Go back
Please see what not to do on the Forum.

Please see what not to do on the Forum.

Debates

AverageJoe1
Catch the Train 47!

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
54574
Clock
17 May 23

@AverageJoe1 wrote this friendly problem during a friendly bout with the poster who calls himself Thousand. I'd said isn't it fun to have stuff like this on the Forum. His response at bottom exemplifies how you liberals make the Forum quite difficult.


'The question of illegally acquired property is a good one. If you are not home, and I take your lawn mower and sell it to a guy across town, and pocket the money, who owns the lawn mower? The guy across town thinks he does, and paid for it in good faith.

Part Two: What if the new 'owner' spends $400 to get the rider lawn mower tuned up, and then my neighbor goes to get the lawn mower back from him? What then?

Part three: Say there are 2 vacant lots on Jones street, and I buy the one on the left. I pay a contractor $70k in advance to build a house on the lot, and leave for an Italian holiday for 3 months. I come home and find the house was built on the lot on the RIGHT!
Who owns the house that was built on the wrong lot, a lot that is not my lot? Could I send the contractor over to 'take down' the house and move it over to my lot?**


*. Hint: If contractor steps on the housed lot, he could be arrested for trespassing""

THIS was his response.......
Part 1b. The thief dies and his son inherits the mower. The son brags openly about how his alpha male father took the mower from a weakling but the government protects his property rights in the mower anyway

AverageJoe1
Catch the Train 47!

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
54574
Clock
17 May 23
1 edit

This was on the 'Democrats are a Sorry Lot' thread. If this interests you, check out above that, my post where I had done my best to answer HIS post about an analogy he made, and he ruined that as well.
Don't let this guy waste one minute of your posting time.

Wajoma
Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78933
Clock
17 May 23

@averagejoe1 said
@AverageJoe1 wrote this friendly problem during a friendly bout with the poster who calls himself Thousand. I'd said isn't it fun to have stuff like this on the Forum. His response at bottom exemplifies how you liberals make the Forum quite difficult.


'The question of illegally acquired property is a good one. If you are not home, and I take your lawn mower and sell ...[text shortened]... r took the mower from a weakling but the government protects his property rights in the mower anyway
He's attempting an analogy, the lawn mower is supposedly representing land, he has a bug in his ass about landlords or something or other.

Prior to a legal frame work protecting property land was fought over, stolen, re-stolen, fought over some more. I regularly kicked No1's ass on this one, what they're actually doing is making an excellent case for strong property rights, when there were no property rights no one was safe, the better your property the more likely that someone would try to take it. This was the state in New Zealand before Europeans arrived, with them came the concept of property rights and what it meant to own land, a culture that had plateaued with people eating fern roots and being in a constant state of conflict, they no written language and didn't even have the wheel yet FFS but now they could settle and build.

AverageJoe1
Catch the Train 47!

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
54574
Clock
17 May 23
1 edit

@wajoma said
He's attempting an analogy, the lawn mower is supposedly representing land, he has a bug in his ass about landlords or something or other.

Prior to a legal frame work protecting property land was fought over, stolen, re-stolen, fought over some more. I regularly kicked No1's ass on this one, what they're actually doing is making an excellent case for strong property rights ...[text shortened]... they no written language and didn't even have the wheel yet FFS but now they could settle and build.
All of which proves the need to revert to simple common law. If someone owns something, including land, he will always have to defend some person of liberal bent trying to take it. Like a beast in the woods takes and eats what he wants.
A liberal can find any asinine reason to convince us that they can be like those beasts in the woods.

moonbus
Über-Nerd (emeritus)

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8703
Clock
17 May 23
1 edit

@AverageJoe1

Property law is quite clear on this. Being in possession of stolen property is a crime, even if you’re not the one who stole it and do not know it was stolen. If N.N. steals something and sells it to a third party, and the rightful owner discovers that the third party is in possession of it, the rightful owner may sue the third party for its return. The fact that the third party is out of pocket is not the rightful owner’s concern. There is simply nothing to debate here.

AverageJoe1
Catch the Train 47!

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
54574
Clock
17 May 23

@moonbus said
@AverageJoe1

Property law is quite clear on this. Being in possession of stolen property is a crime, even if you’re not the one who stole it and do not know it was stolen. If N.N. steals something and sells it to a third party, and the rightful owner discovers that the third party is in possession of it, the rightful owner may sue the third party for its return. The fact t ...[text shortened]... party is out of pocket is not the rightful owner’s concern. There is simply nothing to debate here.
I am writing your name in the AVJOE LOGBOOK as a qualified poster. My list has shortened a bit, ref the child Mil Jovenes, aka thousand young in small letters. There are others who are not on it, so he will not be alone!!
Can you even fathom answering a very nice, poignant, thoughtful post as he did? It had 3 good issues. I make him about 14, what do you think?

AverageJoe1
Catch the Train 47!

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
54574
Clock
17 May 23

@moonbus said
@AverageJoe1

Property law is quite clear on this. Being in possession of stolen property is a crime, even if you’re not the one who stole it and do not know it was stolen. If N.N. steals something and sells it to a third party, and the rightful owner discovers that the third party is in possession of it, the rightful owner may sue the third party for its return. The fact t ...[text shortened]... party is out of pocket is not the rightful owner’s concern. There is simply nothing to debate here.
You know, re-reading this post reminds me of the erstwhile Marauder, (he willl be back), as he was smart and knows exactly what you have written, but it was not enough to just answer...as you did.
Thankyou.

moonbus
Über-Nerd (emeritus)

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8703
Clock
17 May 23

@AverageJoe1

Ta.

You’re right: The forums have gone downhill. Coincidentally, I’m reading Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire this week.

😆

AverageJoe1
Catch the Train 47!

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
54574
Clock
17 May 23

@moonbus said
@AverageJoe1

Ta.

You’re right: The forums have gone downhill. Coincidentally, I’m reading Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire this week.

😆
May never get to that one, it may fall to the synopsis version when I am 85-ish! As it happens I am preparing a book review for a Club, on Red Notice, page turner, like LeCarre, but true, and may be made a movie. Cheers

moonbus
Über-Nerd (emeritus)

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8703
Clock
17 May 23
1 edit

@AverageJoe1

I may not make it through all 3 volumes. It took about 1300 years …. But as I recently learned in another thread, Roman civil engineering still affects us today; even NASA rockets have a certain width because railroads have a certain width because Roman roads had a certain width which survived into the industrial age.

AverageJoe1
Catch the Train 47!

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
54574
Clock
17 May 23

@moonbus said
@AverageJoe1

I may not make it through all 3 volumes. It took about 1300 years …. But as I recently learned in another thread, Roman civil engineering still affects us today; even NASA rockets have a certain width because railroads have a certain width because Roman roads had a certain width which survived into the industrial age.
I'm strictly right-brain, but Sonhouse would be on this!!!!

Suzianne
Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
37387
Clock
17 May 23
Vote Up
Vote Down

@averagejoe1 said
This was on the 'Democrats are a Sorry Lot' thread. If this interests you, check out above that, my post where I had done my best to answer HIS post about an analogy he made, and he ruined that as well.
Don't let this guy waste one minute of your posting time.
So why are you spamming this across multiple threads?

AThousandYoung
1st Dan TKD Kukkiwon

tinyurl.com/2te6yzdu

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26756
Clock
17 May 23
Vote Up
Vote Down

@suzianne said
So why are you spamming this across multiple threads?
I must have hit a nerve. XoP

AThousandYoung
1st Dan TKD Kukkiwon

tinyurl.com/2te6yzdu

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26756
Clock
17 May 23
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@averagejoe1 said
I am writing your name in the AVJOE LOGBOOK as a qualified poster. My list has shortened a bit, ref the child Mil Jovenes, aka thousand young in small letters. There are others who are not on it, so he will not be alone!!
Can you even fathom answering a very nice, poignant, thoughtful post as he did? It had 3 good issues. I make him about 14, what do you think?


Considering I joined this site in 2004 I think you should think again about that.

Soothfast
0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,

☯️

Joined
04 Mar 04
Moves
2709
Clock
17 May 23
Vote Up
Vote Down

@moonbus said
@AverageJoe1

I may not make it through all 3 volumes. It took about 1300 years …. But as I recently learned in another thread, Roman civil engineering still affects us today; even NASA rockets have a certain width because railroads have a certain width because Roman roads had a certain width which survived into the industrial age.
I hope you're reading it mainly for the elegant prose, because many of Gibbon's analyses are quite outdated now. For example, his thesis that the Roman Empire fell because it adopted Christianity seems not to be accepted by modern scholars.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.