No straw man at all. You made an absurd categorical statement. - And of course you will not respond substantively to being called out on it. You're just a troll who says stupid ignorant things- which we're all guilty of one time or another. But you double down and dodge and evade. Which ultimately makes your comments meaningless - a kind of trash on the landscape.It isn’t I who is arguing for benefits, so your straw man is misplaced. — NOS4A2
I'm calling nonsense, and you're running every which-a-way so as not to engage. I'm calling you out as a troll, stupid, a coward, and a fool. So make your case, defend yourself and your statement, or quit posting because l'll be calling out fool wherever I find you fool.Taxes are not only theft, but forced labor. — NOS4A2
At best, your points seemed to be contextual. That's why I responded with some contextual points of my own. — Relativist
Understand that I never thought this indictment should have been made. — Relativist
You don't understand the legal technicalities, so you have no rational basis to judge this a "kangaroo court". So your judgement seems to be based on a mischaracterization of the case (from the article you linked, it seems). Your disinterest in delving into the technicalities -while nevertheless embracing that irrational judgement, implies you choose to cling to that judgement. That's your choice, but then there's nothing to discuss.I don't have any interest in delving into all of the legal details. I will do that with some Supreme Court cases, but I have no intrinsic interest in the details of a kangaroo court. — Leontiskos
You don't understand the legal technicalities, so you have no rational basis to judge this a "kangaroo court". — Relativist
Here's a definition of "Kangaroo court":
an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor. — Relativist
I was not in favor of prosecuting it [...] because it was trivial, and technically nuanced. — Relativist
If so, then this demonstrates that indeed you have not done adequate research to form your judgement. — Relativist
You've merely quoted a definition and implied this somehow fits what occurred without explaining how.: a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures — Leontiskos
That's very different from claiming the procedure was "irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular". Laws were actually broken, and it was within the lawful discretion of the DA to prosecute it. Furthermore, by trial's conclusion, I had come around to thinking that it actually was a useful exercise.I was not in favor of prosecuting it [...] because it was trivial, and technically nuanced.
— Relativist
Which is much my point. — Leontiskos
The trial was conducted in accordance with reasonable interpretations of the law. Appellate courts may interpret the law differently, or decide there's something unconstitutional in the law. Overturning on some technicality will not mean he didn't do the deeds.We can just wait and see if the appeals result in a reversal. At this point it looks like everything was for show, prosecution and defense alike. — Leontiskos
You've merely quoted a definition and implied this somehow fits what occurred without explaining how. — Relativist
That's very different from claiming the procedure... — Relativist
I googled the definition, and that's what appeared. My intent was to get you to explain what you meant, not to argue semantics.At least I didn't pull a strawman definition out of thin air without citing any source at all. :lol: — Leontiskos
I told you the article attacked a strawman legal argument. This would be clear if you understood the technicalities of the actual legal argument. You told me you weren't interested in those technicalities. Seems like you've come full circle.Listen man, these dick measuring contests are fun and all, but if you have a complaint with the sources I've provided you can go ahead and provide that critique. — Leontiskos
Whether the charges should have been brought is one question, and to my mind not an interesting question, and certainly an ignorant question. The fact is he was charged - with crimes - tried and convicted.
Your claim isI have addressed my claim and put it right in front of you in the form of an argument, — NOS4A2
And you have neither argued nor defended. On the other hand, my claims about your character are exemplified and proved by your responses. Two statements: "Taxes are theft," and "[taxes are] forced labor."Taxes are not only theft, but forced labor. — NOS4A2
Charged by a DA who campaigned on prosecuting him, tried by a judge who donates to the opposing campaign in violation of the states ethics rules, and convicted by a jury who were given poor jury instructions. They are willing to sacrifice justice itself on the altar of their mental illness. — NOS4A2
:up: :up:The fact is he [Orange Turd] was charged - with crimes - tried and convicted. — tim wood
(Adults who can "handle the truth", click username link for my argument.) :victory: :mask:Well, my guess (today, 31May24) is that Convicted Felon-1 will be sentenced to 2-4 years for each of the 34 felonies that will run concurrently (so that if only 1 felony survives the appeal process, he will still serve 2-4 years in prison), probably starting in spring 2025. The basis of sentencing will be ... — 180 Proof
Have you run away? You quoted out of context what you appear not to have understood. Imho you should either yourself disavow your usage or defend it. Or like a horse in the city, wear a bag to catch your droppings, in your case from your mouth.But why not answer and argue for yourself? — tim wood
As with so many, one can question whether you read - it's clear you did not understand and that you took your quote out of context.
But why not answer and argue for yourself? Modern society is built on infrastructure, "infrastructure" broadly understood. Without it, no society as known and understood. And society itself aspirational, continually trying to be better. But it comes at a price. One aspect of the price is taxation. Taxation paying for infrastructure, for the betterment of the lives of all. You call that theft and those who pay, slaves. If it's justice how is it theft? And if society freely chooses, how are they slaves?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.