Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2014, 07:16 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 03:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are the only one here claiming to know. The only one. Facepalm

Really? Then why do everyone live and act as if they knew the answers?

Speak for yourself, hombre.
'cause you are acting like you've got all the answers; this thread is a testament to that.

(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't care what they say or don't say, I only care what they do, if there's a difference.

Well good on you, mate.

(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Where is the science of brand-new governance and administration systems that aren't based on Greek slaver elite and mob rule? Oh, I see a plenty of objections against Christian rule book and Jewish rule book. But I don't see anybody worried that the Roman law might be a tad bit obsolete way of ruling the society.

So, when exactly did we start using Greco-Romanic law as opposed to our own modern laws?

I realise that our modern democracies have roots going that far, but last I checked, we don't still use their ancient ass laws unless we came of them from our own accord.

The reason so many nations still use democracies is because it works. It's not perfect, but I doubt you could ever find a system devised by humans which was perfect; we defend the system because the system functions and is preferable to the alternatives.
I mean, it is clearly a damn-sight better than the alternatives; Absolute Monarchies and authoritarian dictatorships are no different from one another and they rarely benefit anybody outside of the upper class elite and history goes to show that those sorts of governments can only stand for so long before they collapse under their own weight and of their populace.
Anarchic states rarely last long and their lack of governance is always filled in by locals in distinct regions who simply have the means to take power, whether by force on their own or through collated bands of cooperative and representative individuals; so even within anarchic states, mini-states tend to form regardless.

(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't see any complaints that the practice of hitting children is so stone age.

You do realise that there are plenty people not just here but around the world who oppose the use of corporal punishment of children, right?
I mean, here in Australia it is damn-near illegal to spank your kid and gawd help you if you are caught out to have hit your kid; that stuff merits long jail sentences.

(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I see lots of people sure of themselves, requiring only small tweaks of the system here and there.

If small tweaks in the system make the system better, even if it is over time, so be it; the alternative is to use force and that would, even if it were successful, most likely lead to little change; a new system would be put in place at the expense of human life and otherwise avoidable suffering; odds are the new system would be just as bad if not worse than the old one.

(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If we write just right things on paper, people will behave exactly as it's written on the paper.

Of course many won't just obey things on paper. Society has ways of controlling that; early on, before communities became too large, social pressure is believed to have been used to control antisocial behaviours (like theft for instance); such acts would cause the doer to become isolated which was a great risk to them so most avoided the risk.
When populations started to grow too large, it is believed that governments comprised of the local strongmen and organised religions began to form in response; the central authorities and/or threats of angry deities kept things in check. Human societies do have some capacity of self-regulation; and rule of law and governance are reflections of that.

(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Everyone has modern cell phones, so they must be really sure of themselves that they want to keep the old systems in place.

Y.. Your kidding right?

That's a joke analogy, surely.

What is that supposed to mean? The implication is clear; 'people are willing to adapt technologically but why not governmentally' but it makes no sense; the idea does not follow because technological and governmental adaptation are different things.

(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Oh, you might say, these systems are just technical, consensual stuff that the society uses to organize itself, they have nothing to do with truth, justice and virtue? Great! Spell that out please, in big letters. Say it before court meetings, in the morning at schools, and especially before elections. We don't want to mislead people.

I'm sorry, but what the fuck does that does that even mean?
Yes; such systems are (or at least originally were) natural developments of society to organise and regulate itself, where the fuck does 'truth' or 'virtue' come into this?!
The existence of governmental systems have nothing to do with 'truth', except for the fact that they exist being true; that shit only starts mattering when you start projecting.

Truth is a descriptor relating to the state of a given object concept; an assertion can be true, a fact can be, but whether an existing system is 'true' is neither here nor there; asking that is a pointless as asking 'Is Free true?' I exist, but outside of that the question makes no fucking sense.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Free Thought's post
30-08-2014, 07:29 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 03:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are the only one here claiming to know. The only one. Facepalm
Really? Then why do everyone live and act as if they knew the answers? I don't care what they say or don't say, I only care what they do, if there's a difference.
Where is the science of brand-new governance and administration systems that aren't based on Greek slaver elite and mob rule? Oh, I see a plenty of objections against Christian rule book and Jewish rule book. But I don't see anybody worried that the Roman law might be a tad bit obsolete way of ruling the society. I don't see any complaints that the practice of hitting children is so stone age. I see lots of people sure of themselves, requiring only small tweaks of the system here and there. If we write just right things on paper, people will behave exactly as it's written on the paper. Everyone has modern cell phones, so they must be really sure of themselves that they want to keep the old systems in place.

Oh, you might say, these systems are just technical, consensual stuff that the society uses to organize itself, they have nothing to do with truth, justice and virtue? Great! Spell that out please, in big letters. Say it before court meetings, in the morning at schools, and especially before elections. We don't want to mislead people.

Yet another rant of non sequiturs. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
31-08-2014, 02:33 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(30-08-2014 07:16 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Really? Then why do everyone live and act as if they knew the answers?

Speak for yourself, hombre.
'cause you are acting like you've got all the answers; this thread is a testament to that.
That is not an argument Laugh out load Is it a sin to be acting sure of myself, like did these folks in Babylon, at their construction job? Were the Gomorites and people of Niniveh also too sure of themselves? I guess that's where it's coming from.

(30-08-2014 07:16 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  So, when exactly did we start using Greco-Romanic law as opposed to our own modern laws?
I realise that our modern democracies have roots going that far, but last I checked, we don't still use their ancient ass laws unless we came of them from our own accord.
The answer is, never. Did you ever wonder why lawyers learn latin and why there is sometimes latin in court buildings? Consider Yes, there is the continental and Anglo-Saxon law. Great, so English-speaking countries have some of the tribal common law system of Germanic Saxons, great, that's 400 years more modern than the fall of Rome. Yes, it can get even more modern, as I heard with the case of Robbie Williams. When it comes to divorce, it can happen that a woman wins a mandatory life support from the husband, besides half of his property and so on. That is pure Catholicism with marriage forever till death does us part. Yay modern law!
There is no such thing as modern laws, just like there is no such thing as modern bashing people on head.

(30-08-2014 07:16 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  The reason so many nations still use democracies is because it works. It's not perfect, but I doubt you could ever find a system devised by humans which was perfect; we defend the system because the system functions and is preferable to the alternatives.
I mean, it is clearly a damn-sight better than the alternatives; Absolute Monarchies and authoritarian dictatorships are no different from one another and they rarely benefit anybody outside of the upper class elite and history goes to show that those sorts of governments can only stand for so long before they collapse under their own weight and of their populace.
Anarchic states rarely last long and their lack of governance is always filled in by locals in distinct regions who simply have the means to take power, whether by force on their own or through collated bands of cooperative and representative individuals; so even within anarchic states, mini-states tend to form regardless.
Wut? Blink Would you take any of these "arguments" as a reason not to develop (and then buy) a new phone, tablet or computer or to use an older scientific (or religious) model of the universe?
Slavery was the oldest system there was - and they ended it, damn white people. Besides America, they also ended it peacefully, somehow. They bailed out the slaves, I heard.
I have a bachelor's from law and public governance. I know all about it and sure as hell I'm not impressed at all. No science was used in it and logic only internally with just as many exceptions. Hell, it's mostly based on ramblings of Enlightenment intellectuals like de Montesquieu, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau... The most modern (and crappy) Ponzi scheme of our social system is Bismarck's invention. Fucking Prussia.
If you use 21st century technology, then "it's not perfect but" is a lame excuse. Put down the iPad or Samsung Galaxy and pick up Charles Babbage's difference engine, or better yet its more classy version, Antikythera mechanism. It's more water-resistant, I heard.

(30-08-2014 07:16 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  You do realise that there are plenty people not just here but around the world who oppose the use of corporal punishment of children, right?
I mean, here in Australia it is damn-near illegal to spank your kid and gawd help you if you are caught out to have hit your kid; that stuff merits long jail sentences.
Congratulations. Good for you, it's legal in my country, but illegal in most surrounding countries. But it sounds a bit unconvincing when states ban spanking but get children in debt for generations to come and force them into mandatory Prussian-style education that gives them only minimum wage skills. And then they set minimum wage, which makes entry jobs expensive and so employers only pick the best.

(30-08-2014 07:16 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  If small tweaks in the system make the system better, even if it is over time, so be it; the alternative is to use force and that would, even if it were successful, most likely lead to little change; a new system would be put in place at the expense of human life and otherwise avoidable suffering; odds are the new system would be just as bad if not worse than the old one.
I don't see computers built and sold that way, so it's mighty unconvincing. It's like you have two roads in your head, one is a high-tech maglev supersonic highway, the other is an overgrown forest path too narrow even for horse carriages. The supersonic highway is used for looking at cat pictures and arguing with strangers, the forest path is used for deciding questions of life, death and money about masses of people.
There is another word for it. Doublethink.

(30-08-2014 07:16 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Of course many won't just obey things on paper. Society has ways of controlling that; early on, before communities became too large, social pressure is believed to have been used to control antisocial behaviours (like theft for instance); such acts would cause the doer to become isolated which was a great risk to them so most avoided the risk.
When populations started to grow too large, it is believed that governments comprised of the local strongmen and organised religions began to form in response; the central authorities and/or threats of angry deities kept things in check. Human societies do have some capacity of self-regulation; and rule of law and governance are reflections of that.
Good point. Yes, it is exactly that capacity for self-regulation that worries me.
Humans have a capacity of withstanding most hardship and making most things work for a relatively long time. Which is bad, because it makes human society insensitive to bullshit systems. Humans can make bullshit go a long way before it blows up in their faces. And then the regular blowing up can be blamed on many other factors than the bullshit itself, such as "human nature" whatever that is. No, human nature makes things work for a time despite all the odds, it's the historical forest path bullshit that doesn't work.
We are so good at compensating for damage and excusing hardship that we wouldn't know tyranny if it slapped us in the face! Does majority want a better and cheaper iPad? You bet they do. Does majority want a better and cheaper society? Well, look at your arguments.

(30-08-2014 07:16 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Everyone has modern cell phones, so they must be really sure of themselves that they want to keep the old systems in place.

Y.. Your kidding right?

That's a joke analogy, surely.

What is that supposed to mean? The implication is clear; 'people are willing to adapt technologically but why not governmentally' but it makes no sense; the idea does not follow because technological and governmental adaptation are different things.
Oh! I didn't realize that! Shocking It all makes sense now. Different things, why I haven't thought of that before? Consider Who cares how different? What an elegant explanation!
Different things... diffy diffy different... Girl_nails

(30-08-2014 07:16 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  I'm sorry, but what the fuck does that does that even mean?
Yes; such systems are (or at least originally were) natural developments of society to organise and regulate itself, where the fuck does 'truth' or 'virtue' come into this?!
The existence of governmental systems have nothing to do with 'truth', except for the fact that they exist being true; that shit only starts mattering when you start projecting.

Truth is a descriptor relating to the state of a given object concept; an assertion can be true, a fact can be, but whether an existing system is 'true' is neither here nor there; asking that is a pointless as asking 'Is Free true?' I exist, but outside of that the question makes no fucking sense.
Wonderful, so in the name of informed customers we might want to put the motto 'Is Free true' in all the prisons. People in there might be mistakenly longing for freedom, not realizing they might have never been free to begin with. Or better yet, Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2014, 02:49 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Wank wank wank...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
31-08-2014, 02:52 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-08-2014 02:49 AM)morondog Wrote:  Wank wank wank...

[Image: wank-wank-wank-wank-wank-1.png]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
31-08-2014, 06:40 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-08-2014 02:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The answer is, never. Did you ever wonder why lawyers learn latin

They don't. They learn legal phrases that are in Latin.

Quote:and why there is sometimes latin in court buildings? Consider

For example ... ?

Quote:Yes, there is the continental and Anglo-Saxon law. Great, so English-speaking countries have some of the tribal common law system of Germanic Saxons, great, that's 400 years more modern than the fall of Rome. Yes, it can get even more modern, as I heard with the case of Robbie Williams. When it comes to divorce, it can happen that a woman wins a mandatory life support from the husband, besides half of his property and so on. That is pure Catholicism with marriage forever till death does us part. Yay modern law!
There is no such thing as modern laws, just like there is no such thing as modern bashing people on head.

Latin was the common language of scholarship in western Europe in the Middle Ages - that is why law, government, philosophy and science use Latin phrases.

Right. Laws today are the same as laws in the Roman Empire. Gotcha. Thumbsup

Quote:If you use 21st century technology, then "it's not perfect but" is a lame excuse. Put down the iPad or Samsung Galaxy and pick up Charles Babbage's difference engine, or better yet its more classy version, Antikythera mechanism. It's more water-resistant, I heard.

What has 21st technology to do with governance? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.

Quote:Congratulations. Good for you, it's legal in my country, but illegal in most surrounding countries. But it sounds a bit unconvincing when states ban spanking but get children in debt for generations to come and force them into mandatory Prussian-style education that gives them only minimum wage skills. And then they set minimum wage, which makes entry jobs expensive and so employers only pick the best.

Fortunately, the apparently crappy educational system of your country is not the the model used in the western democracies. This is just more of you ranting generalizations.

Quote:Oh! I didn't realize that! Shocking It all makes sense now. Different things, why I haven't thought of that before? Consider Who cares how different? What an elegant explanation!
Different things... diffy diffy different... Girl_nails

What is it you keep saying? Oh, yeah: That is not an argument.

Quote:Wonderful, so in the name of informed customers we might want to put the motto 'Is Free true' in all the prisons. People in there might be mistakenly longing for freedom, not realizing they might have never been free to begin with. Or better yet, Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength.

Over and over again you prove that you have only the most tenuous grasp of facts, and you base your conclusions on your misunderstandings.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
31-08-2014, 06:56 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Why the fuck did I open this thread? I read the first three pages, then jumped to the last two and now I'm pissed I won't get that 5 minutes of my life back.

Angry


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bows and Arrows's post
31-08-2014, 08:23 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-08-2014 06:56 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  Why the fuck did I open this thread? I read the first three pages, then jumped to the last two and now I'm pissed I won't get that 5 minutes of my life back.

Angry

No?

If nothing else, the large and rotating cast gawping at ol' Lumi's trainwreck ignorance is good for some amusement...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
31-08-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-08-2014 02:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 07:16 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Y.. Your kidding right?

That's a joke analogy, surely.

What is that supposed to mean? The implication is clear; 'people are willing to adapt technologically but why not governmentally' but it makes no sense; the idea does not follow because technological and governmental adaptation are different things.
Oh! I didn't realize that! Shocking It all makes sense now. Different things, why I haven't thought of that before? Consider Who cares how different? What an elegant explanation!
Different things... diffy diffy different... Girl_nails

See, things like this here convince me that not only will you not think but that you can't.

Protip: if you try to look at the world through a pathologically totalitarian one-dimensional reductivism, you're going to have a bad time.

Unless it's just more autofellating intellectual masturbation - in which case I can only assume you're have a very good time indeed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
31-08-2014, 11:00 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-08-2014 08:26 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Unless it's just more autofellating intellectual masturbation - in which case I can only assume you're have a very good time indeed.

[Image: 9077723-businessman-points-to-you-and-to...-white.jpg]

I think we have a winner!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: