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

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
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?



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.
Click to expand...

So if I declare myself to be a "government" I can take other peoples stuff and its NOT robbery?
 
testiclees

testiclees

Well-Known Member
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...
wisdom gleaned form summer study at creation camp?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
testiclees said:
wisdom gleaned form summer study at creation camp?
Click to expand...

Please focus on getting your insults a little more on point and relevant. I know you're trying, but dammit man, we'll lose our audience if that's all you're gonna give me to work with.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So if I declare myself to be a "government" I can take other peoples stuff and its NOT robbery?
Click to expand...
Lol oh ffs you're still ignoring the fact that robbery and taxation are fundamentally different things not only in the way they're conducted but also on what they are.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So if I declare myself to be a "government" I can take other peoples stuff and its NOT robbery?
Click to expand...

No numbnuts if you were Elected to the position and showed their stuff is in non compliance. Nobody is given a lawmaker status.

Why do you think they are ? Who told you that ? bring them here, I`ll rip `em a new one.......
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
Lol oh ffs you're still ignoring the fact that robbery and taxation are fundamentally different things not only in the way they're conducted but also on what they are.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not ignoring it, I'm not agreeing with it, because it is false. Since you can't disprove what I said regarding people delegating rights they don't possess, you are caught in a cognitive dissonance moment. That's okay I do it to people alot, you're not alone.

Your contradiction kicks in when you attempt to rationalize that a group of people can acquire or possess rights that none within the group possess, therefore they CANNOT confer something they don't have. You admitted already you couldn't refute that.

Your argument is in YOUR head. It consists of what you think you know (that which you were told) and what is real, what I have just told you.

Actors within government ARE PEOPLE, NOT SUPER BEINGS. They do not possess and cannot posses any more right than another person has.

Government is a scam. If government ISN'T just a bunch of posers, prove to me that it is not comprised of individual people.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
OddBall1st said:
No numbnuts if you were Elected to the position and showed their stuff is in non compliance. Nobody is given a lawmaker status.

Why do you think they are ? Who told you that ? bring them here, I`ll rip `em a new one.......
Click to expand...

Now you are suffering from a superman complex. Good job! You are drinking enough now.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No, I'm not ignoring it, I'm not agreeing with it, because it is false. Since you can't disprove what I said regarding people delegating rights they don't possess, you are caught in a cognitive dissonance moment. That's okay I do it to people alot, you're not alone.

Your contradiction kicks in when you attempt to rationalize that a group of people can acquire or possess rights that none within the group possess, therefore they CANNOT confer something they don't have. You admitted already you couldn't refute that.

Your argument is in YOUR head. It consists of what you think you know (that which you were told) and what is real, what I have just told you.

Actors within government ARE PEOPLE, NOT SUPER BEINGS. They do not possess and cannot posses any more right than another person has.

Government is a scam. If government ISN'T just a bunch of posers, prove to me that it is not comprised of individual people.
Click to expand...
Yet you cannot enumerate WHAT rights we're talking about. Once more, your argument begins with a logical fallacy and ends with one. The premise does not follow logically because the statement proves the statement. At one point, you as an individual did not have a right to own land. That has changed, has it not? At another point in history, you as an individual did not have a right to make a decision for yourself, and that has changed has it not? At one point, you did not have a right to own a book - it could be punishable by death. At one point, you did not have a right to read or write because you could not. Jews did not have the right to own land in Medieval Europe, that's now changed, Jews can own land.

We could very much well argue that in the state of nature, we do not have rights, or that simply it goes down to the "right of might," meaning if I'm strong enough I can take everything from you including your life and that's a right of nature.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
Yet you cannot enumerate WHAT rights we're talking about. Once more, your argument begins with a logical fallacy and ends with one. The premise does not follow logically because the statement proves the statement. At one point, you as an individual did not have a right to own land. That has changed, has it not? At another point in history, you as an individual did not have a right to make a decision for yourself, and that has changed has it not? At one point, you did not have a right to own a book - it could be punishable by death. At one point, you did not have a right to read or write because you could not. Jews did not have the right to own land in Medieval Europe, that's now changed, Jews can own land.
Click to expand...

Okay, I ordered a direct answer sandwich, who put all this conflation on my bun?

What you are calling rights are really granted privileges from government. Nice attempt to water down my argument, but not on point.

A person HAS the right to be left alone and run their own life, even if that right is being violated. For instance a slave had no statutory right to be free, but I think we would agree he had every REAL right to be free. Those are the kinds of rights I was discussing.


So can a government official perform an action that is immoral if you or I do it and transform it into a moral act by virtue of his affiliation with government? How does that work ?
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
OddBall1st said:
Are there children there as well or are they all Broke Backs ?

