Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Ravenwood]

Frankly, I'm getting bored with laughing at FOTL antics. I want to point and laugh at Ninja Cat. That **** is hilarious.

Wow...something more expensive than airsoft & less entertaining...I'm underwhelmed

 

[FreemanMenard]

Sigh..., not the rape again Rob, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with rape as you always bring it up.

As for the rest of your post its just the same gibberish.

How can you make me toe the line when I visit freeman valley Rob?

I have already displayed an example of you governing me against my consent, do you want it again?

Two of the major types of intercourse that happen daily across the planet is sexual intercourse and commercial intercourse. Both require consent. I prove it with the first and instead of you having the strength or character to admit I am right, you try to label me as the unhealthy one merely for using it as an example. Yet you do not address the point raised. Do you think you can bring your exact same argument against a woman who refuses to consent to that type of intercourse or do you admit your argument is flawed? Or did you wish to avoid it once again and try to place the flaw upon me personally, AGAIN?

The second type was also addressed in a clear and reasonable manner, but you dismiss it by embracing your own ignorance and calling it gibberish. But to the average lurker it is not gibberish. However by calling it that, they can see your inability to grasp concepts they have no problem understanding.

You sure do look incredibly stupid when you refer to such a basic example as gibberish.

As for you on my land, I would use the law. I would try to explain it to you, but you have so much difficulty understanding the difference between contract law and the terms of a contract it would be a waste of time.

But to the lurkers, pay attention to how he tried to evade the issue of consent being required for both types of intercourse. One he calls gibberish, the other he tries to claim that because I used it as an example, that I am overly focused on it. I have used the example of contract far more, but that he dismisses as gibberish.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Very good Menard.
You have shown at least some ability to distinguish cases where consent is required/relevant according to real laws.

Now try apply that ability to the government debt collector with a warrant above.

So you are acknowledging that JB's argument is not sound.
Thank you, at least one of you here can see past his BS.

See that JB?
Someone besides me sees your argument is invalid.

 

[Paul]

Are you looking for another warning, or perhaps you are trying to get this thread closed?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Are you looking for another warning, or perhaps you are trying to get this thread closed?

So if myself and someone else agree that a third party's argument is fantastically stupid, that is reason for being warned or having the thread closed? How is that?

Incidentally, do you agree with JB, that he can impose his will upon someone and force them to engage in either form of intercourse merely by claiming that he does not consent to them not consenting? Yes or No please. Let's have a poll!

 

[carlitos]

We are hardly stumped by his argument, but stunned at the shear idiocy of it.

Heh.

 

[Paul]

So if myself and someone else agree that a third party's argument is fantastically stupid, that is reason for being warned or having the thread closed? How is that?

Ok, so it's wilful misrepresentation to avoid answering any questions.

Incidentally, do you agree with JB, that he can impose his will upon someone and force them to engage in either form of intercourse merely by claiming that he does not consent to them not consenting?

Do you really believe that is what he claimed, or are you just trolling again?

 

[100]

For the lurkers only, Imagine JB comes to you with a contract to buy your car for $1.

Ok.

You do not like the terms of his contract, so you refuse to consent to the contract. JB says "Well I do not consent to your ability to not consent to my contract! I do not consent to contract law!"

At this point I would think he's using an excuse to steal my car, so I would call the cops
Though technically in the Freeman world he would be able to do this, as you can choose what laws to consent to.
I would just counter with "I do not consent to your non-consent of my non-consent," and then he would say "I do not consent to your non-consent of my non-consent of your non-consent," and this would continue on forever or until someone got bored.

Can he take you to court for breach of contract when you did not consent and there is no contract because he has abandoned contract law entirely? Would the judge order you to sell JB your car, because there is no contract and no contract law? HM?

If we were in the Freeman world and he didn't consent to contract law then the judge would have to because there is nothing stopping him from doing so.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Ok, so it's wilful misrepresentation to avoid answering any questions.


Do you really believe that is what he claimed, or are you just trolling again?

That is exactly what he claimed.

If I refuse to consent to the terms of his contract, he can refuse to consent to contract law.

He calls them both however 'rules' and claims that if I can refuse to consent to his rules, or the terms of his contract, he can refuse to consent to my rules, or contract law, thus negating my refusal to consent to his terms.

He considers contract law to be merely 'my rules' and thus he has as much right to not consent to them, as I do to not consent to his contracts terms.

Yeap stumped alright...

 

[FreemanMenard]

Ok.

At this point I would think he's using an excuse to steal my car, so I would call the cops
Though technically in the Freeman world he would be able to do this, as you can choose what laws to consent to.
I would just counter with "I do not consent to your non-consent of my non-consent," and then he would say "I do not consent to your non-consent of my non-consent of your non-consent," and this would continue on forever or until someone got bored.


If we were in the Freeman world and he didn't consent to contract law then the judge would have to because there is nothing stopping him from doing so.

This is the position not presented by Freemen as their belief, but by the non-freemen crowd as a misrepresentation of Freeman beliefs.

It is a strawman argument.

We embrace law and use it to free ourselves from the rules others try to pass off as law. And then it is claimed we have rejected ALL law.

YAWN......

 

[100]

We embrace law and use it to free ourselves from the rules others try to pass off as law.

Forgive my ignorance but how is that any different from you just choosing what laws you want to consent to?

 

[D'rok]

Forgive my ignorance but how is that any different from you just choosing what laws you want to consent to?

It isn't.

Another cute trick, on full display in this thread, is when FOTL numpties try to pretend that statutes are contracts. They aren't.

 

[Paul]

That is exactly what he claimed.

I think you should have used some of that time you spent studying law on basic English lessons instead.

If I refuse to consent to the terms of his contract, he can refuse to consent to contract law.

It's a contract, either party can refuse to consent, as long as they haven't both signed and the contract is fair.

He calls them both however 'rules' and claims that if I can refuse to consent to his rules, or the terms of his contract, he can refuse to consent to my rules, or contract law, thus negating my refusal to consent to his terms.

Why don't you go away and spend some time untangling your confusion over laws, rules and contracts.

Yeap stumped alright...

Well, you should take the help when it is offered.

 

[jargon buster]

One bright morning in Robs freeman valley a guy called jargon buster walked in and took an apple from Robs tree.

"Hey, thats my tree Jargon, you can't do that"
"Who says?"
"Me, it's the law"
"Its not my law, I don't consent to it"

Now what happens Rob?
Do you...
A) Govern me without my consent
B) Go back in your mud hut and kick the dog out of frustration because you have to stick to your own principles?

 

[jargon buster]

We embrace law and use it to free ourselves from the rules others try to pass off as law. And then it is claimed we have rejected ALL law

Before anyone wastes any time asking him what "law"is, don't bother, its something in your heart apparently.
So if its in your heart that its alright to deceive people then its fine, thats how Rob justifies his actions.

 

[Paul]

This is the position not presented by Freemen as their belief, but by the non-freemen crowd as a misrepresentation of Freeman beliefs.

Whereas your misrepresentation of others' beliefs and arguments is OK because you say so, is that how it goes?

It is a strawman argument.

Funny, it seems to be made of solid postings.

We embrace law and use it to free ourselves from the rules others try to pass off as law.

Misrepresenting the law and pretending you are immune from it does not make you a freedman.

 

[100]

Also, who are these "others" that you are talking about?

 

[FreemanMenard]

I think you should have used some of that time you spent studying law on basic English lessons instead.


It's a contract, either party can refuse to consent, as long as they haven't both signed and the contract is fair.


Why don't you go away and spend some time untangling your confusion over laws, rules and contracts.


Well, you should take the help when it is offered.

I have no confusion over them at all, and can and do distinguish between them. JB does not distinguish however, and repeatedly considers contract law to be merely my rules. Are you going to tell him to go away now?

 

[FreemanMenard]

One bright morning in Robs freeman valley a guy called jargon buster walked in and took an apple from Robs tree.

"Hey, thats my tree Jargon, you can't do that"
"Who says?"
"Me, it's the law"
"Its not my law, I don't consent to it"

Now what happens Rob?
Do you...
A) Govern me without my consent
B) Go back in your mud hut and kick the dog out of frustration because you have to stick to your own principles?

Since you are trespassing, and breaking the law you would be subject to arrest regardless of your consent. And that is in keeping with my own principles, though not in line with what you constantly misrepresent as my principles.

Governing you without your consent would be dragging you onto my land without your consent and trying to impose my rules upon you. That I would not do. Nor would I claim that my rules are applicable to you on land we each have equal rights to.

Do these distinctions hurt your brain?

 

[jargon buster]

Rob I dont consent to trespass, I have a common law right to travel anywhere i like.

Your land?
What makes it your land?

I will give him 5 minutes to disappear now