A H.

[Dale Eastman]

He’s an ancap, right? I don’t take their oxymoron of a philosophy seriously. Not sure whether mocking or ignoring is the better way to express my contempt

MOCKING is the best way

HEY INTERNET! These two brain surgeons think Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you is not extortion.

They think Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you is not threat, duress, and coercion.

[Dale Eastman]

So an ancap who realizes the oxymoronic nature of that concept.

I’m an anarchist, you win at slaying strawmen though. Libertarians have perfected the no real Scotsman fallacy, glad to see you’re expanding on your logical fallacy game

It's a simple point:
Is
Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you
actually extortion, threat, duress, and coercion?
Yes or No?

[Dale Eastman]

You remind me why I hated substitute teaching the fourth and fifth graders

Yes, if you abuse children I advocate the use of force against you

If you think there are not limits on what you should be allowed to do you aren’t just elementary school level, you’re toddler level.

Do you understand the concept of “other” or does the world still exist with you at the center and everything else is a satellite

Was that a Yes or a No?

I decline to follow your red herrings.

[Dale Eastman]

All ancaps are idiots, some write better than others but their philosophy is stupid ergo so are they, done just fake it better

He seems to believe he some pretty stupid shit about paying for the things he extracted from the community ns

If you are going to attempt character assassination, at least quote the “stupid shit” to which you refer.

You’re not coherent enough to mock

Do say...

[Dale Eastman]

The ANCAPS won't volunteer to be socialists.

Of course not, anarchist is not no govt it’s decentralized

You’re not coherent enough to mock

Ancaps need helicopter rides or they can go live elsewhere

Well, if what I say is you aren’t allowed to harm others, and you call that oppression, how is that a red herring

Because you didn't answer the question asked.

I believe in the use of force to ensure “freedom from”

So do I. I agree with you. If you didn't pigeon hole me based upon an errant label, you might have learned this about me.
Nevertheless, that statement did not answer my question either.

The irony is that the majority are leftists. Those in power and the ruling class are a minority and tend toward being corporatist like D

If you wish to converse with me, define your terms

Not that it matters, but don't you think you should have provided the meaning of corporatist as you use the word?

So you think you know me because of a label Ms. xxxxxxxx slapped on me?

You intend to imply that those in power, the ruling class, and I are all alike.
I find your ignorance of me amusing. Yes, ignorance, not nescience.
Since you're so smart I expect you to figure out the insult.

I wrote: If you are going to attempt character assassination, at least quote the “stupid shit” to which you refer.

Didn’t you imply taxes were extortion instead of rent?

So far, you have REFUSED to actually answer my question: Is Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you actually extortion, threat, duress, and coercion?
Yes or No?

I'll modify that question to answer yours: Is Give us the money we demand from you or we will hurt you actually extortion, threat, duress, and coercion?
Yes or No?

[ Y ] - [ E ] - [ S ] - [ ENTER ]
[ N ] - [ O ] - [ ENTER ]

Four keystrokes maximum.

Or are you yet another pseudo libertarian pseudo intellectual who prefers to parse debate instead of presenting a coherent unified world view?

Innuendo and name calling from a person who can't or won't answer a direct question...
A question to establish a baseline to communicate my "coherent unified world view."
You go build the roof for somebody else, I'm still digging the hole for the basement foundation.

Well you eventually posted some shit worthy of mocking, but clearly don’t understand hyperbole. I really don’t think we need to execute ancaps, re-education camps will be adequate

If you say so.
I still don't see an answer to my question.

In other words, D might not be stupid, he’s just another victim of cultural influences and DNA

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I have to wonder what argument he thinks he's refuting...?

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. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

 I refuse to engage on anything other than your missing answer at this time.

It's a simple point: Is Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you actually extortion, threat, duress, and coercion?
Yes or No?

I told you four fucking times yes, if you harm others despite me telling you not to I will either advocate force against you or utilize it myself.

Can you not read?

Yeah, I can read. Can you?
I did not ask you about you using force, did I?
I did not ask you about advocating force, did I?
I did not ask you about the conditions of when you would advocate or use force, did I?

Do you know what conflation is?

Conflation happens when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity, and the differences appear to become lost. In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts. However, if the distinctions between the two concepts appear to be superficial, intentional conflation may be desirable for the sake of conciseness and recall.

And yes, it’s a fucking threat.

Q. Is Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you actually extortion, threat, duress, and coercion?
A. And yes, it’s a fucking threat.

Given your romping all over the place, I am forced to ask is the above Q & A correct?

Are you arguing that said threat is somehow immoral? Are you that childish in your thinking that “you’re not the boss of me” actually passes for argument in your deluded mind?

You just go right on knocking that straw out of them bib overalls.

What's the difference between
a tax man saying give me your property or I will hurt you
or
a car jacker saying give me your property or I will hurt you?

Are you one of those guys who doesn’t get the irony of you claiming the right to violently defend property that you claim. But my right to join with others to violently challenge that claim is invalid

Specifically, what property are you claiming that I have claimed a right to defend? Did I acquire said property by honest exchange?

[Dale Eastman]

You really do think like a toddler with your absolutes.

Your belief in such does not make it so.

Of course people have to do “what society tells them to do” under certain circumstances and should not be required to in others.

What do YOU mean by “society”? Be specific so I don't have to ask clarifying questions.

If I tell you I will use force to stop you from sexually abusing children, and you equate that to Hitler exterminating Jews you are straight up a dumb motherfucker who should be in some sort of mental health therapy

Scroll back up and re-read the description of conflation.
You are the one conflating and equating my words to Ms. xxxxxxxx with my words to you.

Scroll back up and re-read the description of a straw man.
You are the one beatin' the straw out of those bib overalls.

Scroll back up and re-read the description of an ad hominem.
You calling me a dumb motherfucker is the pot calling the kettle black.

Perhaps with your anger issues, you are the one who should be in some sort of mental health therapy.

[Dale Eastman]

So if someone does not wish to voluntarily refrain from having sex with children?

Your fixation with having sex with children makes me wonder about you as a victim, an abuser, or both.

You’re not being forced to do anything, you are free to seek residence somewhere that has rules more to your liking.

Nice of you to point that out thereby proving that you are free to make such suggestions. I will use my freedom, what little I still retain, to decline to follow your suggestion. I'm not leaving.

And yet D holds the bizarre position that only voluntary following of laws is legitimate

Please be more accurate when you presume to speak for me. Better yet, there's this invention called copy-n-paste. Learn how to use it.

I'm just going to assume that you drive a car. If this assumption is incorrect, correct my error or not, I don't care.

Can anybody who drives a car honestly claim they have never exceeded the speed limit? This includes down hill roads steep enough to require braking to obey the limit. As the imaginary Hey Zeus is alleged to have said, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.

And turn signals... Every lane change? Every turning a corner?

Since you mention “law”, can you refute my claim that law is a politician's opinion?

Anarchist theory is not advocating anarchy.

Do tell.

You consent to the laws of your culture by belonging to it.

You made the claim. Now present the evidence proving the claim.

It’s a tricky thing arguing that one is a exempt from a cultures rules while continuing to benefit from said rules.

Have you any particular, specific rule in mind? If more than one, we can go through them one by one.

The next time an ancap proposes a solution to the free rider dilemma will be the first

As framed, the free rider dilemma is an unspecified, generalized concept with no detail. As framed, the problem is an ethereal wisp not much different than fog on a swamp or the  boogeyman under the bed.

A problem must be understood before solutions can be designed. Have you any details of a specific problem under the general heading of the free rider dilemma?

[Dale Eastman]

You’re nothing if not predictable. Does this sort of side stepping pass for debate in your circles?

Does ignoring questions asked to get clarification of your position pass for debate in yours?

The Socratic method is based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions.

I do wonder if you are just too embarrassed to have your political ideas and presumptions drawn out for myself and others to examine by using critical thinking?

That would explain the lunacy I guess, also explains why ancaps are so easy to mock.

I'm sorry... Was there a point about your political ideas and presumptions your sentence was meant to communicate? To myself and others? No? I guess that explains why YOU are so easy to mock.
/Mocking

And yet, I grow weary of it. It’s literally like trying to read Foucault or other post modern philosophers, lots of words little sense

And you had the unmitigated gall to imply that I can't read?

I can understand your weariness on not getting a free pass to post points without being challenged to explain and support them.
I can understand your weariness at constantly being exposed as a mental giant you think you are.

I know that you don't like whatever ideology you IMAGINE I have. I know that you like labels because labels make for less thinking on your part; Labels allow you to dismiss all the points without having to consider the points individually. This is called tossing the baby out with the bathwater. I know that you like to conflate points so you can deflect, distract, and divert while, in my case, ignoring the clarifying questions. And I know that you prefer to call names instead of having an honest discussion of differing points of view.

I know you claim to be an anarchist. This is a label that tells me nothing about your ideology, your presumptions, or your points. I know that you claimed Anarchist theory is not advocating anarchy and you ignored the prompt, Do tell.

If you are trying to get your political ideology accepted by others, you are doing a piss poor job at communicating what that ideology actually is.

http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=655.0

[Dale Eastman]

And yet, no, D has perfected the art of defending the ludicrous by saying “prove it”

Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim).

You consent to the laws of your culture by belonging to it.

I wrote: You made the claim. Now present the evidence proving the claim.

Else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
Quod non apparet non est.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof.
The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist.

Ludicrous? POT-KETTLE-BLACK.

Of course we don’t get to pick and choose what we will voluntarily do absent any and all democratic process.

Who exactly is the “we”?
May I correctly assume you are in that group?

Are you saying you don't get to voluntarily pick and choose what you are going to eat for a meal absent any and all democratic process?
Are you saying your meal must be chosen by “democratic process”?
Am I understanding you correctly?

And exactly what do YOU mean by “democratic process”?

He consistently avoids the child abuse issue simply because it demonstrates the ludicrousness of all rules being voluntary

Your belief in such does not make it so.

Going back through our dialog... You wrote:
Yes, if you abuse children I advocate the use of force against you
If I tell you I will use force to stop you from sexually abusing children, [...]
So if someone does not wish to voluntarily refrain from having sex with children?

Do you think you can finish your thought, intelligently articulate it, and post it so I can understand what the point is that you are trying to convey? Something about rules and child abuse is all I got so far.

I put a link in my last post. It links to where I am making a record of THIS dialog...

My number 1 purpose is for me to keep track of the flow of our discussion.
Number 2 purpose is so I can keep track of the points not yet addressed.
Number 3 purpose is so others can do number 1 & 2.

Ancaps can’t even come up with a viable definition of liberty let alone freedom, but they are pretty sure they don’t have it because poor people are trying to take it away.

We weren't discussing Ancaps, whatever that means. We were discussing the difference of our political ideas and presumptions... Or at least I was. With you it's hard to tell because your name calling.

[Dale Eastman]

Oh for fucks sake

Sorry. That didn't translate into a clear articulation of the points of your political ideology that you want others to understand.

You really do debate like a not very smart middle schooler

Asking you questions for clarification is debating like a not very smart middle schooler?
Is the reason why you don't like being asked questions because questions expose weakness in your thinking?
Or is the reason because I dare to challenge your edicts?

Ms. X’s welcome to your ignorant ass, I’m done

Well of course I'm nescient. I ask you questions and you ignore them.

Just a friendly hint: If you want others to accept your political ideology, you need to actually present it... And answer questions about it. We never got to examining your ideology because you've been too busy being an asshole from the beginning.

Is this the point in time where we vie for the last word?

[Dale Eastman]

he [AH] does not want serious debate and that has been clear for a long time

Correct, there is no possibility of debate with someone who’s worldview and philosophy stands on a bogus foundation.

HEY EVERYBODY! The great AH has shared his OPINION as if it is the truth.

Of course with him being such a savant,
I would expect him to draft a concise and articulate post describing and explaining my worldview, philosophy, and foundation,
followed by a just as concise and articulate explanation of why they are bogus.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

[Dale Eastman]

Did I say anything about your lifestyle?