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
22-09-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-09-2014 02:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Whatever gets him through the night...

I'm sure he fantasizes about people one day recognizing his genius - you know, some people can't spew just of the mechanical jerking motion, they have to have imagery...

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
22-09-2014, 02:47 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-09-2014 01:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Were these people parented without violence and philosophically?
Yes, government certainly buys some time when situation is bad. But the worst places in the world have either the most strict government or a government that failed, because it was too violent and in debt. Not every nation in the world has the power to go into debt indefinitely, like USA has.


I did in fact state that not all the time a government helps, however one that can stand will help. America might not be what it used to, but without government we would still have slaves. Keep in mind the government has helped the people over the years.

(22-09-2014 01:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So it's really quality of people that decides what will people do. How are they treated as children will decide how the society will look. Government has no interest in educating children to be free, non-violent, philosophical people.
“When school children start paying union dues, that 's when I'll start representing the interests of school children.”

You are right, however the quality of people can change when everything is out of control. It depends on the government as well. I am pretty sure america has things like non-violence and philosophy in school, if not in their younger years when they are older. Also glad you quoted something that the meaning of it is still being argued against

http://dianeravitch.net/2012/05/30/did-a...-say-that/

(22-09-2014 01:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Spanking children is another kind of domestic violence.


Or discipline if it is done right, spanking a child's butt with your hand when they do something wrong is not bad if it does not go out of hand. I was spanked as a kid, and I never screamed or cried or begged for things when I was young.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 03:04 PM (This post was last modified: 22-09-2014 03:08 PM by Chas.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-09-2014 02:47 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 01:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Were these people parented without violence and philosophically?
Yes, government certainly buys some time when situation is bad. But the worst places in the world have either the most strict government or a government that failed, because it was too violent and in debt. Not every nation in the world has the power to go into debt indefinitely, like USA has.


I did in fact state that not all the time a government helps, however one that can stand will help. America might not be what it used to, but without government we would still have slaves. Keep in mind the government has helped the people over the years.

(22-09-2014 01:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So it's really quality of people that decides what will people do. How are they treated as children will decide how the society will look. Government has no interest in educating children to be free, non-violent, philosophical people.
“When school children start paying union dues, that 's when I'll start representing the interests of school children.”

You are right, however the quality of people can change when everything is out of control. It depends on the government as well. I am pretty sure america has things like non-violence and philosophy in school, if not in their younger years when they are older. Also glad you quoted something that the meaning of it is still being argued against

http://dianeravitch.net/2012/05/30/did-a...-say-that/

(22-09-2014 01:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Spanking children is another kind of domestic violence.


Or discipline if it is done right, spanking a child's butt with your hand when they do something wrong is not bad if it does not go out of hand. I was spanked as a kid, and I never screamed or cried or begged for things when I was young.

You have to understand that:
  • Government is not perfect;
  • Therefore government is evil.
  • Hence perfection is no government at all.
  • Corollary 1: All governments are the same.
  • Corollary 2: All political systems are equally evil.
  • Spanking is bad because it damages people;
  • Therefore perfect people will result when no spanking is done.
  • Corollary 1: You want government; you were obviously spanked.

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
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
22-09-2014, 03:19 PM (This post was last modified: 22-09-2014 03:46 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-09-2014 02:47 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I did in fact state that not all the time a government helps, however one that can stand will help. America might not be what it used to, but without government we would still have slaves. Keep in mind the government has helped the people over the years.
I'm not so sure of that. I actually heard that the slavery in America held out so long, because when a slave ran away, government was in charge of catching him. So the costs of catching slaves were public, spread on all taxpayers. It looked as if catching slaves was free, but it caused higher taxes and lower purchasing power.
I don't know when this policy ended, but it might have a significant role on the rise of anti-slavery movement, suddenly slave owners had to pay for catching of their own escaping slaves and they were more open to counter-arguments.

Another thing I have heard, slavery was everywhere, but countries like England ended it non-violently. How? They bought out the slaves. Churches made fundraising and so on. Yes, it was expensive, but much cheaper than going to war, killing people, making cripples, destroying land and so on! I believe the North could have ended slavery by bailing out the blacks of the South, with less costs and damage than the war did.
It's just some things I have heard in one podcast by Molyneux some time ago, they make sense to me. It's not an evidence or anything, but every single thing I have heard that government must do, I have heard a counter-example how the free market could do it better - or not at all if it's a bad thing.

(22-09-2014 02:47 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  You are right, however the quality of people can change when everything is out of control. It depends on the government as well. I am pretty sure america has things like non-violence and philosophy in school, if not in their younger years when they are older. Also glad you quoted something that the meaning of it is still being argued against

http://dianeravitch.net/2012/05/30/did-a...-say-that/
Thanks for the reference, I might have to stop using that quote if he didn't say it or it's not sure. I wonder how can I show the lack of care that government institutions have for people, especially children.
But school is a problematic place to teach nonviolence. What happens if parents don't send the child to school? What happens if parents don't pay the money by which the school is financed? Eventually, after many threatening letters, some armed guys will pay them a visit and children will be taken away. They don't teach that in school, just like they don't usually speak of the less nice passages from Bible.

(22-09-2014 02:47 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Or discipline if it is done right, spanking a child's butt with your hand when they do something wrong is not bad if it does not go out of hand. I was spanked as a kid, and I never screamed or cried or begged for things when I was young.
That's interesting and I'm sorry for your childhood. Yes, spoiled kids are annoying. But the worst cases of spoiledness are kids who don't get enough love and parents try to make up for that with sweets and gifts - or they don't. I have learned that our desires and will as children, though annoying to some parents, are what drives us as adults in relationships and in career. Medically speaking, it's the dopamine/endorphine/whatever reward system in brain, you need to learn to use it to be self-motivating and self-rewarding as an adult, not have it damaged by stress and violence. Regretfully, people moralize a lot about what is basically a matter of brain chemistry.
Are you feeling motivated, or do you procrastinate a lot? What are your desires that drive you? How do you feel about authorities, like teachers? With me, when I love to do something, I go at it and work like hell. But when a teacher wants the same task from me, I suddenly feel all demotivated.
Did you know that spanking is a big health risk factor? (citations here)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 04:12 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 02:47 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I did in fact state that not all the time a government helps, however one that can stand will help. America might not be what it used to, but without government we would still have slaves. Keep in mind the government has helped the people over the years.
I'm not so sure of that. I actually heard...

Oh, Christ. Where did you hear it, ol' Lumi?

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... that the slavery in America held out so long, because when a slave ran away, government was in charge of catching him. So the costs of catching slaves were public, spread on all taxpayers. It looked as if catching slaves was free, but it caused higher taxes and lower purchasing power.

There are several massive flaws in that understanding. Mostly because it isn't true - fugitive slave laws were rejected and entirely unenforced by the northern states. Under earlier (late 1700s) law, slavery was legal throughout the United States (though the laws themselves were much less strict at the time)

I shall ask you a related question: do you support recovery of stolen property?
(I hope you see where this is going)

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't know when this policy ended, but it might have a significant role on the rise of anti-slavery movement, suddenly slave owners had to pay for catching of their own escaping slaves and they were more open to counter-arguments.

That had very little to do with it.

I do love this example though, because you've begun from a premise of bad history and then proceeded to speculate based on nothing but feels instead of, say, reading a book on the topic.

Or freaking Wikipedia. Everyone's got to start somewhere.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Another thing I have heard, slavery was everywhere, but countries like England ended it non-violently.

That was delusional revisionism when frankksj tried to sell it, and it's delusional revisionism now.

(not least because "England" hasn't been a country since 1707 - maybe I should start calling your country Czechoslovakia? Or Moravia...)

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  How? They bought out the slaves.

That is simply not true.

The slave trade was banned within the British Empire in 1807. They did not buy out the slave ships. Slavery was abolished by the 1833 act. All slaves were instantly freed. They were not bought out.

Some money (far less than the economic value of the slaves as slaves) was nominally appropriated for post-facto compensation to large slaveowners. In actual fact very few ever received any compensation.

Even such compensated emancipation is very different from "buying out" slaves. It is forced expropriation (you know - government use of force?).
(I suspect the duplicity of libertarian ideologues stems from their cognitive dissonance - they must find a way to manage to both condemn slavery, but also condemn government use of force to end it)

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Churches made fundraising and so on.

Churches are not the government. Private emancipation covered a tiny, tiny portion of cases, to the point of being statistically irrelevant.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, it was expensive...

And it didn't happen. So there's that.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... but much cheaper than going to war, killing people, making cripples, destroying land and so on! I believe the North could have ended slavery by bailing out the blacks of the South, with less costs and damage than the war did.

The capital represented by all the slaves in all the slave states was a substantial portion of the entire American economy; export duties on slave-produced goods were likewise a substantial part of American federal revenue.
(ie, what you believe is irrelevant to the facts of history)

Consider this: what if a slave-owner did not want to sell? His slaves provided him a secure living and substantial profits.

In any case, this insane revisionist history goes deeper still. To wit: the South started the war. There was no plan for federal emancipation in the United States. Ever. Some slave states fought for the Union - and the emancipation proclamation explicitly did not even apply to them. The war was instigated by southern slaveowners so terrified by the merest prospect of emancipation that they decided they'd rather fight than allow a man - who had never publically advocated forced federal emancipation - to be inaugurated.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's just some things I have heard in one podcast some time ago, they make sense to me. It's not an evidence or anything...

Not least because they are not true. Read a book, ol' Lumi.

To anyone watching along at home: pissy ol' Lumi is back to on-again in his on-again off-again ignoring of me, but feel free to ask him to follow up on this. He's spent an entire post treating as fact something he half-remembers from a podcast, and his whole reason for accepting it is that "it makes sense to me".

So, you know; literally presuppositionalism.

Never change, ol' Lumi.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... but every single thing I have heard that government must do, I have heard a counter-example how the free market could do it better - or not at all if it's a bad thing. For example, there's no such thing as a free market war, war is mostly about taking over the local government taxing system, or it will cost the invaders dearly to hold the place.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What you disingenuously call a "free market" is a simplistic abstraction that never has and never could exist in reality; small wonder we therefore don't have examples...

But incidentally: ever hear of these guys?

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But school is a problematic place to teach nonviolence. What happens if parents don't send the child to school? What happens if parents don't pay the money by which the school is financed? Eventually, after many threatening letters, some armed guys will pay them a visit and children will be taken away. They don't teach that in school, just like they don't usually speak of the less nice passages from Bible.

It's considered against public interest at best and downright abusive at worst to deprive a child of a valid education.

Actually, this brings you back to the same place of cognitive dissonance that the revisionist historians get stuck in: you have very strong opinions about how children should be raised, complete with frothing condemnation of anything other than your own totalitarian ideal - but you simultaneously have to pay lip service to letting anyone else engage such apparently horrible practices freely, with no consequences or effort to stop them.

That's why your solution to every problem is invariably Magical Thinking™.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Did you know that spanking is a big health risk factor?

Ah, yes. Youtube. Where all good science is done.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
22-09-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-09-2014 04:12 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm not so sure of that. I actually heard...

Oh, Christ. Where did you hear it, ol' Lumi?

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... that the slavery in America held out so long, because when a slave ran away, government was in charge of catching him. So the costs of catching slaves were public, spread on all taxpayers. It looked as if catching slaves was free, but it caused higher taxes and lower purchasing power.

There are several massive flaws in that understanding. Mostly because it isn't true - fugitive slave laws were rejected and entirely unenforced by the northern states. Under earlier (late 1700s) law, slavery was legal throughout the United States (though the laws themselves were much less strict at the time)

I shall ask you a related question: do you support recovery of stolen property?
(I hope you see where this is going)

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't know when this policy ended, but it might have a significant role on the rise of anti-slavery movement, suddenly slave owners had to pay for catching of their own escaping slaves and they were more open to counter-arguments.

That had very little to do with it.

I do love this example though, because you've begun from a premise of bad history and then proceeded to speculate based on nothing but feels instead of, say, reading a book on the topic.

Or freaking Wikipedia. Everyone's got to start somewhere.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Another thing I have heard, slavery was everywhere, but countries like England ended it non-violently.

That was delusional revisionism when frankksj tried to sell it, and it's delusional revisionism now.

(not least because "England" hasn't been a country since 1707 - maybe I should start calling your country Czechoslovakia? Or Moravia...)

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  How? They bought out the slaves.

That is simply not true.

The slave trade was banned within the British Empire in 1807. They did not buy out the slave ships. Slavery was abolished by the 1833 act. All slaves were instantly freed. They were not bought out.

Some money (far less than the economic value of the slaves as slaves) was nominally appropriated for post-facto compensation to large slaveowners. In actual fact very few ever received any compensation.

Even such compensated emancipation is very different from "buying out" slaves. It is forced expropriation (you know - government use of force?).
(I suspect the duplicity of libertarian ideologues stems from their cognitive dissonance - they must find a way to manage to both condemn slavery, but also condemn government use of force to end it)

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Churches made fundraising and so on.

Churches are not the government. Private emancipation covered a tiny, tiny portion of cases, to the point of being statistically irrelevant.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, it was expensive...

And it didn't happen. So there's that.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... but much cheaper than going to war, killing people, making cripples, destroying land and so on! I believe the North could have ended slavery by bailing out the blacks of the South, with less costs and damage than the war did.

The capital represented by all the slaves in all the slave states was a substantial portion of the entire American economy; export duties on slave-produced goods were likewise a substantial part of American federal revenue.
(ie, what you believe is irrelevant to the facts of history)

Consider this: what if a slave-owner did not want to sell? His slaves provided him a secure living and substantial profits.

In any case, this insane revisionist history goes deeper still. To wit: the South started the war. There was no plan for federal emancipation in the United States. Ever. Some slave states fought for the Union - and the emancipation proclamation explicitly did not even apply to them. The war was instigated by southern slaveowners so terrified by the merest prospect of emancipation that they decided they'd rather fight than allow a man - who had never publically advocated forced federal emancipation - to be inaugurated.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's just some things I have heard in one podcast some time ago, they make sense to me. It's not an evidence or anything...

Not least because they are not true. Read a book, ol' Lumi.

To anyone watching along at home: pissy ol' Lumi is back to on-again in his on-again off-again ignoring of me, but feel free to ask him to follow up on this. He's spent an entire post treating as fact something he half-remembers from a podcast, and his whole reason for accepting it is that "it makes sense to me".

So, you know; literally presuppositionalism.

Never change, ol' Lumi.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... but every single thing I have heard that government must do, I have heard a counter-example how the free market could do it better - or not at all if it's a bad thing. For example, there's no such thing as a free market war, war is mostly about taking over the local government taxing system, or it will cost the invaders dearly to hold the place.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What you disingenuously call a "free market" is a simplistic abstraction that never has and never could exist in reality; small wonder we therefore don't have examples...

But incidentally: ever hear of these guys?

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But school is a problematic place to teach nonviolence. What happens if parents don't send the child to school? What happens if parents don't pay the money by which the school is financed? Eventually, after many threatening letters, some armed guys will pay them a visit and children will be taken away. They don't teach that in school, just like they don't usually speak of the less nice passages from Bible.

It's considered against public interest at best and downright abusive at worst to deprive a child of a valid education.

Actually, this brings you back to the same place of cognitive dissonance that the revisionist historians get stuck in: you have very strong opinions about how children should be raised, complete with frothing condemnation of anything other than your own totalitarian ideal - but you simultaneously have to pay lip service to letting anyone else engage such apparently horrible practices freely, with no consequences or effort to stop them.

That's why your solution to every problem is invariably Magical Thinking™.

(22-09-2014 03:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Did you know that spanking is a big health risk factor?

Ah, yes. Youtube. Where all good science is done.


Let us also not forget that he is going towards the U.S government only, seeing as japan cares a lot about education. Hell even the U.S does.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 04:33 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-09-2014 04:12 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah, yes. Youtube. Where all good science is done.
How can you question the accuracy of that video? Didn't you see that it was uploaded by the prophet Molyneux (pbuh)? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 05:01 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-09-2014 04:33 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 04:12 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah, yes. Youtube. Where all good science is done.
How can you question the accuracy of that video? Didn't you see that it was uploaded by the prophet Molyneux (pbuh)? Consider

Oh, right. Silly me.

Even though great Prophet Molyneux (pbuh) is so unsurmountably, so righteously, so indisputably, so powerfully correct, in All Ways and regarding All Things, He (pbuh) must deign stoop to posting his great wisdom on open internet channels, instead of sharing his Self-Evident Greatness with any channel which would in any way be subject to any sort of actual peer review or even the slightest scrutiny whatsoever.

Seems legit.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-09-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(22-09-2014 04:31 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Let us also not forget that he is going towards the U.S government only, seeing as japan cares a lot about education. Hell even the U.S does.

His only sources - well, "sources" - are vacuous libertarian copypasta.
(or, even worse, as in his last post - where the source was "a podcast I heard one time that felt truthy")

As such they only ever deal with that beloved Great Satan of all True Believers, the United States.

That 96% of the world does not in fact live in the United States is a trifling detail ol' Lumi's eminence need not worry about.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-09-2014, 05:12 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
[Image: jYKli4n.png]

/thread

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: