State, Constitution, Congress and President? You said they don’t exist. You named them specifically. I want to know what you mean by “Congress” when you say “There is no Congress.”
If you are actually making a serious claim you should be able to explain what you mean by “Congress”.
Correct. Correct. Correct.
Why do you want to know?
Do you not know what the Congress is?
As an aside, this attempt to catch me in a word game, or to entice me to attempt a negative proof is a big waste of time. The reason I said the believers should define those terms, is because the believers have the burden of proof, not me.
Is that relevant? Can you tell me what you mean or not?
Absolutely. Why would I answer a question without knowing its relevance?
In an attempt to move along the discussion from your ham-fisted attempts to shift the burden of proof, here is how it works.
LS, do you believe the state exists?
No.
Can you prove it doesn’t exist?
No.
Doesn’t that prove the state exists then?
No, an absence of proof is not proof of absence (negative proof).
JJ, does the state exist?
Yes.
Can you prove it?
Yes (proof follows)
_____ OR _______________
JJ, does the state exist?
Yes.
Can you prove it?
No.
If you can’t prove it, how can you say it exists?
You are a negative prick.
That’s basically the discussion in a nutshell. You and others want me to supply a negative proof, when we all know that my argument is based on the lack of a positive proof from anyone in this thread thus far.
The way you can prove me wrong is prove the state exists. It is the only way you can prove my statement wrong. Not with clever word play, not with trying to trip me up, and certainly not with negative proof arguments. Oh sure, you can try to discredit me, but that just continues to avoid proving the state exists, and anyone with an intelligence worth caring about will be able to spot that sort of approach from a mile away.
If you can’t prove the state exists (for the record, I am very sure you cannot) then you agree with me, which makes this entire discussion moot. And if you don’t know if the state exists, then you really need to do some research on your own, and draw your own conclusions, but certainly I would not be supporting a political campaign, donating or voting, if I wasn’t sure the thing I was supporting even exists.
YMMV
You have to know why someone is asking a question before you answer it? That’s odd. I don’t understand. Do you have something to lose?
Edited my post. Think it over tonight, I will pick this up tomorrow, assuming you have something new to add.
We’re resorting to strawmen now? When did I ask you to prove anything? All I asked was if you can define the terms you used. Can you?
So you’re not asking me to prove my position? Do you accept my argument?
I have already replied to this at least twice.
Now, I have asked you several questions you have not answered. Putting aside the fact you cannot offer a reason why I should answer you, don’t you think you are being very hypocritical expecting me to answer every question you have, when you do not reciprocate and answer every question I have?
I saw where you said other people should be left to define the terms you use. Is that where you’re planning to rest? You used the terms, but you’re not going to define what you mean. Is that the size of it?
You’re continuing to ask questions without replying to any of my questions, while ignoring my answers.
Do you believe that such behavior constitutes a good faith discussion?
I asked you to define the terms you used. I think that was a simple request. Your reply was that you shouldn’t define the terms you used. Others should. That seems quite odd, to say the least. So I restated what I meant by that. I asked you no new questions. Then, instead of defining the terms you used, you asked why I wanted to know, as if that had any relevance to the discussion. (Not to mention I figured it was self-evident, I’d like to know what you mean by those words because I’m curious what you mean by those words.)
So since you kept dodging my initial request, I simply asked if you actually could define the terms you used or not. You ignored that quesiton. So, I figured you might at least tell me why you wouldn’t give an answer to such a simple request as asking you to define the terms you have used (something you have asked of others many many times…and as far as I’ve seen no one has ever asked you why you wanted them to do so, or claimed that someone else should be left to define the terms they themselves used.)
And then you couldn’t even tell me why you wouldn’t honor the very same request you have made so many times of others. You simply made up a bunch of nonsense hypothetical conversations and posted those instead. So I asked you once again, the same question…can you or can you not define the terms you used.
And your reply was that you already replied to that question. But the fact is you did not address that question. And now you’re attempting to duck out of the whole thing by claiming I haven’t answered your questions so “why should I expect you to answer mine.”
First of all I only initially made a single request. You refused to honor it, so I asked if you actually could honor it or not. I believe that is a reasonable question. You refused to acknowledge that question, so I asked why you wouldn’t honor the first. There would not have been multiple questions if you would have just honored the simple, common, and quite reasonable (in fact, I’m not sure I could think of a more reasonable request) of defining the terms you used. Again, something you have asked of others multiple times.
So I’ll go back to the original request. Please define the terms you used.
James, are you willing to have a good faith discussion with me about this topic?
Of course. Are you?
Absolutely. Would you agree that in a good faith discussion, both parties should be responsive to one another?
Depending on what you mean by “responsive”, I believe I would agree. Do you believe it is a reasonable (as in, one that should be honored) request that someone define the terms he uses?
Do you agree that a good faith discussion is one where both parties can ask questions and expect answers which respond to those questions?
So let me get this straight. You’re going to walk me through this step by step line of questioning about good faith discussion, tit for tat, being responsive, I play along and answer your questions along the way as you ask them, and ask you one of my own, and you get to ignore my question, and then ask another of your own…about both parties being able to ask questions and get answers no less? Are you serious?
Honestly I’m beginning to wonder if you are interested in good faith discussion. If you will not answer my initial, original, good faith, simple, reasonable request that you define the terms you used, please answer the question I just asked you.
Absolutely. So do you agree with my clarification about what a good faith discussion entails?
I’m not sure if that’s supposed to be a joke. I thought it was obvious when I requested you answer the question I just asked you, I was referring to the question you ignored, not the rhetorical one. So I’ll clarify. This is the question you ignored:
“Do you believe it is a reasonable (as in, one that should be honored) request that someone define the terms he uses?”
This is the question that started this whole thing:
“Can you define [those terms you used] individually please?”
I believe the sentence above is technically a question, but I think it is understood that such a question is intended as a request for you to do so, not as a simple inquiry as to whether or not you could do so. (Although, when you would not do so, I actually did inquire as to whether or not you could, another question you ignored.)
So, in good faith, I ask that you please honor the original request. And if you will not, I suppose that makes the answer to the question above it in this post self-evident, but it would be nice to get a direct answer to that anyway. So, yet again, please define the terms you used, as you yourself have asked so many others to do.
I most certainly am not joking. I want very much to have a good faith discussion with you.
Here I defined a good faith discussion and asked for your agreement.
Here you indicated you didn’t understand what I meant.
Here I tried to clarify what I meant
After that, you did not agree or disagree with my clarification.