Someone must have details.......
Click to expand...
No children to my knowledge. As a matter of fact it was announced that anyone wishing to show up, whether in support or just out of curiosity, do NOT bring your children.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Okay, I ordered a direct answer sandwich, who put all this conflation on my bun?

What you are calling rights are really granted privileges from government. Nice attempt to water down my argument, but not on point.

A person HAS the right to be left alone and run their own life, even if that right is being violated. For instance a slave had no statutory right to be free, but I think we would agree he had every REAL right to be free. Those are the kinds of rights I was discussing.


So can a government official perform an action that is immoral if you or I do it and transform it into a moral act by virtue of his affiliation with government? How does that work ?
Click to expand...
Now we're running in circles. We're done here. I already proved my point and you ignored it and then run a circular argument. I've already told you and explained to you logical fallacies. You can't refute anything I've said and I highly doubt you've read everything that goes into social contract theory.

I'm not about to discuss a flawed argument, it's literally a waste of time. I've wasted enough time trying to show you how your argument is flawed yet you continue to ignore it and continue to pound away with your own "supreme truth," which is once more nonintellectual libertarian BS.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
Now we're running in circles. We're done here. I already proved my point and you ignored it and then run a circular argument. I've already told you and explained to you logical fallacies. You can't refute anything I've said and I highly doubt you've read everything that goes into social contract theory.

I'm not about to discuss a flawed argument, it's literally a waste of time. I've wasted enough time trying to show you how your argument is flawed yet you continue to ignore it and continue to pound away with your own "supreme truth," which is once more nonintellectual libertarian BS.
Click to expand...

No, you cited that you thought what I said was a logical fallacy, but didn't explain WHY it was. Also, you had admitted earlier that you couldn't refute it, which was a moment of truth on your part.

Now you're flipping the chess board over because you can't rationally prove that a government made up of people cannot possess anymore right than the sum of the rights which any of the individuals possess. Which in this case, would remain at zero.

I'm not running anywhere, much less in circles.

If the social contract theory held water it could refute what I have posited....it can't.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No, you cited that you thought what I said was a logical fallacy, but didn't explain WHY it was. Also, you had admitted earlier that you couldn't refute it, which was a moment of truth on your part.

Now you're flipping the chess board over because you can't rationally prove that a government made up of people cannot possess anymore right than the sum of the rights which any of the individuals possess. Which in this case, would remain at zero.

I'm not running anywhere, much less in circles.

If the social contract theory held water it could refute what I have posited....it can't.
Click to expand...
Lol no I said it's impossible to refute it because it's flawed and a logical fallacy where the statement proves the statement illogically. It does refute what you post, but it's too long of a discussion to have here. A lot of rights are created and granted by a government, otherwise you pretty much don't have rights.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No, you cited that you thought what I said was a logical fallacy, but didn't explain WHY it was. Also, you had admitted earlier that you couldn't refute it, which was a moment of truth on your part.

Now you're flipping the chess board over because you can't rationally prove that a government made up of people cannot possess anymore right than the sum of the rights which any of the individuals possess. Which in this case, would remain at zero.

I'm not running anywhere, much less in circles.

If the social contract theory held water it could refute what I have posited....it can't.
Click to expand...

If we did it your way the age of consent would drop to like12 or 13, but in a town of 100 and 97 of them agree that the age of consent will be 18yrs. than that`s the way it will be too bad for the other 3.

Think of it like the job of a Skipper on a ship. No matter how you feel, and how you oppose, he`s in charge. Do as he wishes. or swim in the prop wash.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
Back to the topic on hand...

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/oregon-militants-brawl-as-friends-beg-them-to-go-home-youre-surrounded-by-informants/

"
At least one of the militants, Joe “Capt. O” Oshaugnessy, left the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge amid drinking claims after arguing with participants over bringing their wives and children to the standoff, and another — Brian “Booda” Cavalier — left the compound after news reports revealed he had lied about serving in the military.

A former compatriot-turned-opponent claims one of the most prominent militants, Blaine Cooper, sucker-punched one of his friends — sending the counter-protester to the hospital with a concussion and serious facial injuries."

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/tearful-militant-discovers-friend-drank-away-donation-money-its-like-finding-out-there-is-no-such-thing-as-santa/

"A heartbroken militiaman announced that one of his buddies had walked off the Oregon nature preserve they had overtaken and had holed up in a local motel to drink away donation money.

Joe Oshaugnessy, an Arizona militiaman, has been actively seeking volunteers through social media to join the occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

But his friends tearfully announced that Oshaugnessy, who is known as “Capt. O,” had left the refuge Wednesday and was instead staying at a motel nearby — as some others associated with the militants have apparently been doing, according to sources."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top