Prove My Existence Within A (GeoPolitical) State

BEFORE POSTING, PLEASE PROVE MY EXISTENCE IN A STATE AND PROVE THAT I BELONG TO A STATE/GOVERNMENT/ETC.

ALL POSTS FROM NOW ON WILL BE LAUGHED AT FOR FAILURE TO READ THIS POST AND THE POSTS FOLLOWING IT.

So let's go over some guidelines:

• I am not presenting an argument, I am asking for proof and then raising objections.
  
• This does have a point, no matter how circular it gets. Realize that.
  
• There will be a large amount of fallacy references, more than likely.
  

This is easy lol.

Spoiler:

He has a point^

I think your theories/observations are very obnoxious.

Who are you talking to poizon? Jiglojay didnt actually think of this question, its one often debated

JohnieQuest wrote:This is easy lol.

Broeder wrote:He has a point^

Actually no. The point is being made that I am located there. That's not proving my existence within it. That's proving that I am located there. Two different concepts.

Poizon YOU wrote:I think your theories/observations are very obnoxious.

If you're talking about me, I distinctly remember you praising me for my intelligence through PMs. Could be wrong.

If you're talking about Broeder/Johnie, they are making a point that I am countering. Nothing obnoxious there. What would be obnoxious is if someone were to come to this thread and continuously state that my living in the United States proves my existence, despite the obvious flaws in that argument (which is why the thread was basketed the first time around, as it turned into a flame fest).

What do you have to contribute, Poizon?

Existence:

noun
1. (The fact or state of living) {subscript 1} or (having objective reality.) {subscript 2}
-{subscript 1} Dead things can't post on forums, you posted on the forums therefore you are not dead, which means that you are alive, which means that you are living.

-{subscript 2}
Objective reality definition: Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations.

It does not matter how you feel, interpret, or imagine life, in other words, your opinion is not valid. Due to your current geographic location you living in the United States of America. Even if you don't feel like you are, or imagine that you are, or interpret your being there, you are there, and that's what matters.


2. Continued survival.
-If you don't survive, you die. Dead things can't post on the Smokin Mils forums. You posted on the smokin mils forums, you are not dead.

JohnieQuest wrote:It does not matter how you feel, interpret, or imagine life, in other words, your opinion is not valid. Due to your current geographic location you living in the United States of America. Even if you don't feel like you are, or imagine that you are, or interpret your being there, you are there, and that's what matters.

Did you seriously just try to incorporate metaphysics into "your argument is invalid"?

Let me stop you here, I am NOT asking you to prove that I exist in a certain area (and using your definitions, that I am living in a certain area). This is entirely pointless. I am asking to prove my existence in a state (political term). The piece of land I am currently sitting at has been a part of the Earth for billions of years. There was no "Los Angeles" then. There was no "California" then. There was no "United States" then. Those 3 things are CONCEPTS. They are not facts because they are all fabricated designs. The state is not the ground I live on, because the ground has been here for billions of years but the state has not.

I wasnt being serious in my first post FYI...

Broeder wrote:I wasnt being serious in my first post FYI...

Which is why I'm saying that it's not like it matters what you've said thus far, I'll counter it anyway (unless it's baiting in which case I'll just ignore it). Although this is all extremely off topic. I'm watching this thread closely.

I am assuming that you have an address, SS#, birth-certificate, proof of residency. You seem like a partisan citizen, so you might have voting records or something along those lines.

Medo wrote:I am assuming that you have an address, SS#, birth-certificate, proof of residency. You seem like a partisan citizen, so you might have voting records or something along those lines.

My address is a physical location. Completely irrelevant.

My social security number and birth certificate do not prove my existence in a political state. They don't present an argument at all, and now you're begging the question by assuming the state exists in the first place. Let me elaborate: The bible existing does not mean that God exists because the bible exists, that would mean that it's assumed that the creator exists because a creation of the creator exists. A birth certificate does not mean that the State exists because of the certificates existence.

In fact, social security numbers and birth certificates aren't legally binding to anything either, because I did not sign for them.

Permits are signed under duress. The pressure (duress) is that I have to pay for or rent the land I stay on or be fined/thrown in jail by the state. Of course the agreement can be between me and the property owner, but the property owner has to purchase the plot of land from someone else and it all ends up at the state. The state cannot be proven to exist because of that, because it's a bunch of people believing the state exists and coercing others because of it.

JIGL0JAY wrote:

Medo wrote:I am assuming that you have an address, SS#, birth-certificate, proof of residency. You seem like a partisan citizen, so you might have voting records or something along those lines.

My address is a physical location. Completely irrelevant.

My social security number and birth certificate do not prove my existence in a political state. They don't present an argument at all, and now you're begging the question by assuming the state exists in the first place. Let me elaborate: The bible existing does not mean that God exists because the bible exists, that would mean that it's assumed that the creator exists because a creation of the creator exists. A birth certificate does not mean that the State exists because of the certificates existence.

In fact, social security numbers and birth certificates aren't legally binding to anything either, because I did not sign for them.

Permits are signed under duress. The pressure (duress) is that I have to pay for or rent the land I stay on or be fined/thrown in jail by the state. Of course the agreement can be between me and the property owner, but the property owner has to purchase the plot of land from someone else and it all ends up at the state. The state cannot be proven to exist because of that, because it's a bunch of people believing the state exists and coercing others because of it.

so you want us to prove your being of existence within a defined state...that by itself is such a complex thing i don't think the human consciousness can even begin to understand it. the only thing i can think of to explain this is i think therefore i am, your consciousness came up with these thoughts, and you manifested them physically, therefore you exist, and you did so in an area that has borders defined by other conscious beings. if that's what you're going for.

attk master wrote:so you want us to prove your being of existence within a defined state...that by itself is such a complex thing i don't think the human consciousness can even begin to understand it.

If we can't even begin to understand it, then you could say that the state, and the government that believes in it, is based on an idea that is too complex for us, and is therefore baseless?

attk master wrote:the only thing i can think of to explain this is i think therefore i am, your consciousness came up with these thoughts, and you manifested them physically, therefore you exist, and you did so in an area that has borders defined by other conscious beings. if that's what you're going for.

That's metaphysics. It's garbage.

JIGL0JAY wrote:

Medo wrote:I am assuming that you have an address, SS#, birth-certificate, proof of residency. You seem like a partisan citizen, so you might have voting records or something along those lines.

My address is a physical location. Completely irrelevant.

My social security number and birth certificate do not prove my existence in a political state. They don't present an argument at all, and now you're begging the question by assuming the state exists in the first place. Let me elaborate: The bible existing does not mean that God exists because the bible exists, that would mean that it's assumed that the creator exists because a creation of the creator exists. A birth certificate does not mean that the State exists because of the certificates existence.

In fact, social security numbers and birth certificates aren't legally binding to anything either, because I did not sign for them.

Permits are signed under duress. The pressure (duress) is that I have to pay for or rent the land I stay on or be fined/thrown in jail by the state. Of course the agreement can be between me and the property owner, but the property owner has to purchase the plot of land from someone else and it all ends up at the state. The state cannot be proven to exist because of that, because it's a bunch of people believing the state exists and coercing others because of it.

love it !

Medo wrote: love it !

I'm sure most of the people posting in the debate section know, but a lot of my political/ethical ideas stem in part from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

"Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of argumentation and so cannot be rationally denied"

I remember covering voluntarism a few years ago. We only spent a small portion on the topic, however it was very interesting.

JIGL0JAY wrote:

attk master wrote:so you want us to prove your being of existence within a defined state...that by itself is such a complex thing i don't think the human consciousness can even begin to understand it.

If we can't even begin to understand it, then you could say that the state, and the government that believes in it, is based on an idea that is too complex for us, and is therefore baseless?

attk master wrote:the only thing i can think of to explain this is i think therefore i am, your consciousness came up with these thoughts, and you manifested them physically, therefore you exist, and you did so in an area that has borders defined by other conscious beings. if that's what you're going for.

That's metaphysics. It's garbage.

existence, not the state. and metaphysics isn't garbage it addresses the most important questions in the universe, it's more important than a simple thing such as politics. i don't see how you want us to answer this question when this directly involves metaphysics and higher intelligence questions. both your physical being in a state and conscious being in a state have been presented, there is no known 3rd option, so it's one or the other, it's either you're physically there, or your mentally there. i don't quite see what you're looking for here if your physical manifestation is in that particular location and there is legal documentation of that fact or your consciousness is manifesting physical actions in that location isn't what you're looking for.

Medo wrote:I remember covering voluntarism a few years ago. We only spent a small portion on the topic, however it was very interesting.

It also fits "anarchist" and other labels. I don't necessarily follow everything as a voluntaryist, mostly because it's easier to defend if people go "WELL YOU'RE NOT THIS OR THAT". However, the principle of actions being voluntary between consenting parties is a core tenant of my beliefs and although this thread doesn't truly have a point, the counter argument remains the same.

attk master wrote:existence, not the state. and metaphysics isn't garbage it addresses the most important questions in the universe, it's more important than a simple thing such as politics.

That's all well and good in regards to popular garbage, but does NOTHING to address the question at hand. Do I exist within a state? The question (if you can even say I'm asking a question) is not "do I exist, and therefore exist within the state" because that would be begging the question and avoiding the question all at once.

attk master wrote:i don't see how you want us to answer this question when this directly involves metaphysics and higher intelligence questions. both your physical being in a state and conscious being in a state have been presented, there is no known 3rd option, so it's one or the other, it's either you're physically there, or your mentally there.

This is not difficult. I am not asking for you to prove my existence at all. Don't get confused by the word "exist". The definition you're trying to prove exists is of "state".

attk master wrote:i don't quite see what you're looking for here if your physical manifestation is in that particular location and there is legal documentation of that fact or your consciousness is manifesting physical actions in that location isn't what you're looking for.

As I stated previously, the particular location I live on is ground. Ground that has been here for billions of years. The existence of the state (in forms such as: "Los Angeles", "California", and "The United States") are VERY recent compared to the date of the ground I am on.

The legal documentation of my existence is actually not legally binding at the time of legal age (18 for the US), which means in a legal setting I could very well argue that my birth certificate and social security number are invalid because I did not sign them personally. They are signed by people who are not experts in law.

I am asking you to prove my existence (not presence, two different meanings) within a state. A state is NOT THE SAME AS THE GROUND. You haven't brought anything to the table about my existence in a political state, but tried to shift it into a discussion about my consciousness and metaphysics which in this thread is irrelevant and garbage.

you do not exist in a state. ?

JIGL0JAY wrote:

Medo wrote:I remember covering voluntarism a few years ago. We only spent a small portion on the topic, however it was very interesting.

It also fits "anarchist" and other labels. I don't necessarily follow everything as a voluntaryist, mostly because it's easier to defend if people go "WELL YOU'RE NOT THIS OR THAT". However, the principle of actions being voluntary between consenting parties is a core tenant of my beliefs and although this thread doesn't truly have a point, the counter argument remains the same.

attk master wrote:existence, not the state. and metaphysics isn't garbage it addresses the most important questions in the universe, it's more important than a simple thing such as politics.

That's all well and good in regards to popular garbage, but does NOTHING to address the question at hand. Do I exist within a state? The question (if you can even say I'm asking a question) is not "do I exist, and therefore exist within the state" because that would be begging the question and avoiding the question all at once.

attk master wrote:i don't see how you want us to answer this question when this directly involves metaphysics and higher intelligence questions. both your physical being in a state and conscious being in a state have been presented, there is no known 3rd option, so it's one or the other, it's either you're physically there, or your mentally there.

This is not difficult. I am not asking for you to prove my existence at all. Don't get confused by the word "exist". The definition you're trying to prove exists is of "state".

attk master wrote:i don't quite see what you're looking for here if your physical manifestation is in that particular location and there is legal documentation of that fact or your consciousness is manifesting physical actions in that location isn't what you're looking for.

As I stated previously, the particular location I live on is ground. Ground that has been here for billions of years. The existence of the state (in forms such as: "Los Angeles", "California", and "The United States") are VERY recent compared to the date of the ground I am on.

The legal documentation of my existence is actually not legally binding at the time of legal age (18 for the US), which means in a legal setting I could very well argue that my birth certificate and social security number are invalid because I did not sign them personally. They are signed by people who are not experts in law.

I am asking you to prove my existence (not presence, two different meanings) within a state. A state is NOT THE SAME AS THE GROUND. You haven't brought anything to the table about my existence in a political state, but tried to shift it into a discussion about my consciousness and metaphysics which in this thread is irrelevant and garbage.

i assure you metaphysics isn't garbage but necessary in identifying the purpose of men and fulfilling that big question. but since that it irrelevant i will not use it. truthfully the only example i can think of would be the fact that you reside in a defined state and there is physical evidence of your existence within that state, be it the footprint you leave during your life, or the documentation of your residence within your state, it exists and it says you do, and the fact that your typing this now says you exist, and you're not just some computer.

Medo wrote:you do not exist in a state. ?

I can't tell what you're doing with this post. Are you asking me something, are you presenting a point?

attk master wrote:i assure you metaphysics isn't garbage but necessary in identifying the purpose of men and fulfilling that big question.

You talk a big game, but all you're doing is getting caught up in the word "exists". Metaphysics cannot describe my existence in a political state unless metaphysics is about to describe how an idea can cause coercion of others. And even then, you haven't brought up any points to prove it isn't garbage (not necessarily proving a negative as I have been calling it garbage and you have said nothing to the contrary).

attk master wrote:the only example i can think of would be the fact that you reside in a defined state

The state is not the ground. The state can never be the ground. I do not pay my taxes to the ground. The government cannot issue orders and decrees on behalf of the ground. The state is not the ground.

The state is a political fiction. It is an IDEA. It is FABRICATED.

attk master wrote:and there is physical evidence of your existence within that state

There are pieces of paper with signatures on it stating that I was born. They are not legally binding because they are not signed by legal professionals, and I could argue that they became non-legally binding when I turned of legal capacity (18).

attk master wrote:be it the footprint you leave during your life

That's proving my physical presence. If I dig a hole in the ground, am I digging a hole in the state or the ground? I am digging a hole in the ground.

attk master wrote:documentation of your residence within your state

That is documentation of my physical presence and it begs the question by assuming a state exists as a premise.

attk master wrote:it exists and it says you do

So you're saying that the bible is proof that God exists? You're saying that if me and 10 of my friends get together and sign a paper swearing that there are rainbow gorillas on the moon that can travel through space-time, that means that the rainbow gorillas exist? No. Because a bunch of people signing a paper does not mean something exists.

attk master wrote:and the fact that your typing this now says you exist, and you're not just some computer.

Even if I WAS a computer, you haven't proved I exist in a state.

Do you think Jig? It's clear that you do, we've got nearly 3000 posts worth of evidence.

I think, therefore I am.

I think I was making a point and asking at the same time.

Muffins wrote:Do you think Jig? It's clear that you do, we've got nearly 3000 posts worth of evidence.

I think, therefore I am.

What part of "this isn't proving my metaphysical existence" doesn't seem to be getting through? I have much higher hopes that people that post in this section can at least read and put up an argument. But I'm not going to hold on to them if this keeps getting brought up.

Medo wrote:I think I was making a point and asking at the same time.

Well the problem with asking me is that no evidence has been presented to be of the contrary, and I don't believe in a state, so the evidence is assumed not to exist. Furthermore, I'm posing this thread in the sense that most (if not all) of the posters in this forum already believe in a state and participate with it. Therefore they must be able to show WHY they believe in such a thing, unless they never thought about the fact that it was all made up.