A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby Dreadlock » Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:54 am

You have just amply demontrated the logical fallacies, and dogma’s found in the freeman movement, that i am trying to highlight in this thread.

I just can’t bring myself to write a reply to above statments you made.

I lack undestanding ?

Have you even thought about, or considered what you have just said ?

If other people reading this fail to see were you have gone completely wrong, i fear there is no hope for people in this movement ever evolving, admitting their mistakes, and getting with reality.


I did not say you "lack understanding". I said that, "You clearly have no understanding of the distinction between "law" and "statute". If this is an example of how you read and interpret what I write, it is quite possible that you are misunderstanding what you read.

Anyone familiar with my posts over the last couple of years will note that I admit my mistakes and am ready and willing to learn from people who know more than me, or have my opinions changed by a decent discussion.
Your post, while full of rhetoric, has done nothing to point out any mistakes I may have made, nor do I class this as a decent discussion, though I live in hope.

You accused me earlier of making statements without supporting them and I readily acknowledged that was true. Now you are doing the very thing that you berated me for! Oh, how I love the smell of hypocrisy first thing in the afternoon.
Please abide by your own standards and enlighten us with your owl-like wisdom and blinding intelligence.

I humbly look forward to sharing in the bounty of your esteemed intellect.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby Freeman Stephen » Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:08 pm

There are alot of people abusing "law". Its not as easy as it used to be to realise theres a worthwhile distinction between lawful and legal. To some it must seem like two different ways to pervert justice.

Listen to rob menards early videos like "the great deception" and "bursting the bubbles of government deception". You dont have to even bother looking into the details he asks you to research as the system has undergone some changes since then but you will be able to pick up the distinction being made by him in regards to these two words. Whether you agree or disagree id irrelevant, all Im saying is that you will hear what we mean when we make the distinction.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby wanabfree » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:31 pm

@ Dreadlock

as much as i did not want to reply to your prevous post, but if your going to resort to cheap shot insults, and making claims as to my ability to understand “Law”, then i feel i hve to say something in reply, so here goes,

You said,

“To say that "law" is an opinion is, frankly, laughable”

Laughable oh realy?

Ok then, so please do enighten us all, and tell us, factually what is “Law”

Then do tell us what is the factual difference between”law & Statute?”

Not to mention the fact you also then go on to equate gravity as being equal to “law” by saying,

“Try jumping in the air and then argue with gravity about its "opinion" that you should come back down...”


So please do provide evidence and facts showing how these two can be refered to as equals?

You said,

“You are discussing things from a philosophical perspective. I try to discuss things from a practical/pragmatic perspective”

Realy am i? so making factual statments is a philosophical perspective hmmm ?.

You said,

“Should the monarch own all the land? Absolutely not. But that does not change the way things are. She does”.

Oh realy based on what facts?

You said,

“And I agree with you. It is simply opinion that the monarch owns all the land, but it is opinion supported by the full weight of parliament, the court, the Crown, the military etc”.

So because an Army, or a group of people calling themselves parliment, will, coerce, murder and inflict this opinion on others that makes it true?

You said,

"Good luck on convincing them to change the way things is, to the way you want them to be".

And just were exactly was I barking about, i want to get convince anybody to change?

You said,

“I could provide "evidence" that the monarch owns all the land in England - try page 5 of "Land Law" by Mackenzie & Phillips, Oxford, 2006.”

Oh so it says so in a book, (which is not simply a collection of written legal opinions, by a group of people calling themselves legislators, becaue that’s laughable). Silly me, so it’s got to be true then? what more evidence could i possibly be wanting in the light of such overwelming evidence ?, oh i forgot the opinion of a bunch of bureaucrats more than willing to force, such an opinion on me if i don’t believe it ?, correct ?

You said,

“Pragmatically the bible is, in this country, considered to be the word of God. The monarch swears their oath upon the bible and our law is very much based on the bible. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the way it is.”

“That doesn't change the way it is.”

So it that you’re proof to the above statement is true?

It can be claimed to be the word of my pet goldfish, that does not make it any more true, it’s a dogma, that’s the truth, it makes no difference if some tart swore on it or not.

You said,

“I did not say you "lack understanding". I said that, "You clearly have no understanding”

So now it’s come down to trying to argue semantics?

To lack something, means to be absent of something, i.e., not to have it ?

And i clearly have no understanding?

You said,

You claim i have give nothig but retoric? let’s just address that issue.

Rhetoric can be defined as,

“Any verbal or written attempt to persuade someone to believe desire or do something that does not attempt to give good reasons for the belief, desire or action, but attempts to motivate that belief, desire or action solely through the power of the words used”.

I am not trying to persuade or convince your anyone else to believe in anything, I have consistently made statements based on facts and logical reasoning, and because i am doing nothing more than trying to motivate others to do the same, through force of reason, for that very reason my statements do not count as rhetoric.

Rhetorical techniques can be manipulative and coercive; their use should generally be avoided by those of us who aspire to think critically and to persuade or motivate, be it through argument or other means by objective and emprical reasoning, and that's what i am doing.

In my opinion you have failed to identify the issues being discussed, and in doing so, in an attempt to defend the freeman dogma’s, resort to logical fallacies,and then try to insult me, by making comments as to my intelligence and ability to have a dicussion.

such knee-jerk reactions display your unwilling to let go of the beliefs you currently hold, which are most likely based on the ramblings of a bunch of guru's in the movement, and you feel threatened by it, so you go on the attack, and in turn can only attack me on a personal level i.e. my intellect, I thought that sort of thing was the games politician like to play? Guess I was wrong.

On a final note, you also said,

“I will provide what I consider to be facts. People should check those "facts" for themselves”

So the facts revolve around your interpretation, and beliefs do they ?


Like i said before, you cannot make reality conform to your opinions, your opinions have to conform to reality, so your beliefs in what the facts are is irrellevent, you must let the facts speak what the evidence presents .

You also mentioed before the well worn platitude of, “ go and do the research yourelf”, but what you realy expect people to do is go online,as you no doubt have done, and watch a bunch of youtube video’s ,along with a bunch of other websites full of so called experts, and guru’s on trust law,freemanism, commercial redemption etc, even goverment website that say the law is the law etc, all making the same claims you have made about the issues being discused, and you think that will confirm everything your saying as correct,and true.

Anybody who takes a slightly different path or even after a while strays from it and persues other avenues of enquiry “have no understanding”? Why because they are not repeating the same opinions being spouted over hundeds of websites all saying the same thing? That’s how religion/ dogma’s control information “collectivism”.

problem is’ just because you can go online or read a “law book” that says the same thing your saying, does not provide any real evidence that what is being said is true, because such sources come under the same term again collectivism, if enough people agree to something then it must be true, correct ?.

Sorry to burst that lttle bubble, but such a belief is fundementally flawed, and does not reveal the truth on any given issue.

So Let’s, see if you can give answers to my quetions above, without contradiction or in defiance of logic, and we shall see if this dicussion is worth sharing in “the bounty of my esteemed intellect” ?, but then again, since when did stating the facts, become exclusive to intellectuals ?.
Last edited by wanabfree on Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:36 am, edited 4 times in total.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:11 am

@wanabfree

I am not going to go through everything in your last post as it would be a waste of my time. I'm quite content that discerning readers will be able to decide for themselves who has put forward the most reasoned argument.

You have:

a) Grossly misrepresented my position.
b) Asked questions which have already been answered.
c) Attributed to me absurd beliefs which I do not have, in order to discredit them and by association, myself.
d) Showed a startling lack of comprehension of the English language. If English is not your first language, or even if it is, this is not intended as an insult. I advise adult education classes. Assuming you are an adult.
e) Ignored my request to be enlightened by your esteemed self.

I will not be responding to any more of your posts as quite frankly my time is too valuable. Good luck on achieving whatever it is you are trying to achieve...
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby wanabfree » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:23 am

Dreadlock wrote:@wanabfree

I am not going to go through everything in your last post as it would be a waste of my time. I'm quite content that discerning readers will be able to decide for themselves who has put forward the most reasoned argument.

You have:

a) Grossly misrepresented my position.
b) Asked questions which have already been answered.
c) Attributed to me absurd beliefs which I do not have, in order to discredit them and by association, myself.
d) Showed a startling lack of comprehension of the English language. If English is not your first language, or even if it is, this is not intended as an insult. I advise adult education classes. Assuming you are an adult.
e) Ignored my request to be enlightened by your esteemed self.

I will not be responding to any more of your posts as quite frankly my time is too valuable. Good luck on achieving whatever it is you are trying to achieve...



so you can't back up your claims, so instead resort to childish insults, that says it all, dosen't it.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby wanabfree » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:58 pm

To help others reading this thread to understand, what i mean by logical fallacies, and has just been amptly demonstrated in the last reply to me, i would like to engage your common sense, in showing the logical fallacies shown above.


The fallacy I am refering to is called “Tu Quoque”

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser.

This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge.

However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

Bureaucrats behave in this way all the time as well, and as is being exposed in this discussion, i could argue, the freeman movement has its fair share of bureaucrats as well, not to mention a bucket load of egomaniacs, trying to make a name for themselves.

However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

Bureaucrats behave in this way all the time as well, and as is being exposed in this discussion, i could argue, the freeman movement has its fair of bureaucrats as well, not to mention a bucket load of egomaniacs, trying to make a name for themselves.

The reason this gets right up my nose, is people are getting seriosly harmed by this, i am trying to do my bit to help others, i quite enjoy it in fact, but i get realy pissed off, reading threads were newbies have come to these forums asking for help, only to be given the same old nonsense, and equally bad advise, that has been banted about since TPUC started running. i was around in the very early days when all this started,and like most i got sucked into the freemanology, and even once sounded like,and spouted the same crap myself believing it to be true, i could not see anything illogical or wrong with what i was saying, but i will admit now, as I refused to admit to then, it didn't quite add up, and i found myself lying to myself and sometimes others in order to convince myelf, I must be right, thank god i managed to get myself out.

I at least would have thought people have moved on, and learned their lessons by now, but it would appear not, most disturbing of all I see newbies being used as guinea pigs, and being encouraged to use processes that have been proven flawed and ineffective.

the old hands at this, are still so unwilling to admit they were wrong, and/or still so wrapped up the freeman dogma, they appear to be of the mindset, if we just keep saying it enough, then one day it will come true, so we just have to keep battling on.

In the mean time peoples familys will continue to be destroyed, homes lost, people thrown in cages, and the level violence will continue to grow from the bureaucrats themselves, and it will be easier for them to make it look good, why ? , because when people in this movement continue to believe this nonsense, they will make themselves look like nut jobs,because they are all sounding the same and repeating the same crap time over, and worse still they have no facts or evidence to back up the freeman claims.

If you want people on your side and to support you, appeal to their common sense useing logic, not subjective argument as used in these forums all the time.

Pointing out that a judge, in any given court, cannot possibly be independent or fair based on the fact, there are numerous conflicts of interests etc, is far more effective than running off a rendition of how a judge is supposed to be acting upon their oath, and only common law courts can act against a flesh and blood man etc, all of which is complete bollox.

Or you can continue believing in la la land, that the freeman, trust law, commercial redemption, A4V, B.O.R., Bills of Exchange, Magna Carta / constitutional concepts are true, because so many guru's say so?
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby Freeman Stephen » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:02 pm

wanabefree, your in a freeman community and freemen have a very distinct meaning to the words they use. You want to debate those meanings, but if they mean what you are,debating them to mean they dont mean the thing that we mean by using those words.

You need to sit back and learn rather than going into a pointless uneducated debate.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby wanabfree » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:18 pm

Freeman Stephen wrote:wanabefree, your in a freeman community and freemen have a very distinct meaning to the words they use. You want to debate those meanings, but if they mean what you are,debating them to mean they dont mean the thing that we mean by using those words.

You need to sit back and learn rather than going into a pointless uneducated debate.


@ Stephen,

You said,

“freemen have a very distinct meaning to the words they use”.

so just were do these “freemen”, get these distinct meanings from ?.

Are you saying that i can’t comunicate with “freemen”, because i lack the education in these “destinct meanings” ?.

You said,

“You need to sit back and learn rather than going into a pointless uneducated debate”.

Sounds to me more like your wanting to say "sit back and don’t question us freemen, because, we know the real meanings,you don’t, your uneducated" ?.

Sounds like “a click” to me, almost elitist ?.

funny how you ignore the the main issues I raise, but go to the sematics of the discussion.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby Dreadlock » Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:57 pm

@ Stephen

Please don't bother responding to him. He simply makes rather poor and transparent attempts at distorting what people write, in order to create a platform from which he can launch attacks aimed at constructs which bare a passing resemblance to the original, but which on cursory examination are clearly weak attempts at straw-man building. Here is an example for those few who may have missed it:

Not to mention the fact you also then go on to equate gravity as being equal to “law” by saying,

“Try jumping in the air and then argue with gravity about its "opinion" that you should come back down...”


So please do provide evidence and facts showing how these two can be refered to as equals?


It will no doubt be obvious to everyone reading this thread that the law of gravity was presented as an example of a law which functions without requiring opinions. Equating gravity to law was a construct designed by wanabfree and disingenuously attributed to myself as a tool to discredit my writing.

He has made an even more base attempt at the same trick in his response to your last post Stephen. I won't bother to quote it as it is so blatant a blind man could see it and I assure you that myself and others can see straight through his devices.
Please allow him to drown in his own ego.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

Postby Freeman Stephen » Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:03 am

wanabfree wrote:
Freeman Stephen wrote:wanabefree, your in a freeman community and freemen have a very distinct meaning to the words they use. You want to debate those meanings, but if they mean what you are,debating them to mean they dont mean the thing that we mean by using those words.

You need to sit back and learn rather than going into a pointless uneducated debate.


@ Stephen,

You said,

“freemen have a very distinct meaning to the words they use”.

so just were do these “freemen”, get these distinct meanings from ?.

Are you saying that i can’t comunicate with “freemen”, because i lack the education in these “destinct meanings” ?.

You said,

“You need to sit back and learn rather than going into a pointless uneducated debate”.

Sounds to me more like your wanting to say "sit back and don’t question us freemen, because, we know the real meanings,you don’t, your uneducated" ?.

Sounds like “a click” to me, almost elitist ?.

funny how you ignore the the main issues I raise, but go to the sematics of the discussion.


Im not getting into a debate with you. Im trying to help you to the level of education dreadlock already has.

Just to make an analogy of whats going on here. Freemen make a distinction between a knife and an eating utensil. Most others consider the word knife to mean a thing for stabbing people and that the eating utensil freemen use the word knife to describe is just "eating utensil" the same as any fork or spoon.

You need to understand the terminology before you can communicate with that terminology otherwise your using the words in an uneducated manner.

This is about as clear as I can make it for you. Dreadlock has much he can teach you because he has spent the time to educate himself. You are here debating with a graduate and your still in primary school.

If you feel humiliated by this, you should not because we all began learning somewhere. It is not conducive to learning for us to believe we should be the teacher demanding words should mean what we want them to mean in a context where words have very specific meanings.

Legal and lawful are two very different things in a freeman forum. Learn what the differences are, then you will be educated to teach others.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests