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, 03:45 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-08-2014 03:05 PM)morondog Wrote:  ... You're telling me they're not? They're just stories man. Kids' stories. Sure, you can mix in a bit of moralizing... I can tell, you're gonna tell me they're part of a government plot... please don't. I'll cry. I was just an innocent lad until you started with this stuff.

Boring because... I get bored dude. Chasing your stuff round in circles isn't exactly my favourite thing in the world. Undecided
Yep, it feels like tsunami of changes falling on you, right? Wink
I have not much to say, I'm new to analyzing movies. Culture is a battlefield for who gets to program the public unconscious. There are some good movies, some bad. Kids' stories are very important, that's why Christians read Bible to kids so much. There are some kids movies extremely bad for kids - and some good, I've starting to watch them and listen to reviews.
One thing on top of my head... In movies, the police and military are never portrayed negatively, only as heroes. If there is some bad English-speaking military in movies, they're always called "mercenaries".

Again, this is not "my stuff", this should be everyone's stuff. But I get it's extremely demanding on strength. I couldn't do anything if I didn't meditate a lot. I have always felt unhappy, so there never was any turning back to me, no reward for not questioning. So I never got the habit of conformity, I suppose. I was always condemned no matter what, so I prefer questioning. But the truth is, philosophy is addictive! People debunking religion in half of this forum, they're doing philosophy. Oh, the joy of broadening philosophy also on other things than Christianity-bashing! Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2014, 03:46 PM
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".

If you wish to be part of a society and its benefits, you agree to its rules. You can work to change them or you can go elsewhere. That is the social contract.
Don't conflate that with a legal contract, they are not the same thing.

Of course I don't care about mythical rules from an imaginary source, but you are once again muddying the waters with bullshit. Laws don't come from an external source, they are generated by the society through the mechanism of government.

Quote:
(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

Why do you keep harping on America? You're not an American, I'm not an American, cjlr is not an American. Let's use European social democracies as a model for states and governments.

Quote: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.

The only person here who has advocated shooting people is you.

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
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
02-08-2014, 03:54 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-08-2014 03:45 PM)Luminon Wrote:  One thing on top of my head... In movies, the police and military are never portrayed negatively, only as heroes. If there is some bad English-speaking military in movies, they're always called "mercenaries".

Oh, really? Off the top of my head I can name:
  • Full Metal Jacket
  • Apocalypse Now
  • Dr. Strangelove
  • King Rat

And many more. Your arguments are almost all like this, arguing from ignorance.
You knowledge base is small and biased. Read a book.

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
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
02-08-2014, 04:58 PM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2014 05:22 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-08-2014 03:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-08-2014 03:45 PM)Luminon Wrote:  One thing on top of my head... In movies, the police and military are never portrayed negatively, only as heroes. If there is some bad English-speaking military in movies, they're always called "mercenaries".

Oh, really? Off the top of my head I can name:
  • Full Metal Jacket
  • Apocalypse Now
  • Dr. Strangelove
  • King Rat

And many more. Your arguments are almost all like this, arguing from ignorance.
You knowledge base is small and biased. Read a book.
It's interesting, I think these are old movies. Do you think that they reflect on the culture and attitude to the military in last 20 years? I don't think so, nope. I think the time factor is quite important to this question, would you agree? Rolleyes

As American militarism gets more desperate by economy sucked dry from printing money, military and statist propaganda gets more explicit - such as Elysium or huge crap-heap of Hollywood manure that I haven't bothered to watch.
Although there are some good films too, like Avatar or District 9.



(02-08-2014 03:14 PM)Escape Artist Wrote:  Okay, I've been squatting on this thread for quite some time, popping in here and there for a little comment.

This whole thing is very INFP-ish if you ask me. Luminon has said that he identified as INFP before. Now, I agree with what Revs has said to me in the past - that that (MBTI) is only a generalization to go by - as no one is going to fit every little thing in those descriptions but I do quite like them myself (for whatever reason - I think I know what that reason is, but I digress) and anyway, Lumi just seems to, at the heart of all this, really really REALLY want people to just be nice and not have to have all these external things in place in order to keep, well... order.
Thank you for attention and nice analysis. I am glad you see the INFP in me. My personality is very complex, good at some things, but also very damaged, there's a lot of scar tissue and therapy material. I have done MBTI many times and other systems too. Most test I did, I turned INTP, sometimes INTJ. But to my best knowledge, INFP is my core true self, which controls all the deepest motivation. But it does not control methods. All my methods of expressing myself in real life are TP or TJ. I can be cold, intellectual, pedantic and cruel for good intentions. (hence therapy) I make conscious effort to be more feeling-oriented.

On the other hand, you don't have to be afraid I'd subscribe to nice ideas without a method or many years of experience behind them. In my life, nice ideas never worked for me, only methods. I have this hands-on practical side that is not very obvious. And I have this heavy-duty intellectual side that thrives on learning not just ideas, but whole social orders and systems, whole worldviews. And there is not much of the normal human day to day stuff in between. I have these sides but I really don't know what to think about myself as a whole. We get a lot of feedback from relationships, but so far everyone lied to me about myself.

(02-08-2014 03:14 PM)Escape Artist Wrote:  Which, I mean... okay. I myself would love for people to just really be nice too. And to not war against one another, etc. But this is by and large a pipedream. He cannot seem to realize this, though, or... perhaps having realized it has rejected it because the idea is too painful for him.

Sometimes I think that maybe.... *maybe* far enough down the road we humans could be more peaceful with one another, but we are nowhere near that point, I don't think.

My brain is a scramble on this, actually.‏ But it just seems like maybe it is something like that that is at the core of all this for him.‏ I could be way off base.‏ I do think it is mostly or perhaps entirely feels-based.

Anyway, zat is my two cents, for however little or much it might be worth. Sleepy
Laugh out load You made me laugh there. The idea that I'd avoid something just because it's painful... Weeping Never worked out for me. I was always surrounded by liars, so pain was my compass where they really don't want me to go and thus where I must especially go.
The idea that I'd be ever satisfied with some nice, fluffy and easy pipe-dream, well, NOPE No My mind is like Congo jungle full of deadly spores that sprout up in your inner ear, ravenous ant swarms that gnaw through everything in their way and huge beasts that tear trees out with roots. Only the strongest, fastest, logicalest, simplest, most complex or most radical ideas survive in there. The ideas from an average person's mind get torn apart in a few seconds, so fast it is difficult even for me to explain it back to the person how or why he's wrong. Hence my dismissive arrogance.

And I'll tell you, the idea "down the road" never worked for me either. It's the same as saying "down the road iPods will grow on trees" or "down the road black plague will just give up and cure itself". If you have noticed savages in Amazonia, for tens of thousands of years they have lived on the same stone age level and nothing changed for them, due to extreme levels of childhood and adult violence. Among social scientists, China is said to be a unique empire because it closed itself off from exploration and technical innovation in 1500's and there was every sign it would continue like that forever, if western conquerors didn't smash it and open it up to trade. Down the road yes, but there is such a thing as the acceleration pedal of science and the steering wheel of philosophy and if you don't use them, you fuckin' die in the middle of nowhere!
Tell a scientist, engineer or a historian "maybe down the road" and he will laugh. There are people who drag humanity kicking and screaming into the future against the complacent majority and hostile establishment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2014, 10:07 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
As Chas has kindly pointed out, I did not say rights = morals.

Secondly, as Chas again has pointed out, the "social contract" is not a legal contract you sign up too. You sign up to the social contract by being a member of society. You've been to university (well, you claim to have), this is a perfect example of participating in society.
Part of the social contract is expectations on other people. You own property I assume (by property I mean possessions, I took Commercial law at university and so 'property' is a term used to describe pretty much anything someone owns) and as such you have an expectation on society to respect your right to not have your shit stolen. You have the right to not have your shit stolen and you have the expectation that society will respect that. (yes I know I just repeated my self but I want to make sure you understand this point).
Meaning, you sign up to the social contract when it comes to other people signing up to the social contract. You expect people to follow the law and behave. BUT you are now claiming that you shouldn't have to pay taxes so you expect everyone else to follow the social contract, but you want an entirely different contract just for you that says you can do whatever the fuck you want.
I'm saying, it doesn't work like that. If you expect everyone else to follow the social contract than you must give a little to get a little and you too must follow the social contract. That is how society works. For people's rights to be observed, everyone must up-heed to the social contract and follow the law. It's the most fair system. Without it than you are saying "my rights supersede yours" or "his rights supersede his" and you are placing your own self-interested value on different rights. ie: You place higher value on you not paying taxes, than on someone else living in a policed state. Because you are self interested, and everyone on Earth tends to be self interested, than those that are most vulnerable are shafted.
Laws ensure fairness across the wide scope of society. With laws we can ensure that everyone pays their fair share in taxes so that everyone's rights may be cared for equally and as required. With this system we can ensure that no one person's rights supersede those of another.

The "right breaking" comes when people, like you, decide that their rights supersede those of others. In terms of fairness this means that your rights must be taken away. ie: If you don't pay taxes you are taking away someone else's rights. To equal this out the IRS will come and knock on your door. If you decide to resist arrest than you are again breaching those same rights (of not paying taxes, and by resisting you are continuing to refuse to pay) and so more force is required to effectively equal it all out. If that turns into a big shootout well than so be it, you can get shot and I wouldn't give two flying fucks.

You're preaching fairness but your system is the unfair system. Up-heeding to the social contract is the price that we all must pay in order to live in a civilized society. There is a very specific reason why humans have evolved from hunter gathers to society based creatures.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like earmuffs's post
03-08-2014, 01:05 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 11:01 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 06:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
So please look at the pic and vote in the poll.

[Image: 10590594_667094376708419_2980131783438047277_n.jpg]

Consider

I looked at the pic. I have a problem with it.

Let's take the simplest one... taxation:

A small tribe have a meeting and decide, much like the pizza example, that they want to change their environment to make life, for all, safer / more efficient / more social / more private / whatever.

They come up with a plan that involves some construction work ... a program of works, in fact.

They need to work out a way to resource the work and decide that as everyone benefits in some way, then contributions should come from everyone.

This scenario does not fit into any of the three categories in the picture.

To make it fit the picture we need to add another factor... dissent.

This could be a dissenting voice of a tribe member against the initial proposal or an external dissenter who joins the tribe late and was not part of the initial decision making process.

One solution for cost-recovery could be to tax consumption (like toll roads). Now, the initial budget could have come from any social group; the whole tribe (the state) or a subset (a corporation or church or co-op).

This seems like the libertarian model... individual/group choice regarding funding and individual choice regarding consumption. So far, so good.

Now, what about the penniless, 90-year-old widow who could not contribute and cannot afford the tax? For example, she is not allowed to use a new road because she neither contributed to the budget nor can she pay the toll.

Charitable donations? Great... but no guarantees. She had two sons who cared for her but they both died during the construction project because the social group (state) could not force the social group (corporation) to abide by best practice health and safety laws.

For any given position (corporate policy, state law, 10 commandments, football rules, TTA forum policies etc.) there will always be dissenters.

To address this, we have Governance; a mechanism whereby all stakeholders' needs, conditions and options are evaluated to determine balanced, negotiated and agreed-upon objectives; setting direction through transparent prioritisation and decision-making; and monitoring performance and compliance against that agreed-upon direction.

Every social grouping has Governance. Some governance systems have proved more useless than others.

Reposting because ol' Lumi's categorically refused to answer any substantive commentary.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2014, 03:41 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-08-2014 10:07 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  As Chas has kindly pointed out, I did not say rights = morals.
Then did you actually say anything important? Morals are important.

(02-08-2014 10:07 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Secondly, as Chas again has pointed out, the "social contract" is not a legal contract you sign up too. You sign up to the social contract by being a member of society. You've been to university (well, you claim to have), this is a perfect example of participating in society.
That is an arbitrary re-defining of the word "contract" into some social mythology.
Do you argue that participation means agreement? As I said, if Nelson Mandela accepted food from his jailers, did he agree with the politics of apartheid?

(02-08-2014 10:07 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Part of the social contract is expectations on other people. You own property I assume (by property I mean possessions, I took Commercial law at university and so 'property' is a term used to describe pretty much anything someone owns) and as such you have an expectation on society to respect your right to not have your shit stolen. You have the right to not have your shit stolen and you have the expectation that society will respect that. (yes I know I just repeated my self but I want to make sure you understand this point).
I studied Commercial law too...
Again, there is empirically no such thing as society, only an abstraction. Abstractions don't have rights.

(02-08-2014 10:07 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Meaning, you sign up to the social contract when it comes to other people signing up to the social contract. You expect people to follow the law and behave. BUT you are now claiming that you shouldn't have to pay taxes so you expect everyone else to follow the social contract, but you want an entirely different contract just for you that says you can do whatever the fuck you want.
Not exactly. All I say is, there should be no physical attack on anybody who passively declines to pay taxes. For example, I am not stealing from Bill Gates if I decline to buy Windows. And by buying Windows I do not enter any "Microsoft contract" that obliges me to buy everything from the Microsoft portfolio. Free market just doesn't work like that. Market isn't social mythology, what you buy is what you get, no strings attached.

(02-08-2014 10:07 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I'm saying, it doesn't work like that. If you expect everyone else to follow the social contract than you must give a little to get a little and you too must follow the social contract. That is how society works. For people's rights to be observed, everyone must up-heed to the social contract and follow the law. It's the most fair system. Without it than you are saying "my rights supersede yours" or "his rights supersede his" and you are placing your own self-interested value on different rights. ie: You place higher value on you not paying taxes, than on someone else living in a policed state. Because you are self interested, and everyone on Earth tends to be self interested, than those that are most vulnerable are shafted.
I disagree. Taxes are an arbitrary obligation violently imposed by arbitrarily chosen people on others. Again, you haven't proven the existence of social contract, nor society. You haven't defined them, described their contents exhaustively and above all, you have not given objective proof that they have the right to initiate violence against individuals.

(02-08-2014 10:07 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Laws ensure fairness across the wide scope of society. With laws we can ensure that everyone pays their fair share in taxes so that everyone's rights may be cared for equally and as required. With this system we can ensure that no one person's rights supersede those of another.
Your opinion on laws is both non-empirical and irrational. Laws are arbitrary make-believe, they are opinion with a gun. To be more than paper, they need to be enforced with violence. By definition, the enforcers are above law. So the law is not objective and not fair. Fair is only what all people agree to obey regardless what color of clothes they wear. If something is moral or right, or immoral and wrong, it is so regardless if you put on a costume called police or military outfit.

(02-08-2014 10:07 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  The "right breaking" comes when people, like you, decide that their rights supersede those of others.
Nope, people like politicians decided that they can threaten people to take taxes from them.

(02-08-2014 10:07 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  In terms of fairness this means that your rights must be taken away. ie: If you don't pay taxes you are taking away someone else's rights. To equal this out the IRS will come and knock on your door. If you decide to resist arrest than you are again breaching those same rights (of not paying taxes, and by resisting you are continuing to refuse to pay) and so more force is required to effectively equal it all out. If that turns into a big shootout well than so be it, you can get shot and I wouldn't give two flying fucks. You're preaching fairness but your system is the unfair system. Up-heeding to the social contract is the price that we all must pay in order to live in a civilized society. There is a very specific reason why humans have evolved from hunter gathers to society based creatures.
[Image: 10440187_344791719003066_1480030962192233145_n.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2014, 03:50 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-08-2014 03:41 AM)Luminon Wrote:  [Image: 10440187_344791719003066_1480030962192233145_n.jpg]

It sure is more civilized than living in a society without rules where justice is maintained by magic.

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
03-08-2014, 04:00 AM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2014 04:04 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-08-2014 03:50 AM)morondog Wrote:  It sure is more civilized than living in a society without rules where justice is maintained by magic.
Who maintains the justice on the internet? Who maintains the justice on the market?
Who will watch the watchers? Magic? Having supreme enforcers of justice is the greatest violation of justice. Let people watch each other and if they're not satisfied or don't want the goods, let them pay no money.
Like we do to with the goddamn fuckin' Microsoft, Apple, Toshiba, Lenovo and Google.
Quality and freedom exists only where choice exists. I mean the choice not to pay, not the "choice" to move to Somalia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2014, 04:05 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Rolleyes How will you bring me to justice when I kill your family?

You have no money and no friends, by the way. I am a wealthy man. Bodyguards and beautiful babes all over the place. I killed your family 'cos they lived next door and I could sometimes hear the baby crying.

It's perfectly fine because there is no law against it.

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: