Fallacy: False Dilemma
Also Known as: Black & White Thinking.
Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":
1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:
1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
2. It is not the case that 1+1=4.
3. Therefore 1+1=12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:
1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive.
Examples of False Dilemma
1. Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."
2. Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"
3. "Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."
To answer your question JB, I do not do so because it is not my dream or goal. Pretty easy. You diod not think you would score any points with that did you? Will you answer mine now?
Seeing as how the rule of law states that equality is paramount, and the entire foundation of the Freeman movement is equality, and not birth securities, do you claim that we are not equal and thus consent is not required to be governed by others cause they are better then us, or do you accept we are equal in the eyes of the law, and thus no one can govern another without mutual consent?
Equality requires consent to govern. If consent is not required, then there is no equality. If there is equality, we can deny or revoke consent to be governed, and since we are equal you can't stop me. So that is where we are at. I believe in equality and thus can see the logical outcome of denying consent. You say we can't deny consent.
So JB here is your question:
Do you agree all people are equal before the eyes of the law?
(Please do not do your asky avoidance dance and give run around about how you are in England and I am in Canada. For the purpose of this question, I refer to myself and anyone else in Canada.)
If you say yes, then it is implied that consent is required for one who is equal with another to govern. If you say no, you publicly abandon the rule of law and any and all claims of logic or reason.
I do appreciate you putting my name out there like this. I know I hit the big time cause I have my own hate-fans! And hey, lets see what the Bible has to say about what you are doing>..
Satan tries a third time. He brought Jesus to Jerusalem and took him up to the highest part of the temple and told him to jump off. He said that angels would come and lift him up so that he wouldn't be hurt.
The devil even starts quoting scripture now. He quoted from Psalm 91, "For He shall give His angels charge over you to keep you in all your ways. In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone." (Satan left out the part about 'to keep you in all your ways'.)
Jesus answered him, "It has been said, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God'."
See yourself here JB?
If Jesus could deal with the ultimate of deceivers, I think I can deal with a fool like you.
So why do you hate the rule of law JB? Why do you hate equality? Why you such a hater? At least you found some folks who share your aversion for thinking and reasoning.
PS- You cannot be for equality and deny people the ability to say no to another who wishes to govern them.
Speaking with this crowd is like trying to play chess with someone who insists on checkers. And they want to eat them....
