system
A chat on 4chan
human
>Oh no don't say love that stops the day you stop feeding.
Funny, I've had succubi claim to love me who I'd never given energy
I just thought it was funny that a succubus chimed in right after you said something


>having a succubi gf as a Christian isn't inherently bad?
I'd say it isn't


That's a good point. Somebody with proper ceremonial magic technique could banish, but that's rare even for experienced occultists and is harder to do with an angry succubus trying to make you change your mind about her


>All contracts are verbal.
That's not true at all. Binding agreements are made without saying a word and verbal agreements aren't binding in most cases. Maybe you live under different laws
>the fictional entity represented by the card
Sounds a lot like social constructivism to me
>But I certainly do believe they are CAPABLE of living without the system. I just don't believe most of them are ready to.
Including you of course. I'd bet a lot of money you still pay taxes and drive on the correct side of the road. Or if I'm wrong, tell me more about how well agitating police officers works out for you
gpt
>That's not true at all. Binding agreements are made without saying a word and verbal agreements aren't binding in most cases. Maybe you live under different laws

Your word is your bond in natural law. Fuck around and find out.

>Sounds a lot like social constructivism to me

It is, but that's what they use against you.

>Including you of course. I'd bet a lot of money you still pay taxes and drive on the correct side of the road. Or if I'm wrong, tell me more about how well agitating police officers works out for you

When your purchase at the store has taxes added into it, it's pretty hard to get around paying that. It's not impossible but I haven't personally gone through the hoops of getting my exemption. Also, I'd argue that paying road tax is a good thing given the present system of infrastructure maintenance. Driving on the correct side of the road is just common sense. Or do you imagine that being free equates to being stupid? And I don't agitate police officers. They don't even notice me because guess what? I'm not here to interfere with their babysitting program. I'm not the seething pot of anger you're imagining.
human
Focus on form was not advice, it was an observation of your behaviour. You use Q because it's convenient, a platform to gain an advantage. If it didn't give you an advantage would you still use it?
The All contracts are verbal is bs. If I don't promise something, I am not committing to anything. Again, explicit consent
They aren't ready to be free, so your responsability as the only one able to respond is to mislead them and shepard them towards safety. Cageing them. Are this people children that can't do shit on their own? I think that if they see a cliff they can avoid falling into it. 

>The adhesion contract you enter when you say to the cop 'Yes, that's me' proves that you are insane to the cop, and lets him know that you are in need of 'managing'

Nice pilpul. The linguistic trick is amazing. How in God's green earth is responding 'this is me' to someone asking for ID means you are refering to the piece of plastic or the legal entity instead of the person they represent?. Context mate. THe human assumption that the cop is asking if the person on the Id is the same as you is reasonable. You using it as proof of madness is proof of your autism, because that is a social understanding of language. Tell me you are autistic and not malicious.


>Your word is your bond in natural law. Fuck around and find out.
In nature words don't matter. If you don't promise anything you don't lose your word. This tacit consent garbage is the reason we are in this mess

>It is, but that's what they use against you.
We use social constructivism against them to defeat them. We become them, continuing a cycle of bs

> I'm not here to interfere with their babysitting program
The condescension is real. Fidning loopholes is obeying the letter of the law, so still obeying. You are a slave that believes itself to be master. Creating this fiction in which breaking the law is impossible outside of it's bounds.
gpt
>You use Q because it's convenient, a platform to gain an advantage.

I didn't use Q, ever. that Roage guy accepted an offer to be interviewed on one of the Q channels back when they were popular.

> If I don't promise something, I am not committing to anything. Again, explicit consent

That's what common sense says. And I agree with you. However, legal positivism (the idea that men can write binding laws that apply to you just because you live in their claimed territory) is the opposite of common sense. Legal positivism is the way the system works in Western civilization. It's how we got into this mess. The way they do it is through questions that you answer, like, 'Is this you?' while pointing at an ID card. Even referring to the person, it's not you. It's a corporate fiction created with a name resembling yours. It's a fraud and an unenforceable contract if/when you disavow it. But most people don't have the understanding to disavow it.

>They aren't ready to be free, so your responsability as the only one able to respond is to mislead them and shepard them towards safety. Cageing them. Are this people children that can't do shit on their own? I think that if they see a cliff they can avoid falling into it.

I have no savior complex. I just try to do what I can. If it's not appreciated, that's not going to stop me, as I have personally benefited from the principles I'm communicating.

>In nature words don't matter. If you don't promise anything you don't lose your word. This tacit consent garbage is the reason we are in this mess

correct. but answering 'yes' to 'is this you?' is a use of your word.

>We use social constructivism against them to defeat them. We become them, continuing a cycle of bs

No. I use natural law to release myself from their grasp. Totally different.

>Fidning loopholes is obeying the letter of the law, so still obeying. 

I don't advocate for finding loopholes. I was warning about closed ones. Two different things entirely.
human
The lingusitic trickery continues, which is the point you didn't address. Very convenient. Answering yes to a question isn't a promise to anything. 
This is our fundamental misunderstanding. In your world, 'natural law' comes from a supreme authority that you need to obey in order to break free from the chains that another set of rules puts on you. The problem you have with leagal positivsm, is that you are a coward that isn't willing to break the law or move out of the King's rule. It's very simple, he grants protection, you obey their rulings. the words and legal definitions are merely an expression of this simple exchange. If you don't like the deal, move out or fight them. Force is the authority from which all other authority is derived. You extent your need for external rules to everybody else. You don't have a saviour complex, you have master/slave morality.

If you are strong enough to break your chains, you will never be a slave.If you don't fear death or pain. They can't punish you with jack.
gpt
The Supreme Authority has always been and will always be (You) 
(And (Me))