Debating A Statist

[inertia]

[NonEntity]

Cute! :biggrinblue: (Boy can I relate!)

- NonE

[inertia]

I think this can be used to categorize parts of Marc's script. For instance, "Am I innocent until proven guilty?" fulfills the very first question, "Can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?" This is because the PR claims that no one has come to any conclusion about innocence.

If the answer is no, then this is not a discussion. If the answer is yes, "Am I innocent of every element of the crime?" fulfills the second question, "If one of your arguments is shown to be faulty will you stop using that argument (with everyone)?" The judge can't get past this or else he will have to allow jurisdiction to enter the discussion. But if, hypothetically, they admit that jurisdiction is allowed to be challenged, then it is assumed that they are "... prepared to abide by basic principles of reason in discussing this topic ..." (which is what the PR says courts are all about).

The point about not introducing new arguments also implies that relevant questions about the previously established points can be challenged. Claiming that jurisdiction cannot be challenged is like introducing a new argument.

And so fourth.

[NonEntity]

inertia Wrote:But if, hypothetically, they admit that jurisdiction is allowed to be challenged, then it is assumed that they are "... prepared to abide by basic principles of reason in discussing this topic ..." (which is what the PR says courts are all about).

Ah, but that would be a false assumption. That is why it is so important to clearly understand Marc's methods, as they depend upon backing "the system" into a corner from which it cannot dig itself out BEFORE they recognize the trap.

There ain't no honor in this game. But this should be obvious from the get-go. Anyone who is willing to use aggressive force to get what he wants is by definition not honorable. An easy way to separate the two is with a simple question, "Are you asking me, or telling me?"

- NonE

[inertia]

I am all for trapping them, but what defense could they have even if they had a copy of the script itself? I mean, other than cheating, of course.

[NonEntity]

inertia Wrote:I am all for trapping them, but what defense could they have even if they had a copy of the script itself? I mean, other than cheating, of course.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Or maybe it is the context.

They don't need a defense, they have the guns. The only value to the "trapping" is that you are revealing to the public the nature of their lies, and this is not beneficial to the smooth functioning of their con operation. So they don't want that to happen.

Does that make sense, or am I answering a different question than that which you posed?

- NonE

[inertia]

Yes, I realize they don't need an actual defense. But if I were in dialog with a statist, one on one, no actual guns in the room, and I presented all my cards on the table, should I expect that they would reference the gun anyway or question my sanity or some other "out" other than conclude they are in fact wrong?

Or turn it around, do they believe they are coming from a principled, reasoned position and that we are the one who need evidence?

Trapping them is fine in court, where it does some damage to their PR in front of people. But has anyone been able to present the script in a candid context where they have time to really approach it and understand it?

I am convinced giving them time won't help them. But it would at least take away the "out" that we are just trying to trick them in some way.