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
03-10-2014, 09:38 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2014 09:45 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-10-2014 11:45 PM)morondog Wrote:  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...

I insist that real things have a definite, unanimous meaning. Aggression is aggression, no matter what nice-sounding label do we put on it. Is that an arrogant thing to say? I don't think so.
The way I imagine arrogance is to order other people what to do, or they'll be thrown in jail or in Hell if they disobey - or to willingly support and justify that kind of procedure.

(02-10-2014 11:45 PM)morondog Wrote:  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.
OK, I don't ask you to prove that with quotes, I have already ascertained that you can not tell apart an argument from a non-argument. So you shouldn't use that word, strictly speaking.
"Arrogant" is not an argument. "Procedure" is not an argument. "You can move away (escape or be exiled)" is a bad argument. "Legitimate voluntary representation" is a bad argument, if there is a gun in the room.
People have no idea how bad their arguments are, because nobody ever challenged them. It's like they lived in Kansas countryside their whole life and then stumbled upon Skepticon by mistake. So many arrogant people there!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 10:08 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-10-2014 09:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 11:45 PM)morondog Wrote:  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...

I insist that real things have a definite, unanimous meaning. Aggression is aggression, no matter what nice-sounding label do we put on it. Is that an arrogant thing to say? I don't think so.

You're incapable of defining "aggression" unambiguously.

Since ol' Lumi's ignoring me again, in his flatteringly pissy way, would someone else pose the question to him?
(03-10-2014 08:04 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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 09:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The way I imagine arrogance is to order other people what to do, or they'll be thrown in jail or in Hell if they disobey - or to willingly support and justify that kind of procedure.

Your imagination is not an argument.

(03-10-2014 09:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 11:45 PM)morondog Wrote:  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.
OK, I don't ask you to prove that with quotes, I have already ascertained that you can not tell apart an argument from a non-argument. So you shouldn't use that word, strictly speaking.

You're one to talk about not knowing what words mean...

lol "dark matter plasma"

(03-10-2014 09:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  "Arrogant" is not an argument. "Procedure" is not an argument. "You can move away (escape or be exiled)" is a bad argument. "Legitimate voluntary representation" is a bad argument, if there is a gun in the room.
People have no idea how bad their arguments are, because nobody ever challenged them. It's like they lived in Kansas countryside their whole life and then stumbled upon Skepticon by mistake. So many arrogant people there!

I AM SO SMART! I AM SO SMART! S-M-R-T!

Keep stroking, Lumi, I've almost finished.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-10-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
There is a new video out from Thunderfoot bashing Molyneux, btw:





He must have been spanked as a child to criticism him. Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-10-2014 10:08 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 09:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I insist that real things have a definite, unanimous meaning. Aggression is aggression, no matter what nice-sounding label do we put on it. Is that an arrogant thing to say? I don't think so.

You're incapable of defining "aggression" unambiguously.

Wikipedia has an interesting take of it in the article about the non-aggression principle:
Quote:Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.

You'll just have to make due with that until you get a more complete and detailed definition.

Funnily enough, under such a definition, I could cut Lumi off in traffic and be labelled as a aggressor as it would technically interfere with his free will.

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
03-10-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-10-2014 03:10 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 10:08 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You're incapable of defining "aggression" unambiguously.

Wikipedia has an interesting take of it in the article about the non-aggression principle:
Quote:Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.

You'll just have to make due with that until you get a more complete and detailed definition.

Funnily enough, under such a definition, I could cut Lumi off in traffic and be labelled as a aggressor as it would technically interfere with his free will.

To some extent that's just going turtles on it.

For example - what, then, is property? I certainly maintain that ideas of property can and most assuredly do vary between different individuals. It is trivial to point out that there exist many different schools of thought regarding the subject. And what is solicited? What is affect, much less "physically" affect?

(plus, it presupposes - without substantiation or justification - the "right" to self-determination and self-ownership; the former is meaningless insofar as universal self-determination is mutually exclusive, and the latter is question-begging because it already relies on a concept of ownership to justify the concept of ownership)

No better definition is ever forthcoming from ol' Lumi and his ilk. They have their mightily self-evident feels, and in ol' Lumi's case, all (yes, all) differences of opinion result from childhood abuse and can be solved by Magical Thinking™.

Your example is a good one to highlight the inadequacies (since he is just as obviously initiating aggression by unilaterally denying you the right to use the space in the other lane...) but there are plenty more where that came from.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-10-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-10-2014 02:43 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  There is a new video out from Thunderfoot bashing Molyneux, btw:
He must have been spanked as a child to criticism him. Rolleyes
If so, then just like about 80 % of all people, perhaps more. His video is probably a response to this:




(03-10-2014 03:10 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Wikipedia has an interesting take of it in the article about the non-aggression principle:
...
You'll just have to make due with that until you get a more complete and detailed definition.

Funnily enough, under such a definition, I could cut Lumi off in traffic and be labelled as a aggressor as it would technically interfere with his free will.
In a free society, without written government law, you will simply use the common sense, or if you want, Aristotelian mean. Which means, if you can drive faster without damaging stuff or killing people, then drive faster, be my guest. If your aggressive driving is due to a lack of therapy, in a free society I'd donate to a charity that would offer the therapy voluntarily. Insurance companies would be interested in keeping their driving clients even-tempered. Way better than having police terrorizing everyone and forcing us to pay for them.

The definition I use is initiating force, threats or lies. Let's first worry about violence towards majority of children in the world which we can change, also wars and government programs and taxation, which we can't change.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 06:20 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-10-2014 05:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In a free society, without written government law, you will simply use the common sense, or if you want, Aristotelian mean. Which means, if you can drive faster without damaging stuff or killing people, then drive faster, be my guest. If your aggressive driving is due to a lack of therapy, in a free society I'd donate to a charity that would offer the therapy voluntarily. Insurance companies would be interested in keeping their driving clients even-tempered. Way better than having police terrorizing everyone and forcing us to pay for them.

The definition I use is initiating force, threats or lies. Let's first worry about violence towards majority of children in the world which we can change, also wars and government programs and taxation, which we can't change.

Well until every one goes crazy and they end up killing each other and no one is their to stop it

[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
03-10-2014, 07:34 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-10-2014 05:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 02:43 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  There is a new video out from Thunderfoot bashing Molyneux, btw:
He must have been spanked as a child to criticism him. Rolleyes
If so, then just like about 80 % of all people, perhaps more. His video is probably a response to this:




(03-10-2014 03:10 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Wikipedia has an interesting take of it in the article about the non-aggression principle:
...
You'll just have to make due with that until you get a more complete and detailed definition.

Funnily enough, under such a definition, I could cut Lumi off in traffic and be labelled as a aggressor as it would technically interfere with his free will.
In a free society, without written government law, you will simply use the common sense, or if you want, Aristotelian mean. Which means, if you can drive faster without damaging stuff or killing people, then drive faster, be my guest. If your aggressive driving is due to a lack of therapy, in a free society I'd donate to a charity that would offer the therapy voluntarily. Insurance companies would be interested in keeping their driving clients even-tempered. Way better than having police terrorizing everyone and forcing us to pay for them.

The definition I use is initiating force, threats or lies. Let's first worry about violence towards majority of children in the world which we can change, also wars and government programs and taxation, which we can't change.

People don't act this way and won't act this way. There is no business case for parties to act the way you imagine.

Lumi, you live in la-la land. You have no grasp on reality.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
03-10-2014, 08:30 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-10-2014 05:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 02:43 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  There is a new video out from Thunderfoot bashing Molyneux, btw:
He must have been spanked as a child to criticism him. Rolleyes
If so, then just like about 80 % of all people, perhaps more.

Remember how earlier in the thread, ol' Lumi was insisting that anyone who disagreed with him (ie everyone) must have been beaten and abused as a child?

And how that turned out to be totally untrue?

And how ol' Lumi completely ignored those problematic areas where pesky reality interfered with his self-affirming delusion?

Ah, good times.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
04-10-2014, 05:52 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2014 06:13 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-10-2014 07:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  People don't act this way and won't act this way. There is no business case for parties to act the way you imagine.

Lumi, you live in la-la land. You have no grasp on reality.
We have no idea how people actually behave. All human observation is done in captivity, in cage called the state. The state takes more than half of our money away and uses the money to control human behavior with laws, schools, economic regulations and mass media.
Nobody knows how free range humans behave, what self-regulating mechanisms do they have. Yes, there's antropology, but that only reflects the state of nature and shitload of religious indoctrination and inter-tribal violence. Tribes change very little, which is a sign of violence against children, violence stops mental or emotional development. Children want to know and change everything. Our society is still very violent against children, but probably the least in all history. I don't say "down with the state", the state is the result of damaged people. I say, don't damage children and I don't mean just religion, I mean any kind of violence or coercion or anything less than peaceful negotiation. If you don't know what that is, go to therapy.

So I can't take any arguments such as this or that is "human nature". That's like saying MS Windows is computer nature - nope, it's just OEM.
We can't know what business schemes and kinds of insurance would exist if people kept the money that state takes away as of now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: