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

pnwmystery said:
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.
Click to expand...


*your time, none of us should deem to speak for others unless we have their permission.
 
pnwmystery said:
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. :D
Click to expand...


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.
 
Rob Roy said:
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.
Click to expand...
"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
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
testiclees 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 merits zero consideration.

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


th
 
pnwmystery 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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Rob Roy said:
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?
Click to expand...


Upon completetion of training and after they take the oath,...kinda like a SEAL but no so badass.
 
OddBall1st said:
Are there children there as well or are they all Broke Backs ?

Someone must have details.......
Click to expand...
testiclees 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
Click to expand...


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?
 
Rob Roy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
pnwmystery said:
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.
Click to expand...


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..."
 
pnwmystery said:
Oh yeah social contract is a fallacy? Why because you say so? What gives YOU the authority to say that? Lol
Click to expand...


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.
 
Rob Roy said:
I demonstrated the evidence mathematically for you a few posts back, you haven't refuted it yet. (and can't)
Click to expand...

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?

Rob Roy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

vostok
Oregon: Armed protest at US wildlife building
Replies
5
Views
354
Harrekin
Harrekin
Finshaggy
Occupy
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
Finshaggy
Finshaggy
Back
Top