'You can possess it or use it (see debt in transit), but only if you observe the terms and conditions set by others (not you again) for its use.' It doesn't get much simpler or more profound than that! Thank you Tara Duncan

Kafuffle ! :D

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY! GIVE EQUAL TIME TO THE "LEGAL TENDER=PEANUT-BUTTER" THEORY!

Ummm, I hate to have to suggest a correction or amendment, but wouldn't that be 'LEGAL TENDER= A PEANUT BUTTER' Theory? :P

I can see why you'd hate to. ...You're wrong :P

But in the interests of argument creating controversy and teaching the controversy, I just had to throw that out there ;-)

...I've never experienced it myself, but I'm sure I'd hate being wrong too.

I've tried it, yesterday, I really did !! :/ Trying to avoid the peanut in peanut-butter, that was weird, but when I tried to avoid the butter, my daughter said, hey, what the fuck is wrong with you ? :/

Tell her to ask Robert Menard that. :D

Seriously though, the whole money is 'debt in transit' concept reminds me of a story I read/heard about the snipers picking off soldiers in the trenches in World War 1: If I remember correctly, soldier 1 lights a cigarette, takes a drag, passes it to soldier 2, takes a drag, passes it to soldier 3, taking a drag...BOOM! (the cigarette can be likened to the debt in transit) Soldier 1 & 2, only harm is some ingested carcinogens and some brain, blood and bone fragments on them, but soldier 3, he suffers the full liability... That's the way I think of LEGAL TENDER notes these days :/

Stuart Stone, you're definitely an ENGINEER :-D

Me, I am a SCIENTIST :-P

Hmmmm, T shirts, coffee mugs, group cookies....this is either a setup for a massive enterprise for you Kent Barrett or another opportunity for Jo Xappie to call for a group hug

SCIENCE & ENGINEERING...that's a pretty powerful combination :D

Bring that jesus christ peanut butter over here :D

FREEDUMB JEEBUS BUTTER!!! :D Woohoo!

Stick a trademark on that Kent Barrett and it's all yours :D

Yes Kent, I've noticed this Pete/Peanut dynamic too! I can only reach ONE conclusion! ...Pete's deliberately avoiding Mr. Peanut!

Ok, the word PEANUT just got banned from The Tender for Law ?

Now, we have... People Peanut Derek Hill. YOU NEED TO AVOID THESE WORDS :P

Oh, and STRAWMAN....do not say STRAWMAN, please :(

...unless in the context of logical fallacies.

I think the confusion lies in the fact that as soon as it leaves your possession, you no longer own or control it. As soon as the Treasury or the Fed puts FRNs into circulation, they have no control over them anymore than if I wrote a note and put it into circulation. I would be bound to honor it, no matter who held it, unless I explicitly placed terms such as "non-negotiable" on it, which in the case of money would make it rather useless. Arguably, you DO create the value via your acceptance. Because whether it's gold or paper or pieces of shit, if no one is accepting it, then it's worthless! I've long argued that we never actually left the barter system. That we all ultimately offer up goods and services, but only the time between offer and acceptance is delayed via money.

Also, this is slightly off-topic but, it's entirely possible for two people to look at the same evidence, apply critical thinking, and reach different conclusions. This happens all the time in the scientific community where people have different theories and different explanations for this or that phenomenon. So no, not all theists lack critical thinking and not all atheists possess it by default!

...except, in THIS case, there is a TENDER FOR LAW attached to the barter system.

Except for when using legal tender notes, if you don't accept the notes, the liability is discharged...Bills of Exchange 101

Solution? BUILD A BETTER SYSTEM! ...I've done that. All the seeds are planted. I just have to wait.

Vitalik is smarter than me. He's moved us ahead, by at LEAST a decade. I just hope it's soon enough. :/

And what, do you suppose, is so special about their notes versus yours and mine that that would be the case?

'So no, not all theists lack critical thinking and not all atheists possess it by default!' I would agree with the second part of that statement. However, IF theists do not lack critical thinking, they have failed to apply it to their theistic 'BELIEFS', so it becomes a moot point. If you possess it but don't apply it, it is for all intents and purposes the same as not possessing it in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalik_Buterin Mackximus Minimus has a picture if himself playing Fanboy, somewhere. It's why he and Pete Daoust came to Toronto. That's going to be a shot with bragging rights one day :D

Last time I engaged in this, it led to Scott banning me from the forum. I'd rather not risk Tara banning me for being off-topic, so suffice to say, we do not agree, Stuart.

'Marshall Stanton And what, do you suppose, is so special about their notes versus yours and mine that that would be the case?' They have clarified the terms and conditions attached to its use...'yours and mine' most likely DO NOT clearly display the terms of use...AND we lack the power of ENFORCING those terms.

Reality doesn't care if we agree or not.

COMPUTER SCIENCE HAS NO SUCH AMBIGUITY! COMPUTER SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING. ...seriously, how many times do I have to say it?

With COMPUTER SCIENCE it is ON OR OFF! No AMBIGUITY! It can ALL be reduced to ON and OFF. JUST LIKE EVERY FUCKING THING IN THE UNIVERSE!

If you can't see where ON/OF happens, you are examining at the WRONG SCALE.

@Marshall Stanton:I can PROVE there is NO GOD/CREATOR. You are all too ignorant at the moment. Most of you can barely add or multiply. You DON'T grasp the exponential function, to the point of hostile avoidance, so we will NEVER have a common frame of reference. Mine is REALITY, yours is supposition and BELIEF based on ignorance. Reality doesn't care if you accept that. ALL BELIEF IS EVIL. Computer science proves THAT too. Math is the PUREST Science. There is nothing left to discover, only the infinite possibilities of what we know we can DO now. ...or you can think there is a "creator" and ignore the begged question "where did the creator come from"?

I'm saying we disagree on what reality is, each based on our experience and understanding of the evidence or lack thereof for that particular view. "The world is flat" appears to be a reasonable argument if you can't see the curvature of the earth. "God isn't real" appears to be a reasonable argument if you limit your definition of God to what CERTAIN theists believe. Getting back on topic, lacking power to enforce, I'd agree with, but mostly because they aren't playing by the rules. However, I don't agree that their terms are clearly displayed, or else I do not understand how you have reached that conclusion. Show me where it says that mere use of FRNs makes me surety for them. It's not my name on the note. I'm not the one who signed it.

On June 21st, I said goodbye to my 99 year old grandmother for the last time...I had been saying goodbye to her pretty much every time I saw her since June 2013. WHY? Because she was dying in installments...to use a theistic rationale, her life spirit/soul was leaving her body bit by bit over the course of 12 months. What i saw was an amazing lady slowly deteriorating physically, neurologically and mentally. In her lucid moments, she had amazing clarity on life and what came after...she was raised a good Presbyterian. By the end of of it all, she KNEW beyond ANY doubt that it was ALL bullshit...she said to ME (not ME to her), don't go wasting your time on any of that religion rubbish. What 'God' that deserves any form of edification would let a lady lose ALL her dignity, as well as her physical and mental faculties, bit by bit, and allow her to suffer needlessly? She's gone...end of. The only place she lives on is in our collective memories...and we are all cool with that.

The very act of using them means you've agreed to the conditions that accompany such use. This shouldn't be that complicated.

It's not complicated. I just rebut that there are terms and conditions laid out anywhere. Funny how the atheists are the ones now unable to provide evidence of their claims. :P

If you have a McDonald's coupon for a free Big Mac with the purchase of a drink, using it means you understand and agree to purchase the fucking drink. Why? Because THAT is the condition attached to its use.

COMPUTER SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING.... It matters not, what you "believe". You think wrong and value the wrong things. Your "answers" are doomed to be wrong.

Yes, and such condition is conspicuously written on the coupon itself. So there is proper notice. All I'm asking is you show where where and when and how we were noticed of being surety. And how mere use of a FRN is different from mere use of anyone else's note. Because being the holder of anyone else's note doesn't attach suretyship.

Yes, you are right Marshall, besides the fact that it's written on them, we have no evidences :-\

'Show me where it says that mere use of FRNs makes me surety for them. It's not my name on the note. I'm not the one who signed it.' 'This note is legal tender' is pretty clearly displayed (although very small)...we were not taught what that means until now. The statutes are the result of accepting that tender. The person you happen to have is subject to these statutes because they created that person too. I'm pretty sure you can find the statutes...so to use the analogy from above re the sniper and the soldiers... you may just be ingesting some carcinogens, you may just get hit with a bit of brain splatter, or someday, when those debts are being enforced you may be the one whose head goes boom.

Let me help you out, since this apparently is too difficult for you. Is it in the serial numbers? Is it in the words "for all debts public and private"? Is it in the "this note is legal tender"? Is it in "federal reserve note"? Is it in "Treasury of the United States"? What evidence on the face of the bill attaches the fucking surety to my usage? "This note is evidence that the bearer owes you five dollars." As opposed to "This note is evidence that the signer owes you five dollars."

Ok, you ninjad me, let me process that a second.

You can dispose of the deliberately ignorant any time you wish, Pete. Those kind are unteachable, and don't make me any less right. In the end tley sell "belief" as "knowledge" and as seen here, will LIE and say "provides no evidence". You can try get through hos intentional obtuseness. You waste your time, though. These people LOVE their bullshit, because they have invested so much of their identity/time into it.

Diluting the money/legal tender supply affects you (if you use that money)...because it steals away the VALUE you have invested in acquiring same. Shrinking the money supply does the same...as soon as just ONE person loses a tangible asset as the result of either of those practices, they suffer, and as a knock on effect, we ALL suffer. Think of musical chairs as the example.

LEGAL applies to only ONE THING. If you make a TENDER for "LEGAL", THOSE ARE THE TERMS. Anything outside of THAT SIMPLE REALITY is just a LIE you are making up.

...and he has me blocked.

Copypasta me any time you need to hammer the point home :D

Gone....

Reality wins in the end...it doesn't matter if I believe in the bus or not...If I'm standing in the middle of the road and that bus is bearing down on me & isn't going to stop, I'm certain that the reality of the situation doesn't give a shit about what I believe.

Does he not see that blocking me means EVERYONE BUT HIM can see me refute EVERY ONE OF HIS POINTS? Does he not see how stupid he sounds when it looks like he's ignoring me? :D

It's the equivalent of the 3 year old kid who doesn't want to be told 'No': They stand there with their hands over their ears, eyes closed, stamping their feet and screaming 'LALALALALALALALALALA' at the top of their lungs...this is just the cyber version of the same.

You "Ninja'd him" with ...what the group is about? Seriously. IT'S WHAT THE GROUP IS ABOUT! IT'S IN THE FUCKING NAME OF THE FUCKING GROUP! ...but you ninja'd him with it. I'd say this furthers my position that adults with imaginary friends are stupid. I beg refutation. I think I'm on pretty solid footing here, from a debate standpoint! :D

I didn't comprehend his ninja reference...the ninja in question was dressed in bright red, firing canons and fireworks and waving a banner...kinda like a straight pride parade :P ATTACK by STEALTH is not in this ninja's bag of tricks :D

It's gotta make the banning of them REALLY rewarding for the reader, like when they killed King Justin Bieber in Game of Thrones. :D

Sad part is he was forewarned, by the name of the group, the subject matter of the group, numerous articles in the group, that he had been previously banned for the same erroneous belief system... Yet when he rejoined, he obviously didn't read/question/discuss but came back with the same argument, with no new add-ons to support his position. That is what my uncle would describe as 'malignant dumb'

Can we all agree that ADULTS with imaginary friends are STUPID? ...can we at LEAST agree on that. Come ON! I've even provided your precious "evidence", thanks to Marshall! :D

As soon as I saw the name of this group I knew this was where to pay attention. That part made sense right away.

Im not disputing the tender for law attached to money... When I was last arrested 10 months ago the guards (cops) took �150 cash from my pocket when searching me in the station. However no charges were ever brought after not giving a name, address etc. Could my possession of said cash not have been grounds for them to charge me? :-\

Having that LEGAL TENDER with you gives them lead to PRESUME you are to be DEEMED a PERSON. If they charge "you", or not, is another thing. It will depend if you committed a crime or violation.

My thoughts now remind me of the comparison of the birth cert to a $20 bill. Possession and evidence of use are two different things...

Now, having the cash just creates a PRESUMPTION. If you do not carry ID, or if you do not start yapping away, they would have to most likely FABRICATE EVIDENCE to finalize joinder.

Very nicely written Tara. As I see it, POSSESSION is 9/10ths of the LAW. However, Liens, Titles, and CAPACITY is the remaining 1/10, yes? IF I am in possession of This NOTE is LEGAL TENDER, one can be assured that I am carrying it for SGMI, or PBiddy, Inc has some trustee duty that needs to be discharged for a PERSON. You can also be sure that they were obtained by CREATING UNITED STATES NOTES, not Federal Reserve Notes. All of those points are FOR SURE and WELL DOCUMENTED. There may be a 90% certainty that I am BOUND to their TENDER FOR LAW, but upon a deeper examination, I am pretty sure I have deflected that presumption....

The PERSON is BOUND. How can a man be "bound", with LEGAL stuff? :/

The CASH in my pocket is NOT mine :P

Cops: Who's this CASH belongs to ? Me: I "presume" Bank of Canada ? :D

It has their name and signatures of their office bearers written all over it ;-)

Me: If you want to take this cash, cop, I need a PHOTOCOPY of EACH bill :P

Cop: WHY ? Me: Because FUCK OFF, that's why :D

But the PERSON you happen to have is DEEMED in POSSESSION of it, right? Or at least PRESUMED. But it has nothing to do with the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR.

JOINDER is created with usage is it no t??

I think Scott has said "you only need money when you are spending it" and "you only have beneficial usage of the Notes".

The tender is accepted upon demand as I see it. So I change my previous question to 'JOINDER is created upon demand is it not?'

If you have a very large boat it is likely to have at least one TENDER to bring others aboard.... coincidence? Not bloody likely!

THERE ARE NO HOMONYMS IN LAW THERE ARE NO SYNONYMS IN LAW That is why CHANGING what I say about law is SO STUPID!

applicable without such note having been used as tender? only applies under usage? or even if one is merely in possession thereof? oh those things, they are not in circulation... thats just art...