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
21-09-2014, 03:21 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Hey ol Lumi, just had a passing thought, you expressed yourself as feeling bitchy over the fact that people keep chirping you in your thread - you wanted to "ban trolls"... You silly sod. Even you can't avoid appealing to an outside authority for justice when stuff doesn't go your way.

Can you see now why your anarchy will fail?

Of course not... sigh.

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
21-09-2014, 03:22 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2014 03:49 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-09-2014 07:20 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  In the way you use it? Yes I do. Self Defense, like any other violent act needs to be not only justifiable but a conditioned response. You propose murdering unarmed people doing their jobs because you and your ilk want to be able to steal from the rest of us with no penalty. Murder is not self defense.
So you would allow violence to the government powers with costume to attack innocent citizens for non-violent activities, but you would deny violence to people without costume to defend themselves? That is more than inconsistent.

Again, I did not propose anything. I did not say anything about unarmed people. I made an observation. You are the inconsistent, double standard one who believes that a colourful costume is a license to kill.
When I say self-defense, I mean self-defense. You must have a dirty, violent mind when you see things in text that aren't there. Before, I have posted an image of these guys a few times. They don't seem very unarmed to me.

Murder is not the same thing as ending life or killing. Murder and self-defense are not the same. Your use of the word "murder" is wrong and deceitful. Governments murdered far more people than any private sector individual or company. About 200 million in 20th century outside of wars. Have you ever heard the word DEMOCIDE?
I repeat, when I say self-defense, I mean self-defense, not murder. Got it?

(20-09-2014 08:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And therein lies the problem ol' Lumi, your imaginary principles have zero power. Did you having that principle, and believing in it to the bottom of your toes, prevent someone else from committing fraud? No. Would your principle alone have protected you if you had bought into this scam yourself? No. Wishing really, really, really hard won't stop people from lying ol' Lumi. Wishful thinking is not plan.
If principles have zero power, why are you so vehemently opposed of them? Principles say that all moral behavior must be consistent. Aggression is inconsistent (someone attacks, steals or lies but does not want to be attacked, stolen from or lied to) and therefore it can never, ever, under any circumstances or costumes be moral. I say, you are immoral if you support initiating violence against people for non-violent activities and it must be really bothering you. Or it would, if it threatened your relationships.

Moral condemnation is the most powerful force in the world, in the long run, on large scale. That's what philosophy is about, it's a long term prevention program, not a quick fix. Quick fixes get us only running in circles, having the same problems as in the times of Socrates.

War in Iraq was a war on moral principles. It was not profitable or convenient or defensive. But the moral argument is the most powerful argument in the world. If people accept it, if people link some idea or action with morality, it is impossible for them not to react. 99% of people have a deep desire to be good, whatever good means. Politicians manipulate the notion of good in order to get people to go to Iraq or Afghanistan or finance huge programs of welfare and medicare and shit like that - and then they still pay charity with the money that's left and do volunteering at their local community. That's what people are. Try to say "you are immoral because of X" and shit will hit the fan. Just try it.
If people go to war over an alleged moral principle (Saddam is a bad guy who harbors Al Quaeda!) then they literally would rather die than not be a good person.

(20-09-2014 08:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It’s almost as if basing a community around people who hate other people and don’t want to have to pay for any services that don’t directly and concretely benefit themselves is inherently unstable. Who would have thought?
[/quote]
Have you ever considered the idea that media tell about as much truth about anarchists, as they tell about atheists? Consider We eat babies and poison wells too, and we also hate roads and poor people. Also, we have a corny sense of humor.
http://libertariannuts.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 03:28 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Work that shaft Lumi, work it!

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
21-09-2014, 04:09 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2014 04:35 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-09-2014 08:55 PM)Li_Holodomer Wrote:  What the heck is happening in this area?
Government is being equated to the Church and child spanking to domestic violence. Everyone here believe that a costume changes situation. When a Pope puts on his costume, that doesn't mean he can talk to God. And when a policeman or a soldier puts on a costume, that doesn't mean he is doing good things. The principle says, aggression can never be morally justified.
[Image: 10347483_333909113424660_8857586363775444666_n.jpg]

(21-09-2014 03:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  Hey ol Lumi, just had a passing thought, you expressed yourself as feeling bitchy over the fact that people keep chirping you in your thread - you wanted to "ban trolls"... You silly sod. Even you can't avoid appealing to an outside authority for justice when stuff doesn't go your way.

Can you see now why your anarchy will fail?

Of course not... sigh.
Outside authority? What is outside on the internet?
This forum is someone's property. People have the right to ban others from their property. Or they can give this function to other people - such as moderators. I merely suggested an added forum option - something like one on one dialog or the purple section, only in a way "if you have nothing to say but sexual innuendos, GTFO". That option would apply to everyone under similar circumstances, including me in threads I didn't start. It would be universal, therefore it would be consistent, nothing wrong with that.
Do you think that libertarian or anarchist forums don't ban people? They do, just like they would kick an impolite guest out of their house.

(20-09-2014 10:36 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Also, it's OK for anyone to be as violent as they want so long as they didn't start the fight. Also, any amount of force or obligation is considered sufficient violence to start the fight - so basically if you don't like someone you have the right to kill them and their family... because under these definitions you sure as hell will find some excuse to say they initiated violence against you. But it's ok. It will all sort itself out.
I did not say that and nobody actually does that, except government. Government makes its own excuses why attack people with deadly force.
There are social consequences to what we do. If we invent bullshit pretenses to attack people, we face defense from their side and social consequences. Government has no social consequences, people put on a costume and they "serve their country", which means you are 8 times as likely to be killed by a policeman than by a terrorist.

In a free society, anybody would be free to find a better solution to the problem of violence than we currently have. Dispute Resolution Organizations is one such option.
Do you imply that unless government does something, it will never get done, even though people want it?

Also, here's why socialism fails.
[Image: 10511295_706077332807785_2897526032307009197_n.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 04:30 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
[Image: HFYND5XUU6C4ND7IYHN6KLMNOAHNA2IT.gif]

/Lumi

/Thread

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 04:37 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
So that's how it looks when someone wins the argument on the internet. It gets me as much credit as losing Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 04:47 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 04:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  So that's how it looks when someone wins the argument on the internet. It gets me as much credit as losing Dodgy

Lumi, you are the village idiot, and only you don't realize it...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:18 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2014 05:36 AM by PKJoe.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
[Image: IRS_swat_team.jpg]
Lumi,

You do realize this photo is photoshopped right? I mean, you don't really think this is a real pic that represents IRS agents, do you?

My favorite part is the CPA and MBA labels on the helmets. Since, CPA's usually represent clients facing audits from IRS agents, and MBA's are typically the corporate clients facing IRS audits. The irony is almost to much to take, and the fact that you think it is a real pic is just priceless. Laughat

[Image: swat-team-10a.jpg]

Edited to add non photoshopped immage, courtesy of howstuffworks.com swat team article.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like PKJoe's post
21-09-2014, 05:41 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 04:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: HFYND5XUU6C4ND7IYHN6KLMNOAHNA2IT.gif]

/Lumi

/Thread

So you can't even defeat Lumi's arguments?

Not surprising, considering your inability to carry on a debate without falling to the level of personal insults.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:43 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 04:09 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(20-09-2014 08:55 PM)Li_Holodomer Wrote:  What the heck is happening in this area?
Government is being equated to the Church and child spanking to domestic violence. Everyone here believe that a costume changes situation. When a Pope puts on his costume, that doesn't mean he can talk to God. And when a policeman or a soldier puts on a costume, that doesn't mean he is doing good things. The principle says, aggression can never be morally justified.
[Image: 10347483_333909113424660_8857586363775444666_n.jpg]

So patriotism is a religion? Love of one's fatherland, one's home and country is a bad thing?

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: