On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So
what good is this right you posit?
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:37:36 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Is Nick thinking he has a human right to your house and property to make
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
himself secure and that nobody can take your house away from him?
Or, is he thinking he has a human right to an apartment on the
government dime?
Maybe he's thinking he has a right to be provided for.
By whom?
Maybe you are simply full of shit.
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure >>> in your person.
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be >>>> a good idea but it's not a "right".
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So
what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even >beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
On 5/10/2026 1:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:37:36 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Is Nick thinking he has a human right to your house and property to make >>> himself secure and that nobody can take your house away from him?
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be >>>> a good idea but it's not a "right".
Or, is he thinking he has a human right to an apartment on the
government dime?
Maybe he's thinking he has a right to be provided for.
By whom?
Maybe you are simply full of shit.
Noah avoids addressing the deeper issues.
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure >>>> in your person.
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be >>>>> a good idea but it's not a "right".
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3 >>>> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So
what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even
beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
On Sun, 10 May 2026 11:04:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:08:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You changed the topic from having a secure home to psychology of
On 5/10/2026 7:41 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2026 23:28:27 -0700, dart200Wealth is subjective.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 5/8/26 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:A psych prof one time discussing reinforced behavior in animals and
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be >>>>>>> a good idea but it's not a "right".
i've been thinking about this premise lot recently, and i now believe >>>>>> capitalism has largely not been providing a _home_ for many or even most >>>>>> people across the planet.
it's largely provided /housing/ sure ... but not a _home_ where you are >>>>>> existentially safe from others taking it away from you. the wealthy >>>>>> largely have that safety given the means of survival that they own, that >>>>>> everyone else depends on. they do not experience the overall life
pressure that such a persistent threat of homelessness puts on a person. >>>>>>
i wonder what a world is like when everyone has that safety, always... >>>>>
humans, like an orgasm is one hell of a reinforcement for whatever you >>>>> need to do to get one. In passing, he casually mentioned that the
biggest reinforcer for humans is money, but he declaimed to discuss
that further. That is something to think about though. What behavior >>>>> does money (a paycheck) reinforce in us?
Define the problem out of existence. However, I don't think you can
get that from what I said about reinforced behavior.
reinforced behavior. You did not define any human rights.
List, cracker. I already posted the definition of basic human rights.
Define it out of existence and change the subject. The double whammy.
Can't you read?
Yes, in an attempt to divert the topic away from what you do not want
to discuss.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2It is not a human right. Where did you and Nickget the idea that wealth is a human right and that you should get the
wealth of others?
On 5/10/2026 11:11 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 11:04:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:The UN Declaration is all about human rights. Not psychology. Or
On 5/10/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:08:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>You changed the topic from having a secure home to psychology of
On 5/10/2026 7:41 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2026 23:28:27 -0700, dart200Wealth is subjective.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 5/8/26 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:A psych prof one time discussing reinforced behavior in animals and >>>>>> humans, like an orgasm is one hell of a reinforcement for whatever you >>>>>> need to do to get one. In passing, he casually mentioned that the >>>>>> biggest reinforcer for humans is money, but he declaimed to discuss >>>>>> that further. That is something to think about though. What behavior >>>>>> does money (a paycheck) reinforce in us?
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
i've been thinking about this premise lot recently, and i now believe >>>>>>> capitalism has largely not been providing a _home_ for many or even most
people across the planet.
it's largely provided /housing/ sure ... but not a _home_ where you are >>>>>>> existentially safe from others taking it away from you. the wealthy >>>>>>> largely have that safety given the means of survival that they own, that
everyone else depends on. they do not experience the overall life >>>>>>> pressure that such a persistent threat of homelessness puts on a person.
i wonder what a world is like when everyone has that safety, always... >>>>>>
Define the problem out of existence. However, I don't think you can
get that from what I said about reinforced behavior.
reinforced behavior. You did not define any human rights.
List, cracker. I already posted the definition of basic human rights.
Define it out of existence and change the subject. The double whammy. >>>>
Can't you read?
Yes, in an attempt to divert the topic away from what you do not want
to discuss.
subjective wealth.
--It is not a human right. Where did you and Nickget the idea that wealth is a human right and that you should get the >>>>> wealth of others?
On 5/10/2026 6:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure >>>>> in your person.
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be >>>>>> a good idea but it's not a "right".
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3 >>>>> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So
what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even
beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
In that case, you might try starting up a neighborhood watch program.
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure >>>> in your person.
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be >>>>> a good idea but it's not a "right".
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3 >>>> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So
what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even
beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 11:11 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 11:04:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:The UN Declaration is all about human rights. Not psychology. Or
On 5/10/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:08:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>You changed the topic from having a secure home to psychology of
On 5/10/2026 7:41 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2026 23:28:27 -0700, dart200Wealth is subjective.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 5/8/26 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:A psych prof one time discussing reinforced behavior in animals and >>>>>>> humans, like an orgasm is one hell of a reinforcement for whatever you >>>>>>> need to do to get one. In passing, he casually mentioned that the >>>>>>> biggest reinforcer for humans is money, but he declaimed to discuss >>>>>>> that further. That is something to think about though. What behavior >>>>>>> does money (a paycheck) reinforce in us?
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
i've been thinking about this premise lot recently, and i now believe >>>>>>>> capitalism has largely not been providing a _home_ for many or even most
people across the planet.
it's largely provided /housing/ sure ... but not a _home_ where you are
existentially safe from others taking it away from you. the wealthy >>>>>>>> largely have that safety given the means of survival that they own, that
everyone else depends on. they do not experience the overall life >>>>>>>> pressure that such a persistent threat of homelessness puts on a person.
i wonder what a world is like when everyone has that safety, always... >>>>>>>
Define the problem out of existence. However, I don't think you can >>>>> get that from what I said about reinforced behavior.
reinforced behavior. You did not define any human rights.
List, cracker. I already posted the definition of basic human rights.
Define it out of existence and change the subject. The double whammy. >>>>>
Can't you read?
Yes, in an attempt to divert the topic away from what you do not want
to discuss.
subjective wealth.
It is a little stiff for toilet paper, but it will do in a pinch.
It is not a human right. Where did you and Nickget the idea that wealth is a human right and that you should get the >>>>>> wealth of others?
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:21:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 6:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>In that case, you might try starting up a neighborhood watch program.
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure >>>>>> in your person.
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be >>>>>>> a good idea but it's not a "right".
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3 >>>>>> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>
what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even
beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Lucky for me I no longer live in a place where that might be needed.
On 5/10/2026 1:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:37:36 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Is Nick thinking he has a human right to your house and property to make >>> himself secure and that nobody can take your house away from him?
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be >>>> a good idea but it's not a "right".
Or, is he thinking he has a human right to an apartment on the
government dime?
Maybe he's thinking he has a right to be provided for.
By whom?
Maybe you are simply full of shit.
Noah avoids addressing the deeper issues.
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:43:17 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:37:36 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Is Nick thinking he has a human right to your house and property to make >>>> himself secure and that nobody can take your house away from him?
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be >>>>> a good idea but it's not a "right".
Or, is he thinking he has a human right to an apartment on the
government dime?
Maybe he's thinking he has a right to be provided for.
By whom?
Maybe you are simply full of shit.
Noah avoids addressing the deeper issues.
Yeah, when I see shit brown eyes, that is all I need to know.
On 5/10/2026 9:11 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:21:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 6:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>In that case, you might try starting up a neighborhood watch program.
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3 >>>>>>> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>>
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even >>>>> beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Lucky for me I no longer live in a place where that might be needed.
In most normal neighborhoods, neighbors look after each other; in others
you are just on your own. YMMV.
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
On 5/10/2026 9:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure >>>>> in your person.
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be >>>>>> a good idea but it's not a "right".
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3 >>>>> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So
what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even
beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Well you live in Canada, so there's always MAID.
On Mon, 11 May 2026 09:44:38 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:11 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:21:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In most normal neighborhoods, neighbors look after each other; in others
On 5/10/2026 6:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>In that case, you might try starting up a neighborhood watch program.
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>>>
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even >>>>>> beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Lucky for me I no longer live in a place where that might be needed.
you are just on your own. YMMV.
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
I'm not sure what happened but we were talking about this:
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
not hiding behind locked doors.
On 5/11/2026 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 09:44:38 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:11 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:21:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>In most normal neighborhoods, neighbors look after each other; in others >>> you are just on your own. YMMV.
On 5/10/2026 6:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Lucky for me I no longer live in a place where that might be needed.
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:In that case, you might try starting up a neighborhood watch program. >>>>
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>>>>
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even >>>>>>> beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
I'm not sure what happened but we were talking about this:
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
Nick was asking if it was a human right to have a home that was secure
that nobody could take away and I replied that your body/mind is your
home and your human right and if you want a house, buy one and make it >secure with a neighborhood watch and a locked door. That is his right.
So, that's a wrap.
--Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
not hiding behind locked doors.
You have a right to be secure in your own home. Where's Nick? It's his >thread.
On 5/10/2026 9:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration
On 5/10/2026 11:11 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 11:04:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>The UN Declaration is all about human rights. Not psychology. Or
On 5/10/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:08:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>You changed the topic from having a secure home to psychology of
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 7:41 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2026 23:28:27 -0700, dart200Wealth is subjective.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 5/8/26 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it >>>>>>>>>> might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
i've been thinking about this premise lot recently, and i now >>>>>>>>> believe
capitalism has largely not been providing a _home_ for many or >>>>>>>>> even most
people across the planet.
it's largely provided /housing/ sure ... but not a _home_ where >>>>>>>>> you are
existentially safe from others taking it away from you. the >>>>>>>>> wealthy
largely have that safety given the means of survival that they >>>>>>>>> own, that
everyone else depends on. they do not experience the overall life >>>>>>>>> pressure that such a persistent threat of homelessness puts on >>>>>>>>> a person.
i wonder what a world is like when everyone has that safety, >>>>>>>>> always...
A psych prof one time discussing reinforced behavior in animals and >>>>>>>> humans, like an orgasm is one hell of a reinforcement for
whatever you
need to do to get one.-a In passing, he casually mentioned that the >>>>>>>> biggest reinforcer for humans is money, but he declaimed to discuss >>>>>>>> that further.-a That is something to think about though.-a What >>>>>>>> behavior
does money (a paycheck) reinforce in us?
Define the problem out of existence.-a However, I don't think you can >>>>>> get that from what I said about reinforced behavior.
reinforced behavior. You did not define any human rights.
List, cracker. I already posted the definition of basic human rights. >>>>> Can't you read?
Define it out of existence and change the subject.-a The double
whammy.
Yes, in an attempt to divert the topic away from what you do not want
to discuss.
subjective wealth.
It is a little stiff for toilet paper, but it will do in a pinch.
says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his
weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
--It is not a human right. Where did you and Nickget the idea that wealth is a human right and that you should get >>>>>>> the
wealth of others?
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration
The UN Declaration is all about human rights. Not psychology. Or
subjective wealth.
It is a little stiff for toilet paper, but it will do in a pinch.
says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his
weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
On Mon, 11 May 2026 12:20:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure >>>>>> in your person.
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be >>>>>>> a good idea but it's not a "right".
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3 >>>>>> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>
what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even
beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Well you live in Canada, so there's always MAID.
That's a comfort. A right to not die in massive suffering. That is
worth something. Frame it a put it on the wall.
On 5/10/2026 6:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:43:17 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:37:36 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Is Nick thinking he has a human right to your house and property to >>>>> make
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it
might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
himself secure and that nobody can take your house away from him?
Or, is he thinking he has a human right to an apartment on the
government dime?
Maybe he's thinking he has a right to be provided for.
By whom?
Maybe you are simply full of shit.
Noah avoids addressing the deeper issues.
Yeah, when I see shit brown eyes, that is all I need to know.
Alright then. That's a wrap. It is a human right to be secure in your
own home (if you have one), or vote for rent controls. Good work!
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration
The UN Declaration is all about human rights. Not psychology. Or
subjective wealth.
It is a little stiff for toilet paper, but it will do in a pinch.
says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his
weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical.
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
On 5/11/2026 1:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 12:20:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3 >>>>>>> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>>
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even >>>>> beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Well you live in Canada, so there's always MAID.
That's a comfort. A right to not die in massive suffering. That is
worth something. Frame it a put it on the wall.
It's one of the few individual rights Canada is interested in protecting >these days. That it also aligns with their goal of reducing healthcare
costs is probably just a coincidence.
On 5/11/2026 1:22 PM, Dude wrote:
On 5/10/2026 6:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:43:17 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Alright then. That's a wrap. It is a human right to be secure in your
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:37:36 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Is Nick thinking he has a human right to your house and property to >>>>>> make
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it
might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
himself secure and that nobody can take your house away from him?
Or, is he thinking he has a human right to an apartment on the
government dime?
Maybe he's thinking he has a right to be provided for.
By whom?
Maybe you are simply full of shit.
Noah avoids addressing the deeper issues.
Yeah, when I see shit brown eyes, that is all I need to know.
own home (if you have one), or vote for rent controls. Good work!
But back to the subject at hand that Noah sidestepped, does Nick believe
he has a human right to your house and property?
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration
On 5/10/2026 11:11 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 11:04:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>The UN Declaration is all about human rights. Not psychology. Or
On 5/10/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:08:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:You changed the topic from having a secure home to psychology of
On 5/10/2026 7:41 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2026 23:28:27 -0700, dart200Wealth is subjective.
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 5/8/26 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, >>>>>>>>>>> it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
i've been thinking about this premise lot recently, and i now >>>>>>>>>> believe
capitalism has largely not been providing a _home_ for many or >>>>>>>>>> even most
people across the planet.
it's largely provided /housing/ sure ... but not a _home_ >>>>>>>>>> where you are
existentially safe from others taking it away from you. the >>>>>>>>>> wealthy
largely have that safety given the means of survival that they >>>>>>>>>> own, that
everyone else depends on. they do not experience the overall life >>>>>>>>>> pressure that such a persistent threat of homelessness puts on >>>>>>>>>> a person.
i wonder what a world is like when everyone has that safety, >>>>>>>>>> always...
