Will Congress act now?

[Rob Roy]

*what grounds - 'what' being defined as an open set where the possibilities have not been defined, as opposed to 'which' being defined as a confined set of possibilities where all are mentioned. Try harder.

I don't understand why you're asking another question without being able to define the parameters of your previous one.

What is an involuntary government, and by whom and on what grounds can it ever be legitimized?

Nice dodge of the question. I'll ask it again though.


An involuntary government is one which assumes consent of it's subjects whether it is given or not.

So, how about answering my question now ?

 

[SunnyJim]

Nice dodge of the question. I'll ask it again though.


An involuntary government is one which assumes consent of it's subjects whether it is given or not.

So, how about answering my question now ?

I'm not dodging any questions, I'm trying to answer your first one:

...what do you think of the math example I used to prove my point regarding the illegitimacy of an involuntary government ?

Don't lose focus, I need specificity in order for me to be as accurate as possible in my reply.

I don't care much yet what an 'involuntary government' assumes in terms of consent from its subjects because you haven't yet defined exactly what an 'involuntary government' is. Are any subjects served under an 'involuntary government'? I'm having trouble rationalizing this. A tyranny?

After you have clearly defined this, we can move on to the 'illegitimacy' part of your original question.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm not dodging any questions, I'm trying to answer your first one:



Don't lose focus, I need specificity in order for me to be as accurate as possible in my reply.

I don't care much yet what an 'involuntary government' assumes in terms of consent from its subjects because you haven't yet defined exactly what an 'involuntary government' is. Are any subjects served under an 'involuntary government'? I'm having trouble rationalizing this. A tyranny?

After you have clearly defined this, we can move on to the 'illegitimacy' part of your original question.

Your little talks have been nearly transformative for me. I feel like I should send you some money or something for all the fabulous advice.

So, are you afraid to answer the simple question ? It could mean a difference in the amount of the check I send you.

 

[Rob Roy]

Not even remotely.

Are you abso-fucking-lutely sure or just kinda fucking sure, like maybe sure ?

 

[PCXV]

http://voluntaryist.com/


Not the greatest constructed website, but a good deal of insightful information. If you do bother to check it out, you might go to the section on fundamentals to gain some idea of where I'm coming from. Peace.

So no counter arguments? Does that mean you agree? If not, why? Pointing me to that website looks like a concession.

 

[Rob Roy]

So no counter arguments? Does that mean you agree? If not, why? Pointing me to that website looks like a concession.

Then you misunderstand my point of view.

 

[ttystikk]

You are crying wolf IMO. Our government isn't as tyrannical as you would have us believe.

It most certainly is when it wants to be.

 

[dagwood45431]

Are you abso-fucking-lutely sure or just kinda fucking sure, like maybe sure ?

As sure as I am that you are a delusional nut job. That's abso-fucking-lutely, to you.

 

[Rob Roy]

As sure as I am that you are a delusional nut job. That's abso-fucking-lutely, to you.

Oh delusional eh?

 

[PCXV]

Then you misunderstand my point of view.

The questions are argumentative, sure, but your answers can also help to understand your point of view. When you won't continue down our line of reasoning by not addressing my next arguments, it is unfair to say I simply don't understand your point of view. I think my points were fair, so when we pick up debating again I will likely look here for where we left off. Thanks for the mostly civil debate up to this point.

 

[PCXV]

It most certainly is when it wants to be.

It is the responsibility of the people to hold it accountable when it does, not to throw out the entire premise of democracy.

 

[ttystikk]

It is the responsibility of the people to hold it accountable when it does, not to throw out the entire premise of democracy.

Easier said than done the days. Some reasons;

1. The People being fed bullshit from well funded sources
2. Legalized political bribery from anonymous sources
3. Political gerrymandering
4. Rampant voter suppression
5. Acrimony and divisiveness driving many people away and splitting the rest
6. Political parties can legally ignore the wishes of their constituents

That's a lot of obstacles between We the People and a government that's accountable to us.

 

[SunnyJim]

Your little talks have been nearly transformative for me. I feel like I should send you some money or something for all the fabulous advice.

So, are you afraid to answer the simple question ? It could mean a difference in the amount of the check I send you.

No worries, and no cheque necessary. This is how I help my young nephew unpack his own thoughts. He makes it beyond being able to define the parameters of his own questions, though. Your style is transparent and weak.

Once again, here is the question you posed:

...what do you think of the math example I used to prove my point regarding the illegitimacy of an involuntary government ? Would you like to make an argument against it...?

I have asked you to explain what you mean by 'involuntary government' so that I can answer you. You coined this term yet you can't seem to define it. Bizarre.

Is this what you do? Make up some terms, wrap them up in a question, and when prompted for a definition of the language you employ, you accuse people of being 'too afraid to answer'?

 

[Rob Roy]

No worries, and no cheque necessary. This is how I help my young nephew unpack his own thoughts. He makes it beyond being able to define the parameters of his own questions, though. Your style is transparent and weak.

Once again, here is the question you posed:



I have asked you to explain what you mean by 'involuntary government' so that I can answer you. You coined this term yet you can't seem to define it. Bizarre.

Is this what you do? Make up some terms, wrap them up in a question, and when prompted for a definition of the language you employ, you accuse people of being 'too afraid to answer'?

Perhaps you missed post number 708 ? That's the one right after 707 and just before 709. Maybe your nephew could help you.
find it?

 

[PetFlora]

Adams' love for woo isn't restricted to medicine. Cold fusion and so-called free energy ideas and devices like the Energy Catalyzer are presented on his website with the same enthusiasm as the latest alternative medicine fad.[68][69] He collects news about chemtrails.[70] He is a 9/11 truther,[71] Birther,[72] and pretty much everything else-er. Also a Sandy Hook denialist.[73] He considers Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and David Icke to be "REAL heroes",[74] and Icke[75] and whale.to[76] to be reliable sources. Curiously, he supports Ron Paul, who is a real medical doctor and not a practitioner of woo (in the field of medicine). This could be because Paul supports "health freedom,"[77] despite Adams simultaneously supporting health care reform and Cuba's health care system.[78]

NaturalNews advances a hard green position, even though the site also promotes global warming denialism.[79] To top it off, Adams promotes conspiracy theories about gun control.[80]

He thinks Scientology (of which he is an ex-member)[8] is treated unfairly.[81][82] According to Adams, this is due to attempts by anti-religious bigots and (you guessed it) Big Pharma to oppress their belief system in order to protect their profits.

As well as Sandy Hook, Adams has also issued his informed opinion of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings, declaring that they were "obviously" staged, or perhaps that the killer, James Holmes, was involved in "experimental" neuroscience that got out of hand.[83] Furthermore, he says the 2013 attacks on the Boston Marathon were a false flag operation by "private military contractors."[84]

In 2014 Adams wrote several articles where he tried to prove that the Malaysian airplane disaster in March 2014 was a government cover-up, and that the plane was secretly made into a "stealth weapon", possibly carrying nuclear weapons. He also stated that he believed that the people behind the cover-up could go as far as "secretly sink some aircraft debris in the Indian Ocean so they can "find it"." Even though he believes the passengers might have survived he states that "world governments are rolling out their 'official' stories, there is no question in my mind that they will do anything to support those official stories, even if it means discarding the lives of all the passengers."[85]

The site also tends to predict that any sizable storm heralds the collapse of the economy and the end of civilization.[86][87]

Also, "conventional physics" is a conspiracy of the same sort as conventional medicine.[88

too bad you don't, but you are a product of the many matrix control mechanisms

 

[PetFlora]

You fucking half wit. An asshole can grab all the bullets he ever dreamed of because of the stupidity of shit brains like you.

it's sad that people of your ilk can only respond with vulgarity

 

[SunnyJim]

Perhaps you missed post number 708 ? That's the one right after 707 and just before 709. Maybe your nephew could help you.
find it?

Here is post 708:

Nice dodge of the question. I'll ask it again though.

An involuntary government is one which assumes consent of it's subjects whether it is given or not.

So, how about answering my question now ?

This is my response asking for clarification, incidentally it's post 709, which falls directly after post 708:

I'm not dodging any questions, I'm trying to answer your first one:

Don't lose focus, I need specificity in order for me to be as accurate as possible in my reply.

I don't care much yet what an 'involuntary government' assumes in terms of consent from its subjects because you haven't yet defined exactly what an 'involuntary government' is. Are any subjects served under an 'involuntary government'? I'm having trouble rationalizing this. A tyranny?

After you have clearly defined this, we can move on to the 'illegitimacy' part of your original question.

Why are you having so much difficulty defining your own made-up terms? Precisely what is an 'involuntary government'? Failing your ability to define your own language, perhaps you could explain how an undefined object (null) can be 'illegitimate'? When you hypothesize, it's critical for you to understand the parameters of your own hypothesis.

I know you want to keep asking new questions laden with indefinable terms, but let's try to unpack your first question before moving in another direction.

In an effort to help you better understand the particulars of your own question, this is all I found relating to 'involuntary government':

http://www.thrivemovement.com/involuntary-governance

It's essentially ideological libertarian garbage, so I'm hoping for something more concise in your own definitions of the words you use when you ask people questions.

 

[Rob Roy]

Here is post 708:



This is my response asking for clarification, incidentally it's post 709, which falls directly after post 708:



Why are you having so much difficulty defining your own made-up terms? Precisely what is an 'involuntary government'? Failing your ability to define your own language, perhaps you could explain how an undefined object (null) can be 'illegitimate'? When you hypothesize, it's critical for you to understand the parameters of your own hypothesis.

I know you want to keep asking new questions laden with indefinable terms, but let's try to unpack your first question before moving in another direction.

In an effort to help you better understand the particulars of your own question, this is all I found relating to 'involuntary government':

http://www.thrivemovement.com/involuntary-governance

It's essentially ideological libertarian garbage, so I'm hoping for something more concise in your own definitions of the words you use when you ask people questions.

What did you find imprecise about post 708 ?

Just to let you know I have a few things to take care of today, but I look forward to our future dialogue and your continued well intentioned tutelage.

 

[ttystikk]

Here is post 708:



This is my response asking for clarification, incidentally it's post 709, which falls directly after post 708:



Why are you having so much difficulty defining your own made-up terms? Precisely what is an 'involuntary government'? Failing your ability to define your own language, perhaps you could explain how an undefined object (null) can be 'illegitimate'? When you hypothesize, it's critical for you to understand the parameters of your own hypothesis.

I know you want to keep asking new questions laden with indefinable terms, but let's try to unpack your first question before moving in another direction.

In an effort to help you better understand the particulars of your own question, this is all I found relating to 'involuntary government':

http://www.thrivemovement.com/involuntary-governance

It's essentially ideological libertarian garbage, so I'm hoping for something more concise in your own definitions of the words you use when you ask people questions.

He's a product of right wing indoctrination, as opposed to education. This is why he not only can't think for himself, but can't even define his terms.

Fix News is not in the habit of teaching critical thinking skills.

 

[SunnyJim]

What did you find imprecise about post 708 ?

What I found imprecise about post 708:

Nice dodge of the question. I'll ask it again though.

An involuntary government is one which assumes consent of it's subjects whether it is given or not.

I specified in post 709:

I don't care much yet what an 'involuntary government' assumes in terms of consent from its subjects because you haven't yet defined exactly what an 'involuntary government' is. Are any subjects served under an 'involuntary government'? I'm having trouble rationalizing this. A tyranny?

If you can't define your own use of the term 'involuntary government' without ambiguity, it becomes a fictitious entity outwith the scope of 'legitimacy' and your whole question is therefore redundant.

Can you define what an 'involuntary government' is in more than a sentence? Specificity and context, please.