Video versions of the above audio:
Sophisty is the abuse of language to deceive people. Stefan Molyneux discusses the history of sophistry – why it is the direct opposite of philosophy, how to identify sophistry and the dangers it brings the modern world.
soph•ist•ry – the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
The Bible commands believers NOT to be deceived, and therefore it is the obligation of believers to learn about and oppose ALL attempts at deception, and especially those by lawyers and governments. The following article explains why:
Deceived and Don’t Know It? (OFFSITE LINK)- Nike Insights
Example techniques involving sophistry are the following dishonest techniques:
- Using vague terms or “words of art” and refusing to define which meaning or context is implied. This is the most obvious evidence that you are dealing with a sophist.
- Using emotions rather than law and facts and evidence to persuade. This is especially true when they try to make you afraid if you don’t do something they want you to do that will usually benefit them personally.
- Judges not allowing juries to even read the law they are enforcing. This forces them to operate in an emotional rather than law and facts mode, and to have these things filtered or misrepresented by CORRUPT judges who usually have a criminal financial conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. 208, 28 U.S.C. 144, and 28 U.S.C. 455.
- Presumption about the meaning of terms. See Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017.
- Equivocation of geographical terms (Form #11.215) or words of art (Form #10.004). See Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014.
- Omission in addressing issues raised administratively and in court to prevent losing on a particular issue. This is opposed by using defaults and nihil dicit judgments. See Notary Certificate of Dishonor Process, Form #07.006.
We refer to those in the government or the legal profession who engage in sophistry as “diabolical narcissists”, psychopaths, or sociopaths. The video below describes how to deal with SCUMBAG people (Form #11.401) like this. The legal profession is filled with scumbags like this whose motto is win at all costs and to hell with justice (Form #05.050) or morality:
Diabolical Narcissism: The origin of all evil in the political sphere-Anne Barnhardt
Molyneux doesn’t state this in this video, but it is our informed belief that the easiest way to ferret out sophists if you are engaged in a debate with them or litigation against them is to:
- In debates or litigation or depositions: INSIST that they DEFINE ALL TERMS and the CONTEXT of those terms (STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL) the BEGINNING of the debate or legal action, and to provide default definitions that apply to and limit the debate BEFORE it begins. We solve this with our SEDM Disclaimer and our Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027.
- Insist that the meaning of ALL contexts of terms they are using be identified. This is ESPECIALLY true if it is a legal term that has two mutually exclusive and non-overlapping contexts such:
2.1. CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY
2.2. PHYSICAL/GEOGRAPHICAL and LEGAL
- In government forms and correspondence: Attach a mandatory attachment that defines all terms on the form to completely eliminate any commercial purpose or any government jurisdiction. See Avoiding Traps in Government Forms, Form #12.023.
The above tactics have the effect of:
- Forcing them to expose all of their usually unconstitutional and self-serving presumptions (Form #05.017) up front so that they can be challenged and prevented from damaging you.
- Preventing equivocation as a method to procure your consent INVISIBLY to convert usually PRIVATE property or rights to PUBLIC property or rights.
Molyneux does this himself at the beginning of most of his videos involving his call in questions, so we are sure he understands this, but unfortunately didn’t articulate this important point in this video. We have used this technique during depositions against our members when they went after our members and it is a VERY effective technique that completely shuts down the opposition during litigation. We mention the importance of the above technique in Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.5 through 5.8 available from the opening page of this website.
When Molyneux refers to fallacious arguments or fallacious reasoning, he means what philosophers call “logical fallacies”. Equivocation is an example of a logical fallacy. The website below categorizes and describes all such fallacies, and we recommend familiarizing yourself with each of them:
Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies Poster
We also refer to the abuse of fallacies to entrap, enslave, and victimize people as “mind control”, or “thought control”. For further resources you can use to avoid and prevent media and government mind control, see:
Media and Intelligence Page, Section 12: Government Propaganda, Mind Control, and Censorship, Family Guardian Fellowship