greatest police badge number ever
- Thread starter ayzo
- Start date
Yep, I get it. I just pop in here for a sec at night as I'm too busy right now for anything else.
You are implying sovereignty as you are saying how is someone able to hold a law over me.
You can say you are making the claim that the law is not applicable to you OR you can say we are making the claim the law is. This is just definition mumbo-jumbo and I don't really care which way you see it.
It's only part violence. You can't paint a brush over it. The world simply doesn't work in absolutes. This I believe is the main reason you're such a polarizing character. You constantly argue in absolutes.
99.9% of the people in the US consent to the system. They might disagree with the latest president or this law or that law, but as a whole they agree with having a governing body in place and a democratic system. On top of this, most of the world agrees on deciding property rights through sovereign nations.
This is a whole hell of a lot of consent and it's just Lukep alarmist style BS to try and paint a brush saying the system works 100% on violence.
Violence is only used as a last resort (when the law is being upheld justly). Would your system be any different. You would have to use violence as a last resort just the same in order to uphold any set system of rules.
Perfect example here. Authority can come from consent and/or force. You can't paint your brush.
No. This is you conflating with how things should work, again. I am simply stating "Rape is" - "Murder and theft are".
Good. So do people, gangs, tribes, communities etc.
Not sure if you're saying anything here.
Doesn't matter. It IS the world I currently live in. We are explaining facts about the current situation remember? Not deciding how we would like to change it for the future.
You claimed the law is not applicable to you because it is not just.
Rational to what end, logical to what end? My own survival? Humans survival? Peaceful existence?
You cannot strip your bias and emotion from your thinking/actions.
See above.
I don't really want to debate how things should be. I don't even think we could properly start that discussion.
I think it's sort of laughable you think there will be less disparity in a voluntaryist society. But neither I nor you truly know how it would work out, so I won't push that thought further.
There is no delusion. There is what "is" and there is what could be.And after many years of debating and thinking about this stuff, I am actually ok with it. I won't believe the delusion, but I could use it to get myself a lot of loot and power over other people.
And most people would be ok with it, except the libertarians and anarchists. But who cares anyway. They don't understand how things are.
I don't want to look it up right now, but from what I remember I made only one post in all of the bitcoin threads. I was making the post only because I felt like the arguments made up to that point against bitcoin were really weak. I do not pretend to know whether it will succeed or not. You were making your typical absolutist arguments along with some others saying around the same thing. I simply saw it as flawed logic.
That being said, I don't think bitcoin will succeed.
I actually do this quite often. Argue with the people whose "side" I am on. Simply because I don't agree with the points they use to make their arguments. And since I am on their "side", I would like to see them use better arguments or get their idea across in a better way.
And just like that, we're back to the wall of text ;-).
No, I am not implying anything. If I asked you how you're able to bake a cake, I wouldn't be implying that cakes are not possible, or that you can't bake.
If you're going to attribute things to my inquiry which it does not explicitly contain, and which I have repeatedly rejected, the conversation is stillborn.
Nope. The way the burden of proof works, is that if someone asserts something, they must substantiate it. So if people believe this cop had authority, then the question these guys asked, about where that authority comes from, is valid.
As is my question. If you say the law is applicable to me, prove it, or don't say it.
I enjoy being polarizing. Someone needs to be.
The world does indeed work in absolutes. If I say I want a steak, that doesn't mean I want a donut. If 2 + 2 = 4, then it can't be equal to 3 or 5.
This is known in logic as the Law of Identity.
If you say, the world isn't absolute, that's an absolute statement and again, a performative contradiction (see my post up thread about that). You're demonstrating the opposite of what you're saying.
I am polarizing. I try to argue from logic, first principles, and with a lot of skepticism. I am interested in ideas, not "how things are". If you want to talk about how things are, log off and talk to any dude on the street and he will tell you about the Pittsburgh Steelers and how Obama is ruining mankind.
Enjoy.
First, you're pulling that number out of your ass. Second, they don't have a choice but consent because they are coerced with violence. If you removed taxation and asked for donations, you'd get a better idea of how many people consent.
I get accused of arrogance but I rarely if ever try to speak for the entire world.
None of those people were ever presented with an alternative or a choice. There is no election for "no government" or "start over".
No, it's based on reason. If you get a parking ticket, and you don't pay it, they take your property by force. If you resist, they will use force against you. If you resist their force, they will kill you.
There is no level of resistance which ends with them saying, "Ok, you really don't want to pay that ticket, we're going for pizza instead of harassing you"
I don't think you've spent more than 5 minutes thinking about "my system" and probably couldn't even begin to articulate what it is.
If I did, I didn't mean to. I don't believe the law isn't applicable to me because it isn't just. I don't believe I have seen evidence that the law is applicable to me, and STILL, no one has provided any in this thread.
What's particularly disturbing, is that people aren't concerned that they are arguing so hard for something they cannot substantiate.
To whatever end you want. Denying reality to embrace delusion is your choice, but I would rather try to deal with reality qua reality.
And yet no matter how much I want 2 + 2 = 3, it is still = 4.
Then you're talking to the wrong guy. I have zero interest in discussing how things are.
It depends how you define disparity. But then, you must believe that what we have now is parity. LOL.
And yet, you never exposed my flawed logic. You did what people are doing here. You're attacking me personally instead of demonstrating the error in my thinking.
I've said many times, if I am wrong, prove it. If you can prove it, I have to change my stance. And I am constantly trying to find new ideas, new information and new arguments to do so. Unfortunately for me here, most of the guys who make the best arguments mostly agree with me, and so there isn't much to be gained since I don't like arguing with people who don't know what they are talking about, and can only be petty in debate.
It's a huge waste of my time.
Yeah, I'm done now. I don't think we're communicating on a level where our arguments match up, and this is a huge waste of my time to play games with someone who doesn't have skin in the game (conviction of his arguments, argues to argue). Thanks for the discussion.
What is a performative contradiction?
Performative contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Examples;
I am dead. (You can't make claims if you're dead)
I am not alive. (same as above)
I don't control myself. (Then who is making your argument?)
I always lie. (This statement cannot be true.)
Nothing is absolute (An absolute statement, which claims absolutes do not exist)
Everything is relative. (Same as above, if everything is relative, so is this statement, making it not objectively true.)
It's easy to spot bad arguments, when the argument contradicts itself.
If you want to deny property, you have to deny ownership of yourself. Which means, you don't control yourself, which means you can't articulate the denial of property.
Here ends Lessons in Logic Part VII
Performative contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Examples;
I am dead. (You can't make claims if you're dead)
I am not alive. (same as above)
I don't control myself. (Then who is making your argument?)
I always lie. (This statement cannot be true.)
Nothing is absolute (An absolute statement, which claims absolutes do not exist)
Everything is relative. (Same as above, if everything is relative, so is this statement, making it not objectively true.)
It's easy to spot bad arguments, when the argument contradicts itself.
If you want to deny property, you have to deny ownership of yourself. Which means, you don't control yourself, which means you can't articulate the denial of property.
Here ends Lessons in Logic Part VII
If I remember correctly, I first ran across the idea of exposing performative contradictions as a method of argumentation with Hoppe. It was a revelation for me.
Then again, it may have been something you said years back.
If you're every unsure if it was me or Hoppe, assume it was Hans. He's the genius.
That is a very western view. But I believe life is filled with plenty of true paradoxes. If I remember correctly it is called a deialethia.
Life is filled with contradictions which co-exists. Accepting this, and from there accepting our limited cognitive abilities is essential to understanding the true nature of reality and how we interpret it.
Life is grand and insignificant. Our lives are filled with meaning, yet meaningless.
Some of the most vile, evil things in the world are good (think how much more overpopulated the world would be without hittle, stalin, mao, WW1 and WW2; without pollution, cancer, aids, murder)
The true paradox of life is best exemplified in that the most prosperous, developed societies tend to have citizens that are less happy and commit more suicide. The happiness you will find among some of the most down-trodden people on the planet is astounding.
Life is not linear, and not always logical (in my experience, it is the exception, not the rule). Logic is a helpful tool, but it will only take you so far.
Anyway, anarchy is awesome because {words}
Stupid argument. Beside that, taking the population density of Manhattan as a base the hole world could fit into france.
Greenleaves, earlier you said stuff and when asked to explain it, you just bailed.
Now you are back and making more claims.
You're welcome to do whatever you want, but if you expect people to take your posts seriously enough to read and respond to them, then I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to stand your ground and post with some conviction and seriousness.
If you don't want to be taken seriously ala Hellblazer, then by all means, carry on with the hit and run posting.
No statements of fact, no proof, no evidence of logical chains or reasoning, nothing.
It's probably just me, but the entire post is empty. I don't even know why people bother to make posts that say nothing, and essentially, mean nothing, like that. I guess, if that's how you view the world, that's all you can add to the discussion.
Assertion != fact. I know people, this is very hard to grasp but just because you say something, or believe something, doesn't make it objectively true.
Now you are back and making more claims.
You're welcome to do whatever you want, but if you expect people to take your posts seriously enough to read and respond to them, then I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to stand your ground and post with some conviction and seriousness.
If you don't want to be taken seriously ala Hellblazer, then by all means, carry on with the hit and run posting.
This is a claim. Can you prove it? I mean, beyond assertion. Maybe start with an example that fits your claim.
These are value statements, and subjective. I don't particularly care what you think about life, I care what you can prove about reality to substantiate your claims.
A lot of words.
No statements of fact, no proof, no evidence of logical chains or reasoning, nothing.
It's probably just me, but the entire post is empty. I don't even know why people bother to make posts that say nothing, and essentially, mean nothing, like that. I guess, if that's how you view the world, that's all you can add to the discussion.
Assertion != fact. I know people, this is very hard to grasp but just because you say something, or believe something, doesn't make it objectively true.
Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn if you take me seriously or not.
I didn't follow up with you because you use arguments ad nauseum, demand proof of things which are provided (classify it as words) or evident (like laws applying to you, yet when a cop pulls you over you stop), ignore requests of proof asked for you (or use 'logic' as proof), classify proof given by others as 'looking into history which can't predict the future' (lol, history isn't proof but theories are), and do mental gymnastics to prove the marvelous of your theories.
You are like any fanatic. You believe you have the answers. And that is the problem. The answers to life's questions aren't answers, they are more questions in an ever evolving pursuit of evolution (however you define that) As soon as someone like yourself becomes sure of their theories, and becomes intransigent in them, you become stagnant and instantly become passe.
The only thing I'll give you as credit over other fanatics, is that your fanaticism isn't toward mainstream, socially approved ideas. They are vaguely original.
Unlike you, I believe there are no correct systems. I believe diversity is the only thing that will help us since the more forms of social order humans can manage to scrounge up, and the more willing they are to try new things in a non-intransigent way (complete intransigence never gets applied and gets to live in perfect world of theory), the more hope there is that one of them will be better suited to deal with the challenges of our constantly evolving world. And I believe this because it is nature's way; the larger the number of creatures out there, and the more diverse, the more chances some of them will have of surviving and thriving in the ever changing environment we live in.
I can not, and even if I could I would not prove this to you. But if you analyse the world we live in, it will come to you. So long as you keep an open minded and don't get closed in by your own theories.
And don't worry. You will get to have the last word as always. That will make you feel like you won the argument. But the reality, as can be see by anyone who doesn't share your non-fanatical views, is that your arguments were torn to shreds by others in this thread. Just because they are unwilling to go round the marry go round with you doesn't make your arguments more sound.
""Truth, in its struggles for recognition, passes through four distinct stages. First, we say it is damnable, dangerous, disorderly, and will surely disrupt society. Second, we declare it is heretical, infidelic and contrary to the Bible. Third, we say it is really a matter of no importance either one way or the other. Fourth, we aver that we have always upheld it and believed it."
~ Elbert Hubbard
~ Elbert Hubbard
I think I shall let the lofty, the venerable King of Likes, express my exact thoughts on the above statement:
Couldn't have said it better myself.
You are so far from self aware I can never formulate a sentence to even reply to you anymore.
What makes him so entertaining, is that there is little no limit to the amount of crazy shit he will state.
He doesn't understand anything I've posted, but he doesn't let that stop him from calling me out.
He is literally, everything I love about the human race.
How could I ever compare to thee, oh Great One? For I am but a lowly peasant with only 600 puny Likes to my name.
How could I ever come up with such gems as these?
A brilliant *assertion* here that the only reason the world doesn't throw off this dastardly "delusion" is because they are all coerced with violence at the point of a gun, and would all happily live in complete anarchy if presented with the choice.
But then again this is really the lynchpin of your entire terrible theory, so without it you couldn't claim to be the White Knight crusading for those poor downtrodden. After all, it would be a bit of a downer to think that you were tirelessly churning out these manifestos for nothing more than the glorification of your own ego.
But what was it you said again about ascribing beliefs to people you've never met or even known?
And what was that wisdom dripping from your lips about "assertions"?
Ah yes, the railing against unsubstantiated assertions.
This, of course, came right after the railing against those who had dared to impugn your impregnable character:
Attacking, you say?
Now of course I am nothing but a humble peon with not even 1,000 Likes, but it does seem that I predicted this pattern of yours at some point in the past:
However, I'm sure those sweet, sweet Likes can console you in your sleep. The thought struck me when that system was introduced that it would only serve to feed the urges of those suffering from narcissistic personality disorder.
Who knew just how accurate that notion would turn out to be.
I think your statement of my conclusion is incorrect.
Also, it's pretty standard in free market economics that only voluntary exchanges can reflect choices and prices where human action is concerned. If you understood economics, you'd know this isn't an assertion by me, as much as a standard methodological position held by people who are for free market economics.
Put more simply, we can't say that people pay taxes because it's a free choice, because it isn't. You'd need to make the case that people don't respond to violence, which of course, as the King Lemming of the internet, you may indeed be best qualified to do.
Not to mention, there has never been any evidence where people voluntarily paid taxes anywhere near the level of coerced taxation. Mike Huckabee talked about this during his last presidential run. Voluntary taxes simple "do not work" for the government.
My arguments do not exist solely of attacking the man.
You're not a humble peon, you're a well known shitposter and lunatic. Your posts are legendarily crazy, and as I said, I won't put you on ignore, because I love how serious you are about how stupid you are. It is literally the best possible entertainment Wickedfire can provide these days.
Sure it is. You can relocate to another country with lower rates, you can simply stop paying like Wesley Snipes, or you can flee to the uninhabitable wastelands of SA like you did. Choices abound.
Nobody can ever prove why people pay taxes, because nobody can read minds. Their reasons are their own and always will be.
But that didn't stop you from positing your own assertion on why they pay them with absolutely zero proof, literally right before you castigated pocketaces for doing the exact same thing. And he's not the one constantly sermonizing on and on about unsubstantiated assertions.
But you can't admit that you can't prove that citizens are secretly thirsting for anarchy, because it is the very bedrock of your deeply personal crusade. It is the very lifeblood behind those nights spent with bloodshot eyes and hunched back as you crank out yet another paen to your true love, the Goddess of Anarchy, in the hopes that one more lost soul will wake from their statist-induced slumber and see the light.
Catch 22, homie. Make the same baseless assertion you mercilessly pounce on others for, or admit that in all likelihood you're one of only a few pitiful souls longing for the deconstruction of all governments. We all saw which direction you went in, and it is doubly ironic considering your incessant harping on the evils of hypocrisy.