I really don’t know what your talking about Rob.
Of course he doesn’t. That has been obvious since he first knew me.
Let me just for old times sake explain your own concept to you.
How can he do that when it is clear (by his choice of words) he does not know what it is, and he just admitted he does not know what I am talking about? All he can explain is his own ignorance.
You feel you can refuse to consent to my rules and act as you please.
Refer to that which he calls “my rules” as ‘terms of my contract’ and he is right, though I do not feel I can act ‘as I please’. I am governed by law.
If I say I don’t consent to you imposing on me by forcing your rules on me (your non-consent) then I have no choice in the matter?
How am I forcing my rules on anyone by not accepting theirs? If someone tried to punch me, and I ducked and did not punch back, would you claim that by avoiding their punch, I punched back?
How does that work?
Your non-consent has to be agreed by another party or it doesn’t exist, there is no contract.
He is right, there is NO CONTRACT, thus NO OBLIGATIONS UNDER THAT NON-EXISTENT CONTRACT.
Now as for the government having a contract with you, they have it because you live within its jurisdiction, its that simple, if you wish to remove that consent you need its agreement.
Contract by existence? PULEASE! Non-consent requires the consent of the one you are denying consent? Seriously???? That is his position? WOW.
Jurisdiction is not a function of territory but of agreement within that territory.
Let’s look at contract law, as that is the only way anyone can impose rules on me and have them enforced.
You come to me with a contract, and ask me to accept it and follow your rules, or the terms of your contract. Lets say in this instance the rule is I have to sell you my car for $1. I say no I do not consent, and I say that due to contract law, (what some incorrectly refer to as Rob’s Rules), there is no obligation for me to fulfill the terms of your contract or follow your rules.
You then say “Okay then, contract law is merely your rules, and if you can refuse to consent and obey my rules and the terms of my contract, I can refuse to follow contract law, because those are simply your rules!” You then claim that by refusing to accept contract law, (which some incorrectly think are ‘Rob’s Rules) you can impose the terms of your contract, without a contract, by refusing to accept contract law. It is the silliest circular argument I have ever seen.
So we end up in court, and you demand the judge order me to sell you my car for $1, because those are your rules, and you have denied consent to contract law entirely, as you consider them to be merely my rules.
IS THERE AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT OR NOT?
How can you claim there is a contract and thus an enforceable obligation, when I did not consent to your terms, (your rules) and you did not consent to contract law? (my rules). These are TWO reasons for the judge to rule that there is no contract and thus no obligation on my part. It does not empower you to enforce your rules without contract.
What you are missing is the fact that MUTUAL CONSENT Is required, and EACH party has the right to deny it, and avoid the contract. You seem to think that one party can deny consent, and they require the other parties consent to do so.
Does that work with the most basic human interactions, such as sexual intercourse? If your position was correct, any rapist would be able to claim that the woman’s denial of consent, was invalidated by the rapist not consenting to the denial of consent.
Marriage would only require ONE party to say I DO, and their consent would bind the other.
Imagine you throw a party, and invite me. I decide to not show up. You can’t force me to attend. And if you are not throwing a party, my showing up unannounced does not create an obligation on you to have a party.
Imagine we are sharing a hot tub, and each of us has our own drain plug, which if we pull it, the tub shared by us both is drained. I pull my plug. Now will you pulling your plug fill up the tub, or cause it to drain even faster?
As for the government, it is composed of people, and they too are bound by law, they use contracts all the time, and my existence within a shared geographical area does not automatically generate an enforceable contract, if I deny consent to the terms of the contract.
You can repeat the opposite all you want, but repetition does not make it truth.
Mutual consent is required to achieve contract. Mutual denial of consent is not required for either party to avoid contract. Wanna poll the board?
IS mutual consent required for a lawful contract, binding marriage and lawful sexual intercourse? Or is mutual non-consent required for either party to avoid contractual obligations, marriage or sexual intercourse?
I say mutual consent is required and mutual non-consent is not. JB says that non-consent must be mutual, or one party can impose its rules on the other.
Hey I have an idea! Let us test it!
QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD:
1- Can a rapist avoid charges and liability by claiming that he did not consent to the woman’s denial of consent, and that since the denial of consent was not mutual, that mutual consent existed and he did not rape?
2- Can JB force you to sell him your car, under the terms of a contract you did not consent to, by claiming that he does not consent to contract law? Is there a contract if one party does not consent to the terms, and the other responds by refusing to consent to contract law? That is JB’s argument.
Let’s see what the other board members and especially the lawyers here have to say about it. JB will accept their word won’t he? Should be a good indication of how much they know about the law, and whether their dislike for me personally will taint their judgment and opinion.
Face it, JB is COMPLETELY wrong about his position, and has been from the very beginning.
Finally, JB accused me of lying. Is the onus at law upon me to prove I am innocent of the accusation, or is the onus on JB to prove his accusation? If I refuse to jump through hoops and prove what I said is the truth, does that mean it is not? Can you prove a negative, and is failure to do so evidence of the positive?
If I claim you are a puppy kicker, do I have to prove it, or do you have to disprove it, and if the latter, how in the world can you do that?
People who equate mutual consent with mutual non-consent are foolish and clearly do not know the law. JB has equated mutual consent with mutual non-consent. Can the board members here distinguish or not? Will they do so? Or not? Speak up lawyers, for JB is claiming the right to essentially rape a woman and then claim that because he did not consent to her non-consent, he enjoyed her consent. IS THAT LOGICAL? Or is it an incredibly stupid and completely invalid argument?
Hey lets try this: Instead of attacking me, address the points I have raised and answer the questions posed. Here they are again:
1- Can a rapist avoid charges and liability by claiming that he did not consent to the woman’s denial of consent, and that since the denial of consent was not mutual, that sufficient consent existed and he did not rape? YES OR NO please.
2 - Can JB force you to sell him your car, under the terms of a contract (his rules) you did not consent to, by claiming that he does not consent to contract law (your rules)? Is there a contract if one party does not consent to the terms, and the other responds by refusing to consent to contract law? That is JB’s argument. Do you support it or not? YES OR NO PLEASE.
WHAT SAY YOU IMPARTIAL BOARD MEMBERS?
Whose argument do you support?
I say mutual consent is required for contract.
He says mutual non-consent is required to avoid contract.
What say you?
You will agree with me, or, you will agree with him, or you will attack me to evade and avoid answering. Or you will ignore.
Lawyers what say you? Or will you be silent?
Should be interesting.
