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
26-09-2014, 04:58 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2014 05:30 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-09-2014 07:53 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  You just advocated Al' Qaeda being wiped off the planet, why is ISIS any different? Taxes? Spanking?
Quote me where I said that I "advocate wiping Al Quaeda off the planet". (hint: nowhere) I did not advocate anything, you Rev follower Facepalm I merely pointed out that such groups are more dangerous to freedom than anarchistic private security employees who would replace local police.
And if you think "someone being six feet under" is a bad thing, you might want to dig up some cemeteries Drinking Beverage

(26-09-2014 04:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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.
Violence can have two opposite meanings, aggression or defense. There is the non-aggression principle, not non-violence principle. The NAP says that it is impossible to make an objectively and logically moral justification for aggression. But for defense, that's quite OK.

If you ditch non-existent group categories like families, states or religions, there are only individuals who initiate violence. These are the immoral ones. If they initiate violence because their family, religion, nation or other bogus category demands that, that is immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 05:31 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
There you go, justifying violence again because apparently "I'll kill your family back" is defense.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
26-09-2014, 07:20 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2014 07:30 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-09-2014 05:31 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  There you go, justifying violence again because apparently "I'll kill your family back" is defense.
There you go, again ignoring what I say. Family is not an object or a moral agent, it's an imaginary group which may or may not be genetically related. There is nothing in genetics or wedding papers that justifies attacking. It doesn't make you virtuous or godly for being born into a particular family or nation and so there is no way to act upon that virtue, there is really no way to attack. Individuals are moral agents, not groups. Groups are arbitrary gang-ups. Morality can't be arbitrary.

If you equate attack with defense, then you are just plain wrong. Words and people have identity, a word can not mean itself and its opposite at the same time. And "killing back one's family" is just attacking completely non-involved people, because of genetics. That's like racism, the idea that some people need to be attacked, because genetics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 10:38 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-09-2014 04:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-09-2014 04:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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.
Violence can have two opposite meanings, aggression or defense. There is the non-aggression principle, not non-violence principle. The NAP says that it is impossible to make an objectively and logically moral justification for aggression. But for defense, that's quite OK.

If you ditch non-existent group categories like families, states or religions, there are only individuals who initiate violence. These are the immoral ones. If they initiate violence because their family, religion, nation or other bogus category demands that, that is immoral.

Problem 1: There is always just one more step in the chain, and just about anything can be justified if you are imaginative enough to find a previous 'cause'. Thus, anything can be justified as just being a 'defense' from a previous wrong. These chains of violence can be as long as we like to make them. The history of causation stretches back much farther than recorded history. So just how far back are you allowed to go looking for a redress of grievances, how far back are you allowed to go searching for justification? Near as I can tell, you've not advocated any limit on it.

So Person A 'initiates violence' against Person B, and B retaliates in 'self-defense' and ends up killing A. Upon further investigation, it turns out that Person A had a tumor in a part of the brain that manages impulse control; and he may not have been in conscious control of his actions. As it turns out, this particular tumor has been shown in studies to be linked to exposure to a specific chemical compound, one that A regularly worked with at his job. It now turns out that A's workplace had not been properly storing or handling the material.

So who is responsible for A's death?

Is it A for his initiation of violence?

Is it B, who acted in self defense?

Is it A's tumor, who affected his actions?

It it A's workplace, who probably caused him to get the tumor?

Is it the government regulatory agency, or the individual inspector who failed to catch A's workplace safety violations?

Or is it the fault of everyone in an anarchist society for not allowing a safety regulation body to inspect work environments for such hazards?


How far back do you wan't me to take this Lumi? I can keep going for as long as my imagination lets me... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2014, 05:33 AM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2014 09:33 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-09-2014 10:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Problem 1: There is always just one more step in the chain, and just about anything can be justified if you are imaginative enough to find a previous 'cause'.

How far back do you wan't me to take this Lumi? I can keep going for as long as my imagination lets me... Drinking Beverage

I just remembered, you don't care about my answers. If you did, you wouldn't have called me a stupid cunt. You surely don't care about a stupid cunt's opinions, do you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2014, 10:15 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-09-2014 05:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I just remembered, you don't care about my answers. If you did, you wouldn't have called me a stupid cunt. You surely don't care about a stupid cunt's opinions, do you.

I for one sure the fuck don't, you stupid cunt.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
27-09-2014, 12:46 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-09-2014 05:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-09-2014 10:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Problem 1: There is always just one more step in the chain, and just about anything can be justified if you are imaginative enough to find a previous 'cause'.

How far back do you wan't me to take this Lumi? I can keep going for as long as my imagination lets me... Drinking Beverage

I just remembered, you don't care about my answers. If you did, you wouldn't have called me a stupid cunt. You surely don't care about a stupid cunt's opinions, do you.

You're right, I don't. I stopped caring long ago, and you've given me zero reasons to reconsider that conclusion. But somebody has to clean up the Gorilla cage when the poo starts flying, even if nobody give a shit what the Gorilla's opinion is.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-09-2014, 01:01 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-09-2014 12:46 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(27-09-2014 05:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I just remembered, you don't care about my answers. If you did, you wouldn't have called me a stupid cunt. You surely don't care about a stupid cunt's opinions, do you.

You're right, I don't. I stopped caring long ago, and you've given me zero reasons to reconsider that conclusion. But somebody has to clean up the Gorilla cage when the poo starts flying, even if nobody give a shit what the Gorilla's opinion is.

That is completely inappropriate. Gorillas understand the value of social order and are not sociopathic fucktards. I've been trying to think of an animal that does not understand the value of society and have been hard pressed to come up with one. Maybe a badger.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
27-09-2014, 08:12 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-09-2014 01:01 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(27-09-2014 12:46 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're right, I don't. I stopped caring long ago, and you've given me zero reasons to reconsider that conclusion. But somebody has to clean up the Gorilla cage when the poo starts flying, even if nobody give a shit what the Gorilla's opinion is.

That is completely inappropriate. Gorillas understand the value of social order and are not sociopathic fucktards. I've been trying to think of an animal that does not understand the value of society and have been hard pressed to come up with one. Maybe a badger.

Wolverine?

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
28-09-2014, 08:09 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
No, I think I understand the value of society. It provides no objective scientific evidence for its rules and when I question that, I get called a stupid cunt by people who like to bash Christians with scientific evidence for their subjective God-given rules.

What value does this kind of society have? It's an overhyped crap and the best deal is, that alternatives are crap too. Which is a lie, there is a free market society which is not crap and we all use its products or we wouldn't be able to talk across the world. So this is the hypocrisy we live in.
You guys are less than gorilla tribe. It's a wolf pack, all obey the pack leader, who is a sociopathic fucktard. If you are different, the wolves will turn rabid and tear you apart or throw you out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: