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
04-08-2014, 04:16 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Quote:you have an amazing body



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
04-08-2014, 04:51 PM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2014 04:59 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(04-08-2014 02:13 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Damn, I do think that all people have the right to food and education. I must be horrible statist!
I was such a statist too, until I was 21 or so. As I said, in my teens I grew up on welfare. Statists don't suck because they say people deserve food and education. What sucks is that they're not willing to provide it themselves, they don't even know how, because that's capitalism and economics.
Instead they point guns at people, get money from them and then pay for shitty and over-expensive food and education for everyone from bureaucrats, blocking access to the real quality and cheap stuff in the process by people who know what they're doing.

(04-08-2014 03:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  My bro, it hurts when we chirp you doesn't it? Still, it's what we do. I won't apologize - if I am a shark then sharks don't shed tears for their prey Wink On the other hand, prey mustn't take it personally if they get eaten - it's just the circle of life. Especially if prey starts a thread in the shark tank titled "eat me! eat me!".

Basically, you're inviting criticism not only by the stuff that you post but by your reactions to it being shredded. You *are* a bit vulnerable IMO. I see glimpses of it in your posts.
I hope so. It means my self-therapy is working. Have you ever seen Rev or Cjlr vulnerable? The more different I am from them, the more I'll like myself. Although I should get rid of this world-provoking and shark-wrangling addiction. It's like an adrenaline sport. And it's quite unfair, it's self-respect at stake and I know my stuff better than anyone in a sample of 10,000. It's 1 person in 200 who can process what I'm saying. It's just that one person would be worth all the flak I get back.

But abuse explains nothing. We have free will, some people say they're alcoholics because their parents were alcoholics. Some say they never touch a bottle because their parents were alcoholics. People with criminal parents become criminals themselves, or priests and policemen.

You know why I started listening to Seth Andrews? The guy was nice, warm, personal and vulnerable, just humane, after this endless array of sciencey academical atheists. And so is Stef Molyneux. He gets quote-mined a lot, but he's more humane than any one of us. I think I may be smarter than him in terms of wild variety of things I can think of, but variety is no replacement for philosophy and I can hardly ever do more good than him. He saved hundreds of thousand kids from spanking by convincing their parents.

(04-08-2014 03:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  I *like* that your life philosophy is based around the idea of non-violence and so forth. I suspect it's because of the abuse that you have suffered as a kid. It's great that you didn't grow up to carry on the cycle of violence. Where I think you've gone wrong is not in opposing violence, but in deciding that your life philosophy and morals are *the* true ones. When you then try to tell us this... well, that's where we're gonna tell you straight - and because we're all badly brought up little heathens we're not gonna make it soft.
We use language to describe the world. I think where you (and the world) went wrong is not seeking any sense or logic in the language. You understand that mathematics can be used to figure out things, but philosophy is the mathematics of language.

My point is, aggression isn't just shitty thing to do. It is a logical contradiction. It's impossible to justify objectively. All the words that excuse it are just emotion-laden buzzwords, things that do not exist by reason or senses.
Our gut feeling recoils from aggression, but if you set your mind straight, it goes against aggression too, with full God-disproving logic. And that my friend, is something enormously powerful and beautiful, when your emotion and your reason are aligned together and with reality. Everything that goes against that is just weaseling and nobody of these people can respect themselves for weaseling.

(04-08-2014 03:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  So... you can deal with that or not, but just know, even if I tell you you're the stupidest guy on the planet... you're still a good guy, you are still you, you have an amazing body and brain, evolved over millions of years... some other ape thousands of kms away disagreeing with you... it's not a big deal. No one wishes you ill, we just disagree with you, with varying levels of flamboyance in the expression thereof.
I don't mind you disagree with me, I enjoy disagreement. What annoys me is you disagreeing with yourself, moment to moment.
Screw biology, this is informatics. Our amazing brain is a free capacity with no firewall. Everyone we meet gets to write a copy of themselves into our synapses. We have voices of our parents inside, our government, teachers, our friends... The worse these people treat us, the stronger their voices are, because it's a survival mechanism, to get to know them really well. Bigger brain just means a bigger capacity for enslavement, more space for enemies to turn your mind and your emotional subconscious nature against each other.

Self-knowledge, getting our animal and human minds back on the same side, is like clearing a mine field blindly. It is the most painful and exhausting thing I ever did. There's just one guy I know who did that, Stef and some shaky-voiced English-speaking guys on his call-in show. It's exactly as realistic as expecting you to take up Olympics training.

I just want one thing from you, remember it correctly: initiation of violence is impossible to justify objectively with reason and logic. All excuses for coercion and violence in society and family are as full of shit as a regular church sermon.
I don't want you to just be against violence with your feels, I want to think about the cultural excuses for violence and I want you to enjoy kicking the shit out of these excuses as a skeptic. You will be called childish and petulant, but it will not be you pointing gun at people for disagreeing, nor threatening them with Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2014, 04:56 PM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2014 04:59 PM by Res Publica.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(04-08-2014 02:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(04-08-2014 02:13 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Damn, I do think that all people have the right to food and education. I must be horrible statist!

Just not people from the wrong side of the border? Wink You're alright kid, or you're gonna be, methinks. We'll just have to force you into the old straitjacket of intellectual conformity that we (in a Machiavellian, muhahahaha way) call free-thinking Smile

A nation must take care of its own people. We can intervene and assist other nations, but in the end they must ensure that countrymen-people have food and education.

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
04-08-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Says the kid with the boner for France...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2014, 05:17 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I just want one thing from you, remember it correctly: initiation of violence is impossible to justify objectively with reason and logic. All excuses for coercion and violence in society and family are as full of shit as a regular church sermon.

If any counterexample exists for your statement, your statement is false.
I therefore present a counter example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader
You say initiation of violence is impossible to justify objectively with reason and logic. I say that restraining the BTK killer in the form of his arrest and incarceration was objectively justified based on his actions and the further threat he presented to people. Do you agree that his arrest was justified? If yes, your statement is false. If no, what should have been done?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
04-08-2014, 06:46 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And it's quite unfair, it's self-respect at stake and I know my stuff better than anyone in a sample of 10,000. It's 1 person in 200 who can process what I'm saying. It's just that one person would be worth all the flak I get back.

If by "my stuff" you mean delusional horseshit, then yes, you do. Thumbsup

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
04-08-2014, 11:11 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Quite the illusion of grandeur you have. It is possible that we understand you just fine, and still think your claims are ridiculous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
04-08-2014, 11:18 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
So... This train wreck is still going, eh?

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I was such a statist too, until I was 21 or so.

Is it coincidence that that's when schizophrenia kicks in?

I mean, it'd explain the paranoid fantasies...

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I hope so. It means my self-therapy is working. Have you ever seen Rev or Cjlr vulnerable? The more different I am from them, the more I'll like myself.

I'm intellectually vulnerable all the time. It's called being wrong. I'm frequently wrong, and when I am, I seek to improve my understanding.

It took me a while to get into that state of mind. It's an essential part of being a scientist.

It is a state of mind you have never indicated even a passing familiarity with. Oh, well.

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Although I should get rid of this world-provoking and shark-wrangling addiction. It's like an adrenaline sport. And it's quite unfair, it's self-respect at stake and I know my stuff better than anyone in a sample of 10,000. It's 1 person in 200 who can process what I'm saying. It's just that one person would be worth all the flak I get back.

Branching out into messianic narcissism, I see.

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But abuse explains nothing. We have free will, some people say they're alcoholics because their parents were alcoholics. Some say they never touch a bottle because their parents were alcoholics. People with criminal parents become criminals themselves, or priests and policemen.

If "abuse explains nothing" - your exact words here - then why did you earlier harp on extensively about how being abused was the only possible way anyone could fail to appreciate your firm, throbbing intellect, ready to release your hot, turgid spray of greatness onto the audience so captivated by your self-important evident glory?