A psych prof one time discussing reinforced behavior in animals >>>>>>>>> and
humans, like an orgasm is one hell of a reinforcement for
whatever you
need to do to get one.-a In passing, he casually mentioned that the >>>>>>>>> biggest reinforcer for humans is money, but he declaimed to >>>>>>>>> discuss
that further.-a That is something to think about though.-a What >>>>>>>>> behavior
does money (a paycheck) reinforce in us?
Define the problem out of existence.-a However, I don't think you can >>>>>>> get that from what I said about reinforced behavior.
reinforced behavior. You did not define any human rights.
List, cracker. I already posted the definition of basic human rights. >>>>>> Can't you read?
Define it out of existence and change the subject.-a The double >>>>>>> whammy.
Yes, in an attempt to divert the topic away from what you do not want >>>>> to discuss.
subjective wealth.
It is a little stiff for toilet paper, but it will do in a pinch.
says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his
weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
It is not a human right. Where did you and Nickget the idea that wealth is a human right and that you should >>>>>>>> get the
wealth of others?
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration >>>> says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution.
The UN Declaration is all about human rights. Not psychology. Or
subjective wealth.
It is a little stiff for toilet paper, but it will do in a pinch.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his
weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical.
I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views.
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion. Not necessarily a fact.
For one thing, you assume that protecting property rights is actually necessary. Without protections, hordes would assemble to take such
property away. It could be that people would remain about their
business as they always were. Feeding kids would remain more
important that taking your stuff away, so that somebody could in turn
take it from me.
Your view of society is brutal. And in view of certain segments,
justified. The question then, as now, as always, is what to do about
those segments?
The era of flashing bumper stickers at each other is mostly past, yet
here we are still doing it.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration >>>> says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his
weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical.
I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views.
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion. Not necessarily a fact.
For one thing, you assume that protecting property rights is actually necessary. Without protections, hordes would assemble to take such
property away. It could be that people would remain about their
business as they always were. Feeding kids would remain more
important that taking your stuff away, so that somebody could in turn
take it from me.
Your view of society is brutal. And in view of certain segments,
justified. The question then, as now, as always, is what to do about
those segments?
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:An alternative source on events in El Salvador:
Your view of society is brutal.-a And in view of certain segments,
justified.-a The question then, as now, as always, is what to do about
those segments?
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:41:24 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 1:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 12:20:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>>>
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even >>>>>> beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Well you live in Canada, so there's always MAID.
That's a comfort. A right to not die in massive suffering. That is
worth something. Frame it a put it on the wall.
It's one of the few individual rights Canada is interested in protecting
these days. That it also aligns with their goal of reducing healthcare
costs is probably just a coincidence.
Everything is a conspiracy isn't it, wilson?
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration >>>>> says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his >>>>> weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical.
I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views.
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion.-a Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances
like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
On 5/12/2026 1:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:An alternative source on events in El Salvador:
Your view of society is brutal.-a And in view of certain segments,
justified.-a The question then, as now, as always, is what to do about
those segments?
https://natlawreview.com/article/murder-capital-security-state-el- salvadors-transformation-under-president-bukele
"For decades, gangs such as MS-13 and Barrio 18 dominated daily life
across much of the country. Entire neighborhoods operated under gang
rule. Residents paid routine extortion fees, businesses functioned at
the pleasure of criminal groups, and violence was both pervasive and normalized. At its peak, the country recorded approximately 6,656
homicides per year in a nation of just 6.3 million people, placing El Salvador among the deadliest countries on earth.
The crisis reached a breaking point in March 2022, when gangs killed 87 people over a three-day period, in some cases leaving bodies in public
view. The killings marked a clear challenge to state authority and
triggered a decisive response from the Bukele administration.
The State of Exception
In March 2022, President Bukele invoked a nationwide rCLstate of exception.rCY The decree dramatically expanded law enforcement powers, allowing authorities to arrest individuals suspected of gang membership
or affiliation. It also suspended certain constitutional protections, including due process, as part of an emergency framework aimed at dismantling gang networks at scale.
What followed was one of the most aggressive domestic security
crackdowns in modern Latin American history. Originally authorized by El SalvadorrCOs Legislative Assembly for a period of 30 days, the nationwide rCLstate of exceptionrCY has since been renewed on a monthly basis more than 35 times.
During the first six months alone, over 52,000 arrests were made. In the first three years of the policy, over 84,000 people have been detained
based on suspected involvement in criminal gang activity.
Many gang members are imprisoned in El SalvadorrCOs rCLCentro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo,rCY or CECOT, which is a high-security mega- prison at the center of President BukelerCOs national security crackdown strategy. Completed in February 2023, CECOT has capacity for 40,000 prisoners and spans 23-hectares. Across all of its prisons, El Salvador
now has one of the worldrCOs highest incarceration rates.
Security Gains and Change
These mass arrests have produced sweeping effects across Salvadoran
society. According to Salvadoran officials, the countryrCOs homicide rate declined by over 98 percent between 2015 and 2024. The national homicide rate fell from 53.1 homicides per 100,000 people in 2018, the year
before President Bukele took office, to 1.9 homicides per 100,000 people
in 2024.
The security improvements have also translated into positive economic
and social impacts.
Improved public safety has coincided with increased consumer confidence
and a resurgence in tourism. According to the United Nations World
Tourism Organization, El Salvador recorded a 35 percent increase in
visitors in 2023 compared to 2019. This growth ranked El Salvador as the fourth fastest-growing tourism destination globally and the fastest-
growing in the Americas.
But El SalvadorrCOs aggressive crackdown on criminal gangs has also generated substantial criticism, both domestically and internationally. Human rights organizations, like Amnesty International, have repeatedly condemned the Bukele Administration for the continued renewal of the nationwide rCLstate of exception,rCY accusing the government of facilitating a systematic and widespread pattern of state abuse, including thousands
of arbitrary detentions.
President Bukele has publicly acknowledged that innocent individuals
were detained during the implementation of the emergency measures. At
the same time, he has defended the policyrCOs necessity and assured rCLwe are going to free 100 percent of the innocent people.rCY
Power, Popularity, and the Road Ahead
Despite concerns from human rights organizations, President Bukele and
his crackdown on criminal gangs have remained highly popular throughout
the country. His approval rating has consistently exceeded 80 percent
since taking office in 2019 and reached 85 percent in a recent May 2025 poll.
That political support has translated into electoral dominance. In
February 2024, President Bukele secured re-election with nearly 85
percent of the vote. His political party simultaneously captured a 54-
seat supermajority in the 60-seat Legislative Assembly, consolidating legislative control and enabling the continued renewal of emergency powers.
President BukelerCOs commanding re-election occurred despite longstanding constitutional prohibitions on consecutive presidential terms. In 2021,
a reconstituted Supreme Court reinterpreted the Salvadoran Constitution
to permit presidential re-election, clearing the legal path for
President BukelerCOs successful 2024 campaign. In July 2025, the
Legislative Assembly went further, formally abolishing presidential term limits altogether and authorizing indefinite re-election.
This steady expansion of executive power has prompted a number of international organizations and commentators to characterize Bukele as a rCLdictator.rCY Public opinion data, however, presents a sharply different picture domestically. According to polling conducted by LPG Datos in May 2025, only 1.4 percent of Salvadorans reported that the consolidation of executive power in a single individual was problematic.
On the ground in El Salvador, public sentiment appears driven less by constitutional theory than by lived experience. Many Salvadorans
describe a profound shift in daily life following the dismantling of
gang control. In a country that is now largely free from gang presence, improved security has translated into new opportunities for business, employment, and community life."
The article continues with some personal experiences of people who live there. Worth reading.
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN
The UN Declaration is all about human rights. Not psychology. Or
subjective wealth.
It is a little stiff for toilet paper, but it will do in a pinch.
Declaration says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth
distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his
weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical. Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration >>>>> says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his >>>>> weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical.
I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views.
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion. Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances
like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
For one thing, you assume that protecting property rights is actually
necessary. Without protections, hordes would assemble to take such
property away. It could be that people would remain about their
business as they always were. Feeding kids would remain more
important that taking your stuff away, so that somebody could in turn
take it from me.
Your view of society is brutal. And in view of certain segments,
justified. The question then, as now, as always, is what to do about
those segments?
El Salvador's president Nayib Bukele has done some very effective work
in that area. (Please read to the end for my comments).
"El Salvador recorded 2,398 homicides in 2019, the year he took office.
By 2024, that number had fallen to 114, a murder rate of 1.9 per 100,000 >people. Once widely considered the most violent country in the world, El >Salvador is now among the safest in the region.
To achieve this, Bukele implemented the Territorial Control Plan,
declared a state of exception that suspended aspects of due process, and >arrested more than 96,000 gang members.
Many were imprisoned in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a >high-security facility equipped with cell phone jammers to prevent gang >leaders from continuing to operate from inside the prison.
- Improved security has led to an improved economy. Tourism has returned
to the country in significant numbers. In 2019, El Salvador hosted >approximately 1.7 million tourists.
- According to El SalvadorAs Central Bank, overall poverty dropped by
5.9 percent from 2023 to 2024, reducing the number of Salvadorans living
in poverty by approximately 114,000 people in a single year.
- Multidimensional poverty, which measures access to health care,
education, and housing rather than just income, fell from 25.1 percent
in 2023 to 21.1 percent in 2024.
BukeleAs approval rating has consistently exceeded 80 percent since
taking office and reached 85 percent in a May 2025 poll. He won
re-election in February 2024 with nearly 85 percent of the vote, and his >party captured 54 of 60 legislative seats.
He said that, prior to his reforms, El Salvador had been governed by two >competing systems: a legitimate democratic government elected by the
people and a parallel structure imposed by criminal organizations. He >described this second system as othe dictatorship of the gangs,o where
power was enforced through violence rather than consent.
He explained that, unlike a democracy, no one could choose or vote out
this criminal authority. oWhoever doesnAt want to comply gets shot,o he >said, calling it othe true dictatorship that El Salvador lived through.o
According to Bukele, these gangs exercised more territorial control than
the official government, which he described as incapable, corrupt, and >complicit in criminal activity. While the state collected taxes, many >citizens avoided or were exempt from them. In contrast, gang extortion
was unavoidable.
He stated that roughly 85 percent of Salvadorans were forced to pay this >extortion, effectively creating a parallel tax system that covered
nearly the entire country. In his view, this amounted to a de facto >government imposed by criminal groups.
Bukele also described the failure of past enforcement efforts.
Authorities would arrest gang members, but othe next day 101 came out,o >meaning arrests were quickly offset by releases and new recruits. He
added that gangs retaliated by targeting police families, discouraging
law enforcement from taking action.
For decades, liberal criminologists argued that incarceration and the
threat of punishment do not deter crime, and that only addressing root >causes such as poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity could reduce >violence. El Salvador has disproved that argument in real time. BukeleAs >government achieved what no Western academic study ever could:
near-certain arrest and lifetime imprisonment for gang activity, applied
at scale across an entire country.
The result was a 95 percent reduction in homicides in five years, in a >nation that remained poor throughout. Crime collapsed because the
rational calculation changed.
With a near 100 percent chance of being caught and sent to a prison
widely described as a living hell, criminals have decided that crime
does not pay. El Salvador has proved that large-scale crime reduction is >possible. It is a matter of political will."
- Dr. Antonio Graceffo, PhD
I don't like the idea of suspending rights or due process to fight crime--
but you can't deny the effectiveness of what he's done.
El Salvador estimates that about 1.6% of their total population is
currently in prison.
Maybe this will lead to bad things in the future but for now the honest >people of El Salvador are freer than they've been in decades.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:11:07 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views.
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration >>>>>> says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution. >>>>>>
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his >>>>>> weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical. >>>
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion. Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances
like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
Because you present it as unchallengeable fact.
It seems necessary to remind you, if to bring perspective to theNot necessary.
conversation if for no other reason.>
actuallyFor one thing, you assume that protecting property rights is
necessary. Without protections, hordes would assemble to take such
property away. It could be that people would remain about their
business as they always were. Feeding kids would remain more
important that taking your stuff away, so that somebody could in turn
take it from me.
Your view of society is brutal. And in view of certain segments,
justified. The question then, as now, as always, is what to do about
those segments?
El Salvador's president Nayib Bukele has done some very effective work
in that area. (Please read to the end for my comments).
"El Salvador recorded 2,398 homicides in 2019, the year he took office.
By 2024, that number had fallen to 114, a murder rate of 1.9 per 100,000
people. Once widely considered the most violent country in the world, El
Salvador is now among the safest in the region.
To achieve this, Bukele implemented the Territorial Control Plan,
declared a state of exception that suspended aspects of due process, and
arrested more than 96,000 gang members.
Many were imprisoned in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a
high-security facility equipped with cell phone jammers to prevent gang
leaders from continuing to operate from inside the prison.
- Improved security has led to an improved economy. Tourism has returned
to the country in significant numbers. In 2019, El Salvador hosted
approximately 1.7 million tourists.
- According to El SalvadorrCOs Central Bank, overall poverty dropped by
5.9 percent from 2023 to 2024, reducing the number of Salvadorans living
in poverty by approximately 114,000 people in a single year.
- Multidimensional poverty, which measures access to health care,
education, and housing rather than just income, fell from 25.1 percent
in 2023 to 21.1 percent in 2024.
BukelerCOs approval rating has consistently exceeded 80 percent since
taking office and reached 85 percent in a May 2025 poll. He won
re-election in February 2024 with nearly 85 percent of the vote, and his
party captured 54 of 60 legislative seats.
He said that, prior to his reforms, El Salvador had been governed by two
competing systems: a legitimate democratic government elected by the
people and a parallel structure imposed by criminal organizations. He
described this second system as rCLthe dictatorship of the gangs,rCY where >> power was enforced through violence rather than consent.
He explained that, unlike a democracy, no one could choose or vote out
this criminal authority. rCLWhoever doesnrCOt want to comply gets shot,rCY he
said, calling it rCLthe true dictatorship that El Salvador lived through.rCY >>
According to Bukele, these gangs exercised more territorial control than
the official government, which he described as incapable, corrupt, and
complicit in criminal activity. While the state collected taxes, many
citizens avoided or were exempt from them. In contrast, gang extortion
was unavoidable.
