Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[D'rok]

You previously stated you did not wish to discuss.

So be it.


Since I am not the one claiming the right to govern another without their consent, the onus is on you to prove you can.

Still waiting....

Quit the asinine sophistry. I do not govern anyone nor do I make any claims to do so. Your beef is with the government. You claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

 

[FreemanMenard]

The irony is that the line you quote appears to be incomprehensible to you.

To any normal person it merely means that de-taxers take everything in it's most simplistic literal sense, whereas the law is much more complicated than that and you need proper training to comprehend it.

It would be like me saying I will be using the information superhighway tonight and you thinking I mean an actual road.

Well, according to a lawyer, it is not written in English at all, but in another language which looks like English. And that language IS NOT one ofthe official ones of Canada.

Did you wish to claim that he did not say what I quoted? OR do you wish and need to assign some new meanings to the words being used to support your position?

Looks pretty clear to me.

 

[jargon buster]

These detaxers think they can know law without having any legal training. They read something that looks like it is written in English, but it's not, it's actually law and they think they understand it."

Can you find a direct quote from David Sherman?

ITS MADE UP WAFFLE ROB, I don't believe Mr Sherman ever said it

 

[FreemanMenard]

Quit the asinine sophistry. I do not govern anyone nor do I make any claims to do so. Your beef is with the government. You claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

I do not claim to be above the law at all. I claim the people in the government are not, and as such have no right to govern another without their consent.

The law can give rise to a fiction.
A fiction cannot give rise to the law.

The government is a fiction.

Prove otherwise.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Can you find a direct quote from David Sherman?

ITS MADE UP WAFFLE ROB, I don't believe Mr Sherman ever said it

So now you have to rely on outright denial?

wow....

Did you even follow the link?

It can't be true, cause you do not believe it, and it must be true if you do, right?

wow... just wow...

 

[uk_dave]

Well, according to a lawyer, it is not written in English at all, but in another language which looks like English. And that language IS NOT one ofthe official ones of Canada.

Did you wish to claim that he did not say what I quoted? OR do you wish and need to assign some new meanings to the words being used to support your position?

Looks pretty clear to me.

According to your quote he didn't actually say that. You apply a simplistic meaning to his words which merely highlights your lack of comprehension.

Language is a tool. Computer terminology is also written in English, but would you understand every computer term if taken literally? What about a motherboard? Is it a board made out of a mother?

How about floppy drive....is that a flexible piece of hardware.... what about drive? Does it travel on a road?

It goes on and on.

I think the internet gives me a window on the world..... is it made of glass and can I open it to get rid of the stench from this rotting corpse let some air in?

Let's face it, you really are not as bright as you think you are.

 

[D'rok]

I do not claim to be above the law at all. I claim the people in the government are not, and as such have no right to govern another without their consent.

The law can give rise to a fiction.
A fiction cannot give rise to the law.

The government is a fiction.

Prove otherwise.

There is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Prove otherwise.

Once again, stop the idiotic sophistry. You claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Read the link, and tell me he did not.

I am bright enough to follow a link and read what he is quoted as saying. That apparently trumps your abilities. Ever heard of the term 'legalese'?

 

[FreemanMenard]

There is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Prove otherwise.

Once again, stop the idiotic sophistry. You claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

Nice strawman.

I have never claimed to be above the laws of Canada. That is what you claim I claim. How many times do I have to tell you?

So why should I prove it when that is your simplistic interpretation of my views, resulting from you refusing to examine them intelligently?

Strawman argument anyone? Get it quick as D'Rok is loading up!


A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument

 

[hgus]

Since my first posting of the question sort of drowned I post it again.

Menard. You often refer to "The law" and "Common law" that you follow. But what is it that you mean by those terms? In your understanding what is the basis for them and where can one look them up?

 

[D'rok]

I have never claimed to be above the laws of Canada.

Do Acts of Parliament or Provincial Legislatures apply to you? You have repeatedly and consistently said they do not. These are the laws of Canada, as you perfectly well know.

So, once again, stop the idiotic sophistry. You claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

 

[uk_dave]

Read the link, and tell me he did not.

I am bright enough to follow a link and read what he is quoted as saying. That apparently trumps your abilities. Ever heard of the term 'legalese'?

Oh good grief.

Do you think you would understand a surgeon talking about an operation if you hadn't been trained?

Do you think you would understand a structural engineer unless you were trained?

The law is a profession. It has it's own technical language just like every other profession. You can't just do a bit of googling and put a simplistic interpretation upon a the terms used and think you know what you're talking about.

 

[D'rok]

Since my first posting of the question sort of drowned I post it again.

Menard. You often refer to "The law" and "Common law" that you follow. But what is it that you mean by those terms? In your understanding what is the basis for them and where can one look them up?

Like all FOTLers, he means Natural Law. Good luck looking that up.

 

[jargon buster]

I am bright enough to follow a link and read what he is quoted as saying. That apparently trumps your abilities. Ever heard of the term 'legalese'?

I can link you to a post of me saying someone said something, doesn't mean they said it does it?

I have heard of the term legalaese , I on the other hand know exactly what it means and the law society shares my point of view as opposed to your opinion which is only shared by other would be freemen.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Oh good grief.

Do you think you would understand a surgeon talking about an operation if you hadn't been trained?

Do you think you would understand a structural engineer unless you were trained?

The law is a profession. It has it's own technical language just like every other profession. You can't just do a bit of googling and put a simplistic interpretation upon a the terms used and think you know what you're talking about.

Okay let's assume it's true.
Then it is not understandable to the average untrained human, and thus should be void for that reason alone.

Thanks!

 

[jargon buster]

Rob, for someone who doesn't recognise government and its statutes you were very quick to go running to "nanny Google" when I used your WFS logo on a blog claiming breach of copyright.

 

[uk_dave]

Okay let's assume it's true.
Then it is not understandable to the average untrained human, and thus should be void for that reason alone.

Thanks!

Oh really? So no more surgeons, no more engineers, no more computer techs..... wow, freedonia is gonna be quiet.

Silly man.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I can link you to a post of me saying someone said something, doesn't mean they said it does it?

I have heard of the term legalaese , I on the other hand know exactly what it means and the law society shares my point of view as opposed to your opinion which is only shared by other would be freemen.

So you won't even look at the link. It is called willful ignorance. It is not me saying he said it, but a journalist for an accounting magazine. It was published and he is quoted.

Deal with it.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Oh really? So no more surgeons, no more engineers, no more computer techs..... wow, freedonia is gonna be quiet.

Silly man.

Yes, you are.


Do these surgeons, engineers and computer techs need the consent of their clients to provide services or can they impose their services upon them, and claim that because the client does not understand the language used they have the power to govern others, and restrict their clients from putting on a band-aid, building anything, or operating a computer?

Silly man indeed.

 

[uk_dave]

I wonder, is this what it comes down to: You don't understand legalese and you resent this fact so you want to believe it shouldn't be allowed?

Does the same apply to math and physics?

Oh and I just noticed that we have a thread about tennis courts being used to launch missiles.... tennis courts? Do they speak legalese on tennis courts?