Are there any smart Trump supporters?

[Rob Roy]

I have also stated i dont believe children have the wherewithal to make adult decisions. They are not adults.

Stop thinking like this is math dude. What you say when taken into a literal context is asinine.

Your political views are not the laws of physics.

NO ONE....fears your question. We already answered yes. You just dont listen.

So a person CAN delegate a right they don't possess ?

Fine, I'll be over tonight to smoke all your weed, empty your refrigerator and I'm gonna need your car keys too. ,Make sure there's a full tank too.


A person CANNOT (logically) delegate a right they do not possess. You are saying when it suits your wants, they can.

 

[FauxRoux]

It uses the EXACT same method, you attempt to prevent a kiddie diddler from using. Offensive Force.


Can a person delegate a right they do not possess? You first argue they can't, when you correctly abhor the kiddie diddler, but then you say they can when you speak of the State.

The contradiction lies within YOU.

Yeah....we get that point....never argued it. Still dont think your system is "better"

 

[FauxRoux]

So a person CAN delegate a right they don't possess ?

Fine, I'll be over tonight to smoke all your weed, empty your refrigerator and I'm gonna need your car keys too. ,Make sure there's a full tank too.


A person CANNOT (logically) delegate a right they do not possess. You are saying when it suits your wants, they can.

Im saying it in the context of my child who is NOT an adult.

Im saying it in the context of my grandfather whose power of attorney i have and use even when it comes to decisions that he in the moment doesn't like but I know are in his best interest now that hes mentally deficient.

Im saying it for the significant other to the person who gets into a horrible accident and is on life support in a coma.

So yeah.....sometimes lifes white, sometimes black......mostly grey.

Look...the real fact is we all agree on the important stuff. Namely that the government has overstepped it bounds and is taking blatant advantage of its citizens. It does dictate our rights in the ways it shouldn't.

Padawan and I simply don't think an anarchistic State would improve on the current model.

But other then the answer of "how" I think we can all agree on a need for change and I suspect we would mostly agree on the same things in dire need of that change too.

 

[Rob Roy]

I have also stated i dont believe children have the wherewithal to make adult decisions. They are not adults.

Stop thinking like this is math dude. What you say when taken into a literal context is asinine.

Your political views are not the laws of physics.

NO ONE....fears your question. We already answered yes. You just dont listen.

We have also pointed out the ways you are right...and at the same time still wrong because you seem to think the square box fitting in a square hole must also mean it fits in the round hole...while just not getting that not everything is the same and cant all be treated by some magical universal rule.

So your answer is, you accept your contradiction rather than admitting it and reexamining it ?

Didn't you just prove my point about cognitive dissonance?

Also I DO have a universal rule - Nobody has a right to delegate a right they do not possess. Do you? Which person does ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Yeah....we get that point....never argued it. Still dont think your system is "better"

It's not my "system" though. It's a consistent belief that I don't own others and others don't own me. That's all.


Also "your" system sort of implies central planning by some OVER others using offense force as a means. Which logic insists can never be a protector of equal rights if it includes the extinguishment of some peoples rights.

 

[Rob Roy]

Im saying it in the context of my child who is NOT an adult.

Im saying it in the context of my grandfather whose power of attorney i have and use even when it comes to decisions that he in the moment doesn't like but I know are in his best interest now that hes mentally deficient.

Im saying it for the significant other to the person who gets into a horrible accident and is on life support in a coma.

So yeah.....sometimes lifes white, sometimes black......mostly grey.

Look...the real fact is we all agree on the important stuff. Namely thatthe government has overstepped it boundsand is taking blatant advantage of its citizens. It does dictate our rights in the ways it shouldn't.

Padawan and I simply don't think an anarchistic State would improve on the current model.

Damn. You've been so polite so I feel like a bit of an ass pointing out one last new thing you've misrepresented.

The term "Anarchist State" is kind of an oxymoron, since Anarchy is merely the absence of a central authority and a "State" is the opposite of that. Of course the term "property tax" is also an oxymoron, but I'll stop now.

Worth mentioning again...I do appreciate both you and Paddy debating in a reasonable way, even when you are both holding two opposing views at once and refusing to admit it.

 

[FauxRoux]

ok.....you've done this a bunch of times now and I need to point it out.....when I say something like this....

not everything is the same and cant all be treated by some magical universal rule.

See...this says I believe that you are WRONG in using a universal rule...inferring that you have one.

and you reply with....

Also I DO have a universal rule - Nobody has a right to delegate a right they do not possess? Do you? Which person does ?

it is not confidence inspiring....and ive answered those question a few times now...in a few ways..

even when you are both holding two opposing views at once and refusing to admit it.

ive admitted it...I just dont dont think that all things are universally applied. So I find your view a tad over-simplistic and impractical in any applicable way as long as it is limited to being a universal rule.

The term "Anarchist State" is kind of an oxymoron, since Anarchy is merely the absence of a central authority and a "State" is the opposite of that. Of course the term "property tax" is also an oxymoron, but I'll stop now.

Yeah..I know the definition...It seemed the direction your views lean although not an attempt on my part to put your views in a "box" in any way......just the easiest "label" to use for quick conversation really.

 

[Rob Roy]

ok.....you've done this a bunch of times now and I need to point it out.....when I say something like this....

See...this says I belive that you are WRONG in using a universal rule...

and you reply with....

it is not confidence inspiring....its like the 6th time you have read a basic grammatical sentence and taken the opposite meaning.


ive admitted it...I just dont dont think that all things are universally applied. So I find your view a tad over-simplistic and impractical in any applicable way as long as it is limited to being a universal rule.

Sometimes the truth isn't very complicated.

I don't think I have the right to run another persons life for them using offensive force as a means. Would you disagree or agree with that statement ?

 

[FauxRoux]

Sometimes the truth isn't very complicated.

I don't think I have the right to run another persons life for them using offensive force as a means. Would you disagree or agree with that statement ?

In principle? Sure. In reality? Depends on what they are trying to do with it...doesn't it? There is no such thing as one size fits all when it comes to people, morality or governance.

 

[Corso312]

If you are going to engage Robroy in debate, there are 3 things you gotta know.

1. He thinks he has the right to walk to the grocery store naked.

2. If he decides to drive, he thinks he has the right to drive naked through red lights and disobey all traffic rules.

3.. He thinks its OK to bang 12 year old girls.

 

[FauxRoux]

If you are going to engage Robroy in debate, there are 3 things you gotta know.
3.. He thinks its OK to bang 12 year old girls.

That is a popular opinion.....

 

[Rob Roy]

In principle? Sure. In reality? Depends on what they are trying to do with it...doesn't it? There is no such thing as one size fits all.

 

[Rob Roy]

If you are going to engage Robroy in debate, there are 3 things you gotta know.

1. He thinks he has the right to walk to the grocery store naked.

2. If he decides to drive, he thinks he has the right to drive naked through red lights and disobey all traffic rules.

3.. He thinks its OK to bang 12 year old girls.

Now you're just making shit up and jealous you don't have a flying car.

 

[Rob Roy]

In principle? Sure. In reality? Depends on what they are trying to do with it...doesn't it? There is no such thing as one size fits all when it comes to people, morality or governance.

I appreciate that we agree on the principle none of us has a right to use offensive force.

We don't agree that those principles can or should be cast aside in order to force people to do anything though.

If your morality says to deviate from your principles as a convenience to accommodate your unprincipled behavior, you may want to reassess your actions and change your reality.

 

[Rob Roy]

That is a popular opinion.....

Sometimes when people are trapped in their own contradictory argument, they resort to ad hom and erroneous attacks. I forgive him.

 

[FauxRoux]

Sometimes when people are trapped in their own contradictory argument, they resort to ad hom and erroneous attacks. I forgive him.

You dont say...funny because arguments that commit fallacies of relevance-- (like labeling me not sharing your principles as immoral or unprincipled simply because you refuse to acknowledge the difference (or cant define it) between consenting adult, child or the subsequent bearing it may have on the context of the situation).

If your morality says to deviate from your principles as a convenience to accommodate your unprincipled behavior, you may want to reassess your actions and change your reality.

--rely on premises that aren’t relevant to the truth of the conclusion. The various irrelevant appeals are all fallacies of relevance, including ad hominems.

So...if you want to believe the answer to 2+5-3 is 7 simply because you choose not to acknowledge -3....ok....knock yourself out. Your not wrong in what you say as it applies to a specific circumstance. Its just not as universal as you wish it would be for the intended goal you've led me to believe this "idea" is for.

Or is the error in my thinking this is suppose to lead to a freer society?

 

[schuylaar]

Damn. You've been so polite so I feel like a bit of an ass pointing out one last new thing you've misrepresented.

The term "Anarchist State" is kind of an oxymoron, since Anarchy is merely the absence of a central authority and a "State" is the opposite of that. Of course the term "property tax" is also an oxymoron, but I'll stop now.

Worth mentioning again...I do appreciate both you and Paddy debating in a reasonable way, even when you are both holding two opposing views at once and refusing to admit it.

i'll agree you're an ass..

 

[Rob Roy]

You dont say...funny because arguments that commit fallacies of relevance-- (like labeling me not sharing your principles as immoral or unprincipled simply because you refuse to acknowledge the difference (or cant define it) between consenting adult, child or the subsequent bearing it may have on the context of the situation).


--rely on premises that aren’t relevant to the truth of the conclusion. The various irrelevant appeals are all fallacies of relevance, including ad hominems.
So...if you want to believe the answer to 2+5-3 is 7 simply because you choose not to acknowledge -3....ok....knock yourself out. Your not wrong in what you say as it applies to a specific circumstance. Its just not as universal as you wish it would be for the intended goal you've led me to believe this principle is for.

Or is the error in my thinking this is suppose to lead to a freer society?

There is a critical difference between what we have presented.

Enacting my beliefs does not negate another persons rights. I believe I don't have the right to delegate a right I don't possess.

Enacting your beliefs CAN negate a persons rights. You believe at least sometimes it's okay to delegate a right you do not possess.


You are right I can't define something as a constant when it is a variable. Nobody can.

 

[FauxRoux]

There is a critical difference between what we have presented.

Enacting my beliefs does not negate another persons rights. I believe I don't have the right to delegate a right I don't possess.

Enacting your beliefs CAN negate a persons rights. You believe at least sometimes it's okay to delegate a right you do not possess.

Yes...we all understood that distinction about 15 pages back in the thread. We all admit to this difference of opinion between you and us...I for one dont bemoan your choice in worldview, I simply dont share it.

Your conclusions rely on erroneous premises.

You are right I can't define something as a constant when it is a variable. Nobody can.

Then stop trying to.

 

[UncleBuck]

i didn't read through the last 40 posts.

did rob roy ever state that it should be illegal to have sex with 10 year olds?

or is he still sticking with is "libertarian principles"?