Libertarianism in One Sentence

[palerider]

I knew a storm was brewing. Damn Boys im in love!!! T-B Hot damn have you really bloomed throughout your learning I am
impressed with your new found vigor!! A gal after my heart
you have come a verry long way in a relative short time. you have surpassed me in your Quest.

Name calling and hurled insult represents a blooming of learning? Thus far, she hasn't philosophically defended libertarianism against a single charge that I have made. She has completely failed to prove in any way that the seeds of literal slavery lie within the libertarian philosophy.

If you mean that she has become a better name caller than you, then yes, you are right. She is a great name caller but intellectually, she has brought a knife to a gun fight because name calling is no substitute for intelligent debate.

Bring the truth like you always do

Which truth? What truth has she brought?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You're living in a democracy now,

Even your thread buddy, Shetland Pony Rider knows that's not true. And I agree with him on that:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3115

Parties are driven by, obviously, the need for political gain; we are driven by personal morals and ideals. If you are suggesting that we're corrupt in some way, I'd like to know how posting on an internet politics forum is going to deliver to us any type of corrupt gain.

I am suggesting that you will compromise your principles for political expediency, and you readily demonstrate that if you vote for Republicans and Democrats.

I don't see an answer to how the government holds accountable those who violate its laws in there anywhere.

Oh, it's there, but I'll simplify it further on the next reply.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You didn't answer my question. How does the government hold accountable those who violate your principles?

I did answer your question, but I'll simplify it further: Via law enforcement and the court system. The same way those who violated the law were held accountable under Thomas Jefferson's administration.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Rolling on the floor laughing again? Is that how you typically avoid arguments?

No, that's how I typically respond when reading your nonsense. If you don't want me to laugh, then stop typing things that are utterly stupid.

Do you know the definition of an ad homenim attack? Do you believe that what I said was one? If so, you are wrong. An ad homenim attack is a personal attack in lieu of an actual argument. I clearly made an actual argument in pointing out that most scientific experiments fail. Then I pointed out that a thinking adult wouldn't suggest "experimenting" with something like a national economy and legal system.

Once again, you are lying. As anyone can go back on this thread and see, your ad hominem attacks against libertarians began well before your statement about scientific experiments - which was a fallacious argument anyway. So we have ANOTHER PROVEN LIE on your part. Again, are we actually supposed to take you seriously? Is that what you actually want? You need to start taking your meds again...

Do you believe shouting makes a thing true?

No. But apparently you believe your lies are true. Again, you really need to take some time off and go see a therapist. You have some serious mental issues.

The truth makes a thing true. If you only accept the scientific method, then Thomas Jefferson performed the tax experiment and it failed.

Another lie. It didn't fail. The United States became extremely prosperous and Americans were the richest people in the world at the time with the greatest opportunities to improve their financial situations. The government was easily funded by tariff revenues. And Jefferson was re-elected by a large majority. The successors in his political party went on to win several elections by staying true to his limited government principles.

You do know, don't you, that it is insane to repeat the same experiment again expecting different results?

It would also be insane to keep repeating the same nonsense and lies over and over again, yet you keep doing it. So does that mean you're insane?

And more name calling? Do you believe that bolsters your position? You must be very young and quite immature if you believe it is cute.

You started it, Shetland pony rider. As I told you, I'm going to give as good as I get.

Do you believe for a second that the results of an economic experiment carried out on a very small scale like a town or a county would be valid when applied to a system as large and complex as the entire US?

No, Pale Fraud, I don't. That's why I specifically mentioned that with each successive experiment you would increase the area size. Again, you argue against only what you want to misquote - that's a STRAW MAN.

Calling names and hurling insult in lieu of actual argument isn't helping your case here.

My case needs no help. You're the one getting trounced. I'm just also letting you know you're a *****. That's not calling you a name. That's just stating a fact. Someone needs to let you know. 'Cause whoever told you you were smart - THEY LIED.

So far, you have neither pointed out a lie, distortion, or fallacy on my part. Simply saying a thing doesn't make it true. If this represents actual argument in your mind, you are sadly mistaken.

You are the one who is sadly DELUSIONAL, as you've only presented distortions and fallacies. As I said, GO SEE A THERAPIST.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

To begin with, if you believe bush is a conservative then you know nothing of conservative principles and if you believe that any of these things represent them, you lack basic knowledge of conservative philosophy.

I don't believe Bush is a conservative, but BUSH SAYS HE IS A CONSERVATIVE. So is he stupid or a liar?

Why would a conservative such as yourself vote for Bush if he's not a conservative and you know he's not? Are you saying you'll compromise your principles?

Who ever said that bush is a conservative?

HE DID!!!!!!!! Hello!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, is he stupid or a liar???

He is a republican. Do you believe the party platform of the republicans represents the conservative philosophy? Is that what you believe? It is clear that you are not armed for a philosophical debate.

No, I don't believe that - but if they don't represent conservatism, and you call yourself a conservative, why do you support them?????? Is it because you're a sell out? LOL.

By the way, I noticed you didn't even attempt to defend any of the government actions I posted that have happened under your darling Republicans.

Childish, and not an actual argument at all. What lie have I told? What fraud have I perpetrated?

Numerous ones...as I continue to demonstrate. Saying it didn't happen doesn't mean you didn't lie. And you're the childish one my friend, cause you can't own up to your own distortions and deception.

So your argument is that you are smarter than 99% of the population? The case you have made for yourself so far doesn't reflect that. Name calling and avoidance of points put to you doesn't make you look smart....or cute.

No, that is not my argument, *****. When are you going to stop with these distortions??? My rebuttal refuted your false assertion that lack of support by the vast majority means libertarianism must be flawed, or not worthy of support, or any other negative point you're trying to put forward. As I proved, support of an idea by the vast majority does not mean the idea is true, based solely on the support of the vast majority.

The vast majority of people also believe in many bizarre religious systems that cannot be proven true by any scientific or verifiable means.

Again, you lost that point...as you've lost all of them...now lie about it like you always do.

The people who believed the world was flat were uneducated, and had no frame of reference that would suggest to them that the world was any more than what they could see with their eyes. Hardly analogous to what people think of a political philosophy.

They are both belief systems - so they are analgous. Whenever anyone challenged the flat earth belief or that the universe revolved around the earth - they were ridiculed, threatened and/or shouted down by people like you. When you will stop trying to distort the truth once your argument has been beaten?

If your argument is that we are literal slaves of the state, it fails because in order to be a literal slave, one must be owned by another.

As I said before, there can be de facto ownership without actual legal ownership. And there can also be de facto partial ownership.

So your argument is that we are figurative slaves of the state and is therefore based on nothing more than sarcasm?

It's based on the fact that over 50% of the vast majority's income is taken from them at gunpoint if necessary and we basically have to ask the government's permission to do all manner of peaceful and/or honest behavior. And in addition, we continue to lose freedoms in this country at a slow but steady pace.

This defends your position, or proves your point how? Namecalling is a poor substitute for actual debate.

I'm not calling you a name. I'm telling you a fact. You're a *****. That is verifiable by the nonsense you've posted on this thread.

Proved what?

I proved that the dictionary definitions I supplied refuted that your description of slavery was not complete and not the only valid definition. I told you it was your job to refute those definitions if you claimed they were false. Since you ignored them, it's obvious that YOU CAN'T DO THAT. So, again, please stop trying to defraud the good people of this forum by failing to address the argument at hand and acting as if it didn't happen. What a nut job you are...

You haven't philosophically, or scientifically proved anything. You have called names a lot and said that you are right a lot, but have yet to prove anything.

Shetland pony rider, you need to learn that DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt...

The nature of conservativism "must be"? Is that an admission that you don't actually know the tenets of conservative philosophy?

CHRIST!!! Is there anything you won't distort??? ROTFL. I just threw your own "point" back at you as a joke...and you're so desperate for some type of gain against me, you pick it up and try to run with it... Hilarious! You really need to get a life, Shetland pony rider.

Yeah, and partial pregnancy is also the joining of two valid terms. Often two valid terms can't be jointed to create one valid concept. Either one is a slave and is owned by another or one is not. A slave does not have the option to leave his situation unless he flees illegally. Any of us has the option to leave any time we choose and therefore we are not even partial slaves.

I just did.

No you didn't. You proved that two valid terms can be joined that WON'T create a valid concept, such as "partial pregnancy." However, you did not refute the logic that one can be a de facto partial slave if half of one's income and/or property is taken by threat of force from another. And that's the real point in question.

And your definition that "A slave does not have the option to leave his situation unless he flees illegally" does not accurately reflect the definitions I provided earlier - so your point is ONCE AGAIN...fallacious. And by the way the U.S. is the only country in the world that taxes it's citizens if they leave and go to other countries - and it also forbids anyone from renouncing their citizenship for the purposes of avoiding taxation - so it seems massa can still take our money even if we're off the plantation.

By choosing to live here, you freely give over whatever percentage of your income that the government requires.

So if you were born in an area with 100% taxation, you would support staying there and continuing to work and pay 100% of your income in taxes because that's what the government wanted you to do? Is that your position?

If all the governments on earth then passed a law saying that each citizen had to murder one child under the age of 5 once per year, would you do it since you "chose to live there"?

Do you believe that you can join a country club, or any other organization and have free use of the facilities and priveledges associated with it and not pay the dues?

Fallacious comparison: When someone joins a country club, they do so KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY. Your local country club can't send armed men to your home to make you pay the club dues if you don't want to join their club. But government can send armed men to your home and force you to be a part of their "club." You seem to be trying to spout the "Social Contract" nonsense. All contracts have to be entered into KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY in order to be valid.

If you want to be part of a society, then you, by default, are obligated to pay the dues the society has associated with membership in the society. There is no free lunch.

There is no society - that's the reificiation fallacy.

Now lie to everyone again and tell them you haven't made any fallacious arguments.

You pathetic lying fraud.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

(continuation)
Many people support pieces of the libertarian philosophy.

Why do many people support pieces of a philosophy you claim is flawed, Shetland pony rider? LOL.

Few embrace libertarian philosophy because it is terribly flawed and that is why libertarians get such a small percentage of the vote.

Once again, this "argument" of yours has already been proven fallacious. And yet here you are, erroneously stating it again as if nothing happened... Like I said, DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt...

As I said in the previous post:

"My rebuttal refuted your false assertion that lack of support by the vast majority means libertarianism must be flawed, or not worthy of support, or any other negative point you're trying to put forward. As I proved, support of an idea by the vast majority does not mean the idea is true, based solely on the support of the vast majority."

Reflect on your incessant name calling and ask yourself how much you believe you have influenced anyone to seriously consider a philosophy such as yours.

There has been no name calling. I have described you accurately. Reflect on your numerous lies, distortions and fallacious arguments and ask yourself how much you believe you have influenced anyone here to take you seriously. You're a joke.

You repeat ad hominem over and over but don't seem to know what it means. Like slavery.

Like when you ignored valid definitions of slavery I presented that supported my position and proved my point instead of yours? LOL.

Sorry, responding in a manner that doesn't answer the specific question put to you doesn't constitute an answer.

I just proved your earlier statement that "Everyone you have talked to?" was a lie since only one other individual made that claim in this thread. And then you had to lie about that as well... LOL.

Which logicl falacies? Which lies?

ROTFL... DENIAL, DENIAL, DENIAL. They've already been presented, and I'm sure more are to come.

If I can claim ownership of myself, then I am, by default, property. Anyting that can be owned is property. I own various property that you have no claim to unless I owe you a debt, and then you may lay claim to whatever I own in payment of that debt. If I, myself, am the property of myself, and you may lay claim to whatever I own in payment of debt, then you may lay claim to me as well.

See, that's what the INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE/PEONAGE laws corrected though. So that one person may not be taken as the property of another. If you want to define yourself as property, then you are only property IN RELATION TO YOUR SELF-OWNERSHIP as far as the libertarian philosophy is concerned.

Are you really this stupid? Has this been your point all along???

So is the concept that you own yourself. You may not sell your body parts, you may not sell yourself in payment of any debt. Therefore, self ownership is illegal.

You may not sell body parts in our current legal system, because the government is usurping your rights of self-ownership and threatening you with force if you attempt to exercise those rights of self-ownership.

You may not sell yourself as payment of any debt because that would be considered involuntary servitude and/or peonage since a monetary/debt transaction would take place and form the basis of the decision. That would make the person holding you guilty of a crime. That would apply in the current system and in a libertarian system.

But you can voluntarily agree to be a servant if there is no debt at issue and no money exchanges hand and if you agree to work for no compensation - which is legal in the current system as voluntary servitude.

But we are not talking about the current legal system. We are talking about the potential of a libertarian legal system.

Oh, we are indeed talking about the current legal system, because what you're falsely claiming will be a problem in a libertarian legal system is already legal now....and it's not a problem.

The fact that it isn't happening now is because we are not operating under the libertarian view of what is and is not legal.

ROTLFMAO. This has been one entertaining encounter. Never in my life have I met someone on a forum so completely in denial. Wow.

As I said, the voluntary servitude that you were fearmongering about is completely legal in our present system, and since it isn't happening now, that means your argument is dead. Since, in a libertarian system, slavery and involuntary servitude will also continue to be illegal.

If you can't do any better than calling names and making baseles claims, then you really should cut and run while you can. It is neither intelligent, nor cute. I know young girls like to be cute, but you are failing here. Either debate the issue or hang it up.

By Jove, I've got it! Your ability to remain in complete and total denial must mean that you're a politician!

 

[Truth-Bringer]

One in alaska and one in new hampshire (a state that libertarians had plans to invade and take over). In how many years? Hardly a feat worth crowing about.

Oh, I'm not "crowing" about anything. I posted that only as proof that your earlier statement on page 3 of this thread that "A political group that can't get elected to any office higher than city council and dog catcher..." WAS A LIE.

So far, you haven't pointed out a single lie that I have told.

LOL. See above...among numerous others. You are in denial, Shetland pony rider. And you're a pathetic liar.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

There is threat of force if you belong to any organization and fail to live by its rules and bylaws.

Again, an erroneous comparison because there is no choice where government is concerned. Government claims to have power over you at birth. It gives you no choice in the matter. And in our system, the government won't allow you to leave if you seek to escape taxes, so there is no choice as far as having your money/property stolen.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

you have made the claim that I have lied and made logical falacies but have yet to point out any.

Guess again, Sherlock... LOL.

I have control of my actions and may make choices within certain boundries.

Who determines the boundaries? Libertarians say people have a right to control all of their actions as long as those actions are peaceful, honest and voluntary. The only time government steps in is if people initiate violence, fraud or coercion to prevent other people from living their lives in peaceful, honest, and/or voluntary manner.

Under what authority do you claim the right to limit the peaceful, honest, and or voluntary actions of other human beings as long as they're not interfering with your rights? By majority vote?

Having control over a thing doesn't constitute ownership of a thing. We do not own ourselves because human beings are not property to be owned. This is the major flaw within libertarianism.

The definition presented is of course just one possible definition. Since you seem to be incapable of doing anything other than obfuscating and distorting the argument though, I'll just stick with my statement above and let you answer those questions. We'll reframe the debate to try and simplify things further.

de facto - in fact; in reality. In reality, no one owns me. Ownership of human beings is illegal because human beings are not property.

LOL. Are you simple? I was using de facto as a rebuttal to your legality statement. You are obviously unaware of the difference between the concepts of de facto and de jure.

I can't sell my body parts, because they are not my property. If they were property, then not only could I sell them, but someone else could claim them in payment of debt or damage. Human beings are not property. To suggest that we are is to suggest that ownership of ourselves could be transferred to someone else thus making us a literal slave. The paradox of libertarianism raises its ugly head again.

Again, you have to distort the base definition. One possible base defintion of Libertarianism is that OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR PROPERTY. So what does that mean? IT MEANS NO HUMAN CAN OWN ANOTHER HUMAN. You're the one using distortion and obfuscation to try and muddy the waters, but my point remains: A HUMAN BEING CAN ONLY BE CLASSIFIED AS PROPERTY SOLELY IN RELATION TO SELF-OWNERSHIP AND ONLY IN REGARDS TO SELF-OWNERSHIP.

By who? Are you unaware that our government is we the people.

No, our government is not "we the people" you clueless twit.

We the people decide what one may and may not do if one wants to be a member of society. To say that you must pay taxes to support the society doesn't make you a slave, it is only a statement of what you must accept if you want to be a member of this society. You are perfectly free to go somewhere else if this society doesn't suit you. And we as a society give the lawmakers the right. Lawmakers are elected by the citizens. Don't you know how our government works?

I think I'm beginning to understand. Let me see if I have this right... So if the majority elected lawmakers and they made a law that each citizen had to kill one child under the age of 5 once per year and that no one could leave the country to avoid this obligation, you're saying you would kill a child under the age of 5 once per year and comply with the wishes of the "we the people"?

Do you believe that you are the property of a country club that you might join just because they expect for you to pay dues?

No, because the country club can't treat me like property. They can't send armed goons to my house to keep me from leaving the club if I don't want to pay the dues. But government can do this...

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Which truth? What truth has she brought?

The kind that just kicked your lying fraud ass all to pieces.

 

[palerider]

Why do many people support pieces of a philosophy you claim is flawed, Shetland pony rider? LOL.

Are you arguing that you don't support a single tenet of conservative philosophy? How about the liberal philosophy? Are you saying that you don't support a single tenet? Do you know the tenets of either? For that matter, do you know the tenets of libertarian philosophy?

Your response to that statement is a very clear indication that you have little knowledge of any philosophy, including your own. There are elements of libertarian philosophy that are brought directly from conservative philosophy and elements that are brought directly from liberal philosophy. The problem with libertarian philosophy is not the individual tenets which overlap both conservative and liberal philosophy. The problem with libertarian philosophy is that it has a paradox within it and no philosophy that holds a paradox is worthy of serious consideration. If, in following your philosophy, you inevetably become that which your philosophy vigorously stands against, the philosophy is not worthy of serious consideration.

Lets look at what I mean and see if I can get you to understand.

First lets look at one aspect (among many) of liberal philosophy and the paradox within it that renders it unworthy as a serious political philosophy. Modern liberalism makes equal freedom a political criterion (a concept that I can get completely behind). Their attempt to make freedom dominant leads them to a contradiction and thus a paradox. Liberals call for live and let live and they enforce it by supervising everything. In thier pursuit of freedom, they have given bureaucrats the power to try to reconstruct human nature. Liberalism tries to present itself as the political philosophy of the people, but it reserves the right to make them into whatever it sees fit. Doing this is the antithesis of what liberalism claims to want. In essence, liberalism has become the thing that it claims to hate, ie. tyranical.

Libertarianism also makes equal freedom a political touchstone does it not? In libertarianism however there is the concept of self ownership. Since whatever one can own, must be accurately described as property, the idea makes property of human beings. Libertarians argue that we own ourselves, but anything that we own can be bought or sold to another or lost to another in payment of a debt or damage. The paradox of libertarianism is that it claims to be the philosophy of ultimate personal freedom but within it lie the seeds of both voluntary and involuntary slavery thus laying the groundwork for the realization of a thing that it claims to hate, ie. slavery.

Both liberalism and libertarianism hold equal freedom in high regard so why are you not a liberal? You hold tenets of liberalism, but you are not a liberal. How can you support pieces of a political philosophy that you think is flawed? Clearly you have some problem with liberalism or you would be a liberal and not a libertarian.

Do you see what has happened here? You have completely lost the point. This is the nature of debate. I could have cut and pasted till the cows come home and could not have proved that you were simply wrong in your proposition that one can't support pieces of a philosophy that they find flawed.

What just happened here, truth bringer, is that you have been rightly and truely owned. The preceeding is what it looks like, for future reference. Note that it didn't involve cutting and pasting, or calling names, or gratuitous insults, it simply consisted of my putting forward a rational argument that is too powerful for you to effectively rebut.

Once again, this "argument" of yours has already been proven fallacious. And yet here you are, erroneously stating it again as if nothing happened... Like I said, DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt...

You claimed to prove it but you never actually offered any proof.

As I said in the previous post:

"My rebuttal refuted your false assertion that lack of support by the vast majority means libertarianism must be flawed, or not worthy of support, or any other negative point you're trying to put forward. As I proved, support of an idea by the vast majority does not mean the idea is true, based solely on the support of the vast majority."

