Ignoring 'The' Argument

If a regular joe can figure it out, why can't our experts?

Lady Justice holds the scales of equitable justice. However, in the Crown Corporation’s courts, the scales represent the balance of proof, and the ability to tip these scales either way does not necessarily equate to justice.

When considering the title, two concepts come to mind. Avoidance — a band-aid solution to your insistence that difficult conversations are equitable to conflict. As you are averse to conflict, you decide that the best solution is to construct an umbrella out of lies and ignorance and treat uncomfortable truths like the hail you need to avoid. For this article, we will focus on concept two; wherein one decides to use every argument other than the one that appears most effective.

When the Crown’s Media retards attacked Voices For Freedom, I wrote an article defending them. Within this argument was an Easter egg, a clue to help them find the undefeatable argument.

An undefeatable argument is an argument that points out how an opponent’s argument defeats itself. Unfortunately, I did not know the undefeatable argument to the COVID-19 Response Policies at the time. Yet, I had hoped that the legal minds that Voices For Freedom collected and funded would have figured it out. Sadly, they have not, and that argument still evades them or has been swept under the rug. Even with Chantelle Baker and Ashleigh the Advocate, the undefeatable argument still eludes those who reach the most with their “voices of freedom.”

Ashleigh Fechney is Ashleigh, the Advocate; she has been popularised as an expert for COVID-19 grievances by Chantelle Baker. However, like most lawyers, she refuses to even look at the most straightforward argument against the COVID-19 Response framework, even when handed to her.

Most would be shocked to know that our people have been amongst Voices For Freedom and “Conservative” networks informing them of this argument as far back as before the Parliament Occupation. We have proof that it works, and businesses like Kauri Fonterra, who employ their own safety standard experts, have avoided consenting to mandates entirely. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist (or a lawyer) to comprehend this argument; it’s so simple that you’ll punch yourself in the face for not thinking of it yourself.

It’s all in this article; argue against the hierarchy of controls, the safety standards, and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 at your peril. If you can’t comprehend this argument, you probably shouldn’t be a lawyer, a legislator, or a judge.

Not comprehending this argument should disqualify you from claiming you’re a law expert. There is no excuse for this level of stupidity and ignorance, nor for the persistent “late to the party” behaviour our “populist” women continue to indulge in to this day. So, if we refuse to believe that it’s simply stupidity and ignorance, we must use Carl Gustav Jung’s famous dicta to figure out what else may be occurring. If you can’t understand why someone did something, look at the consequences and infer the motivation.

The motivation I am about to propose to you is something I would never do; it’s not in my nature or my training. I am one hell of a shot and shoot between the eyes in everything I do. Political types advocate for the “reeling in of the enemy,” a concept that involves allowing the enemy to chip away until the crimes are mounted so high that the mob screams for their blood at the close. They believe this will cement their crimes into the psyche of the survivors, creating a concrete lesson for those who survive. It’s a very well-constructed point, but it’s likely a crock of shit because that’s not the only thing that comes from dragging the fight out.

Money and prestige come with it too.

If you could win the argument in one fell swoop, you would reduce the amount of money you can make from your supporters, you would reduce the amount of time you could profit on the issue, and the amount of prestige you would garner from those who suffer from it. If more die or suffer and you’re the one who has garnered the benefits of their martyrdom, then your image will echo into eternity. So why would a prideful “freedom fighter” drunk off the small amount of fame they have garnered so far, fight to win quickly? They wouldn’t, which may be why they still fail to use the most obvious and undefeatable argument.

Why is the system that relies on our energy to function so cumbersome? Because they drag out their job so they can make out that their job is more complicated than it actually is. Unfortunately, our team's Bourgeoise behaves like this, too; what a coincidence!