Coward debaters

I'm calling out anyone who snickers at or mocks my intellectual positions on any subject. Man up and face me.

 

[Smellex]

I'll be first to post and ask.

What is this? :3

 

[Sarad0m1nz]

WTF Sythe, nobody snickers at or mocks your intellectual positions on any subject. The only people who dare do it are trolls that get owned by you anyway. Do you already know this and just like the satisfaction you get for owning trolls?
Well, I would like to (even though I don't mock your intelligence) challenge you on a subject that I disagree with you, yet how do I or anyone know any of your 'intellectual positions on subjects'? Would you mind stating a few that you think many people are opposed to but you feel strongly about?
Sorry if I got the definition of this thread wrong. ;P

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

Can you see edited posts? If so, look at RossDuggans thread

 

[RossDuggan]

Can you see edited posts? If so, look at RossDuggans thread

Meany. It was in the spam forum and was a quote with a laughing gif.

Ontopic: Idk what this thread is supposed to be for, but...

Tax is theft. I don't support theft, therefore I don't support tax.



Great, so when can I send you my taxes? You will pay them right? To be consistent with your beliefs...

Well that's not even the point here.

I would not force someone to pay for something they do not support, and I expect people to extend me the same courtesy.

I think we would all agree that ethical laws should be universal.

For example: it cannot be a valid moral rule that everyone except one guy is morally forbidden from raping. I.e. it cannot be an ethical law that raping is wrong, except in this one case for this one guy right here named Steve.

So, if it is wrong for me to force you to pay for a cause you don't believe in, (such as, for example: a project to arm every person in the middle east, or a project to setup a whaling base in the pacific ocean) then, logically, it is also wrong for you to force me to pay for your welfare state, wars, and ridiculous thugs in blue costumes.

Now if it is the case that this is a valid moral law (that no human should force another human to pay for a cause they don't believe in) then supporters of taxation should pay for all taxation -- especially my taxes, because I don't support taxation. And if it is not the case that this is a valid moral law, then it is not unethical for me to force you to pay my taxes. So either way, supporters of taxation should be paying my taxes.

Without taxes we wouldn't have many things that we currently take for granted. For example, in England we pay taxes that go towards funding the NHS.

You're living in a country that requires you to pay taxes. If you feel so strongly against them, move.

 

WTF Sythe, nobody snickers at or mocks your intellectual positions on any subject.

One would hope not, but not everyone here is as civilized as you think.

 

Without taxes we wouldn't have many things that we currently take for granted. For example, in England we pay taxes that go towards funding the NHS.

My position is that taxation is theft.

If you support theft then you can have the NHS.

You're living in a country that requires you to pay taxes. If you feel so strongly against them, move.

My position is that firstly, there is no where to move, statism is everywhere on the globe. Secondly, I never agreed to "live in a country", as you claim I do -- remember the "state" is not the ground. Thirdly, I don't believe such a thing as a "country" exists to begin with. You claim I belong to some organization you call the "state", come and prove it.

I refer you directly to this thread: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=940416

When you reply -- when you understand my position fully -- you have two options: Either make a counter counter-argument, or admit that your argument has no merit.

 

[goku usa]

I'd think twice before arguing with you. I have not met anyone with knowledge of such vast areas.

 

[apiel06]

oho if i disagree with you i'll make sure to leave my opinion Its great fun arguing with you

 

[Bow_0f_Mercy]

Never argue with someone who can ban you might be the best thing to do.

 

[Maleficent]

I only lurk when I see sythe post I'm ignorant on the topics he posts it's best I don't embarrass myself as I've seen other posters do.

 

[Itz Me]

I've seen people defend their positions, but I haven't seen anyone mock you.(in SFA)

 

[pure skillzz]

I've seen people defend their positions, but I haven't seen anyone mock you.(in SFA)

I think he might be referring to this guy:

Now the start of the famous Sythe ramblings which really add nothing of real value to a discussion, rather just fill space. Your above statement isn't necessarily true at all.

I think he might be FFF.

 

[I'm Still Breathing]

What gives them the right to the land that I'm using?

Well, I'm pretty sure the government claimed the land you're "using" long before you were born. So you can either live on their land, go find your own land to claim, or wage war with the government.

 

[Kleenex]

It seems like this is turning into a discussion of taxation.

 

[Karl]

Firstly, I want to say that im not actually against the idea of Anarchism (some of its aspects, i agree with) but How can you support something that is mainly theory, will most likely never be in place (unless forced by an act of violence), and something that never lasts (as in anarchism eventually leads to democracy.).

Basically, im trying to understand how Anarchism could be held in place over time, because surely.. if you're given the freedom to do whatever you want, you could technically have the right to form your own government, give it power and devolve power to other members of your own government, force the idea onto others (you're allowed to, your a free man), if those people follow this government, then its pretty much anarchism down the grid. and I don't think 'You'd have to trust the people to decide if they want anarchism to last' as answer will suffice.

 

[SuF]

I'm calling out anyone who snickers at or mocks my intellectual positions on any subject. Man up and face me.

Sythe. I'd just like to say that making threads like this just will make things worse. You are reacting to what ever people are doing and they like that and will just do it more. :/

 

[Atticus Evan]

My position is that taxation is theft.

If you support theft then you can have the NHS.

My position is that firstly, there is no where to move, statism is everywhere on the globe. Secondly, I never agreed to "live in a country", as you claim I do -- remember the "state" is not the ground. Thirdly, I don't believe such a thing as a "country" exists to begin with. You claim I belong to some organization you call the "state", come and prove it.

I refer you directly to this thread: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=940416

When you reply -- when you understand my position fully -- you have two options: Either make a counter counter-argument, or admit that your argument has no merit.

In the United States, taxation IS theft.

The government takes trillions of dollars, yes trillions with a T, from its citizens every year. Instead of repaying our national debt, which is MULTIPLE TRILLIONS, the government pays companies like KBR and Halliburton for services in the middle east.

The major shareholders of these companies all work in the White House.

The companies steal from the government. They are paid by how much they spend. Every dollar that they spend, they profit a percentage.

So, they spend hundreds of billions of dollars, and the governement writes their paychecks.

A friend of mine drove trucks in Iraq for KBR. They didn't even stock on spare tires, motor oil, belts, hoses or any kind of spare part. If a truck had a flat tire or breakdown, they pushed it to a burn pit and ordered a new truck. There trucks are made by Mercedes Benz and cost over $120,000.

I could go on for hours about this, but I doubt anyone else cares.

 

[LukeBurnsRed]

Sythe. I'd just like to say that making threads like this just will make things worse. You are reacting to what ever people are doing and they like that and will just do it more. :/

Agreed. Although I believe that you get some sort of satisfaction out of conflict, as you seem to be debating an awful lot. Why react like that if you're getting what you want? You clearly enjoy the people that disagree with you, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a thread. It gives you something else to debate about.

Or perhaps this is your sneaky way of stirring up the trolls for your leisure...




This has no offensive intent whatsoever, just the way I'm seeing things.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure the government claimed the land you're "using" long before you were born. So you can either live on their land, go find your own land to claim, or wage war with the government.

These are conclusions, not arguments.

What you are claiming is that I don't own property which is in my name, that rather I illegally possess this property, and that this property belongs to something called "the state". This must necessarily be your position, else you would not be able to invoke trespass as a reason to throw me off the property, as you are attempting to do.

What you need to do:

Firstly, prove the existence of a "state" before you assert that it owns any property. I refer you to this thread where others have been attempting this: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=940416

Secondly, you will need to manifest proof to support your position that it can own property (assuming you can prove that a "state" exists.)

Thirdly, you will need to demonstrate that this property was justly acquired by "the state" -- and the title to such was maintained -- and that therefore I am an illegal current owner of said property.

If you cannot show these three things then your claim that my property is owned by "the state" is invalid, and in fact libelous, and as such you should retract it, as you are baselessly accusing me of trespass and theft.

Basically, im trying to understand how Anarchism could be held in place over time, because surely.. if you're given the freedom to do whatever you want, you could technically have the right to form your own government, give it power and devolve power to other members of your own government, force the idea onto others (you're allowed to, your a free man), if those people follow this government, then its pretty much anarchism down the grid. and I don't think 'You'd have to trust the people to decide if they want anarchism to last' as answer will suffice.

Really this isn't an argument, and I think you acknowledge that. It is a more profound philosophic acknowledgment, which here I will address it briefly.

There is no piece of paper, or thing that you can say which will enforce any system of rules. Paper is paper, people are people. People have volition; they can choose to follow principles and read books, and, likewise, they can choose to ignore principles and burn books. You will never escape this problem under any aspect of any pursuit; the challenge is exactly as applicable to whatever current system people believe we live under as it is to anarchism.

This is the fact known as "ideas don't stop bullets".

Given this, there is still the power of ideas to be here considered:

What is the power of ideas? Why reason, why philosophize, why think about human affairs and what the law ought to be? Because of the power of ideas:

Humans have virtually unlimited capacity to reason and learn and apply knowledge, when considered intergenerationally. The power of ideas is everything that has ever been built, everything that ever will be built, and every action and non-action that every human being has, does, and will ever perform; The power of ideas is the hydrogen bomb, the internet, the mars rover, and the automobile, and literally everything you can conceive of -- the power of conception [as in concept formation] being in itself the power of ideas.

There is always the possibility we will slip backwards, because there is always volitional choice. But the power of ideas is fantastic in its scale, and absolutely worth fighting for. When we get it right, we have an explosion in population and standards of living and human creativity and triumph and just general love for life, and when we get it wrong we have the dark ages, witch trials, stoning, wars, murder, famine, death, destruction, communism, slavery, and what you see today everywhere in the world. Look around you, this is the competition for the realm of ideas; a bunch of has-been nobodies whining about altruism. Let them have their socialism and their worthless paper money, for we have the realm of ideas.


NB: The above is an article in response to a question. I won't reply to comments on it. Please don't leave comments about it in this thread.

Sythe. I'd just like to say that making threads like this just will make things worse. You are reacting to what ever people are doing and they like that and will just do it more. :/

Maybe that's so. It remains to be seen. I prefer to have the issues brought to the light, because the reality is that I've put the time and effort into integrating my ideas, and I've put the time and energy into analysis and deep thought in these areas. These ideas go on record, along with the challenges thereto, and thus can be recovered at a later stage if so needed.