liberty student: What is the purpose of asking me to answer a question you and I have both already addressed? I can tolerate playing along to a certain point, but I am not even sure you have one if you want us to keep repeating ourselves. Apparently, you're now asking me to tell you what you have already asked me.
What is the purpose of asking me to answer a question you and I have both already addressed? I can tolerate playing along to a certain point, but I am not even sure you have one if you want us to keep repeating ourselves.
Apparently, you're now asking me to tell you what you have already asked me.
State, Constitution, Congress and President? You said they don't exist. You named them specifically. I want to know what you mean by "Congress" when you say "There is no Congress."
If you are actually making a serious claim you should be able to explain what you mean by "Congress".
John James:State, Constitution, Congress and President? You said they don't exist. You named them specifically.
Correct. Correct. Correct.
John James:I want to know what you mean by "Congress" when you say "There is no Congress."
Why do you want to know?
John James:If you are actually making a serious claim you should be able to explain what you mean by "Congress".
Do you not know what the Congress is?
As an aside, this attempt to catch me in a word game, or to entice me to attempt a negative proof is a big waste of time. The reason I said the believers should define those terms, is because the believers have the burden of proof, not me.
liberty student: John James:I want to know what you mean by "Congress" when you say "There is no Congress." Why do you want to know?
Is that relevant? Can you tell me what you mean or not?
John James:Is that relevant?
Absolutely. Why would I answer a question without knowing its relevance?
In an attempt to move along the discussion from your ham-fisted attempts to shift the burden of proof, here is how it works.
LS, do you believe the state exists?
No.
Can you prove it doesn't exist?
Doesn't that prove the state exists then?
No, an absence of proof is not proof of absence (negative proof).
_______________________ JJ, does the state exist?
Yes.
Can you prove it?
Yes (proof follows)
_____ OR _______________
JJ, does the state exist?
If you can't prove it, how can you say it exists?
You are a negative prick.
That's basically the discussion in a nutshell. You and others want me to supply a negative proof, when we all know that my argument is based on the lack of a positive proof from anyone in this thread thus far.
The way you can prove me wrong is prove the state exists. It is the only way you can prove my statement wrong. Not with clever word play, not with trying to trip me up, and certainly not with negative proof arguments. Oh sure, you can try to discredit me, but that just continues to avoid proving the state exists, and anyone with an intelligence worth caring about will be able to spot that sort of approach from a mile away.
If you can't prove the state exists (for the record, I am very sure you cannot) then you agree with me, which makes this entire discussion moot. And if you don't know if the state exists, then you really need to do some research on your own, and draw your own conclusions, but certainly I would not be supporting a political campaign, donating or voting, if I wasn't sure the thing I was supporting even exists.
YMMV
You have to know why someone is asking a question before you answer it? That's odd. I don't understand. Do you have something to lose?
Edited my post. Think it over tonight, I will pick this up tomorrow, assuming you have something new to add.
We're resorting to strawmen now? When did I ask you to prove anything? All I asked was if you can define the terms you used. Can you?
John James:When did I ask you to prove anything?
So you're not asking me to prove my position? Do you accept my argument?
John James:All I asked was if you can define the terms you used. Can you?
I have already replied to this at least twice.
Now, I have asked you several questions you have not answered. Putting aside the fact you cannot offer a reason why I should answer you, don't you think you are being very hypocritical expecting me to answer every question you have, when you do not reciprocate and answer every question I have?
I saw where you said other people should be left to define the terms you use. Is that where you're planning to rest? You used the terms, but you're not going to define what you mean. Is that the size of it?
You're continuing to ask questions without replying to any of my questions, while ignoring my answers.
Do you believe that such behavior constitutes a good faith discussion?
I asked you to define the terms you used. I think that was a simple request. Your reply was that you shouldn't define the terms you used. Others should. That seems quite odd, to say the least. So I restated what I meant by that. I asked you no new questions. Then, instead of defining the terms you used, you asked why I wanted to know, as if that had any relevance to the discussion. (Not to mention I figured it was self-evident, I'd like to know what you mean by those words because I'm curious what you mean by those words.)
So since you kept dodging my initial request, I simply asked if you actually could define the terms you used or not. You ignored that quesiton. So, I figured you might at least tell me why you wouldn't give an answer to such a simple request as asking you to define the terms you have used (something you have asked of others many many times....and as far as I've seen no one has ever asked you why you wanted them to do so, or claimed that someone else should be left to define the terms they themselves used.)
And then you couldn't even tell me why you wouldn't honor the very same request you have made so many times of others. You simply made up a bunch of nonsense hypothetical conversations and posted those instead. So I asked you once again, the same question...can you or can you not define the terms you used.
And your reply was that you already replied to that question. But the fact is you did not address that question. And now you're attempting to duck out of the whole thing by claiming I haven't answered your questions so "why should I expect you to answer mine."
First of all I only initially made a single request. You refused to honor it, so I asked if you actually could honor it or not. I believe that is a reasonable question. You refused to acknowledge that question, so I asked why you wouldn't honor the first. There would not have been multiple questions if you would have just honored the simple, common, and quite reasonable (in fact, I'm not sure I could think of a more reasonable request) of defining the terms you used. Again, something you have asked of others multiple times.
So I'll go back to the original request. Please define the terms you used.
James, are you willing to have a good faith discussion with me about this topic?
Of course. Are you?
Absolutely. Would you agree that in a good faith discussion, both parties should be responsive to one another?
Depending on what you mean by "responsive", I believe I would agree. Do you believe it is a reasonable (as in, one that should be honored) request that someone define the terms he uses?
John James:Depending on what you mean by "responsive", I believe I would agree.
Do you agree that a good faith discussion is one where both parties can ask questions and expect answers which respond to those questions?
So let me get this straight. You're going to walk me through this step by step line of questioning about good faith discussion, tit for tat, being responsive, I play along and answer your questions along the way as you ask them, and ask you one of my own, and you get to ignore my question, and then ask another of your own...about both parties being able to ask questions and get answers no less? Are you serious?
Honestly I'm beginning to wonder if you are interested in good faith discussion. If you will not answer my initial, original, good faith, simple, reasonable request that you define the terms you used, please answer the question I just asked you.
John James:Are you serious?
Absolutely. So do you agree with my clarification about what a good faith discussion entails?
I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a joke. I thought it was obvious when I requested you answer the question I just asked you, I was referring to the question you ignored, not the rhetorical one. So I'll clarify. This is the question you ignored:
"Do you believe it is a reasonable (as in, one that should be honored) request that someone define the terms he uses?"
This is the question that started this whole thing:
"Can you define [those terms you used] individually please?"
I believe the sentence above is technically a question, but I think it is understood that such a question is intended as a request for you to do so, not as a simple inquiry as to whether or not you could do so. (Although, when you would not do so, I actually did inquire as to whether or not you could, another question you ignored.)
So, in good faith, I ask that you please honor the original request. And if you will not, I suppose that makes the answer to the question above it in this post self-evident, but it would be nice to get a direct answer to that anyway. So, yet again, please define the terms you used, as you yourself have asked so many others to do.
John James:I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a joke.
I most certainly am not joking. I want very much to have a good faith discussion with you.
Here I defined a good faith discussion and asked for your agreement.
Here you indicated you didn't understand what I meant.
Here I tried to clarify what I meant
After that, you did not agree or disagree with my clarification.
liberty student:After that, you did not agree or disagree with my clarification.
Because you refused to follow through with your definition of a good faith discussion. You ignored my question just as you have ignored it in this latest post.
...a good faith discussion is one where both parties can ask questions and expect answers which respond to those questions I want very much to have a good faith discussion with you.
...a good faith discussion is one where both parties can ask questions and expect answers which respond to those questions
I want very much to have a good faith discussion with you.
Great. Please honor the original request and define the terms you used, as you yourself have asked so many others to do.
John James:Because you refused to follow through with your definition of a good faith discussion.
I appreciate that you now will admit you have not been responsive. I have tried to get you to participate in a fair and equal manner, but you keep insisting I should answer your questions under the flag of good faith, while you avoided doing the same per your admission above.
I still want to have a good faith discussion with you, and we can start one (haven't started yet) when we agree upon what that is.
All you have to do is agree to answer my questions since you expect me to answer yours. Seems very fair to me. I assume you want to deal with me in a fair and equitable manner. If you do not, you can continue to avoid offering me the same courtesy you are demanding from me. I think that makes it obvious to all observers which party was acting in good faith and which was not.
So we're going to ignore yet again.
liberty student:I think that makes it obvious to all observers which party was acting in good faith and which was not.
I'll say.
Seems like you have found a nice refuge from the question you don't want to answer in the ol' "I'm not going to answer your question because I've responded to your question with questions and you won't answer those. So you're not being fair. I want to have a fair discussion."
Okay I'll play. Do you agree to answer my questions?
liberty student: John James:Depending on what you mean by "responsive", I believe I would agree. Do you agree that a good faith discussion is one where both parties can ask questions and expect answers which respond to those questions?
I've answered your questions up to that point, but I'm afraid if I can't get an agreement from you to actually honor the same commitment you're asking of me, I see no reason why I should agree to it.
I will agree to answer your questions if you agree to answer mine. So either do so, or provide a reason you think I should agree to answer your questions without the same agreement from you.
Ok, I'm done going in circles for one day.
Thanks for playing James. Have a good morning, and remember, there is no state, no constitution, no congress and no president. :)
Too bad you can't define your terms. Or even agree to honor the simple request you make of others. (I guess this would make a second example of that, wouldn't it.)
I can define them, I just won't define them to you. I defined one of those terms to Z yesterday.
Like I said, thanks for playing. ;)
I don't know if I want a racist who hates poor people in the White House.
liberty student:I can define them, I just won't define them to you.
Wow. After all that. All I did was make the simple request that you define your terms. I wanted to know what you meant, so I asked you to explain what you meant. And after a full page of dialog, it comes down to "I can do that. I just don't want to."
Do you believe making someone go through this much back and forth simply to get you to do something as simple and reasonable as to define the terms you used, so they can understand what you mean, is consistent with your definition of good faith discussion? And more importantly—and I suppose this question is more for the audience to reflect on—is it the behavior of someone who is truly interested in discussion? Someone who is truly interested in trying to "pull others deeper to his message"?
LS,
When you bring up Lysander Spooner, which work are you specifically referencing? No Treason?
I would also ask you to clarify what you mean by "doesn't exist." Do you mean that there is no entity or institution called "Congress" or that there is an entity or institution called "Congress" but it does not retain any special powers or privileges beyond the common man?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
"Great! Our work is done!"
LOL!
+1
"If you put a gun to my head, does it make any difference what my preference is?"
What answer would come out of your mouth?
limitgov: "If you put a gun to my head, does it make any difference what my preference is?" What answer would come out of your mouth?
You're doing the same thing JJ did, and you will end up with the same results. You guys aren't going to bully me into answering questions for which I have already given an answer, satisfactory or not.
limitgov:"If you put a gun to my head, does it make any difference what my preference is?" What answer would come out of your mouth?
I don't understand the relevance of this question. even If he gives you an answer what useful info does it give you aside from what someone is willing to say just to survive because there's a gun to his head.
I'd rather hear what someone has to say given friendly circumstances thus yielding the most honest answer.
Andrew, I am sorta burnt out on what I consider to be a very obvious and simple set of statements, so you'll have to forgive me for being brief.
Yes, No Treason. But not No Treason exclusively. I have to anchor to Ron Paul stuff in order to communicate with the Paulians.
I prefer delusion to doesn't exist.
Obviously there is an entity/concept called Congress, we're all referring to it by name. The delusion is that there exists a Congress, or a Constitution, or a President, or an election as commonly understood.
"Obviously there is an entity/concept called Congress, we're all referring to it by name. The delusion is that there exists a Congress, or a Constitution, or a President, or an election as commonly understood."
So does this work at keeping from paying taxes to these nonexistent entities? Or does money not exist either?
liberty student: Neodoxy:If an individual believes that god exists then sure, he exists in your reality, this doesn't mean that he exists in mine. If person X is good in my mind and my reality this does not mean that he will be a good man in yours. So there are multiple realities? Does it matter at all if there is a God, or does it only matter if people believe or disbelieve there is a God? Well gee after you're little conversation with JJ I feel as though I can hardly bring this back but whatev. Yes, there are multiple realities. Just as if I put down something in front of two people, one said it was good, the other said that it was bad. Both of them are correct so long as they are stating what they believe. Preferences are subjective, the reason why most people don't realize that reality is totally subjective as well is because of the fact that people perceive similar things. But how I think of something does not matter as long as it works with that which I perceive. The idea of an objective or observer less reality is absolute none sense, for instance the existence of the colorblind helps to show how reality was subjective. A color blind person and a color seeing person can look at the same thing and they would perceive it differently, neither version of reality is necessarily correct or false. If you saw the whole world as nothing but odd blobs and moving orbs of nonsense, but you learned how to manipulate your environment then this would not matter, you would have no way of knowing that others, who perceived things normally, were perceiving the world in a different way and that their reality was different. If an individual believes that there is a god then in their reality there is such a thing as a god, however this will not necessarily mean that their perceptions will match up with this. If I am simply come up with grand delusions and you can show that I am wrong please do so, I was not happy when I came to these conclusions. So there is a president, to those who believe in his legitimacy, there is a constitution, that one I don't even understand why you're arguing, there is a set of rules and laws put down on a piece of paper what matters is whether or not there is an active constitution, one that is followed by those in power. Private property is actually probably more ambiguous and less "real" than anything dealing with the U.S. government. At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black... | Post Points: 20
Neodoxy:If an individual believes that god exists then sure, he exists in your reality, this doesn't mean that he exists in mine. If person X is good in my mind and my reality this does not mean that he will be a good man in yours.
So there are multiple realities? Does it matter at all if there is a God, or does it only matter if people believe or disbelieve there is a God?
Inasmuch as there exists a "stop sign" on your local corner, there exists a Congress.
Of course, these are all reducible to expectations, but so are terms like "huband" and "wife"; yet, I very much doubt liberty student can get by with cheating when he says, "There is no wife!"
To quote Calvert:
…[T]here is, strictly speaking, no separate animal that we can identify as an institution. There is only rational behavior, conditioned on expectations about the behavior and reactions of others. When these expectations about others’ behavior take on a particularly clear and concrete form across individuals, when they apply to situations that recur over a long period of time, and especially when they involve highly variegated and specific expectations about the different roles of different actors in determining what actions others should take, we often collect these expectations and strategies under the heading institution…
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Lagrange multiplier:can get by with cheating when he says, "There is no wife!"
It depends. What makes this woman who claims to be his wife really his wife?