He stated that roughly 85 percent of Salvadorans were forced to pay this
extortion, effectively creating a parallel tax system that covered
nearly the entire country. In his view, this amounted to a de facto
government imposed by criminal groups.
Bukele also described the failure of past enforcement efforts.
Authorities would arrest gang members, but rCLthe next day 101 came out,rCY >> meaning arrests were quickly offset by releases and new recruits. He
added that gangs retaliated by targeting police families, discouraging
law enforcement from taking action.
For decades, liberal criminologists argued that incarceration and the
threat of punishment do not deter crime, and that only addressing root
causes such as poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity could reduce
violence. El Salvador has disproved that argument in real time. BukelerCOs >> government achieved what no Western academic study ever could:
near-certain arrest and lifetime imprisonment for gang activity, applied
at scale across an entire country.
The result was a 95 percent reduction in homicides in five years, in a
nation that remained poor throughout. Crime collapsed because the
rational calculation changed.
With a near 100 percent chance of being caught and sent to a prison
widely described as a living hell, criminals have decided that crime
does not pay. El Salvador has proved that large-scale crime reduction is
possible. It is a matter of political will."
- Dr. Antonio Graceffo, PhD
I don't like the idea of suspending rights or due process to fight crime
but you can't deny the effectiveness of what he's done.
El Salvador estimates that about 1.6% of their total population is
currently in prison.
Maybe this will lead to bad things in the future but for now the honest
people of El Salvador are freer than they've been in decades.
On 12/05/2026 18:20, Wilson wrote:
On 5/12/2026 1:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:An alternative source on events in El Salvador:
Your view of society is brutal.a And in view of certain segments,
justified.a The question then, as now, as always, is what to do about
those segments?
https://natlawreview.com/article/murder-capital-security-state-el-
salvadors-transformation-under-president-bukele
"For decades, gangs such as MS-13 and Barrio 18 dominated daily life
across much of the country. Entire neighborhoods operated under gang
rule. Residents paid routine extortion fees, businesses functioned at
the pleasure of criminal groups, and violence was both pervasive and
normalized. At its peak, the country recorded approximately 6,656
homicides per year in a nation of just 6.3 million people, placing El
Salvador among the deadliest countries on earth.
The crisis reached a breaking point in March 2022, when gangs killed 87
people over a three-day period, in some cases leaving bodies in public
view. The killings marked a clear challenge to state authority and
triggered a decisive response from the Bukele administration.
The State of Exception
In March 2022, President Bukele invoked a nationwide ostate of
exception.o The decree dramatically expanded law enforcement powers,
allowing authorities to arrest individuals suspected of gang membership
or affiliation. It also suspended certain constitutional protections,
including due process, as part of an emergency framework aimed at
dismantling gang networks at scale.
What followed was one of the most aggressive domestic security
crackdowns in modern Latin American history. Originally authorized by El
SalvadorAs Legislative Assembly for a period of 30 days, the nationwide
ostate of exceptiono has since been renewed on a monthly basis more than
35 times.
During the first six months alone, over 52,000 arrests were made. In the
first three years of the policy, over 84,000 people have been detained
based on suspected involvement in criminal gang activity.
Many gang members are imprisoned in El SalvadorAs oCentro de
Confinamiento del Terrorismo,o or CECOT, which is a high-security mega-
prison at the center of President BukeleAs national security crackdown
strategy. Completed in February 2023, CECOT has capacity for 40,000
prisoners and spans 23-hectares. Across all of its prisons, El Salvador
now has one of the worldAs highest incarceration rates.
Security Gains and Change
These mass arrests have produced sweeping effects across Salvadoran
society. According to Salvadoran officials, the countryAs homicide rate
declined by over 98 percent between 2015 and 2024. The national homicide
rate fell from 53.1 homicides per 100,000 people in 2018, the year
before President Bukele took office, to 1.9 homicides per 100,000 people
in 2024.
The security improvements have also translated into positive economic
and social impacts.
Improved public safety has coincided with increased consumer confidence
and a resurgence in tourism. According to the United Nations World
Tourism Organization, El Salvador recorded a 35 percent increase in
visitors in 2023 compared to 2019. This growth ranked El Salvador as the
fourth fastest-growing tourism destination globally and the fastest-
growing in the Americas.
But El SalvadorAs aggressive crackdown on criminal gangs has also
generated substantial criticism, both domestically and internationally.
Human rights organizations, like Amnesty International, have repeatedly
condemned the Bukele Administration for the continued renewal of the
nationwide ostate of exception,o accusing the government of facilitating
a systematic and widespread pattern of state abuse, including thousands
of arbitrary detentions.
President Bukele has publicly acknowledged that innocent individuals
were detained during the implementation of the emergency measures. At
the same time, he has defended the policyAs necessity and assured owe
are going to free 100 percent of the innocent people.o
Power, Popularity, and the Road Ahead
Despite concerns from human rights organizations, President Bukele and
his crackdown on criminal gangs have remained highly popular throughout
the country. His approval rating has consistently exceeded 80 percent
since taking office in 2019 and reached 85 percent in a recent May 2025
poll.
That political support has translated into electoral dominance. In
February 2024, President Bukele secured re-election with nearly 85
percent of the vote. His political party simultaneously captured a 54-
seat supermajority in the 60-seat Legislative Assembly, consolidating
legislative control and enabling the continued renewal of emergency powers. >>
President BukeleAs commanding re-election occurred despite longstanding
constitutional prohibitions on consecutive presidential terms. In 2021,
a reconstituted Supreme Court reinterpreted the Salvadoran Constitution
to permit presidential re-election, clearing the legal path for
President BukeleAs successful 2024 campaign. In July 2025, the
Legislative Assembly went further, formally abolishing presidential term
limits altogether and authorizing indefinite re-election.
This steady expansion of executive power has prompted a number of
international organizations and commentators to characterize Bukele as a
odictator.o Public opinion data, however, presents a sharply different
picture domestically. According to polling conducted by LPG Datos in May
2025, only 1.4 percent of Salvadorans reported that the consolidation of
executive power in a single individual was problematic.
On the ground in El Salvador, public sentiment appears driven less by
constitutional theory than by lived experience. Many Salvadorans
describe a profound shift in daily life following the dismantling of
gang control. In a country that is now largely free from gang presence,
improved security has translated into new opportunities for business,
employment, and community life."
The article continues with some personal experiences of people who live
there. Worth reading.
It's quite simple really. If current laws are implemented correctly
the bad guys soon get out of town.
On 12/05/2026 18:11, Wilson wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views.
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration >>>>>> says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution. >>>>>>
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his >>>>>> weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical. >>>
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion.a Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances
like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
"That is your opinion" is the closest he gets to a fact.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10156167586918104--
On 5/12/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:41:24 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 1:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 12:20:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>>>>
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even >>>>>>> beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Well you live in Canada, so there's always MAID.
That's a comfort. A right to not die in massive suffering. That is
worth something. Frame it a put it on the wall.
It's one of the few individual rights Canada is interested in protecting >>> these days. That it also aligns with their goal of reducing healthcare
costs is probably just a coincidence.
Everything is a conspiracy isn't it, wilson?
Do you deny that Canada has greatly expanded access to MAID?
Do you deny that Canada also has a goal of reducing healthcare costs?
Like I said, it's probably just a coincidence.
On Mon, 11 May 2026 19:47:01 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/11/2026 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 09:44:38 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:11 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:21:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>In most normal neighborhoods, neighbors look after each other; in others >>>> you are just on your own. YMMV.
On 5/10/2026 6:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Lucky for me I no longer live in a place where that might be needed. >>>>>
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:In that case, you might try starting up a neighborhood watch program. >>>>>
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>>>>>
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even >>>>>>>> beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
I'm not sure what happened but we were talking about this:
Nice try. I don't need to go back very far to find this;:
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
Yup, you said that, and I wondered where that came from.
You are guilty as charged.
Nick was asking if it was a human right to have a home that was secure
that nobody could take away and I replied that your body/mind is your
home and your human right and if you want a house, buy one and make it
secure with a neighborhood watch and a locked door. That is his right.
You repeated your dogma once again. Do you imagine you convinced
anybody this time?
So, that's a wrap.
You have a right to be secure in your own home. Where's Nick? It's his
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
not hiding behind locked doors.
thread.
On 5/12/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:41:24 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 1:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 12:20:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to >>>>>>>>> be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it >>>>>>>>>> might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in >>>>>>>>> Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right >>>>>>>>> to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and >>>>>>>>> freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it.-a So >>>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are >>>>>>> even
beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert.-a In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Well you live in Canada, so there's always MAID.
That's a comfort.-a A right to not die in massive suffering.-a That is >>>> worth something.-a Frame it a put it on the wall.
It's one of the few individual rights Canada is interested in protecting >>> these days. That it also aligns with their goal of reducing healthcare
costs is probably just a coincidence.
Everything is a conspiracy isn't it, wilson?
Do you deny that Canada has greatly expanded access to MAID?
Do you deny that Canada also has a goal of reducing healthcare costs?
Like I said, it's probably just a coincidence.
On 5/11/2026 1:22 PM, Dude wrote:
On 5/10/2026 6:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:43:17 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Alright then. That's a wrap. It is a human right to be secure in your
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:37:36 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Is Nick thinking he has a human right to your house and property
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it
might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
to make
himself secure and that nobody can take your house away from him?
Or, is he thinking he has a human right to an apartment on the
government dime?
Maybe he's thinking he has a right to be provided for.
By whom?
Maybe you are simply full of shit.
Noah avoids addressing the deeper issues.
Yeah, when I see shit brown eyes, that is all I need to know.
own home (if you have one), or vote for rent controls. Good work!
But back to the subject at hand that Noah sidestepped, does Nick believe
he has a human right to your house and property?
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:43:21 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 1:22 PM, Dude wrote:
On 5/10/2026 6:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:43:17 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 10:37:36 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Is Nick thinking he has a human right to your house and property to >>>>>>> make
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it >>>>>>>> might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
himself secure and that nobody can take your house away from him? >>>>>>>
Or, is he thinking he has a human right to an apartment on the
government dime?
Maybe he's thinking he has a right to be provided for.
By whom?
Maybe you are simply full of shit.
Noah avoids addressing the deeper issues.
Yeah, when I see shit brown eyes, that is all I need to know.
Alright then. That's a wrap. It is a human right to be secure in your
own home (if you have one), or vote for rent controls. Good work!
But back to the subject at hand that Noah sidestepped, does Nick believe
he has a human right to your house and property?
Silly boi, how could he have such a *right*. Nobody every suggested
any such thing. Mr brown eyes.
On 5/11/2026 8:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 19:47:01 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, it's not a wrap.
On 5/11/2026 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 09:44:38 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 5/10/2026 9:11 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:21:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>In most normal neighborhoods, neighbors look after each other; in others >>>>> you are just on your own. YMMV.
On 5/10/2026 6:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Lucky for me I no longer live in a place where that might be needed. >>>>>>
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:In that case, you might try starting up a neighborhood watch program. >>>>>>
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even >>>>>>>>> beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
I'm not sure what happened but we were talking about this:
Nice try. I don't need to go back very far to find this;:
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
Yup, you said that, and I wondered where that came from.
You are guilty as charged.
Nick was asking if it was a human right to have a home that was secure
that nobody could take away and I replied that your body/mind is your
home and your human right and if you want a house, buy one and make it
secure with a neighborhood watch and a locked door. That is his right.
You repeated your dogma once again. Do you imagine you convinced
anybody this time?
Alright, I repeat:
Nick was asking if it was a human right to have a home that was secure
that nobody could take away and I replied that your body/mind is your
home and your human right and if you want a house, buy one and make it
secure with a neighborhood watch and a locked door.
That is his right. Where's Nick?
--
So, that's a wrap.
You have a right to be secure in your own home. Where's Nick? It's his
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
not hiding behind locked doors.
thread.
On 12/05/2026 18:11, Wilson wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views.
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN
Declaration
says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution. >>>>>>
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his >>>>>> weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical. >>>
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion.-a Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances
like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
"That is your opinion" is the closest he gets to a fact.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10156167586918104
On 12/05/2026 18:36, Julian wrote:
On 12/05/2026 18:11, Wilson wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views. >>>>
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UNur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Declaration
says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution. >>>>>>>
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his >>>>>>> weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated. >>>>>>
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical. >>>>
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion.a Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances
like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
"That is your opinion" is the closest he gets to a fact.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10156167586918104
And there's the equally ridiculous follow up to people's
opinions "That/Which does not mean..." refuting a view held
only in his own head... not to mention the contempt shown
to subscribers by being incapable of resisting the need to
explain everything to everybody.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:11:07 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views.
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration >>>>>> says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution. >>>>>>
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his >>>>>> weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical. >>>
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion. Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances
like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
Because you present it as unchallengeable fact. It seems necessary to
remind you, if to bring perspective to the conversation if for no
other reason.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 11:33:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/11/2026 8:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 19:47:01 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, it's not a wrap.
On 5/11/2026 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 09:44:38 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 5/10/2026 9:11 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:21:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>In most normal neighborhoods, neighbors look after each other; in others >>>>>> you are just on your own. YMMV.
On 5/10/2026 6:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Lucky for me I no longer live in a place where that might be needed. >>>>>>>
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:In that case, you might try starting up a neighborhood watch program. >>>>>>>
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even
beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my >>>>>>>>> neighborhood for anybody.
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
I'm not sure what happened but we were talking about this:
Nice try. I don't need to go back very far to find this;:
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
Yup, you said that, and I wondered where that came from.
You are guilty as charged.
Nick was asking if it was a human right to have a home that was secure >>>> that nobody could take away and I replied that your body/mind is your
home and your human right and if you want a house, buy one and make it >>>> secure with a neighborhood watch and a locked door. That is his right.
You repeated your dogma once again. Do you imagine you convinced
anybody this time?
Alright, I repeat:
Nick was asking if it was a human right to have a home that was secure
that nobody could take away and I replied that your body/mind is your
home and your human right and if you want a house, buy one and make it
secure with a neighborhood watch and a locked door.
That is his right. Where's Nick?
One more time please. Special request. You are so cute when you
fluster.
So, that's a wrap.
You have a right to be secure in your own home. Where's Nick? It's his >>>> thread.
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>not hiding behind locked doors.
On 5/12/26 5:36 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN
The UN Declaration is all about human rights. Not psychology. Or
subjective wealth.
It is a little stiff for toilet paper, but it will do in a pinch.
Declaration says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth
distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with
his weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and
ethical. Nick's view that personal property rights should not be
protected however, is not.
triggered
On Tue, 12 May 2026 18:36:25 +0100, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 12/05/2026 18:11, Wilson wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views. >>>>
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration >>>>>>> says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution. >>>>>>>ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his >>>>>>> weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated. >>>>>>
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical. >>>>
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion.-a Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances
like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
"That is your opinion" is the closest he gets to a fact.
asshole.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10156167586918104
On 5/12/26 5:36 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN
The UN Declaration is all about human rights. Not psychology. Or
subjective wealth.
It is a little stiff for toilet paper, but it will do in a pinch.
Declaration says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth
distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with
his weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated.
ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and
ethical. Nick's view that personal property rights should not be
protected however, is not.
triggered
On 5/12/2026 2:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:11:07 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views. >>>>
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration >>>>>>> says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution. >>>>>>>ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his >>>>>>> weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated. >>>>>>
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical. >>>>
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion. Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances
like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
Because you present it as unchallengeable fact. It seems necessary to
remind you, if to bring perspective to the conversation if for no
other reason.
It looks like you're presenting *that* as an unchangeable fact.
Good thing any reasonable person knows it's just your opinion.
On 5/12/2026 11:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 11:33:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:It's not about me, now it's about you.
On 5/11/2026 8:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 19:47:01 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>So, it's not a wrap.
On 5/11/2026 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 09:44:38 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 5/10/2026 9:11 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:21:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>In most normal neighborhoods, neighbors look after each other; in others
On 5/10/2026 6:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Lucky for me I no longer live in a place where that might be needed. >>>>>>>>
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:In that case, you might try starting up a neighborhood watch program. >>>>>>>>
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>>>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even
beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my >>>>>>>>>> neighborhood for anybody.
you are just on your own. YMMV.
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
I'm not sure what happened but we were talking about this:
Nice try. I don't need to go back very far to find this;:
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
Yup, you said that, and I wondered where that came from.
You are guilty as charged.
Nick was asking if it was a human right to have a home that was secure >>>>> that nobody could take away and I replied that your body/mind is your >>>>> home and your human right and if you want a house, buy one and make it >>>>> secure with a neighborhood watch and a locked door. That is his right. >>>>You repeated your dogma once again. Do you imagine you convinced
anybody this time?
Alright, I repeat:
Nick was asking if it was a human right to have a home that was secure
that nobody could take away and I replied that your body/mind is your
home and your human right and if you want a house, buy one and make it
secure with a neighborhood watch and a locked door.
That is his right. Where's Nick?
One more time please. Special request. You are so cute when you
fluster.
Nick is the poor guy with baby asking all the existential questions.
Apparently, you don't care. You are making a mockery out Nick's query.
Obviously, it was a cry for help. You don't even care enough to have a >normal dialog. Where's Nick?
Let's be transparent.--
So, that's a wrap.
You have a right to be secure in your own home. Where's Nick? It's his >>>>> thread.
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>>not hiding behind locked doors.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 14:04:26 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/2026 11:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 11:33:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:It's not about me, now it's about you.
On 5/11/2026 8:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 19:47:01 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>So, it's not a wrap.
On 5/11/2026 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 09:44:38 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 5/10/2026 9:11 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:21:34 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:In most normal neighborhoods, neighbors look after each other; in others
On 5/10/2026 6:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:In that case, you might try starting up a neighborhood watch program.
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away???
If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So
what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even
beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my >>>>>>>>>>> neighborhood for anybody.
Lucky for me I no longer live in a place where that might be needed. >>>>>>>>>
you are just on your own. YMMV.
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
I'm not sure what happened but we were talking about this:
Nice try. I don't need to go back very far to find this;:
Some people feel more secure just being behind a locked door.
Yup, you said that, and I wondered where that came from.
You are guilty as charged.
Nick was asking if it was a human right to have a home that was secure >>>>>> that nobody could take away and I replied that your body/mind is your >>>>>> home and your human right and if you want a house, buy one and make it >>>>>> secure with a neighborhood watch and a locked door. That is his right. >>>>>You repeated your dogma once again. Do you imagine you convinced
anybody this time?
Alright, I repeat:
Nick was asking if it was a human right to have a home that was secure >>>> that nobody could take away and I replied that your body/mind is your
home and your human right and if you want a house, buy one and make it >>>> secure with a neighborhood watch and a locked door.
That is his right. Where's Nick?
One more time please. Special request. You are so cute when you
fluster.
Nick is the poor guy with baby asking all the existential questions.
Apparently, you don't care. You are making a mockery out Nick's query.
Obviously, it was a cry for help. You don't even care enough to have a
normal dialog. Where's Nick?
You are so cruel. All I wanted was to hear you repeat your stuff one
more time.
Let's be transparent.
So, that's a wrap.
You have a right to be secure in your own home. Where's Nick? It's his >>>>>> thread.
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life >>>>>>>> ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>>>not hiding behind locked doors.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 17:04:03 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 2:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:11:07 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary views. >>>>>
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN Declaration >>>>>>>> says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth distribution. >>>>>>>>ur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it with his >>>>>>>> weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated. >>>>>>>
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and ethical. >>>>>
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected
however, is not.
That is your opinion. Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances >>>> like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
Because you present it as unchallengeable fact. It seems necessary to
remind you, if to bring perspective to the conversation if for no
other reason.
It looks like you're presenting *that* as an unchangeable fact.
Good thing any reasonable person knows it's just your opinion.
So you assert. I don't think any reasonable person will necessarily
agree with you.
It is one of your tricks.
To assume that "any reasonable person> knows", "the people havevoted, therefore they agree with me". You
can now say, that any reasonable person would know I don't do that,
but t'aint so. I do my best to keep you honest, but you do tend to
leak around the edges.
On 5/12/2026 3:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 17:04:03 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Any sensible person reading this would agree it's opinion. That kind of
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 2:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:11:07 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UNur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
Declaration
says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth
distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it >>>>>>>>> with his
weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated. >>>>>>>>
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and
ethical.
I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary
views.
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected >>>>>>> however, is not.
That is your opinion.-a Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances >>>>> like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
Because you present it as unchallengeable fact.-a It seems necessary to >>>> remind you, if to bring perspective to the conversation if for no
other reason.
It looks like you're presenting *that* as an unchangeable fact.
Good thing any reasonable person knows it's just your opinion.
So you assert.-a I don't think any reasonable person will necessarily
agree with you.
goes without saying.
Having said that, it is not a trick. It's supposed to be a normal conversation, but you're sounding more and more the extremist, based on
It is one of your tricks.
the consensus of the group.
voted, therefore they agree with me".-a You
To assume that "any reasonable person> knows", "the people have
can now say, that any reasonable person would know I don't do that,
but t'aint so.-a I do my best to keep you honest, but you do tend to
leak around the edges.
Wait! What?
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:27:27 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:41:24 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 1:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 12:20:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>>If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom. >>>>>>>>>
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even >>>>>>>> beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Well you live in Canada, so there's always MAID.
That's a comfort. A right to not die in massive suffering. That is >>>>> worth something. Frame it a put it on the wall.
It's one of the few individual rights Canada is interested in protecting >>>> these days. That it also aligns with their goal of reducing healthcare >>>> costs is probably just a coincidence.
Everything is a conspiracy isn't it, wilson?
Do you deny that Canada has greatly expanded access to MAID?
Do you deny that Canada also has a goal of reducing healthcare costs?
Like I said, it's probably just a coincidence.
Everything is a conspiracy, isn't it wilson?
On 5/12/2026 9:35 PM, Dude wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 17:04:03 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Any sensible person reading this would agree it's opinion. That kind of
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 2:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:11:07 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN >>>>>>>>>> Declarationur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth
distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it >>>>>>>>>> with his
weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated. >>>>>>>>>
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and >>>>>>>> ethical.
I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary >>>>>>> views.
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected >>>>>>>> however, is not.
That is your opinion.a Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances >>>>>> like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
Because you present it as unchallengeable fact.a It seems necessary to >>>>> remind you, if to bring perspective to the conversation if for no
other reason.
It looks like you're presenting *that* as an unchangeable fact.
Good thing any reasonable person knows it's just your opinion.
So you assert.a I don't think any reasonable person will necessarily
agree with you.
goes without saying.
Having said that, it is not a trick. It's supposed to be a normal
It is one of your tricks.
conversation, but you're sounding more and more the extremist, based on
the consensus of the group.
voted, therefore they agree with me".a You
To assume that "any reasonable person> knows", "the people have
can now say, that any reasonable person would know I don't do that,
but t'aint so.a I do my best to keep you honest, but you do tend to
leak around the edges.
Wait! What?
Noah tends towards the incomprehensible when the conversation goes in >directions he can't deal with.
On 5/12/2026 2:33 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:27:27 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:41:24 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 1:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 12:20:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>>>If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even >>>>>>>>> beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my
neighborhood for anybody.
Well you live in Canada, so there's always MAID.
That's a comfort. A right to not die in massive suffering. That is >>>>>> worth something. Frame it a put it on the wall.
It's one of the few individual rights Canada is interested in protecting >>>>> these days. That it also aligns with their goal of reducing healthcare >>>>> costs is probably just a coincidence.
Everything is a conspiracy isn't it, wilson?
Do you deny that Canada has greatly expanded access to MAID?
Do you deny that Canada also has a goal of reducing healthcare costs?
Like I said, it's probably just a coincidence.
Everything is a conspiracy, isn't it wilson?
There's an interesting phenomena often repeated. When certain
individuals or groups are among the approved good guys, the tendency is
to deny those parties might be acting in their own self-interest.
Meanwhile the same consideration is never given to people who aren't on >their list of approved good guys.
It's one of the hallmarks of far left progressivism to harness this
tendency and claim their good intentions must trump all other >considerations.
On Thu, 14 May 2026 10:21:23 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 9:35 PM, Dude wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:29 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 17:04:03 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Any sensible person reading this would agree it's opinion. That kind of
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 2:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:11:07 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:28 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:36:54 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/12/2026 3:41 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/11/26 9:38 AM, Dude wrote:
There is no human right to take someone's property. The UN >>>>>>>>>>> Declarationur advice is myopic, juvenile, and wildly unsustainable
says nothing about capitalistic or socialistic wealth
distribution.
My advice to Nick would be to buy his own home and defend it >>>>>>>>>>> with his
weapon of choice. He has a right to do that. It's not complicated. >>>>>>>>>>
Dude's advice is fully sustainable, mature, well reasoned, and >>>>>>>>> ethical.
I don't think there is room for reconciliation of such contrary >>>>>>>> views.
Nick's view that personal property rights should not be protected >>>>>>>>> however, is not.
That is your opinion.-a Not necessarily a fact.
Why do you insist on repeatedly sharing pointless pedantic observances >>>>>>> like this?
Of course it's my opinion.
Because you present it as unchallengeable fact.-a It seems necessary to >>>>>> remind you, if to bring perspective to the conversation if for no
other reason.
It looks like you're presenting *that* as an unchangeable fact.
Good thing any reasonable person knows it's just your opinion.
So you assert.-a I don't think any reasonable person will necessarily
agree with you.
goes without saying.
Having said that, it is not a trick. It's supposed to be a normal
It is one of your tricks.
conversation, but you're sounding more and more the extremist, based on
the consensus of the group.
voted, therefore they agree with me".-a You
To assume that "any reasonable person> knows", "the people have
can now say, that any reasonable person would know I don't do that,
but t'aint so.-a I do my best to keep you honest, but you do tend to
leak around the edges.
Wait! What?
Noah tends towards the incomprehensible when the conversation goes in
directions he can't deal with.
Wilson imagines he is incomprehensible.
On Thu, 14 May 2026 10:45:52 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 2:33 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:27:27 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/12/2026 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:41:24 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/11/2026 1:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 12:20:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 9:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 19:41:29 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/10/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2026 09:58:40 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2026 8:43 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:50 AM, dart200 wrote:Your body/mind is your home. You have an innate human right to be secure
to have a place called _home_ that no one else can take away??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>If it's something that someone else has to provide for you, it might be
a good idea but it's not a "right".
in your person.
The most basic human right is the right to life, as stated in Article 3
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Often considered the foundation of all other rights, the right to life
ensures that every person is entitled to live in safety and freedom.
But, if you are not, absolutely nothing will be done about it. So >>>>>>>>>>> what good is this right you posit?
People do things about it all the time. LOTS of things. Some are even
beneficial for the people who are being deprived.
So you assert. In my case, I sense no such protections in my >>>>>>>>> neighborhood for anybody.
Well you live in Canada, so there's always MAID.
That's a comfort. A right to not die in massive suffering. That is >>>>>>> worth something. Frame it a put it on the wall.
It's one of the few individual rights Canada is interested in protecting >>>>>> these days. That it also aligns with their goal of reducing healthcare >>>>>> costs is probably just a coincidence.
Everything is a conspiracy isn't it, wilson?
Do you deny that Canada has greatly expanded access to MAID?
Do you deny that Canada also has a goal of reducing healthcare costs?
Like I said, it's probably just a coincidence.
Everything is a conspiracy, isn't it wilson?
There's an interesting phenomena often repeated. When certain
individuals or groups are among the approved good guys, the tendency is
to deny those parties might be acting in their own self-interest.
Meanwhile the same consideration is never given to people who aren't on
their list of approved good guys.
It's one of the hallmarks of far left progressivism to harness this
tendency and claim their good intentions must trump all other
considerations.
Wilson wants you to believe his guys don't hold the current list of
approved good guys. Wilsonians are the victims. They so booohoo.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 01:03:56 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,187 |