This doesn't constitute proof of anything. Your rebuttal was little more than name calling and insult hurling. My answer to your first point in this post is what a rebuttal looks like.

There has been no name calling. I have described you accurately. Reflect on your numerous lies, distortions and fallacious arguments and ask yourself how much you believe you have influenced anyone here to take you seriously. You're a joke.

OK. Here is where I rightly call you a liar, and will use cut and paste to prove it. These are all quotes from you:

"Sometimes they actually do lie, Shetland pony rider."

"No, you lying fraud. "

"What a complete and total fraud you are."

"You might need to seek out a good therapist... "

"You are one pathetic little lying dweeb."

"When I tell you to go pick up a dictionary and read it, you abject *****, you better listen to me.

"You are one seriously stupid fool, aren't you?"

I could continue, but it is really unnecessary. Once again, you have been rightly and truely owned. Look at it closely so that you might remember what it looks like. You made a claim that there has been no name calling and here are your very own words that make a liar of you.

Like when you ignored valid definitions of slavery I presented that supported my position and proved my point instead of yours? LOL.

I didn't ignore your definitions. I pointed out that there is literal slavery in which one is actually the property of another and that there is figurative slavery which is in essence a characature of slavery and has its roots in sarcasm. I asked you if when you suggested that we are slaves of the government if you were saying that we were literal slaves in which case, it is easily proved that we are not or whether your argument was that we are figurative slaves in which case your argument was based in sarcasm and thus not worthy of serious consideration.

You dodged the question and never answered.

I just proved your earlier statement that "Everyone you have talked to?" was a lie since only one other individual made that claim in this thread. And then you had to lie about that as well... LOL.

See, that's what the INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE/PEONAGE laws corrected though. So that one person may not be taken as the property of another. If you want to define yourself as property, then you are only property IN RELATION TO YOUR SELF-OWNERSHIP as far as the libertarian philosophy is concerned.

So are you arguing that you don't actually believe that we "own" ourselves? Was that a figurative argument as well?

You may not sell body parts in our current legal system, because the government is usurping your rights of self-ownership and threatening you with force if you attempt to exercise those rights of self-ownership.

Here you seem to be arguing for literal ownership of the self and literal ownership implies property since anything that we own is rightly defined as property.

You may not sell yourself as payment of any debt because that would be considered involuntary servitude and/or peonage since a monetary/debt transaction would take place and form the basis of the decision. That would make the person holding you guilty of a crime. That would apply in the current system and in a libertarian system.

Either I am property or I am not. If I own myself, and may rightly sell my property to someone then I may sell myself into literal slavery. By the same token, if a thing that is legal property is put up for sale, anyone who has the resources to buy it, may do so. If I literally own myself, then I am legal property. Again, if you are talking figuratively, the whole argument is moot. Note however, that under the libertarian philosophy, literal ownership is implied.

As I said, the voluntary servitude that you were fearmongering about is completely legal in our present system, and since it isn't happening now, that means your argument is dead. Since, in a libertarian system, slavery and involuntary servitude will also continue to be illegal.

There is a difference between servitude and slavery. And we are not talking about our present legal system, we are talking about what the legal system would look like under libertarian rule.

 

[palerider]

LOL. See above...among numerous others. You are in denial, Shetland pony rider. And you're a pathetic liar.

I asked for you to point out a specific lie. Thus far, you have not done that. I, however, clearly proved that you are a liar.

 

[palerider]

The kind that just kicked your lying fraud ass all to pieces.

I don't know what constitutes winning a discussion in your mind, but to date, you have not won a single point. Feel free to invite the administration, or anyone else in to judge.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Shetland pony rider said:
"In order to be a libertarian, you have to believe in a universal spirit of good will among human beings. As such, like thinking individuals would form private syndicates to protect their rights and security against others. If a universal spirit of good will existed among human beings, this would be a fine and dandy solution to individual security. The fact is, however, that no such universal spirit of good will exists,"

I replied:
If people are evil, then a "government" consisting of people will ipso facto also be evil.

And Shetland pony rider rode out of town as fast as he could...

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I asked for you to point out a specific lie. Thus far, you have not done that. I, however, clearly proved that you are a liar.

Like I said, you're in denial. Here they come: