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
25-09-2014, 05:34 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-09-2014 10:09 AM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  But... Lumi... The private security company IS PRIVATELY OWNED. The government doesn't own or even directly control them through a contract.

Jeez, for someone who claims they know about economics, you don't know shit.
Then why does anyone even bring them up? I'll start worrying about Blackwater when Al Quaeda and CIA are six feet under.

(24-09-2014 02:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, I'm not implying anything. I'm pointing out that fact that you are a stupid cunt.
Then you don't want any replies from me and you don't really want me to read your post. Great.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2014, 06:44 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
... because Al Qaeda initiated the violence against the US, so the US is justified in using any amount of force it chooses to quash them.

Right?

But hrmm... how sure are you that violence was initiated against the US, and not by the US? If the reverse is true then under your philosophy Al Qaeda is justified in using any amount of force it chooses to destroy the US. Any oppression a Saudi might feel directed from the US is sufficient to justify brining down the twin towers.

Right?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2014, 07:25 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-09-2014 06:44 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ... because Al Qaeda initiated the violence against the US, so the US is justified in using any amount of force it chooses to quash them.

Right?

But hrmm... how sure are you that violence was initiated against the US, and not by the US? If the reverse is true then under your philosophy Al Qaeda is justified in using any amount of force it chooses to destroy the US. Any oppression a Saudi might feel directed from the US is sufficient to justify brining down the twin towers.

Right?
The philosophical way of thinking is still very foreign to you. Look, the "US" or "AQ" are make-believe, they don't really exist the same way that atoms or numbers do. They're social fictions. Only individuals can initiate actions or be justified in anything. There is no such person as the U.S. Al Quaeda does not exist as a person either. People are responsible for their actions, without personal responsibility, soldiers are innocent because they only obey orders and laws and presidents are innocent, because they only give orders, they don't personally kill anyone.

But if you want to talk numbers, the U.S. subjects the middle east countries to catastropic devastation many times over for many years. Mere 3,000 people dead in a 9/11 attack is almost nothing compared to deaths as a result of embargo on Iraq or 1 million dead and 3 million refugees due to war in Iraq. What goes around comes around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for...11_attacks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2014, 07:30 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-09-2014 07:25 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-09-2014 06:44 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ... because Al Qaeda initiated the violence against the US, so the US is justified in using any amount of force it chooses to quash them.

Right?

But hrmm... how sure are you that violence was initiated against the US, and not by the US? If the reverse is true then under your philosophy Al Qaeda is justified in using any amount of force it chooses to destroy the US. Any oppression a Saudi might feel directed from the US is sufficient to justify brining down the twin towers.

Right?
This anarchistic way of thinking is still very foreign to you. Look, the "US" or "AQ" are make-believe, they don't really exist the same way that atoms or numbers do. They're social fictions. Only individuals can initiate actions or be justified in anything. There is no such person as the U.S. Al Quaeda does not exist as a person either. People are responsible for their actions, without personal responsibility, soldiers are innocent because they only obey orders and laws and presidents are innocent, because they only give orders, they don't personally kill anyone.

But if you want to talk numbers, the U.S. subjects the middle east countries to catastropic devastation many times over for many years. Mere 3,000 people dead in a 9/11 attack is almost nothing compared to deaths as a result of embargo on Iraq or 1 million dead and 3 million refugees due to war in Iraq. What goes around comes around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for...11_attacks

So, human societal constructs à la nations and organisations do not exist. Cool. What about societal constructs like money, property, ownership and rights?

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
[+] 4 users Like Free Thought's post
25-09-2014, 07:41 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-09-2014 07:30 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  So, human societal constructs à la nations and organisations do not exist. Cool. What about societal constructs like money, property, ownership and rights?

They are not the result of spankings, so they exist.

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
25-09-2014, 07:57 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-09-2014 07:25 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-09-2014 06:44 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ... because Al Qaeda initiated the violence against the US, so the US is justified in using any amount of force it chooses to quash them.

Right?

But hrmm... how sure are you that violence was initiated against the US, and not by the US? If the reverse is true then under your philosophy Al Qaeda is justified in using any amount of force it chooses to destroy the US. Any oppression a Saudi might feel directed from the US is sufficient to justify brining down the twin towers.

Right?
The philosophical way of thinking is still very foreign to you. Look, the "US" or "AQ" are make-believe, they don't really exist the same way that atoms or numbers do. They're social fictions. Only individuals can initiate actions or be justified in anything. There is no such person as the U.S. Al Quaeda does not exist as a person either. People are responsible for their actions, without personal responsibility, soldiers are innocent because they only obey orders and laws and presidents are innocent, because they only give orders, they don't personally kill anyone.

But if you want to talk numbers, the U.S. subjects the middle east countries to catastropic devastation many times over for many years. Mere 3,000 people dead in a 9/11 attack is almost nothing compared to deaths as a result of embargo on Iraq or 1 million dead and 3 million refugees due to war in Iraq. What goes around comes around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for...11_attacks

(25-09-2014 05:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Then why does anyone even bring them up? I'll start worrying about Blackwater when Al Quaeda and CIA are six feet under.

This way of thinking you promote seems still very foreign to you also. You not only identify these social constructs as entities and enemies in themselves, but you can't decide whose side you are on in the fight. That's the kind of trouble you get into when you think that chains of violence in response to some initial violence are morally justified. Such a philosophy is a path away from peace, and toward greater violence. A peaceful philosophy must recognise that individual acts of violence must be judged on their own merits as they stand not on whether or not they are initiating versus responding to other acts of violence. We must be able to judge the morality of violence and we must also have a strong bias towards ending chains of violent acts rather than continuing or justifying or exacerbating them.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2014, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 25-09-2014 08:05 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-09-2014 07:30 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  So, human societal constructs à la nations and organisations do not exist. Cool. What about societal constructs like money, property, ownership and rights?
This is a very complicated stuff that took the author 20 years to formulate. If you can somehow process this argument, you're way ahead, apparently. This is one of the most complex things he wrote and it took me months to read up on it, and a couple of years to hear about it in podcasts. This isn't an intuitive, common sense stuff, this goes against everything that the society teaches us for all our lives. So don't worry, I won't think you're dumb. Maybe I am, because it's like I was talking about mathematics to a stranger on the street. Maybe I hit a jackpot and you'll be the 0.5 % which actually gets interested and reads the book.

Societal constructs do not exist as moral agents. Moral philosophy has to do with social behavior of individuals, not imagined entities.

Money are a real thing, an instrument of economic calculation and communication, much like computers or internet. This isn't a matter of philosophy, but a scientific fact...

Ownership rights are an attribute of individuals, along with language and action. We own our actions and language - they are undeniably attributed to us. If you try to deny someone's ownership rights, you can only do so through a language or action which you own yourself, which is a self-detonating statement. If you steal, you want to own something but you disregard someone else's ownership, which is inconsistent and hypocrital, therefore it can not possibly be moral, such as "people who don't pay taxes are bad!"
(objective morality is formulated in the way that morality can only be consistent and universal)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2014, 07:08 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-09-2014 07:57 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  This way of thinking you promote seems still very foreign to you also. You not only identify these social constructs as entities and enemies in themselves, but you can't decide whose side you are on in the fight. That's the kind of trouble you get into when you think that chains of violence in response to some initial violence are morally justified. Such a philosophy is a path away from peace, and toward greater violence. A peaceful philosophy must recognise that individual acts of violence must be judged on their own merits as they stand not on whether or not they are initiating versus responding to other acts of violence. We must be able to judge the morality of violence and we must also have a strong bias towards ending chains of violent acts rather than continuing or justifying or exacerbating them.
Social constructs are entities in the sense of statistical behavioral agents, which means that people do get brainwashed by a shared ideology and they gang up and act together. That's basic sociology. People have this marvelous ability to act based on unreality, that we don't see in nature outside of brains.

But the social constructs are not moral agents. Only individuals act and can bear consequences. Concepts don't act, be they real or unreal.

What are the sides and what is the fight?
Also, acts aren't moral agents either, acts can't initiate themselves and bear consequences, only individuals act. Act is simply a part of the whole context which determines if the individual was or wasn't acting morally, that is, socially and with consistency and not violating universality.

For example, violence as self-defense is universally permissible, we can all defend simultaneously and be all defenders. But initiation of violence is never universal, we can't all simultaneously be attackers, the very act of attacking violates universality: it divides everyone on attackers and defenders, so about half of us has no chance of being moral, regardless of what is moral. Typically, attackers can't and don't want to be attacked themselves, that is inconsistent. Inconsistent things can't possibly be moral, unless they're empirical, scientific exceptions. (biology of kids, etc)

(25-09-2014 07:57 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  We must be able to judge the morality of violence and we must also have a strong bias towards ending chains of violent acts rather than continuing or justifying or exacerbating them.
I have no idea what do you mean by that. Judging morality of violence is simple: is that initiation of violence or is it merely a reaction? Reactive things such as defense do not violate universality, they serve to maintain universality in non-universal circumstances, I'd say.
Strong bias towards ending... Ending how? There is no guarantee in advance that any act of "ending" will really end violence and not exacerbate it.
Actually ending causal chains of violence is a scientific problem, subject to specifics of sciences such as economy, psychology, neurology... Don't bomb 7 states in the middle east and apply these sciences and it will gradually get better.

I'm not sure what do you actually mean, it reminds me of ending violence with more violence. Some Syrians killed other Syrians, so we must kill more Syrians to show Syrians that killing Syrians is bad. That's Obama logic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2014, 07:53 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
You just advocated Al' Qaeda being wiped off the planet, why is ISIS any different? Taxes? Spanking?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 04:16 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-09-2014 07:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-09-2014 07:57 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  We must be able to judge the morality of violence and we must also have a strong bias towards ending chains of violent acts rather than continuing or justifying or exacerbating them.
I have no idea what do you mean by that. Judging morality of violence is simple: is that initiation of violence or is it merely a reaction? Reactive things such as defense do not violate universality, they serve to maintain universality in non-universal circumstances, I'd say.
Strong bias towards ending... Ending how? There is no guarantee in advance that any act of "ending" will really end violence and not exacerbate it.
Actually ending causal chains of violence is a scientific problem, subject to specifics of sciences such as economy, psychology, neurology... Don't bomb 7 states in the middle east and apply these sciences and it will gradually get better.

I'm not sure what do you actually mean, it reminds me of ending violence with more violence. Some Syrians killed other Syrians, so we must kill more Syrians to show Syrians that killing Syrians is bad. That's Obama logic.

I mean ending chains of violence by judging individual acts of violence immoral, and not perpetuating them... rather than judging all acts of violence that respond to another link in a chain of violence as being morally justified.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: