Now you're applying your false logic to the act of discussion itself. Words mean what we mean by them; in order to discourse, we must understand the definitions in use. That isn't a political exercise, and it isn't pointful to "vote" on what the words shall mean. It suffices if you know what I mean, and vice versa--and I've explained what I mean, more than once. You just keep forgetting.
You don't need logic to "conclude" an observation.
This is getting increasingly ridiculous. You need logic to conclude a conclusion. You claimed that my logic implied a certain conclusion, which it didn't. I'd be interested in seeing the chain of reasoning by which you arrived at that nonsensical "observation" of yours.
"Unfortunately, that "contract" isn't a contract."
“I make no rules, terms or conditions,…”
?????????????
I sympathize with your confusion. Fact is, you're trying to foist a "contract" on me against my will, that includes things like taxes, judges, juries, third-party regulation of my personal property, police enforcing the bogus contract, and what have you. I foist nothing whatsoever on anyone. I merely point out that nobody has a right to impose their will on another's person or property. You are free to try and prove otherwise, but so far you haven't tried.
Everything else I have said proceeds logically from the observation that nobody has the right to push anyone else around.
2. Shalom Israel wrote: "Now you're applying your false logic to the act of discussion itself. Words mean what we mean by them; in order to discourse, we must understand the definitions in use. That isn't a political exercise, and it isn't pointful to "vote" on what the words shall mean. It suffices if you know what I mean, and vice versa--and I've explained what I mean, more than once. You just keep forgetting. "
KrisKrinkle writes: You assumed we had some agreement that "force" is shorthand for "initiation of force" which we did not. The words at 2 above convey little meaning except that you seem to be laying out some sort of rules as you did when you said "force" is shorthand for "initiation of force", but that can't be because you said "I make no rules, terms or conditions..." and also "I claim that apart from self-defense, which is itself an unalterable force of nature, there are no rules at all." so you couldn't be laying out rules even though you seem to be. What are you doing?
"This is getting increasingly ridiculous. "
We would differ on why.
"I foist nothing whatsoever on anyone. I merely point out that nobody has a right to impose their will on another's person or property. You are free to try and prove otherwise, but so far you haven't tried."
You keep missing the point and complaining that I repeat myself when I write:
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with the blanket terms you are trying to force on me, and you threaten me with violence for not meeting an obligation to which I did not commit to when all the while you refuse to acknowledge you have any obligation under the social contract because you did not agree to it in the same way that I did not agree to your unilateral ravings.
You keep trying to foist on me that I have signed what I deny signing and would impose your will on my person which if I recall correctly is also my property by your standards.
"Everything else I have said proceeds logically..."
Very little you say proceeds logically.
"...from the observation that nobody has the right to push anyone else around."
Ahhh, "to push anyone else around" How well defined. I'm sure we both take the same meaning from that.