The consent of the Governed.

[firstworldproblems]

There's obtuse and then there's dontpushme

[yozhik]

Originally Posted by happy sheeple

Anyway back to this idea of consent not being consent unless it can be withdrawn at any time. How does that work? If you consent to something you consent to it. There isnt an automatic instant get out clause to it otherwise contracts would be useless as you then could withdraw at any time.

Tell that to a rape victim.






... and yet again, another falls into the Illogical Pit, the dumbed down universe, where Consent = Obligation.



"You consented to sleep with me earlier in the pub, so now you have a contractual obligation to do so ..."

[firstworldproblems]

Originally Posted by yozhik

So you agree then; I never stated that.
Cool.

Let's move on, shall we?

LOL

Yes, quick quick, let's move on!

[yozhik]

You took two specific statements, mixed them up, added a healthy pinch of opinion, and shaped them into a bastard child of what you had inferred and what you wanted to imply ... then spat it out onto a big screen via Butt Cam, claiming that your turd was my doing.

Nice one.

I asked for a link to the statement you accredited to me; not to the multiple statements that you manipulated and presented as the original.

[firstworldproblems]

Yeah, "what magic is this?!", right? I took your statement that people get licenses under threat of force and your statement that threat of force is terrorism and used dark sorcelery to conjure up the completely alien, unrelated statement that people getting their licenses under the threat of force was terrorism.

Oh, the acrobatics you do. I do love the circus.

[dontpushme]

Originally Posted by firstworldproblems

There's obtuse and then there's dontpushme

i assume from your evasive nature that you agree that a society is an idea, so your enslaved by somebody elses imagination*

* you have my deepest condolences

[firstworldproblems]

It refers to the group of people who built, maintain, pay for, and share the roads, hospitals, schools, fire stations, power lines, telecommunications infrastructures, sewers, garbage collection, etc, etc, etc.

I don't care what word you want to use to call it.

[dontpushme]

Originally Posted by firstworldproblems

It refers to the group of people who built, maintain, pay for, and share the roads, hospitals, schools, fire stations, power lines, telecommunications infrastructures, sewers, garbage collection, etc, etc, etc.

I don't care what word you want to use to call it.

as has been mentioned else where, a group is a subjective realm of the mind thing, so you agree your a slave to somebody elses imagination?

[dontpushme]

still avoiding answering, thats 2 of my questions you refuse to answer, both answerable with a yes or no, yet i'm the retard because you are unable to answer my questions

but still, its fun to read your insults

[wakeupworld]

Tacit response means no.

[yozhik]

Originally Posted by firstworldproblems

Yeah, "what magic is this?!", right? I took your statement that people get licenses under threat of force and your statement that threat of force is terrorism and used dark sorcelery to conjure up the completely alien, unrelated statement that people getting their licenses under the threat of force was terrorism.

Oh, the acrobatics you do. I do love the circus.

Let's go with your premise - just for the giggles - and to keep the Clowns & Trapeze Artists employed.


Question:
Is there a very real threat of harm [physical, commercial, social or financial] should one exercise free will and choose to use the roads without a licence?

Question:
From whom [or what] does that threat of harm come?

Question:
Is the threat real?

Question:
Is the following an accurate summary of the environment pertaining to a driver's licence and it's enforcement?

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political [...] in nature [...] through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

[dontpushme]

Originally Posted by yozhik

Let's go with your premise - just for the giggles - and to keep the Clowns & Trapeze Artists employed.


Question:
Is there a very real threat of harm [physical, commercial, social or financial] should one exercise free will and choose to use the roads without a licence?

Question:
From whom [or what] does that threat of harm come?

Question:
Is the threat real?

Question:
Is the following an accurate summary of the environment pertaining to a driver's licence and it's enforcement?

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political [...] in nature [...] through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

i tried explaining in another thread that the risk of harm from driving doesn't get negated with insurance or a license, and that insurance payouts don't do much good when your 6 foot under.

2 solutions to the problem got described but they seem more interested in pay up cause i do deal

[happy sheeple]

Originally Posted by dontpushme

i tried explaining in another thread that the risk of harm from driving doesn't get negated with insurance or a license, and that insurance payouts don't do much good when your 6 foot under.

2 solutions to the problem got described but they seem more interested in pay up cause i do deal

Of course it doesnt negate the risk but it does reduce it and if something less than death results it does help. Please explain how cars with no number plates or insurance driven by people with no licences is safer? or provides any advantages at all over our present system except to the selfish person driving?
Oh and if these things are not needed please explain to me how you would prevent children from driving? or do you think a six year old driving a car would be a good thing?

[dontpushme]

Originally Posted by happy sheeple

Of course it doesnt negate the risk but it does reduce it and if something less than death results it does help. Please explain how cars with no number plates or insurance driven by people with no licences is safer? or provides any advantages at all over our present system except to the selfish person driving?
Oh and if these things are not needed please explain to me how you would prevent children from driving? or do you think a six year old driving a car would be a good thing?

i can't help you sorry

[yozhik]

Originally Posted by dontpushme

i tried explaining in another thread that the risk of harm from driving doesn't get negated with insurance or a license, and that insurance payouts don't do much good when your 6 foot under.

2 solutions to the problem got described but they seem more interested in pay up cause i do deal

I wasn't making reference to driving without a licence being erroneously linked to ability ... having a licence doesn't guarantee skill.

I was making reference to the omnipresent threat of harm by armed and uniformed enforcers, with inequality of protection by the legal system that exists, should you choose to not comply with licensing.

[yashin]

Originally Posted by dontpushme

insurance payouts don't do much good when your 6 foot under.

So do you consider life insurance to be completely pointless?

[firstworldproblems]

"I've never said requiring a license is terrorism but let me explain exactly why I think requiring a license is terrorism".

Yeah sure ok.

[stratty]

Sorry, wrong thread.

[yozhik]

Originally Posted by firstworldproblems

"I've never said requiring a license is terrorism but let me explain exactly why I think requiring a license is terrorism".

Yeah sure ok.

pssssst ...

Originally Posted by yozhik

Let's go with your premise - just for the giggles ...

You did read that, right?



Soooooooo ... your premise ... we're going with it ... we're playing with your ball, by your rules ...

DAMN ... WTF?
Now you dropped the ball and start whinging about it ...

What's up with that?

Are you running with your premise or not?

[firstworldproblems]

Ah, yes, I did miss this misattribution.

You said people get licenses under threat of force.

You said threat of force is terrorism.

Are you denying either of these. Yes or no.