Prove [Sythe]'s existence within a state

[ThePrestigedMuzza]

Rich are you in Australia? What direction of NSW do you live in, if south you are probably few hours from chloe

 

No, no I think you're seeing my 'proof' wrong. I understand what you're saying.

This is the general form of my proof:
I want to show that P => Q. Showing that is equivalent to showing that Not Q => Not P.

So I start with the general assumption of Not Q. (This is valid to assume, this is my premise). Then I make a chain: Not Q => S => R => ... => Not P,
but in no place in the middle do I use P => Q.

If all you are assuming is Not Q then it's a non sequitor.

Let's go set P = dogs live in space, Q = seven feet tall. So if P then Q == if dogs live in space then they are seven feet tall.

If all you were assuming is ~Q then your (sole) premise would be: "Dogs are not seven feet tall." It doesn't follow that they don't live in space.

Ok. That last part is good argument, but I don't understand why you asked us to prove your existence within a state if you could prove that you did not exist within a state.

Proving a negative is very difficult. In court presence within the state is an element of every statutory crime. A very clever legal philosopher I follow uses this argument and frequently wins in court because state prosecutors are unable to prove his existence within a state (and therefore that jurisdiction applies).

I put it to the government fanboys to see if they could prove even the simple matter that their beloved 'laws' apply to me. So far no one has even gotten close.

Also, small print: What does a signature have to do with anything. Why does having your name on a piece of paper signify anything? Why is signing different from just writing my name? And why couldn't someone else just write my name for me?

If someone else signed on your behalf it would be fraud (or in the case you lack legal capacity, it would expire the second you regained legal capacity.) The essential point here is that if the state is just an unsigned piece of paper it is not any sort of contract, and there is no agreement between 'citizen' and 'state'. What they write on paper and call 'the law' has exactly as much applicability to me as what people in Antarctica write in the snow with their pee.

If people use 'the state' as an excuse to put a gun in my face everytime I disagree with them, then I'm perfectly happy to point out that it is just a piece of paper I didn't sign, and that they are mere thugs using force to get what they want.

 

[Imagine]

If all you are assuming is Not Q then it's a non sequitor.

Let's go set P = dogs live in space, Q = seven feet tall. So if P then Q == if dogs live in space then they are seven feet tall.

If all you were assuming is ~Q then your (sole) premise would be: "Dogs are not seven feet tall." It doesn't follow that they don't live in space.

Well of course it's a non sequiteur, the whole argument is a bunch of made-up BS.
None of the claims I make in the paragraph really have any basis in reality.

A similar argument using your example would be:
Dogs are not seven feet tall implies that dogs cannot reach the clouds which implies that they don't fly which implies that they don't live in space.

(You could make a sound argument by saying that dogs need to breath, and there is no air in space, and so on, but that doesn't illustrate what I did).

Proving a negative is very difficult. In court presence within the state is an element of every statutory crime. A very clever legal philosopher I follow uses this argument and frequently wins in court because state prosecutors are unable to prove his existence within a state (and therefore that jurisdiction applies).

I put it to the government fanboys to see if they could prove even the simple matter that their beloved 'laws' apply to me. So far no one has even gotten close.

Would you mind telling me who this philosopher is? And can they not put you in jail for contempt of the court or something? Or using the roads? (I believe you), but this just seems very far-fetched.

 

[Boxur227]

Rich are you in Australia? What direction of NSW do you live in, if south you are probably few hours from chloe

oh boy. i bet knowing he's near chloe gives him a fuck to care

 

[n4n0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics

It's taught everywhere, apparently to empty classes judging by the logical prowess of the average sythe user.

Aka... The average sythe user is stupid.

 

Would you mind telling me who this philosopher is? And can they not put you in jail for contempt of the court or something? Or using the roads? (I believe you), but this just seems very far-fetched.

http://marcstevens.net

Buddy, roads existed before people D/B/A states seized control of them. And they are to this day built by private companies using money the people D/B/A the government stole from me and you. The people already pay for and build the roads. What the fuck does government have to do with it?

This is SUCH a bullshit argument and you know it. If I moved in next door and seized (with guns) the electrical network of your suburb, then forced you to pay me for its upkeep, and you then used the electrical system I'm already forcing you to pay for, does that mean YOU CONSENT to what I've done? No, you need electricity, some thug seized the network and is threatening if you don't pay.


Let's run back to the hospital argument. Imagine instead of income and sales taxes, you had to pay an organ tax. So in order to use ANY hospital within your geographical region (and remember, you're not allowed to start your own) you have to give the government a kidney. Are you going to walk up to someone who refuses to give a kidney and call them an abuser, a traitor, someone who is freeloading on the system because THEY WONT GIVE UP THEIR KIDNEY but, like every human being, need access to healthcare all the same?

How fucking awful. If you would put even 1/10th of the time you spend regurgitating what was taught to you in government schools researching history and what it is the people doing business as the government actually do, you wouldn't be on the immoral side of the fence with the looters, murders, slave owners and genocidal maniacs.

Final thought: If you think government is necessary, take a minute to verify that government was the number one cause of unnatural death in the 20th century.

 

Without getting too in depth - has anyone taken the approach of cogito ergo sum?

Descartes 'I think therefore I am' -

In an attempt to prove ones existence, the very activity of attempting [mentally] to do this proves ones existence [within a state].

 

[SuF]

Without getting too in depth - has anyone taken the approach of cogito ergo sum?

Descartes 'I think therefore I am' -

In an attempt to prove ones existence, the very activity of attempting [mentally] to do this proves ones existence [within a state].

That proves existence of you (in some form) but not you within a state.

 

That proves existence of you (in some form) but not you within a state.

Realise i'm jumping in mid thread here but, here is my opening attempt:

"Now I have established my own existence, my interpretation of my environment, let's say sensory, is a manifestation of evidence of some form of state. Regardless of how inaccurate my own interpretation of my senses is, that does not change the action of interpreting some form of environment."

 

[Logic]

Everyone needs to shut up or I'm going to derivate you all into nothingness, unless you're

that is.

 

[goldenshades]

jezz this is just full of conspiracies.. I'm so confused on what op is asking

 

[Lame]

North pole isn't claimed by anyone.

Gf theory

 

[XX_PLANKER_xx]

So what conclusions can you draw from this?

All I see is people contradicting one another..

Aka... The average sythe user is stupid.

Thanks for translating n4n0!

 

jezz this is just full of conspiracies.. I'm so confused on what op is asking

You're retared.

North pole isn't claimed by anyone.

Gf theory

All of the land at the north pole is. But even if it weren't what's your point?

 

[Rubberundiez]

Don't mind me *whistles*

 

[Lame]

You're retared.

All of the land at the north pole is. But even if it weren't what's your point?

??? Who owns the north pole then?

 

[Zealot Reyes]

If a rock is heavy, then it will fall.

If a rock is not heavy, then it won't fall.

This is a fallacy called denying the antecedent. If you take introductory logic at university you will learn about it.





Land is not the same as a state. For example the state of Australia didn't exist before 1901, however the continent I'm standing on is 2 billion years old. The state is literally a piece of paper.

If rock isnt heavy it will still fall
Gravity :l

 

If rock isnt heavy it will still fall
Gravity :l

Wow. Either you can't read or you don't know what fallacy means.

 

[Zealot Reyes]

Wow. Either you can't read or you don't know what fallacy means.

Only read for two lines then jumped the gun with the comment.
i have a tendency to do that.
People who think the earth is the middle of the solar system/Dont know what gravity is make me cringe.

 

??? Who owns the north pole then?

Depends who you ask. It's the ocean, there's a lot of international law around who controls which parts of the ocean. Generally people d/b/a a state will claim territory for 200km radius from their shoreline.