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
02-08-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-08-2014 11:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  There you go conflating again. "Rights" does not mean morality.
In that case, I am not interested in Earmuffs' legal mythology, if he's not talking about morality. And I don't believe you, because you don't say what rights mean, instead you want me playing Where's Waldo with you about what do "rights" actually mean. I think you have no idea, because you haven't asked Muffs. "Rights" with you guys mean however you define them at the moment, just like Christian "salvation".

(02-08-2014 11:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  You need to read a book. Google 'social contract'.
Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load You're funny like Rev over there. Here's some Lysander Spooner on your Hobbes and Locke:
[Image: picture-social-contract-not-signed.jpg]
[Image: picture-social-contract-not-found.jpg]

(02-08-2014 11:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your reasoning is simplistic and childish. Grow the fuck up. Drinking Beverage
That is not an argument. You are demeaning yourself by not talking in arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2014, 12:27 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-08-2014 12:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-08-2014 11:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  There you go conflating again. "Rights" does not mean morality.
In that case, I am not interested in Earmuffs' legal mythology, if he's not talking about morality. And I don't believe you, because you don't say what rights mean, instead you want me playing Where's Waldo with you about what do "rights" actually mean. I think you have no idea, because you haven't asked Muffs. "Rights" with you guys mean however you define them at the moment, just like Christian "salvation".

(02-08-2014 11:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  You need to read a book. Google 'social contract'.
Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load You're funny like Rev over there. Here's some Lysander Spooner on your Hobbes and Locke:
[Image: picture-social-contract-not-signed.jpg]
[Image: picture-social-contract-not-found.jpg]

You implicitly sign it by taking advantage of the benefits of said society. Don't like it? Exit.
Play by the rules or don't play.

Quote:
(02-08-2014 11:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your reasoning is simplistic and childish. Grow the fuck up. Drinking Beverage
That is not an argument. You are demeaning yourself by not talking in arguments.

It's a comment and a judgement.

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
02-08-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-08-2014 12:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-08-2014 12:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In that case, I am not interested in Earmuffs' legal mythology, if he's not talking about morality. And I don't believe you, because you don't say what rights mean, instead you want me playing Where's Waldo with you about what do "rights" actually mean. I think you have no idea, because you haven't asked Muffs. "Rights" with you guys mean however you define them at the moment, just like Christian "salvation".

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load You're funny like Rev over there. Here's some Lysander Spooner on your Hobbes and Locke:
[Image: picture-social-contract-not-signed.jpg]
[Image: picture-social-contract-not-found.jpg]

You implicitly sign it by taking advantage of the benefits of said society. Don't like it? Exit.
Play by the rules or don't play.

Quote: That is not an argument. You are demeaning yourself by not talking in arguments.

It's a comment and a judgement.

So knowing that Ol Luminon is a grad student and is going on his government's dime one can only conclude he is in fact a parasite. The reason he does not like taxes is because he does not wish to be anything but a leech. Between this and his advocation of murder (see my sig for a link) he has lost any chance to claim a moral high ground.

(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
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
02-08-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Since Lumi likes memes so much I found one for him.
[Image: Stupid_675053_1217332.jpg]

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Res Publica's post
02-08-2014, 12:43 PM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2014 12:52 PM by ClydeLee.)
Re: RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-08-2014 11:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-08-2014 11:22 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Maybe I would feel any reason explain my past experience to you if you didn't fill most posts with pointless generalizations... And assuming things about someone isn't active philosophizing or how we judhe societies as you've tried to use as a defense before.
Philosophy is the thing that deals with generalizations. Assuming is the valid method in mathematics and philosophy as well. You know, this "let there be X that is twice the amount of Y, at which amount of Y the X equals 32.5?" That is the rational method that is used both in mathematics and philosophy and it deals with general properties of reality, not any specific X or Y cut out of a newspaper.
People here are so hung up on empiricism that they tend to forget that.

But now that you see that my generalizations aren't pointless, feel free to explain your past experience to me.

(02-08-2014 11:22 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I've never seem you demonstrate the most important thing any student of logic or philosophy needs to understand first. That they're highly capable of being wrong... And not knowing the answer. I may be wrong, but I've never seen you admit doubt and it makes your claims of your logic/philosophy credentials arrogant and disregarded.
If you say this has anything to do with logic or philosophy, then please prove it logically or philosophically. What I see are social commands to act as if I felt unsure and guilty somehow, while I don't really feel that way. I don't see anything logical or philosophical about it. Acting with certainty is not offensive in itself, insulting people is, and you see people insult me a lot.

What I see is a sheer terror of people when they see anyone claiming anything for certain. Because certainty means responsibility. If nothing is real, nothing is certain (except evolutionary biology and so on), nobody is responsible and nobody is guilty for the very sad state of humanity. What I see is whole school of students claiming together in a very convincing way that a herd of camels ate their homework and then me saying I did my homework and proving that camels don't eat paper. Obviously the students are going to get mad, because that would mean an obligation on their part to do their homework. Suddenly I am the traitor and threat, because it is somehow my fault that they must do homework, not their fault that they did not do their homework. What I see is a whole planet full of bad conscience and undone homework. A person who did his homework on such a planet is a public enemy.

How do I know that? Nobody is curious. Not in the slightest bit, not once they learn what is actually the topic. They immediately get defensive and offensive. But no curiosity Wink
Trust me, I had this many times at school, this terrible feeling of not having done my homework or not having studied for exams and then making excuses, collective excuses even. This is not an argument, just a feeling you can relate to. Don't worry, we're big now, there are no homeworks and teachers around, you can allow yourself to feel that sinking in your stomach, that old school missed homework feeling.

(02-08-2014 11:22 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  But.. I have to add another thing. Implying others that don't agree with you aren't worthy of your discussion is exactly indicative of acting like religious pompous debaters. Which is what you've done here and why I say you're like a presuppositionalist.
If we were in a school of airplane piloting, or surgery, plumbing, biochemistry or software programming, you would not be saying that. Just like me, so far, I have accepted every piece of specific positive scientific evidence that Cjlr bashed me on head with. I am not worthy to discuss mathematics with Cjlr or Chas Bowing

But there is somehow this feeling, that in philosophy, ethics, law, education, parenting and so on, there is nothing is real, nothing is certain, nobody knows anything. So we feel we are all equal in these particular disciplines without really studying them and nobody can claim superiority. And we determine the truth by majority vote. See, that is what I mean by collective denial of homework and thinking that this is somehow equivalent to everyone having done their homework. I call bullshit. I am one person in 1,000 or maybe 10,000 who does his homework and there is about one person in 200 who is neurologically capable of doing his homework in these disciplines without bailing out because of emotional and cultural excuses of paper-eating camels. The other 199 people bail out at the first sight of discomfort and are backed up in their camel claim by the other 198 people. And they call this philosophy, logic, ethics and culture. And they teach this on the most prestigious universities and on every public school and church school.

I'm mainly responding based in your, now you see... Paragraph. Because again, you are asserting something. You just do so in an arrogant manner and give no reason to accept any of your self boasting claims.

You simply asserted philosophy like math work in generalizations.. With no reasoning or points. Simply an assertion. You have a reasoning why math works that way, but but you're ignoring any logical progression and jumping to asserting connections.

Logic isn't based in assertions and philosophy isn't based upon generalizations. They're based in different manners on examining. You like to skip this to jump to an assertion step. If a simple school analogy is what you need. You may have "done your homework" but you refuse to "show your work" so there's no reason to take you on your word.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
02-08-2014, 01:16 PM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2014 01:30 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-08-2014 12:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  You implicitly sign it by taking advantage of the benefits of said society. Don't like it? Exit.
Play by the rules or don't play.
Exit, or what if I don't? Or I get shot? I see your moral high ground, Mr Yahweh. It's called the Gomorrah crater.
Rules? You don't care about rules that Moses received from God on Mt Sinai, and I don't care about rules that founding fathers signed in Philadelphia. I haven't signed shit. You might want to google up the definition of the word "contract".

(02-08-2014 12:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I'm mainly responding based in your, now you see... Paragraph. Because again, you are asserting something. You just do so in an arrogant manner and give no reason to accept any of your self boasting claims.
The truth is, I don't need to say anything. I just say that legal rules are just claims and assertions of social mythology. I say, laws and states are make-believe cover-up for violence.
I did not come up with laws and states, so the burden of proof is not on me, it's on patriots and statists. And what do I get? Arguments? Evidence? Nope. Muhrika! Love it or leave it (or get shot). Very telling. Drinking Beverage

(02-08-2014 12:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You simply asserted philosophy like math work in generalizations.. With no reasoning or points. Simply an assertion. You have a reasoning why math works that way, but but you're ignoring any logical progression and jumping to asserting connections.
Excuse me, isn't that self-evident? Is there anything else that philosophy could possibly be? If I said philosophy is about turnips, would that sound any more plausible? Yes, I have reasoning why mathematics works, but that reasoning is philosophical.
If you say you need me to go through logical progression, then you are saying you are uneducated about philosophy and thus not qualified to give any objections. In that case, the general procedure is to show vulnerable ignorant curiosity and ask questions.

As for arrogance, there are people who want me to get shot because somebody far away made up rules and wrote them on paper. That's not arrogant? I'm sure Socrates was arrogant too, when he questioned the laws of the city and they made him drink the hemlock after the kangaroo court.

(02-08-2014 12:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Logic isn't based in assertions and philosophy isn't based upon generalizations. They're based in different manners on examining. You like to skip this to jump to an assertion step. If a simple school analogy is what you need. You may have "done your homework" but you refuse to "show your work" so there's no reason to take you on your word.
Logic is based on relationship between assertions. We can make up assertions, but we can't make up the relationship between them, that's the whole point of logic. Assertions are our controlled laboratory environment just like empiricists have, only faster and cheaper.
I don't need to show my homework, I am simply pointing out that states are make-believe and that law is an opinion with a gun. When atheists say there is no God, they don't need to have Flying Spaghetti Monster to welcome the sheep to another fold. And when you say homeopathy doesn't work, you don't need to disprove or replace it with astrology or leave it as it is, because despite of its flaws, homeopathy is "the best of bad quack cures only all other have been tried". (Winston Churchill democracy paraphrase)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2014, 01:26 PM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2014 02:52 PM by Revenant77x.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-08-2014 01:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-08-2014 12:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  You implicitly sign it by taking advantage of the benefits of said society. Don't like it? Exit.
Play by the rules or don't play.
Exit, or what if I don't? Or I get shot? I see your moral high ground, Mr Yahweh. It's called the Gomorrah crater.
Rules? You don't care about rules that Moses received from God on Mt Sinai, and I don't care about rules that founding fathers signed in Philadelphia. I haven't signed shit. You might want to google up the definition of the word "contract".

(02-08-2014 12:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I'm mainly responding based in your, now you see... Paragraph. Because again, you are asserting something. You just do so in an arrogant manner and give no reason to accept any of your self boasting claims.
The truth is, I don't need to say anything. I just say that legal rules are just claims and assertions of social mythology. I say, laws and states are make-believe cover-up for violence.
I did not come up with laws and states, so the burden of proof is not on me, it's on patriots and statists. And what do I get? Arguments? Evidence? Nope. Muhrika! Love it or leave it (or get shot). Very telling. Drinking Beverage

(02-08-2014 12:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You simply asserted philosophy like math work in generalizations.. With no reasoning or points. Simply an assertion. You have a reasoning why math works that way, but but you're ignoring any logical progression and jumping to asserting connections.
Excuse me, isn't that self-evident? Is there anything else that philosophy could possibly be? If I said philosophy is about turnips, would that sound any more plausible? Yes, I have reasoning why mathematics works, but that reasoning is philosophical.
If you say you need me to go through logical progression, then you are saying you are uneducated about philosophy and thus not qualified to give any objections. In that case, the general procedure is to show vulnerable ignorant curiosity and ask questions.

(02-08-2014 12:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Logic isn't based in assertions and philosophy isn't based upon generalizations. They're based in different manners on examining. You like to skip this to jump to an assertion step. If a simple school analogy is what you need. You may have "done your homework" but you refuse to "show your work" so there's no reason to take you on your word.
Logic is based on relationship between assertions. We can make up assertions, but we can't make up the relationship between them, that's the whole point of logic. Assertions are our controlled laboratory environment just like empiricists have, only faster and cheaper.
I don't need to show my homework, I am simply pointing out that states are make-believe and that law is an opinion with a gun. When atheists say there is no God, they don't need to have Flying Spaghetti Monster to back up their words.

So it occurs to me the problem here is Luminon is not smart enough to understand his own position, mainly because he is just parroting someone else. Thus all the non sequiturs and illogical leaps. This is the equivalent of arguing Rush Limbaugh's stance with one of his uninformed dittoheads. He has no understanding of philosophy, maybe he took an intro course on it and can't get past his own ignorance, no understanding of economics or what the free market actually is. He clearly does not understand what a Buzz word is as he incorrectly labels them yet is oblivious to his own usage.

So in short the Czech Government should be asking for a full refund on the money they have spent on his education as it obviously has gone to waste.

(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
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
02-08-2014, 01:27 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Sleepy

God you're boring.

So you didn't sign the social contract Smile This I can agree with. I didn't sign it either. But I don't see the point of not following social convention. As you've said, not following convention which you didn't sign up for may get you killed even... To me... it's the world you live in though. We *do* have the power to change it to a degree, but it requires a great effort. I can't see why you'd put in the effort.

What's so desperately wrong with society now that you feel the rules are too onerous? Is it just taxes and spanking?

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
02-08-2014, 01:29 PM
Re: RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-08-2014 01:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-08-2014 12:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  You implicitly sign it by taking advantage of the benefits of said society. Don't like it? Exit.
Play by the rules or don't play.
Exit, or what if I don't? Or I get shot? I see your moral high ground, Mr Yahweh. It's called the Gomorrah crater.
Rules? You don't care about rules that Moses received from God on Mt Sinai, and I don't care about rules that founding fathers signed in Philadelphia. I haven't signed shit. You might want to google up the definition of the word "contract".

(02-08-2014 12:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I'm mainly responding based in your, now you see... Paragraph. Because again, you are asserting something. You just do so in an arrogant manner and give no reason to accept any of your self boasting claims.
The truth is, I don't need to say anything. I just say that legal rules are just claims and assertions of social mythology. I say, laws and states are make-believe cover-up for violence.
I did not come up with laws and states, so the burden of proof is not on me, it's on patriots and statists. And what do I get? Arguments? Evidence? Nope. Muhrika! Love it or leave it (or get shot). Very telling. Drinking Beverage

(02-08-2014 12:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You simply asserted philosophy like math work in generalizations.. With no reasoning or points. Simply an assertion. You have a reasoning why math works that way, but but you're ignoring any logical progression and jumping to asserting connections.
Excuse me, isn't that self-evident? Is there anything else that philosophy could possibly be? If I said philosophy is about turnips, would that sound any more plausible? Yes, I have reasoning why mathematics works, but that reasoning is philosophical.
If you say you need me to go through logical progression, then you are saying you are uneducated about philosophy and thus not qualified to give any objections. Thanks for confirmation.

(02-08-2014 12:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Logic isn't based in assertions and philosophy isn't based upon generalizations. They're based in different manners on examining. You like to skip this to jump to an assertion step. If a simple school analogy is what you need. You may have "done your homework" but you refuse to "show your work" so there's no reason to take you on your word.
Logic is based on relationship between assertions. We can make up assertions, but we can't make up the relationship between them, that's the whole point of logic.
I don't need to show my homework, I am simply pointing out that states are make-believe and that law is an opinion with a gun. When atheists say there is no God, they don't need to have Flying Spaghetti Monster to back up their words.

You're the only one who keeps up this charade of do it or get shot... You lambast people for liberal use of terms like contract but do the same yourself for with mythology and make belief.. And other terms especially when you've gone on on using philosophical and scientific terms interchangeable in various ways.

Oddly you frequently have stated you only care about actions of people, not what they speak... Why shouldn't that apply to you. Your actions show you're using the social established pathways of generating internet access and regulation that allows the public to use it. You use these ideas of the social contracts but it's still all fairy dust somehow.

All you are is a constant mix of overblown hypocrisy. If you stepped back from yourself and examined your input.. You could have reasonable discussions.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
02-08-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Bonus question, when you come back with a whole loada things that are wrong with society, 'cos they're not hard to find.

How the hell do you conclude that the key to solving these problems is an anarchist society?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: