Extraordinary Claims

[rob menard]

Which is the more extraordinary claim requiring the claimant to provide proof.

Party A tells Party B that he, Party A has the power to govern Party B without the consent of Party B.

Party B tells Party A that he Party A is wrong, and that without the consent of Party B Party A has no right to govern.

Now Party C is watching this exchange and says 'Prove your Extraordinary Claim!"

To whom is Party C addressing?
Is it Party B who claims that his consent is required to be governed who is making the most extraordinary claim, or is it Party A who claims the right to govern another without consent that is the more extraordinary? There can be only one.


I tell others the people in the government need consent to govern and people tell me I have a duty to provide proof, as I am making an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof is on me. But I see it as I am responding to their original claim to be able to govern without consent, and as such the burden to prove the ability to do so is on them, as they are the one making the original extraordinary claim, and it is I asking them to prove it. They are then always incapable of doing so without resorting to threats of unlawful actions or attempting to instill fear or anger or shame or derail the discussion. They can never respond with logic and reason, as both of those strongly support my position and not theirs.

So who is making the more extraordinary claim and thus has the burden of proof?


Those who say they can govern others without consent.
OR
Those who say they cannot be governed without consent.

Which of these has the burden of proof?

Have a great Monday all!
Peace eh?
Rob

[micklemus]

Which is the more extraordinary claim requiring the claimant to provide proof.

Party A tells Party B that he, Party A has the power to govern Party B without the consent of Party B.

Party B tells Party A that he Party A is wrong, and that without the consent of Party B Party A has no right to govern.

Now Party C is watching this exchange and says 'Prove your Extraordinary Claim!"

To whom is Party C addressing?
Is it Party B who claims that his consent is required to be governed who is making the most extraordinary claim, or is it Party A who claims the right to govern another without consent that is the more extraordinary? There can be only one.


I tell others the people in the government need consent to govern and people tell me I have a duty to provide proof, as I am making an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof is on me. But I see it as I am responding to their original claim to be able to govern without consent, and as such the burden to prove the ability to do so is on them, as they are the one making the original extraordinary claim, and it is I asking them to prove it. They are then always incapable of doing so without resorting to threats of unlawful actions or attempting to instill fear or anger or shame or derail the discussion. They can never respond with logic and reason, as both of those strongly support my position and not theirs.

So who is making the more extraordinary claim and thus has the burden of proof?


Those who say they can govern others without consent.
OR
Those who say they cannot be governed without consent.

Which of these has the burden of proof?

Have a great Monday all!
Peace eh?
Rob

Time for another circular debate then?!

[rob menard]

If you do not want to discuss then why reply at all?

Second post on this thread and you are seeking to obviously derail it.

You do realize it is your post that is beginning the process you are complaining about right?

Would you share with us then what you consider to be a proper topic and how to start it? Or will you just sit on your high horse and denigrate the efforts of others as they attempt to begin discussion? If you do not want to discuss then why are you here and why did you post on this thread?

[jayen4]

Party A is wrong and hence needs kicking in the nuts !! :D Party B is correct...... NO ONE has the right to govern anyone else,without agreement. Party C wants to shut the hell up,as he is just trying to cause dissent and it seems he already knows the answer ! :rolleyes:

This is exactly what's causing all the trouble.....one group of people trying to dominate everyone else,for their own ends. Who made them 'God' ?? This could all end very badly ! :eek:

[girlgye]

Hmmm and already we are starting to see examples now where they resort to contract law to extrapolate the proof but we saw that coming for we have studied contract law but they deny the BC otherwise we know what Rats Nest that will open. So they have a dilemma which is why they just adjourn your case and tell you to come back in 3 months time. Meantime they will get their forces to leverage you in some way. Pin fictitious civil crimes on you.

Simple rule of logic applied here and one which we have applied time and time again add nauseum. The board rules state you should not be promulgating an agenda and using it to saturate the viewers with an opinion with the aim of bringing down the main posters. The charge 'your stifling my free debate' is often levelled at the mods and they feel that because it doesn't quite border on out and out slander that it is borderline. They know how to play it.

Yet they are stifling debate. They are not using argument, reason or logic. Argument is when two opposing forces come together with often quite conflicting views. Party A would be required to provide their argument that mean they need to provide their set of premises for their assumptions. Party B must do the same. Arguments are not necessarily always solved by reason that is why they are arguments. Party A has one set of beliefs. Party B has another. If Party A keeps on spreading disinfo, lies and fear in order to get party B to comply, Party B becomes agitated and often dogmatically and rigidly hold onto their beliefs even further. No solution can be found to this type of argument and more specifically when one Party does not wish to bring about resolution.

In short then, conflict ensues and as history shows egos inflate and war develops. Then others join in and it is a fight until the last drop of unfortunate blood. In this case Party B is always going to be at the advantage as Party B has the power over Party A to silence Part A. Party A could play even nastier and dismantle the entire internet but by then Party B have designed their own systems and servers and are happily communicating on that leaving Party A to attempt to pose as Party B members in order to infiltrate and disrupte the operation and so the war continues.

Unfortunately when Party A display all the symptoms of hostility and arrogance. Party B will continue to play the role of aggrieved victim and so the whole sorry war will continue and continue. Party A may wish to continue for prediliction for War. Party B wants to live in peace so Party B members will form yet more Parties. Partie D, E and F and until we run out of letters. Each party will only allow members who are initiates only and they will have to go through strict vetting procedures. This will serve to make Parties A and C more paranoid and so they will form more factions and more spies to infiltrate all the membering organisation that have split in disunity from Party B.

Party B is not concerned by this as Party B knows fully well that it's aims are for peace not for unity so it trust that whatever factions form from Party B it trusts whole heartedly that they will be united in their aims for peace as a resounding mandate for all their actions and will not be concerned. In fact they will hold summits and come together agreeing to cast aside their mutual distrust and hatred towards one another and come together in unity for the sake of peace and to waken their kin against the tyranny of groups that have stemmed from Parties A and C.

Will this mean that Parties A and C lose their power to insist that Party B must be ruled by Party A's consent? Probably not but then that is where logic will fail us. We can reason how humans will react in a given situation but we can never make allowances for those moments where something magical happens beyond Party A or Party B's control. As Einstein said 'Spooky actions at a distance'.

Ho. You are not curing my addiction to the internet m'siour Menard but I love you very much.

Have a good day and that is the same to all members of Party's A and C too.

:p

[jayen4]

Wow ,GG...what a diatribe ! You do go on,eh ?? :D

She's (he ?) more or less saying what I did.....only using about 1000 more words !

Anyhow,Party A is a bully and needs to 'Watch It'...... I have never liked bullies !! :mad:

[micklemus]

If you do not want to discuss then why reply at all?

Second post on this thread and you are seeking to obviously derail it.

You do realize it is your post that is beginning the process you are complaining about right?

Would you share with us then what you consider to be a proper topic and how to start it? Or will you just sit on your high horse and denigrate the efforts of others as they attempt to begin discussion? If you do not want to discuss then why are you here and why did you post on this thread?

O blimey, how juvenile. This is an example of one of the reasons why I have distanced myself from the majority of these threads. It seems to be a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for anyone who is, shall we say, less than impressed with freeman theory.

My point is that this thing has been done ad nauseum. Your questions, posed as they are, lead to a circular debate and do nothing to resolve anything. They only succeed in creating another battle of egos which I'm sure you'll seek to win with wit and charm.

For what it's worth (and this ground is very sterile for me now) I would say the following -

Party A tells Party B that he, Party A has the power to govern Party B without the consent of Party B.

Party B tells Party A that he Party A is wrong, and that without the consent of Party B Party A has no right to govern.

Now Party C is watching this exchange and says 'Prove your Extraordinary Claim!"

To whom is Party C addressing?
Is it Party B who claims that his consent is required to be governed who is making the most extraordinary claim, or is it Party A who claims the right to govern another without consent that is the more extraordinary? There can be only one.

If you're referring to Party C being one of the skeptics then Party C is referring to Part B. It's practically a rhetorical question.

Is Part B making an extraordinary claim? Of course not, I don't think anyone would suggest that on any side of the debate. But does this mean you have the answers? NO, but good luck to you if you think you do.

And before you try to misrepresent me as one of the "trolls" or "shills" or any of the rest of it, may I emphasise that I'm not on any side here as such. If I have a position then it's not represented by the sides that we normally see here. For me this particular dialectic will not lead to a desired outcome.

[girlgye]

Actually the argument premise is foundationalist but it is you with your persistant need for coherance AT ALL TIMES who cannot accept that it is what it is and that YOU have no control over it.

The axioms are peace and freedom and you simply cannot stand that. So you will continue to rip holes into meaning until the logic becomes flawed again but it is you who continue the logic in to relationalism by your unreasonable and incessant negation.

You can say what goes on. You are right. You do not have the intelligence to change contructs. Thus you know jack shit about philosophy but appear that you do. A true philosopher will spot what is happening here and state what it is for and on the record and then offer an alternative way to reason, think, criticise, debate.

You do none of this but you adhominem attack to cause that very circular argument you purport to be so much against. See?

[girlgye]

Wow ,GG...what a diatribe ! You do go on,eh ?? :D

She's (he ?) more or less saying what I did.....only using about 1000 more words !

Anyhow,Party A is a bully and needs to 'Watch It'...... I have never liked bullies !! :mad:
:p


Try reading some philosophy books you don't know the meaning of it!

Are you the Jayen from birmingham re inventing your name?

[jayen4]

:p


Try reading some philosophy books you don't know the meaning of it!

Are you the Jayen from birmingham re inventing your name?


Hi GG..... I'm the Jayen from West Yorkshire. I thought I was the one and only....:)