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
28-09-2014, 09:59 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2014 04:37 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(28-09-2014 08:09 AM)Luminon Wrote:  No, I think I understand the value of society.

No. You value individuals, at the expense of everything else.


(28-09-2014 08:09 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

I'm sorry, your social standard is objective scientific evidence? How much of that have you actually provided? Fuck all, not a damn thing. Everything you have presented as 'evidence' has been subjective mental masturbation with holes in reason large enough to drive semi-trucks through, and it all falls apart with the lightest bit of contact with reality. It only seems 'objective' if you use magical thinking, which has been your problem from the start.


(28-09-2014 08:09 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Once again you stupid fucking cunt, leave all of the trappings of your current society behind and sequester yourself into a life of a hermit in the woods. But no, that is too fucking inconvenient for you. It would only be convient enough for you, to actually follow your imaginary principles, if everyone else magically agreed with you and we all thought just like you did. That's simply never going to happen, we are not the fucking Borg.

But you won't do this. That makes you the hypocrite, you stupid cunt.


(28-09-2014 08:09 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

There is only one sociopath here, as no one besides you has advocated murdering other people.

You rely on magical thinking, you've had zero evidence to support any of your bullshit, you have cited satire in defense of your arguments, and your ideology is the most narcissistic social 'order' imaginable. We don't tear you apart because we're some sort of conspiratorial wolf-pack under order from 'the man', we tear you apart because you are so patently full of shit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
02-10-2014, 05:48 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(28-09-2014 08:09 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

You are making a flawed analogy. Christians make fact claims. It is their job to provide evidence for their facts claims. The rules of our society is a procedure. We claim that is does a fairly good job of providing for needs and minimizing harm. If you want to propose a new world order, you need to provide a different set of procedures that provide for everyone needs (more or less) and minimize harm. We all know the current system sucks but it seems to suck a lot less than most other alternatives. The problem with your anarchy society is that there are serious questions about providing for peoples needs and minimizing harm.

The rest of this thread has pretty much constituted a stubborn refusal on your part to either change your position or stop trying, and bullying. The bullying is regrettable. I don't think you deserve to be called a stupid cunt. You are a willing and active participant in your own bullying, but it is still bullying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2014, 05:53 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-10-2014 05:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(28-09-2014 08:09 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

You are making a flawed analogy. Christians make fact claims. It is their job to provide evidence for their facts claims. The rules of our society is a procedure. We claim that is does a fairly good job of providing for needs and minimizing harm. If you want to propose a new world order, you need to provide a different set of procedures that provide for everyone needs (more or less) and minimize harm. We all know the current system sucks but it seems to suck a lot less than most other alternatives. The problem with your anarchy society is that there are serious questions about providing for peoples needs and minimizing harm.

The rest of this thread has pretty much constituted a stubborn refusal on your part to either change your position or stop trying, and bullying. The bullying is regrettable. I don't think you deserve to be called a stupid cunt. You are a willing and active participant in your own bullying, but it is still bullying.

No, it is opprobrium. And it is deserved. 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
02-10-2014, 05:59 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-10-2014 05:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 05:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  You are making a flawed analogy. Christians make fact claims. It is their job to provide evidence for their facts claims. The rules of our society is a procedure. We claim that is does a fairly good job of providing for needs and minimizing harm. If you want to propose a new world order, you need to provide a different set of procedures that provide for everyone needs (more or less) and minimize harm. We all know the current system sucks but it seems to suck a lot less than most other alternatives. The problem with your anarchy society is that there are serious questions about providing for peoples needs and minimizing harm.

The rest of this thread has pretty much constituted a stubborn refusal on your part to either change your position or stop trying, and bullying. The bullying is regrettable. I don't think you deserve to be called a stupid cunt. You are a willing and active participant in your own bullying, but it is still bullying.

No, it is opprobrium. And it is deserved. Drinking Beverage

I am not sure how "stupid cunt" is a criticism. I realize how frustrating it can be to argue with someone as retractable as Luminon. That doesn't make it acceptable to resort to ad hominem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2014, 06:12 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(28-09-2014 08:09 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

What do you have against wolves, dude? They are highly empathetic and cooperative creature, last I hard, they don't tend to turn on others in their pack without considerable provocation.
Gorillas are also pretty good.

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
02-10-2014, 06:24 PM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2014 06:27 PM by cjlr.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-10-2014 05:59 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 05:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is opprobrium. And it is deserved. Drinking Beverage

I am not sure how "stupid cunt" is a criticism. I realize how frustrating it can be to argue with someone as retractable as Luminon. That doesn't make it acceptable to resort to ad hominem.

*intractable.

The vast majority of comments directed towards ol' Lumi have been nowhere near that rude. A great many have been attempting to engage in dialogue - but dialogue requires the participation of both parties, whereas masturbatory exhibitionism does not.

Plus, an insult is not an ad hominem. So there's that.

But seriously, now, Michael. Do you think this:
(28-09-2014 08:09 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Does this strike you as a person capable of dialogue? For to be sure, it is the product of an individual who has steadfastly ignored everything anyone else has ever said to him...

No. It is self-obsessed, self-important drivel, and the only thing that makes ol' Lumi feel better than telling himself how smart he is is telling himself how much worse everyone else is.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
02-10-2014, 11:45 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-10-2014 06:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The vast majority of comments directed towards ol' Lumi have been nowhere near that rude. A great many have been attempting to engage in dialogue - but dialogue requires the participation of both parties, whereas masturbatory exhibitionism does not.

Big Grin What I love about this thread is, quite often people come into it and are shocked! Shocked I say! People are being so ruuuuuuude to poor ol' Lumi...

And then they chat to him for a bit, and he fawns on them 'cos they're so much more understanding than all the rest... and they ask him a few questions... and they get back... muddled thinking and woo and arrogance, so much arrogance... they ask a few more questions... more garbage in reply... sarcasm becomes involved...

Lumi blatantly asserts that he didn't say something which he did say 2 paragraphs ago. He repeats his argument, as if repeating makes the criticisms vanish. He sympathetically tells them that it's OK that they were abused as children, often times it is repressed. He tells them to read Stephan Molyneux's drivel, *all* of it, and then they will understand. He tells them that it's not really their fault they don't get it, not everyone is cut out to be a philosopher.

At this point they start to lose the plot and perhaps a few comments such as "cretin" and so forth start to creep into their replies... And Lumi keeps up the good work and soon we have another guy who's so *fucking* tired of Lumi that the only reason to reply to him is to point out with as much blunt force trauma as possible in the medium of text, how fucking amazingly stupid he is.

And then the next unsuspecting victim comes along and says "Jeeeeeeeezus, what did poor ol' bullied Lumi ever do to you guys?"

Tongue I'm in it for the humour at this point. Michael, I encourage you to talk to Lumi Big Grin It's an educational experience.

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
[+] 6 users Like morondog's post
03-10-2014, 04:08 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-10-2014 05:59 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 05:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is opprobrium. And it is deserved. Drinking Beverage

I am not sure how "stupid cunt" is a criticism. I realize how frustrating it can be to argue with someone as retractable as Luminon. That doesn't make it acceptable to resort to ad hominem.

It is not ad hominem; look it up.

And the word you want is "intractable".

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
03-10-2014, 05:01 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2014 09:08 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-10-2014 05:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  You are making a flawed analogy. Christians make fact claims. It is their job to provide evidence for their facts claims. The rules of our society is a procedure.
What is the difference between a fact claim and procedure? None, until proven otherwise. We all claim that we do things because doing them is good, moral or more right than not doing them. Christians admit that. Calling something "a procedure" does not free it from any test of goodness and reality.

(02-10-2014 05:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  We claim that is does a fairly good job of providing for needs and minimizing harm.
Compared to what?
Governments during the 20th century killed 260 million people, outside of wars. Every single government program, "war on ..." failed spectacularly, increasing whatever it was meant to minimize. Power is the worst way to get things done, it is immoral and unscientific. People thought dividing power among more people than one will help, because power corrupts, but turns out, more people just have less responsibility, thus more corruption and debt. And everyone agrees with that in theory, they disagree with taking things from them at gunpoint to pay for things they don't want. But in practice, people cover for violence if revealing it threatens their personal relationships.

