Pseudo-Skeptics Fail Basic Skepticism

Just because someone claims to be a skeptic doesn’t mean they are.  How they stick to the principles shows whether they are a skeptic.  A skeptic is:

a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.  source

I would add the obvious, a skeptic is one who doesn’t accept that a proposition is true just because someone says it’s true.  A skeptic demands evidence and a rational basis for the conclusion, or they remain unconvinced.  From a well-known skeptic:

Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity.  It’s the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion. source

Criticism of my work seems to be immune from this process.  The mental conditioning of statism appears to be so strong that those who claim to be skeptics forget these principles and rely on logical fallacies to support their preconceived conclusions.  I thought it would be instructive to demonstrate how some pseudo-skeptics have criticized my work.

Someone posted one of my articles/videos on a skeptic forum.  I screen-capped everything just in case the page is deleted.  I didn’t include every response as they are not relevant to the discussion.

If you watch the video or read the article, I lay out my facts and logic leading to my conclusion that there is no territorial, personal nor subject matter jurisdiction.  I cite sources, which include several from Cornell, that’s explains the Andy Bernard reference.  To date, no one has pointed out a flaw in the logic or that I got my facts wrong.  This doesn’t mean it’s flawless, my analysis could be proven wrong.  I’m fairly certain there are no flaws, but I stay open to the possibility.

Right away there is trouble as I appear to be lumped in with freeman/sov-cit types, though they are not mentioned directly yet.   This seems to poison the well as shown later:

They start with a non sequitur, asking if the law doesn’t apply, how can one appeal to the law for remedy?  I fail to see how the two are related as far as proving the constitution applies in the first place.

There is a violent monopoly in place.  Someone using the law as remedy is only doing so out of necessity.  Even if I use a petition for habeas corpus, how does that negate the fact that support is compulsory?  Forcing people to give you money makes you a criminal; it doesn’t magically create reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection.

Putting people in prison is not proof a written instrument applies and there are reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection.  This is the same logical fallacy used by politicians, it’s no more valid when a self-proclaimed skeptic uses it.  It is a fallacious argumentum ad baculum and non sequitur.

Then we see where I am falsely labeled directly, this makes it easier to strawman my actual position and claim victory.  Either the mod who posted this is ignorant of my work or he is being dishonest:

Either way, anyone remotely familiar with my work knows I’m not a freeman/sov-cit type.  Even the worst of my critics gets that, referring to me as a garden variety anarchist.  This is a move to quash legitimate criticisms, just move to the conspiracy thread so no one takes my work seriously.  Looks like they are trying to poison the well, except the adverse material isn’t mine.  If not poisoning the well, it’s certainly an appeal to ridicule.  I’m going with the mod is just dishonest and not being a skeptic.

The following is proof of one who is either really biased, or didn’t read the article or watch the video:

They don’t actually quote my arguments, so I have to assume he means all of them from the article.  I have citations, a few from Cornell Law School, to verify my “argument” that legal claims must be based on facts, from witnesses with personal knowledge.  This is the first I can remember where a Rule 602 doesn’t bearing any relation to “actual legal practice and theory”.  They fail to mention where the motion has been used successfully, so this claim is just wrong.

We finally get someone who looks to have read most of the article:

Look at his comments, “these people”.  Talk about poisoning the well, the guy actually missed the fact the motion was granted.  I don’t look for definitions that fit, I’ve been using the same ones for twenty years, the first book proves it.  I never get into definitions as an point of error, always issues of fact.  One would need to be familiar with my work though.  This guy is not talking about my work.

Instead of showing a flaw in the logic, where I got my facts wrong, he goes on to claim it’s a so-called “loophole.”  No, if the prosecution doesn’t meet their burden of proof, the dismissal is not because of a “loophole.”  And no, it has not worked just once, it has worked many times on three continents.  Actually look into the evidence I have posted before condemnation.

But, even if no tickets were thrown out in court, that is completely irrelevant to the validity of the argument I raised.  You would expect that a skeptic would get that.  Also, take notice this “skeptic” made an appeal to authority and tradition.

Then someone presumes the claim is true, that the constitution applies because you’re physically in Canada, thereby completely ignoring the article, posting this:

I have interviewed people in Canada, one law professor who admitted the application of the constitution and laws was because they say so, it’s a blunt assertion of power, not based on evidence or argument.  I also have a Canadian prosecutor on record not able to provide any evidence supporting her claim the constitution and laws apply just because someone is physically in Canada.  So it’s only “ludicrously simple” to prove if you presume your claim is true.  That’s just faulty logic, not skepticism.

This post is what really what motivated me to do this article/video.  These are “skeptics” posting this:

I thought skeptics rejected mere assertions without evidence.  I thought skepticism was: “the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity.”  But here apparently when you go against a skeptic’s belief, then proof by assertion is no longer a logical fallacy.  Ironically, one of the Achilles heel of his argument is proof by assertion fallacy.

He then raises a strawman, I’ve never made the argument the law is not the law or what it says it is.  My argument is, there is no proof these rules called “laws” apply to us.

Then, instead of providing evidence, he assumes the claim has already been proven true:

it’s only necessary to provide evidence that the situation is covered by the written word of the law

No, you’re presupposing it’s already been proven these rules, written by ordinary men and women, actually apply in the first place.  It only gets worse with the rest of the post:

it’s only necessary to provide evidence that the situation is covered by the written word of the law within the range of interpretations placed upon it by precedent.

Whether he realizes it or not, this is an example of a proof by assertion fallacy.  A Catholic can do the same thing about his belief in a god.

This, I think, is the Achilles heel of the argument, because the fundamental attribute of scriptures is that scripture is what it is stated to be.  It’s not necessary, therefore, to defend the assertion that the written scripture is the actual scripture, the word of God, because there is no distinction between the two; it’s only necessary to provide evidence that the situation is covered by the written word of the scripture within the range of interpretations placed upon it by precedent.  [Precedent being issued by the pope.]

It’s not a false analogy as he is presupposing the rules apply, claiming evidence is not required.  He doubles down on this stating evidence is only necessary if the situation is covered by the rule.  People’s interpretations are meaningless where the premise is assumed in the first place, lacking any evidence and rational basis.  And “precedent” is nothing more than an opinion.

Despite arguing logical fallacies, no one points it out, instead another “skeptic” agrees with this:

See the irony here?  No, I’m not big on interpretations, because that’s not skepticism:

Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity.  It’s the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion. source

Interpretations do not necessarily mean the conclusion is supported.  Here it’s just a proof by assertion fallacy and an appeal to authority.  Wow, look how many judges said it, it must be true.  Yeah, and just because 266 popes say the Bible is the word of god doesn’t mean it’s true.  Interpretations and “precedent” are meaningless unless the underlying premise is based on evidence and a rational basis.

The rest is strawman and therefore irrelevant.

I’ll keep saying it, a claim is not true just because someone claims it’s true.  There has to be evidence and a logical basis to support the claim or it’s vox et praeterea nihil, voice and nothing more.

Those calling themselves skeptics should analyze the evidence and the logical basis for my claims to show a flaw.  Resorting to logical fallacies (poisoning the well, straw man, appeals to authority & tradition, proof by assertion) are not the way to show a flaw.

If anyone thinks citizens, states, and governments are real, and their rules apply to us, then present evidence to prove they are real.  Start with evidence of reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection.  Please do what no bureaucrat I’ve confronted can do, provide evidence.  I have four hours of live broadcasting a week, there is plenty of opportunity to present your proof.

Save as PDFPrint

Written by