Will Congress act now?

Rob Roy said:

*your


Thank you for allowing me to make assumptions, I'm beginning to form a few about your intentions now. So that I don't make an erroneous assumption, is your point to point out that people should offer their consent / agreement to something, before that something is assumed to be valid ?

Click to expand...

Grammatical error corrected before your reply. Well spotted, though.

My intentions have been clear from the beginning. You made a straw man argument (which is fine, I guess), but when called out on it, you refuse to acknowledge it. I have little faith in the integrity of the debate as a result. This is a shame if you're actually interested in having your ideas/values stand up to scrutiny.

SunnyJim said:

Grammatical error corrected before your reply. Well spotted, though.

My intentions have been clear from the beginning. You made a straw man argument (which is fine, I guess), but when called out on it, you refuse to acknowledge it. I have little faith in the integrity of the debate as a result. This is a shame if you're actually interested in having your ideas/values stand up to scrutiny.

Click to expand...

I made an assumption that Sneeky Ninja would disavow slavery etc. and affirmed that already. So your stating that I've refused to acknowledge it, is in error.

Whether he agrees with me that slavery is wrong or not, doesn't refute or address my argument though.

"My" ideas stand up to scrutiny not because I accept them, they would whether or not I grasped them or not. Math has proven that and I offered him an example (above) which he ridiculed, likely because he was suffering from either his own ignorance or a bout of cognitive dissonance or both.

So, would you agree that slavery is wrong ?

PCXV said:

I think you are portraying a false dichotomy. Not having absolute freedom and anarchy does not equate to slavery.

When you voluntarily agree to stay in a society of democratic law, you are agreeing to obey its democratically decided laws. You also have the freedom and power to try and change those laws. You sacrifice some freedom for the benefits that society offers, while you retain most freedoms that allow you to enjoy your life.

Click to expand...

So, a slave should petition the government for his freedom rather than saying "fuck this, I'm running away" ?


If a law is wrong should you obey it until other people decide to change it ?

Rob Roy said:

I made an assumption that Sneeky Ninja would disavow slavery etc. and affirmed that already. So your stating that I've refused to acknowledge it, is in error.

Whether he agrees with me that slavery is wrong or not, doesn't refute or address my argument though.

"My" ideas stand up to scrutiny not because I accept them, they would whether or not I grasped them or not. Math has proven that and I offered him an example (above) which he ridiculed, likely because he was suffering from either his own ignorance or a bout of cognitive dissonance or both.

So, would you agree that slavery is wrong ?

Click to expand...

You're not a slave though Rob. Technically speaking you don't have to pay any taxes, right?

st0wandgrow said:

You're not a slave though Rob. Technically speaking you don't have to pay any taxes, right?

Click to expand...

Even if I were in chains, my mind would be free.

Logically speaking a tax is a euphemism for forced redistribution / theft.

Let's break down the contentious post so that we can put this to bed.

Rob Roy said:

On the one hand you would agree that a person has no right to enslave another person or force somebody into an association using or threatening offensive force for failure to comply...

Click to expand...

This is the start of putting words into SneekyNinja's mouth. You are unable to provide quotes of him agreeing with how you contextualise 'enslaving another person'.

but then you flip and advocate that a neutral person somehow MUST associate with somebody else, not because the neutral person consents to it, instead because another party or parties has insisted on it.. That is the definition of slavery. Claiming the right to create a force association with an unwilling neutral party.

Click to expand...

This is another example of you putting words into SneekyNinja's mouth. Again, no evidence provided by you to support him agreeing with your definition of 'forced association'.

Your argument is internal and your beliefs are inconsistent.

Click to expand...

Finally, straw man complete. No quotes, no citations, no evidence of SneekyNinja having any of these 'beliefs' and inconsistencies you allege, and you double down by stating "his argument is internal.." yet you haven't presented his arguments, only yours.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

SunnyJim said:

Let's break down the contentious post so that we can put this to bed.



This is the start of putting words into SneekyNinja's mouth. You are unable to provide quotes of him agreeing with how you contextualise 'enslaving another person'.



This is another example of you putting words into SneekyNinja's mouth. Again, no evidence provided by you to support him agreeing with your definition of 'forced association'.



