Who can tell me

[dilloduck]

You think adulation, love, and affection are equivalent states?


are you familiar with connotation?

Negative

it's reality

abstention implies consent

it differs from 'consent' only in that it implies a more passive form of consent, bordering on acceptance, whereas 'consent' implies active approval or agreement

the end result is the same

Pure Orwellean nonsense.

If a mugger waves a gun in your face, you are not consenting to be robbed merely because you do what he says and fork over your wallet.

You are choosing to hand over the wallet instead of risking getting shot

life sucks and one rarely has the options one wishes

in the end, it was your decision


your example actually describes perfectly the reason we enter into social contract


now we contact some allies charged with capturing those who violate the alw (we call them polive)

upon his capture, he's handed to allies in charge of holding the accused (fails) until those charged with determining guilt or innocence (judge and jury) can, if he's found guilty hand him to those (guards) charged with holding the guilty during our retribution/ the punishment we hope will discourage him and other in the future (inprisonment, in our society)

The social contract is wraped the second it is amended, altered or interpreted.

 

[JBeukema]

The social contract is wraped the second it is amended, altered or interpreted.

What?

It can only be amended by the collective

if I start acting like we agreed to something and you go along with, we're back to implied consent


kinda like how everyone seems to agree the Constitution is null and void most of the time

 

[Oddball]

You are choosing to hand over the wallet instead of risking getting shot

life sucks and one rarely has the options one wishes

in the end, it was your decision


your example actually describes perfectly the reason we enter into social contract

More intellectually bankrupt swill from the mindset of the looter.

The completely mythical "social contract" is a lie. And even if it did exist, there's not a court in America that wouldn't deem it an unlaful contract of adhesion and nullify it ab initio.

now we contact some allies charged with capturing those who violate the alw (we call them polive)

upon his capture, he's handed to allies in charge of holding the accused (fails) until those charged with determining guilt or innocence (judge and jury) can, if he's found guilty hand him to those (guards) charged with holding the guilty during our retribution/ the punishment we hope will discourage him and other in the future (inprisonment, in our society)

You'll get nowhere by patronizing me, asshat.

The model you provided there is how collectivized force has a marginal utility against violent criminals. Using the same compulsion agains peaceful people, no matter how supposedly pure your cause, is a travesty .

 

[dilloduck]

The social contract is wraped the second it is amended, altered or interpreted.

What?

It can only be amended by the collective

if I start acting like we agreed to something and you go along with, we're back to implied consent


kinda like how everyone seems to agree the Constitution is null and void most of the time

you're assuming that the elected are representative of the collective

 

[JBeukema]

The completely mythical "social contract" is a lie.

Really? You don't believe that sdocial norms, ethics, or laws exist?


You don't accept the 'consent of the governed'?

And even if it did exist, there's not a court in America that wouldn't deem it an unlaful contract of adhesion and nullify it ab initio.

The courts themselves are a product of social contract

The model you provided there is how collectivized force has a marginal utility against violent criminals.

that unity is a contract or agreement among the members of the collective

Using the same compulsion agains peaceful people, no matter how supposedly pure your cause, is a travesty .

then reality is a travesty

but now I must ask what makes it a travesty? is it wrong?

 

[JBeukema]

The social contract is wraped the second it is amended, altered or interpreted.

What?

It can only be amended by the collective

if I start acting like we agreed to something and you go along with, we're back to implied consent


kinda like how everyone seems to agree the Constitution is null and void most of the time

you're assuming that the elected are representative of the collective

The collective either chose them or has chosen to recognize them

if nothing else, they are representative of the collective will to recognize their authority (as a mater of policy; it does not necessitate personal agreement or rule out secretive work to depose them) as opposed to open revolt

 

[dilloduck]

What?

It can only be amended by the collective

if I start acting like we agreed to something and you go along with, we're back to implied consent


kinda like how everyone seems to agree the Constitution is null and void most of the time

you're assuming that the elected are representative of the collective

The collective either chose them or has chosen to recognize them

if nothing else, they are representative of the collective will to recognize their authority (as a mater of policy; it does not necessitate personal agreement or rule out secretive work to depose them) as opposed to open revolt

So government is merely a symbol of social order

 

[Oddball]

You don't accept the 'consent of the governed'?

With 50% of the governed not participating, it's arguable that consent doesn't exist.

The courts themselves are a product of social contract

Circular logic.

that unity is a contract or agreement among the members of the collective

You really ought not use words you know not the meaning of...Namely "contract".

then reality is a travesty

but now I must ask what makes it a travesty? is it wrong?

Maybe your reality, Buckwheat.

Yes, using proactive force adgainst peaceful people, whenther you're a rapist or congresscritter (admittedly a difficult distiction) is wrong and immoral.

 

[JBeukema]

you're assuming that the elected are representative of the collective

The collective either chose them or has chosen to recognize them

if nothing else, they are representative of the collective will to recognize their authority (as a mater of policy; it does not necessitate personal agreement or rule out secretive work to depose them) as opposed to open revolt

So government is merely a symbol of social order

And a means of maintaining it

 

[JBeukema]

You don't accept the 'consent of the governed'?

With 50% of the governed not participating, it's arguable that consent doesn't exist.[/quiote]

As others have already tried to explain to you, not complaining means you consent


[

quote]The courts themselves are a product of social contract

Circular logic.

No, it's not. Thank you for demonstrating that you have not been paying attention during today's class.

Go do some homework

social contract descriptive - Google Search

that unity is a contract or agreement among the members of the collective

You really ought not use words you know not the meaning of...Namely "contract".

then reality is a travesty

but now I must ask what makes it a travesty? is it wrong?

Maybe your reality, Buckwheat.

Nice evasion

Yes, using proactive force adgainst peaceful people, whenther you're a rapist or congresscritter (admittedly a difficult distiction) is wrong and immoral.

Now we're getting somewhere

Why is it 'wrong'? What makes it 'immoral'? By what standard of morality is it objectionable?

I suggest you check out the discussion that was had at LoR

League of Reason Forums • View topic - Absolute Ethical/Moral Code?

 

[JBeukema]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/79825-morality-and-ethics.html

 

[Polk]

If abstention were consent, we wouldn't need two concepts to describe them.

This intellectually bankrupt line of "reasoning" (for lack of a better term) reminds me of the Star Trek TNG episode, where Picard and Spock were being threatend by the Romulans with death if they didn't cooperate. To which Spock responded; "Since it is logical that you will kill us in any event, I choose not to cooperate".

Except that's not how elections work. If the public wanted something different, they'd show up and vote for it. Their failure to do so shows they are content with the status quo.

 

[Oddball]

Fail.

You don't get to speak for millions of people you don't know, bub.

 

[JBeukema]

Fail.

You don't get to speak for millions of people you don't know, bub.

instead, you do?

dude is failcore

 

[Oddball]

I'm not the one here pretending clairvoyance in speaking for others I don't know, or pretending that their abstention from participation in mob rule is defacto permission to be ruled by the biggest mob...You two closet despots are.

 

[JBeukema]

It's not clairvoyance, dumbass, it's reason

if they didn't like it, they'd bother to vote

either way, they don't matter. If they don't voice an objection, they're a non-entity and what they think in private doesn't matter

 

[Oddball]

It's as though you swallowed "Fifth Colum for Dummies"!

 

[JBeukema]

Dude, numerous posters have already pointed out the foolishness of your assertions

why are you being so thick?

 

[Oddball]

You and Captain Negative Waves (Polkie) do not constitute "numerous people", tovarich

 

[JBeukema]

If a man picks up a penny and the man beside him says nothing, does that not imply that the second man agrees to allow the first man to pick up the penny? Or does the first man have no right to do so unless the second man explicitly states 'you may pick up that penny'?
Let me google that for you