- A. Exclusively exchanges involving monetary transfers (excluding all other exchanges).
- B. All exchanges anywhere at any time
I do not see any need to exclude any transfers from the market being seen by me. I intend to see all exchanges within the market being perceived; therefore I do not intend to employ the word market to mean "only" exchanges involving monetary transfers, or "only" this or that according to some dogmatic school of obsolete economic theory based upon scarcity.
Not this:
Not here, not now, not by me, no way, no reason, no purpose in my mind, no cause to exclude generous exchanges, no cause to exclude equitable exchanges, no cause to exclude the free market of ideas, no intent on my part to exclude any exchanges occurring within the actual market that actually occurs in reality.
Market is defined as the sum total of voluntary exchanges.
This (with one qualified adjustment toward more accuracy):
More like this:
1. A public gathering held for buying and selling merchandise.
2. A place where goods are offered for sale.
Market:
Any exchange between human beings anywhere at any time in the past, in the present, or in the future.
If the exchange in the market is equitable, then the exchange is equitable. If the exchange cost one person more than another person the exchange is inequitable. If the exchange is inequitable because one person is generous and the other person can accept generosity without any strings attached; then that is a part of the economic exchange in that part of that market.
If the exchange is criminal, where one person plans on and then carries out the plan to injure the other person or other people, then the exchange is criminal in that part of that market.
That is the context in which the term market is being used in this part of this forum, by me.
That is another case of dictatorial dictates handed down from the dictatorial libeler, who is presently refraining from publishing libel, thanks for that, I'm much less injured compared to the libelous exchnages offered and consumed.
innocent victim
That's redundant. If he is a victim, then he is innocent (in that context). But if he is guilty, then he cannot be a victim (in that context).
If I don't use the words "innocent" and "victim" as redundant words, then I don't. If I do, then I do. I don't.
I've explained the reasoning for distinguishing, separating, divorcing, discriminating between, and isolating the innocent victims from the other victims and I can elaborate on that idea - the consumer can buy this idea, or not. All the consumers can buy the idea offered by the dictatorial libeler, or not. I'm offering the idea, and it makes no difference to me what the consumer does, my offering isn't for personal gain, certainly not personal gain at the expense of someone else.
The criminal victim, rather than the innocent victim, may actually earn victimization; and to illustrate that possible scenario I can offer an old saying:
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
How about some research on the World Wide Web concerning that saying?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_by_the_sword,_die_by_the_sword
In context of this thread, this topic, the employment of the word "innocent" in conjunction with the word "victim" is expressly and accurately not redundant.
"Live by the sword, die by the sword" is a metaphorical expression meaning that living one's life in a certain way will, in the end, affect one's destiny. The proverb comes from the Book of Matthew, verse 26:52, which describes a follower of Jesus drawing a sword to defend him against Roman soldiers, but is rebuked by Jesus, who tells him to sheath the weapon:
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
-Matthew 26:52, King James Version
While the expression strictly-interpreted means "those who live by violence will die by violence", it is also used for a variety of situations which contain an element of poetic justice. For instance the proverb could be used to describe a person who regularly drives under the influence and is ultimately killed in a vehicle accident caused by another's intoxicated driving. A deeper meaning alludes to "those who judge will be judged" in reference to Matthew 7:2 and Luke 6:37 which can also be interpreted as poetic justice for those observed to be wrongfully condemning others. Other variants on this phrase are also commonly used.
Not this:
Again: I do not see any reason to combine the victims who are also criminals with the victims who are not criminals themselves.
innocent victim
That's redundant. If he is a victim, then he is innocent (in that context). But if he is guilty, then he cannot be a victim (in that context).
- A. Innocent victims tend to be guilty by their association (combination) with the guilty ones
- B. Guilty victims tend to be overlooked or hidden among the innocent victims
In context of this thread, in this forum, I have not volunteered to be libeled by the libeler, yet it does happen, the libeler does libel me, the libeler does publish words that misrepresent me, and the libeler does publish words that misrepresent what I think, in this part of the market of ideas. I'm not buying the libel, because I know it is libel. I think that I am defending myself well enough so as not to be victimized (not to the point of suffering excruciating pain) too much by such a criminal act, in this market of ideas, right here.
The only problem to solve is whether the "victim" acted voluntarily to arrive at his situation. If so, then there was no criminal (and therefore no "victim").
Often is the case, it seems to me, that the criminals conveniently wish away the whole concept of crime, and that tends to lead, it seems to me, to the often made rationalization where the victim is blamed for their innocence, their vulnerability, their ability to be victimized by the criminal, as the criminal plans on and as the criminal executes the plan to victimize the innocent targeted and exploited victim in that part of that market. The victim made me do it; because I can - perhaps.
Something like this:
Caveat Emptor
Market:
Any exchange between human beings anywhere at any time in the past, in the present, or in the future.
Just because the criminal has no interest in perceiving the victim as a victim, and no interest in perceiving himself or herself as a criminal, just because they do that, doesn't change the facts.
The tortured victims tend to have a more accurate perception concerning the measure of pain, what it is exactly, the missing finger nail, the cold, the electricity flowing through the genitals, etc. whereas the criminal is more likely to see this part of this market as fun, something worth doing, something profitable perhaps.