This is gonna get interesting! Militia takes over Ore. federal building after protest.

[Rob Roy]

Don't confuse fear with an unwillingness to get dragged into a philosophical debate that has a flawed premise at the beginning. It's a waste of our time.

*your time, none of us should deem to speak for others unless we have their permission.

 

[Rob Roy]

The argument has to deal with say... I don't have the right to rob my neighbor so then why does the government have the right to tax my neighbor? Well taxation and robbery are two very different things because of the social contract theory. There done with that argument.

Yet....you still avoided the question.

The "social contract" is a leap of rationalization, here let me show you...

The answer to my question is NO. No person or group of persons can delegate a right they do not possess. Mathematically that can be expressed as ZERO RIGHT.

If you and I and all of our neighbors all have ZERO right to do something as individuals, then the sum of all of our collective ZEROES is still zero.

It is impossible to refute what I just said.

 

[testiclees]

Yet....you still avoided the question.

The "social contract" is a leap of rationalization, here let me show you...

The answer to my question is NO. No person or group of persons can delegate a right they do not possess. Mathematically that can be expressed as ZERO RIGHT.

If you and I and all of our neighbors all have ZERO right to do something as individuals, then the sum of all of our collective ZEROES is still zero.

It is impossible to refute what I just said.

"what you just said" is a hollow turd that tripped out of your hollow head.



Again your 'logic' is so wincingly inept that in a couple of sentences it captures your signature tone of proud ignorance and juvenile frustration. Its more of your poetry!

Try giving a fuck about making sense. Your drivelings merit zero consideration.

'refute' lol you haven't got a single sound thought to start from.

"*your time, none of us should deem to speak for others unless we have their permission."

OUR time is right stand corrected clown

 

[pnwmystery]

Yet....you still avoided the question.

The "social contract" is a leap of rationalization, here let me show you...

The answer to my question is NO. No person or group of persons can delegate a right they do not possess. Mathematically that can be expressed as ZERO RIGHT.

If you and I and all of our neighbors all have ZERO right to do something as individuals, then the sum of all of our collective ZEROES is still zero.

It is impossible to refute what I just said.

Of course it's impossible and this is what I didn't want to get into. The argument begins with a logical fallacy and thus is not true.

Moreover if you want to make it political. What right? Which right? In some countries I may not posses a certain right while in others I do. Additionally sometimes I have implicit rights.

Once again the argument begins with a logical fallacy and a fundamental flaw. There's no point in arguing it.

 

[Rob Roy]

"what you just said" is a hollow turd that tripped out of your hollow head.


Again your 'logic' is so wincingly inept that in a couple of sentences it captures your signature tone of proud ignorance and juvenile frustration. Its more of your poetry!

Try giving a fuck about making sense. Your drivelings merits zero consideration.

'refute' lol you haven't got a single sound thought to start from.

 

[testiclees]

lol turds....your area of fluency

 

[OddBall1st]

Are they still holding the Federal Bird house or did they grow a set and go to the Federal Courthouse yet ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Of course it's impossible and this is what I didn't want to get into. The argument begins with a logical fallacy and thus is not true.

Moreover if you want to make it political. What right? Which right? In some countries I may not posses a certain right while in others I do. Additionally sometimes I have implicit rights.

Once again the argument begins with a logical fallacy and a fundamental flaw. There's no point in arguing it.

No, the argument REFUTES a fallacy, that of the so called "social contract" If you could make a point by arguing against it, you would.

Get your money back from your liberal arts school, they simply repeated what someone told them and never questioned it.




Here's the NEXT question you won't answer

Do government authorities have the moral right to do things which other non government people do not have ? If so, where and how do they acquire such a right?

 

[OddBall1st]

Are there children there as well or are they all Broke Backs ?

Someone must have details.......

 

[OddBall1st]

No, the argument REFUTES a fallacy, that of the so called "social contract" If you could make a point by arguing against it, you would.

Get your money back from your liberal arts school, they simply repeated what someone told them and never questioned it.




Here's the NEXT question you won't answer

Do government authorities have the moral right to do things which other non government people do not have ? If so, where and how do they acquire such a right?

Upon completetion of training and after they take the oath,...kinda like a SEAL but no so badass.

 

[Rob Roy]

lol turds....your area of fluency

Yes! You've got it...I talk shit, speak turd, have a working knowledge of crap and understand a smattering of caca and diarrhea. (eye roll)

What is your area of expertise, Mr. Impolite Gonad?

 

[Rob Roy]

Are there children there as well or are they all Broke Backs ?

Someone must have details.......

"what you just said" is a hollow turd that tripped out of your hollow head.



Again your 'logic' is so wincingly inept that in a couple of sentences it captures your signature tone of proud ignorance and juvenile frustration. Its more of your poetry!

Try giving a fuck about making sense. Your drivelings merit zero consideration.

'refute' lol you haven't got a single sound thought to start from.

"*your time, none of us should deem to speak for others unless we have their permission."

OUR time is right stand corrected clown

I apologize for not knowing you have the authority to speak for everyone else. If I'd only known. How did you get that right Gonad?

 

[pnwmystery]

No, the argument REFUTES a fallacy, that of the so called "social contract" If you could make a point by arguing against it, you would.

Get your money back from your liberal arts school, they simply repeated what someone told them and never questioned it.




Here's the NEXT question you won't answer

Do government authorities have the moral right to do things which other non government people do not have ? If so, where and how do they acquire such a right?

I did make several points which draw your premise and conclusion into question. You've made no point that refutes social contract. Social contract has many facets to it. It deals with natural and legal rights and the exchange of protection for the remaining rights, and the granting of rights that one would normally not have in a state without government. Once again which rights are we talking about? All rights? Implicit? Explicit? Natural? Legal?

This is pseudo intellectual bullshit that Libertarians love to tout and sit there with a smug smile on their face saying "Yeah I got them." When they're not realizing that they're beginning an argument with a logical fallacy or a fundamental flaw to their argument. just like the pseudo intellectual bullshit known as the "natural man" where some idiot tries to get tried in a Maritime Court because somehow a US court does not have jurisdiction over them when they are in fact in he United States.

It's like in Big Daddy. Do you want to play a game? It's called I Win. The rules are I Win.

 

[Rob Roy]

Upon completetion of training and after they take the oath,...kinda like a SEAL but no so badass.

I'm sorry I haven't been drinking therefore it's a little hard to follow your incoherent thoughts.

 

[OddBall1st]

I'm sorry I haven't been drinking therefore it's a little hard to follow your incoherent thoughts.

Well drink up........

 

[pnwmystery]

Oh yeah social contract is a fallacy? Why because you say so? What gives YOU the authority to say that? Lol

 

[Rob Roy]

I did make several points which draw your premise and conclusion into question. You've made no point that refutes social contract. Social contract has many facets to it. It deals with natural and legal rights and the exchange of protection for the remaining rights, and the granting of rights that one would normally not have in a state without government. Once again which rights are we talking about? All rights? Implicit? Explicit? Natural? Legal?

This is pseudo intellectual bullshit that Libertarians love to tout and sit there with a smug smile on their face saying "Yeah I got them." When they're not realizing that they're beginning an argument with a logical fallacy or a fundamental flaw to their argument. just like the pseudo intellectual bullshit known as the "natural man" where some idiot tries to get tried in a Maritime Court because somehow a US court does not have jurisdiction over them when they are in fact in he United States.

It's like in Big Daddy. Do you want to play a game? It's called I Win. The rules are I Win.

Thanks for the lesson on the social contract, it wasn't necessary, but thanks anyway.

So I have an idea, we'll agree that we can use phrases or illogical arguments rather than demonstrable arguments to argue our positions.

Okay you go first....

pnwmystery - "Social contract ! I WIN!!!

Rob Roy - "Damn...you sound like government now..."

 

[Rob Roy]

Oh yeah social contract is a fallacy? Why because you say so? What gives YOU the authority to say that? Lol

I demonstrated the evidence mathematically for you a few posts back, you haven't refuted it yet. (and can't)

 

[Rob Roy]

Oh yeah social contract is a fallacy? Why because you say so? What gives YOU the authority to say that? Lol

No, because LOGIC says so.

If any of us are our own masters (and we all SHOULD BE) then the right becomes self evident. Further to be our own master, also implies none of us are the master of OTHERS.

Since we agree that none of us as individuals have the right to impose on others it can ONLY follow that none of us within a group can create a right for the group which none of us as individuals possess.

 

[pnwmystery]

I demonstrated the evidence mathematically for you a few posts back, you haven't refuted it yet. (and can't)

Actually I did refute it with an example. Then I showed how the example is flawed, thus the argument is flawed. Once again, I'll repeat it. If government can tax me, and I cannot take money from my neighbor, then why can government tax me? This is a logical fallacy, moreover it ignores the fact that taxation and robbery are two very fundamentally different things. It's an unsound argument.

Moreover you can't say what rights you're talking about. That's the fundamental flaw. Is it ANY right? Theoretically? Is it a natural right? An implicit right? A legal right? An explicit right? Are we talking about say the right to tax? Or my right to freedom?

No, because LOGIC says so.

If any of us are our own masters (and we all SHOULD BE) then the right becomes self evident. Further to be our own master, also implies none of us are the master of OTHERS.

Since we agree that none of us as individuals have the right to impose on others it can ONLY follow that none of us within a group can create a right for the group which none of us as individuals possess.

Your argument contains a logical fallacy. If we're going to discuss philosophy and math, then from the get go your argument is invalid because it begins with a logical fallacy. I don't think you've ever studied logic, otherwise you'd know this. Not to mention the slew of informal fallacies and the one or two conditional/questionable fallacy.