Anarchism is not really a thing, just like atheism is not really a thing, it's freeing up the space for skepticism, science, open-mindedness and objectivity. Anarchism is freeing up the space for voluntary market deals and voluntary relationships with people around us. Without the relationships, it won't work. We can't protest against taxes but gloss over forbidden topics with our parents, that's really hypocrisy on libertarian side. We have no power to change the government. But we have the power to be honest in our relationships.

(02-10-2014 05:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  If you want to propose a new world order, you need to provide a different set of procedures that provide for everyone needs (more or less) and minimize harm. We all know the current system sucks but it seems to suck a lot less than most other alternatives. The problem with your anarchy society is that there are serious questions about providing for peoples needs and minimizing harm.
Think like an atheist. Atheism is not an alternative to Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, it is lack of an alternative. I do not propose a new set of procedures, beliefs, rituals, dogmas and sacraments. I propose freedom for whatever procedures you can sell to people voluntarily on free market. I propose honesty, openness and vulnerability in personal relationships, calling things their true names without vague euphemisms like the "procedure". When you say things like that, I imagine the 260 million dead by the "procedure".

(02-10-2014 05:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  The rest of this thread has pretty much constituted a stubborn refusal on your part to either change your position or stop trying, and bullying. The bullying is regrettable. I don't think you deserve to be called a stupid cunt. You are a willing and active participant in your own bullying, but it is still bullying.
I see you are making attempts to be nicer, but you really don't have to, just talk to the point. You say bullying is regrettable, but is it wrong? I'd say it is, whether from people on the internet or from politicians and their police forces.
All I want you to say is, yes, there is a gun in the room and this gun is there for no rational or scientific reason. The reason is likely because that's how our parents raised us, to think of the gun in the room as necessary.
Stubborn refusal? I can only change my position based on objective criteria, logic and evidence, such as "compared to what?"
Power is violence. Taxation is violence. Aggression is immoral, no matter in what package, under what name, age, procedure, relationship or costume. Nobody has the right to attack us and no way to justify that morally (and looks like factually as well, but that is a lot of info to process). That is my position. I am not stubborn about it, I am just unable to change it through logic and evidence. Don't you "procedure" me.

If that isn't clear, you can hear it from another mouth.
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FD...ch_FDR.mp3
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 08:04 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2014 09:02 AM by cjlr.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 05:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  You are making a flawed analogy. Christians make fact claims. It is their job to provide evidence for their facts claims. The rules of our society is a procedure.
What is the difference between a fact claim and procedure? None, until proven otherwise.

... w u t.

Um, no, Lumi, those are fundamentally different things. Data and methods are not the same thing at all.

Read a book.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  We all claim that we do things because doing them is good, moral or more right than not doing them.

Yes, it's good that you almost understand this. People do things for reasons. Different people, you see, have different reasons.

In your mind your own opinion takes on an almost supernatural self-righteousness, but you've thoroughly failed to convince anyone else here it has any merit whatsoever.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Christians admit that. Calling something "a procedure" does not free it from any test of goodness and reality.

This appears to be a non sequitur.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 05:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  We claim that is does a fairly good job of providing for needs and minimizing harm.
Compared to what?
Governments during the 20th century killed 260 million people, outside of wars.

Those figures are wildly inaccurate.

Not that you give a shit about accuracy.

They are furthermore present absolutely context-free.
(and thought-free; "NUMBERS BIG GUMMINT BAD" is not sufficient analysis)

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Every single government program, "war on ..." failed spectacularly, increasing whatever it was meant to minimize.

Oh, totally. The war on Nazism failed spectacularly. Why, there are more Nazis today than ever before, even 1939...

How many people do you know who have smallpox? Or polio?

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Power is the worst way to get things done, it is immoral and unscientific.

And yet you fellate yourself to the thought of a completely unregulated "market", wherein capital and power are directly equivalent. Hmm.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  People thought dividing power among more people than one will help, because power corrupts, but turns out, more people just have less responsibility, thus more corruption and debt. And everyone agrees with that in theory, they disagree with taking things from them at gunpoint to pay for things they don't want. But in practice, people cover for violence if revealing it threatens their personal relationships.

Making totally unsubstantiated blanket assertions about "everyone" and "people" is not compelling, ol' Lumi.

Can you provide a single citation?

Ever?

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Anarchism is not really a thing, just like atheism is not really a thing, it's freeing up the space for skepticism, science, open-mindedness and objectivity.

It's a vacuum.

A power vacuum, if you will. Shall we consider what has happened in power vacuums historically?

Assuming you desire to prevent the inevitable, your "anarchy" must self-regulate. It must therefore contain some societal apparatus of self-regulation. If it then includes, necessarily, structures to maintain itself (what structures? run by whom? how?) then it is no longer a vacuum.

Whoops. Read a book.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Anarchism is freeing up the space for voluntary market deals and voluntary relationships with people around us. Without the relationships, it won't work.

Once again we see that your fantasies are totally reliant on a nonsensical non-starter of a premise:
"If everyone got along perfectly everyone would get along perfectly".

Sorry; magical thinking doesn't solve problems.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  We can't protest against taxes but gloss over forbidden topics with our parents, that's really hypocrisy on libertarian side. We have no power to change the government. But we have the power to be honest in our relationships.

Who's "we"?

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 05:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  If you want to propose a new world order, you need to provide a different set of procedures that provide for everyone needs (more or less) and minimize harm. We all know the current system sucks but it seems to suck a lot less than most other alternatives. The problem with your anarchy society is that there are serious questions about providing for peoples needs and minimizing harm.
Think like an atheist. Atheism is not an alternative to Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, it is lack of an alternative.

One still needs to define one's relationship to the world and one's understanding of it.

To do those things absent prior religious structures requires some additional effort. Yes, one's thought processes are informed by a lack of religious belief, but unless one literally never thinks about anything, then atheism is not "nothing"; it is most certainly not a "lack" of an "alternative". It is the foundation of one.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I do not propose a new set of procedures, beliefs, rituals, dogmas and sacraments.

You've spent this entire thread doing just that.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I propose freedom for whatever procedures you can sell to people voluntarily on free market.

The massive flaws with this ridiculously superficial glib platitude have been pointed out to you regularly, and you have thoroughly ignored them with a stunningly disingenuous regularity.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I propose honesty, openness and vulnerability in personal relationships, calling things their true names without vague euphemisms like the "procedure". When you say things like that, I imagine the 260 million dead by the "procedure".

Here we see another problem with ol' Lumi's, ah, procedure.

When he (Michael) says something - necessarily somewhat vague, because he is not speaking to a specific situation, and thus cannot be specific, your (ol' Lumi's) response is to imagine things, unrelated to his comment.

Filling in the blanks with your own rampant paranoia and fantasies is not constructive.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 05:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  The rest of this thread has pretty much constituted a stubborn refusal on your part to either change your position or stop trying, and bullying. The bullying is regrettable. I don't think you deserve to be called a stupid cunt. You are a willing and active participant in your own bullying, but it is still bullying.
Stubborn refusal? I can only change my position based on objective criteria, logic and evidence, such as "compared to what?"

That makes literally no sense as a sentence.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Power is violence.

Power is influence.

Are you so deluded that you don't think disparities of power occur in "free" markets? I wonder.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Taxation is violence.

A) no, it isn't.
B) if it is, so what?

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Aggression is immoral, no matter in what package, under what name, age, procedure, relationship or costume.

With such rigid toughtkilling sloganeering as that, you could be a religion, Lumi.

Hint: what constitutes "aggression" is subjective.

I am going to ask you a very simple question. Have you ever seen a fight? Two people in a physical confrontation?

I have. Do you know what they both said afterward?
"The other guy started it".

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Nobody has the right to attack us and no way to justify that morally (and looks like factually as well, but that is a lot of info to process). That is my position.

Your position is an incoherent refusal to recognize that your feels are not objective truths.

(03-10-2014 05:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I am not stubborn about it, I am just unable to change it through logic and evidence. Don't you "procedure" me.

If that isn't clear, you can hear it from another mouth.
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FD...ch_FDR.mp3

Aaaaand we finish with Prophet Molyneux (pbuh).

No explanation of what the link contains, nor analysis of its points and content. No attempt to establish the credibility of the source. Just stroke and spray and leave dripping down the wall, free of thought.

THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: