Statism vs Anti-stateism

I made the numbers up. I didn't even keep them consistant. Don't attack the numbers themself, but the idea I was presenting with them.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Statism
• vs
• Anti
• stateism

[newperve]

@SpamSpamNEggs I'm not using ad hom attacks, I'm just calling you a moron asshole. I'm not saying you're wrong because you're a moron asshole, you're wrong because your theories have no basis in fact. Look, you're the one who claims the US isn't a state, not me. I admitted that prior to the end of church law technically many governments weren't states, you pretended that applied now because you're an asshole. That's all.

[SpamSpamNEggs]

@newperve You have downgraded your arguments to ad homin attacks. You have coincided every point that I have really pushed, except the latest and I just haven't been pushing long enough to break you shell of anti-state dogma. If I keep pushing it's just a matter of time before you admit that the US does not fit your definition of "State".

I know I haven't shattered your world view, but that's because you are doing the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la la

[newperve]

@SpamSpamNEggs Neither does anything you say have anything to do with the nature and function of states. Look you're a fucking moron and don't understand things even when I explain over and fucking over. Seriously how fucking simple does something for you to understand it? You don't "shatter" my worldview, you haven't even scratched it. You are the one making claims without evidence and then pretending to be smarter than people who actualy refer to relevant facts.

[SpamSpamNEggs]

@newperve LOL I think you blew a fuse. Toad rape, inbreeding, and shit eating have nothing to do with diplomatic immunity or the nature and function of states in general. You really should see a doctor or something if you think there is a connection there, it's called delusional.

I'm sorry to shatter your world view, but when you hold a position as stupid as creationism, It needs to be shattered.

[newperve]

@SpamSpamNEggs Right, so you think that you can get diplomatic immunity in a state without having to get the state to OK it? So you are absolutely completely fucking ignorant of diplomatic procedure and that the recieveing state has to recognise both the diplomat and the sending state. Fuck off you ignorant lying, toadraping, inbred, supercillious, delusional, arrogant, shiteating, propagandist.

[SpamSpamNEggs]

@newperve Nope, you are wrong. You can't see that you are wrong because it would destroy your definition of state. Diplomatic immunity is granted by the sending nation and the UN under the rules set forth in the Vienna Conference of Diplomatic Relations. Yes, nations can violate diplomatic immunity, but there are repercussions. The Nations of the dark ages could violate the church courts, but there where repercussions. Modern states obeying international law does not mean they agree with it

[newperve]

@SpamSpamNEggs You need to be recognised as a diplomat by the state in question moron, that's the point I just made and you still don't get it. You can't get the immunity from a state unless that state agrees, that's a pretty simple point. How fucking simple does a concept have to get before you get it?

[SpamSpamNEggs]

@newperve You have already agreed that the church courts of the dark ages make Europe stateless for more than 1200 years. These church courts did not allow just anyone to say I am clergy, you can't arrest me. You had to be recognized as clergy by the church to get this immunity. The same is true for diplomatic immunity. You must be recognized as "diplomat" by another nation or the UN to get diplomatic immunity.

[newperve]

@SpamSpamNEggs What is relevant is that nobody is immune from the state's laws that the state didn't specifically allow to be immune to the state's laws. You can't simply say "I'm a diplomat so you can't arrest me.", you have to get the State to approve you being a diplomat. Seriously you are so stupid, you think claiming that I'm the one holding on to an absurd belief is an argument, it's not. Grow up and admit you were wrong.

[SpamSpamNEggs]

@newperve Diplomatic immunity is a matter of international law established at the Vienna Conference of Diplomatic Relations in 1961. The ability for immunity to be waved is irrelevant since it can be upheld and the US is prevented by international law from arresting them. yes I do get things right. You are just trying really desperately to hold on to your religion of "anti-statism" that has no basis in reality.