Look, I have already said that I can see the possibility that some day I’ll understand clearly that I’ve been wrong all this time and you’ve been right, and that it is actually objectively, conclusively, flawlessly ethical for a form of governance to be imposed upon an individual without the individual’s consent in some circumstances.Pottapaug1938 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:49 am If you voluntarily live within a city/town, state/province, or country, you consent to be governed by the laws within those boundaries. If you do not wish to consent, the solution is easy -- move elsewhere.
Now I know that it’s important for a person to know that this is true without having to understand the reasoning by which it is shown to be conclusively ethical, and you are capable of knowing that it’s true despite it being plainly obvious that you don’t understand the reasoning since you evade some of the questions that I ask to try to comprehend how this reasoning works. I can see that you are to be commended for knowing this truth despite not really comprehending the reasoning by which it is shown to be ethically conclusive, and I am to be denigrated for not knowing that it is true, and in fact even more so because I make attempts to understand why it is true when it should be plainly obvious to me that I am too stupid to comprehend that reasoning and therefore I should accept that what you are saying is true because it’s obvious you know what you’re talking about.
I shall nonetheless continue to attempt to comprehend this reasoning so that I can understand why you think there is not the slightest bit of ethical haze in imposing a form of governance upon an individual who does not consent to it, if certain conditions are fulfilled by that government to justify being a government at all.
I know that those conditions exist because it seems clear, for instance, that you believe that there was nothing about the First Nations being recognised as the overseers of the law in the land where they resided as Europeans first came over the Atlantic that gave them the right to impose their form of law upon the intercontinental visitors, so clearly you believe there are some conditions where it is not ethical for a form of governance to be imposed upon others without their consent, or else you would say it was ethical that the First Nations preside over the law that governs the People of Canada.
So if you know that in some circumstances it is ethical for a form of governance to be imposed upon an individual without consent, and in other circumstances it is not ethical for a form of governance to be imposed upon an individual without consent, then perhaps if I ask my questions juuuuust riiiiight, I can pull out of your head the precise conditions that distinguish these two clearly defined ethical truths.
I’m probably gonna keep trying, no matter how much the members of this forum tell me that I should shut up because I’m too stupid to comprehend the truths that you’ve all found to be self-evident, and I should be smart enough to know that I’m too stupid to understand them and just accept that they’re true despite the fact that none of you seem to be able to prove it in any rationally conclusive fashion.
But what the heck good is rationality anyway, unless of course you’re trying to demonstrate justification for a limit imposed upon a constitutional right to a court so that the court will let you deny or infringe that right and call it a constitutionally allowable denial according to section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Other than that though, rationality is just stupid.