Finally, straw man complete. No quotes, no citations, no evidence of SneekyNinja having any of these 'beliefs' and inconsistencies you allege, and you double down by stating "his argument is internal.." yet you haven't presented his arguments, only yours.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

Click to expand...

So, it's safe to say we shouldn't assume another persons agreement on things absent their explicit consent ?

Rob Roy said:

So, a slave should petition the government for his freedom rather than saying "fuck this, I'm running away" ?


If a law is wrong should you obey it until other people decide to change it ?

Click to expand...

Where did you get that from? Grasping much?

You don't have to petition the government to revoke citizenship, at least in the US. They could give fuck all if you want to give up your citizenship and the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that go with it.

Stop pretending to be oppressed.

Rob Roy said:

So, it's safe to say we shouldn't assume another persons agreement on things absent their explicit consent ?

Click to expand...

It's safe to say that assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. Better to start with what you can evidence. There's no shame in admitting a straw man when it's been pointed out to you. You refute my analysis?

Rob Roy said:

If a utilitarian argument deprives another person of their right to peaceful self determination, would you endorse it as the best choice ?

Click to expand...

Depends. Is the self-determination reasonable? Does it cause injury to another person or the population as a whole?

If it is the self-determination to infringe on another's liberty to say, have affordable access to birth control, then I would say that is unreasonable and injures the well-being of millions of women and thus our Nation as a whole.

Rob Roy said:

Like if a slave was born on a given plantation, that master owns them ?

Click to expand...

Disingenuous. The parents didn't decide to be slaves. Slavery is inherently immoral. Try again.

Rob Roy said:

It is possible that he might disagree and think people do have a right to enslave others.

Ironically though, your assertion points out something different, your point rests on the idea that Sneeky Ninja has to AGREE with my point, for it to be accurate. By that, you imply that none of us have the right to form others opinions for them / "enslave" them. Which verifies my original point. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Click to expand...

Desperate and douchy.

Rob Roy said:

Even if I were in chains, my mind would be free.

Logically speaking a tax is a euphemism for forced redistribution / theft.

Click to expand...

Or just the cost of doing business for something we all inherently share and rightfully have a say in aka common goods.

SunnyJim said:

It's safe to say that assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. Better to start with what you can evidence. There's no shame in admitting a straw man when it's been pointed out to you. You refute my analysis?

Click to expand...

I think my original claim was that an aggregate of zeroes will still equal zero, which Sneeky Ninja did not address or refute instead he ridiculed.

I have agreed that I assumed Sneeky Ninja did not favor slavery. You've never offered me your opinion on whether you agree that slavery is wrong, is that because you needed to stroke your "find something to prove Rob Roy was wrongbecuase he made an assumption boner" or because you think slavery is okay?

PCXV said:

Disingenuous. The parents didn't decide to be slaves. Slavery is inherently immorral. Try again.

Click to expand...

...and do you think people today decided to be part of a government formed by slave holders centuries ago ?

PCXV said:

Or just the cost of doing business for something we all inherently share and rightfully have a say in aka common goods.

Click to expand...

So, your children are commonly owned by others ?

PCXV said:

Desparate and douchey.

Click to expand...

*Desperate

*douchy

Rob Roy said:

...and do you think people today decided to be part of a government formed by slave holders centuries ago ?

Click to expand...

Absolutely yes. I'll say it again: they had the freedom to leave, they still do, yet they choose to stay voluntarily.

No person is forced to be a citizen.

Rob Roy said:

*Desperate

*douchy

Click to expand...

*thumbs up*

I think your gubment edumacation done did just firn!

Rob Roy said:

So, your children are commonly owned by others ?

Click to expand...

What are you using as the indicator for that claim? Public education or ?

PCXV said:

Where did you get that from? Grasping much?

You don't have to petition the government to revoke citizenship, at least in the US. They could give fuck all if you want to give up your citizenship and the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that go with it.

Stop pretending to be oppressed.

Click to expand...

Do you have to affirm your status of "citizen / serf" or is that state of being assumed as a given by others whether you agreed to it or not ?

If I never personally affirmed something, how would I then need to revoke it ?