4 > Discussions; Public Archive

im-skeptical on Blogger.

(1/2) > >>

Dale Eastman:
im-skeptical wrote: "So are you one of those "sovereign citizens"? Entrenched in a compound with your guns, ready to kill anyone who crosses your path? With no regard for civil society or its laws?"
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

Have you stopped fucking your mother?

Dale Eastman:
I was simply asking the question - because you seem to have the same opinions that those guys have.
im-skeptical wrote: "I was simply asking the question - because you seem to have the same opinions that those guys have."
Okay... I apologize for misreading your intent.
Taking your question at face value...
You asked: "So are you one of those "sovereign citizens"?"

--- Quote ---Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
Supreme Court - Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
--- End quote ---
SCOTUS says you and I both are sovereigns.
As such, are you and I equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other

Dale Eastman:
That doesn't really answer the question. I assume you know what I mean by the term sovereign citizen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
Is that what you are?
I don't claim any right to rule you. I do claim, as Thomas Jefferson did, that the rights and freedoms we have don't extend to trampling on the rights of others. And that the duly elected government has the authority to pass legislation, to provide for the general welfare, to protect our rights, and to enforce the law.
im-skeptical wrote: "That doesn't really answer the question."
Repeating what I already posted: SCOTUS says you and I both are Sovereigns.

𝟙 The kings of France and England were both the highest ranking humans of their own nations.
𝟚 The King of France was its Sovereign.
𝟛 The King of England was its Sovereign.
𝟜 Neither king had a Right-to-Rule the other.
𝟝 The kings were of equal rank.

𝟞 You and I both are sovereigns.
𝟟 You and I are equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other.
Please admit or deny the truth of claims #𝟞 & #𝟟.
So you are being deliberately obtuse, or you didn't bother to look at the description of the modern sovereign citizen movement.
Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote "deliberately obtuse"?
I asked you to admit or deny that you and I are equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other.
Once that point and its concept are agreed to, then I can present the next point of that concept.

I am NOT interested in listening to you or the Federal government call me a terrorist.
"I asked you to admit or deny that you and I are equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other."
- You don't listen very well. I already talked about that. I agreed.
"I am NOT interested in listening to you or the Federal government call me a terrorist."
- So that's the answer to my question. I would suggest that you go back to your anpropaganda site and commiserate with your fellow sov-cits.
Yes. You did agree. I apologize for my Boomeritis causing me to overlook the fact that you did agree. I allowed myself to get distracted by the distraction you provided that followed your agreement.

I find it interesting that stating my lack of interest in being called a terrorist somehow provided you with a reason to assume I am a terrorist. This shows me that you don't want to deal with the actual meaning of the word "sovereign".

Now that I have no doubt that you agree that you and I are equals and neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other, I can now move on and present the next point of the concept of equal lack of a Right-to-Rule any other human.
Claim #𝟠 No human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human.
Please admit or deny this claim.

Dale Eastman:
"I find it interesting that stating my lack of interest in being called a terrorist somehow provided you with a reason to assume I am a terrorist."
- You said that article was calling you a terrorist. It is therefore reasonable to assume that you think it refers to you. Otherwise, you would have no reason to think that you were being called a terrorist. Anyone with half a brain would draw the same conclusion. By the way, it says that only some of them are. That's true.

"you don't want to deal with the actual meaning of the word "sovereign"."
- I know how to use a dictionary.


"Claim #𝟠 No human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human."
- What is this? Your manifesto? In a democracy, governmental authorities exist by the consent of the people, regardless of how you want to spin it.

"Please admit or deny this claim."
- I'm not here to help you give voice to your twisted anti-government propaganda.
You are not the first keyboard warrior coward I have ever interacted with. So I am very specific in my choice of my words, "Admit or Deny."

I will now explain the very specific intent of those three words.

If I made the claim:2 plus 5 equals 7.
Then asked you to Please admit or deny this claim.
If you deny the claim you show yourself to be... Something.
If you refuse to admit the claim, you show your bias and your propaganda that you are trying to establish as your claim. You don't want to admit that 2 plus 5 equals 7.

To admit would be to agree that the claim is valid. You did not agree that the claim is valid. If the claim is not valid, then you would be expected to deny the validity of the claim with evidence and proof. You did not deny the validity of the claim.

The same logic applies to my claim #𝟠.

I asked you to admit or deny my claim #𝟠
No human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human.
You did not deny this claim.
If you did I would ask you to prove that any human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human.
You don't want to admit that No human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human.
You don't want to admit that what applies to you and I applies to any other humans.
You refuse to admit the claim, you show your government loving bias and your propaganda that you are trying to establish as proof of government's alleged (and disprovable) Right-to-Rule.

You admitted claim #𝟟: You and I are equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other.
Claim #𝟡: If you don't have a Right-to-Rule me, then you can not delegate a Right-to-Rule me to anybody else.
Please admit or deny my claim #𝟡.
You're not the first right-wing extremist who thinks he's smarter than the rest of the world that I've dealt with. In a democracy, we grant governmental authority by the consent of the people. Your convoluted logic doesn't change the reality. It's a selfish, juvenile, and anti-social attitude that says "You're not the boss of me, and I refuse to live by any rules imposed by your gubmint." If you don't want to live in a democracy, then get out.
I decline to chase your red herring off the question I asked you.

Was your reply an admission or a denial of the point: Claim #𝟡: If you don't have a Right-to-Rule me, then you can not delegate a Right-to-Rule me to anybody else.

Dale Eastman:
Warren v. DC for skeppy.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Reply