Bonus round: can you spot the allusive metaphor in the preceding paragraph?
Hint: it describes your method of, er, "conversation" here.

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You know why I started listening to Seth Andrews? The guy was nice, warm, personal and vulnerable, just humane, after this endless array of sciencey academical atheists. And so is Stef Molyneux. He gets quote-mined a lot, but he's more humane than any one of us. I think I may be smarter than him in terms of wild variety of things I can think of...

Ooooh, stroke that shaft ego. Stroke it for me!

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... but variety is no replacement for philosophy and I can hardly ever do more good than him. He saved hundreds of thousand kids from spanking by convincing their parents.

I was plenty nice to you until you blithely insulted millions of people one too many times and called me, my field, and my entire profession a vast conspiracy.

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We use language to describe the world. I think where you (and the world) went wrong is not seeking any sense or logic in the language. You understand that mathematics can be used to figure out things, but philosophy is the mathematics of language.

Relevant section bolded. Since obviously your self-satisfied evident greatness brooks no introspection, no problem, difficulty, or error can possibly arise by you, and necessarily and invariably lies with everyone else every time.

Riiiiiiight.

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  My point is, aggression isn't just shitty thing to do. It is a logical contradiction. It's impossible to justify objectively. All the words that excuse it are just emotion-laden buzzwords, things that do not exist by reason or senses.

Define and substantiate "objective".

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Our gut feeling recoils from aggression, but if you set your mind straight, it goes against aggression too, with full God-disproving logic. And that my friend, is something enormously powerful and beautiful, when your emotion and your reason are aligned together and with reality. Everything that goes against that is just weaseling and nobody of these people can respect themselves for weaseling.

But weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals!

Except the weasel...

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't mind you disagree with me, I enjoy disagreement. What annoys me is you disagreeing with yourself, moment to moment.

Citation needed.
(is this just you pretending you can read minds again?)

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Screw biology, this is informatics. Our amazing brain is a free capacity with no firewall. Everyone we meet gets to write a copy of themselves into our synapses. We have voices of our parents inside, our government, teachers, our friends... The worse these people treat us, the stronger their voices are, because it's a survival mechanism, to get to know them really well. Bigger brain just means a bigger capacity for enslavement, more space for enemies to turn your mind and your emotional subconscious nature against each other.

Citation needed on all that pseudoscientific psychobabble, champ.

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Self-knowledge, getting our animal and human minds back on the same side, is like clearing a mine field blindly. It is the most painful and exhausting thing I ever did. There's just one guy I know who did that, Stef and some shaky-voiced English-speaking guys on his call-in show. It's exactly as realistic as expecting you to take up Olympics training.

Oh, look, more self-aggrandizing vanity.

(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I just want one thing from you, remember it correctly: initiation of violence is impossible to justify objectively with reason and logic. All excuses for coercion and violence in society and family are as full of shit as a regular church sermon.
I don't want you to just be against violence with your feels, I want to think about the cultural excuses for violence and I want you to enjoy kicking the shit out of these excuses as a skeptic. You will be called childish and petulant, but it will not be you pointing gun at people for disagreeing, nor threatening them with Hell.

Define "violence", and substantiate. Define "initiation", and substantiate.

If you'll recall, those innocuous requests broke the late unlamented frankksj's script, and he hated me for refusing to play inside his little boxes after that.
(fun fact: that's the script JEW played in our farcical "debate", too; assert feels, lol dictionary, never substantiate beyond "self-evident", shit on chessboard, fly away cooing)

Either accept that human experience and opinion is subject to natural, inevitable variation, or continue to wail on your facetious and hollow "objective" failure pile. Your move.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
04-08-2014, 11:19 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(04-08-2014 04:56 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(04-08-2014 02:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  Just not people from the wrong side of the border? Wink You're alright kid, or you're gonna be, methinks. We'll just have to force you into the old straitjacket of intellectual conformity that we (in a Machiavellian, muhahahaha way) call free-thinking Smile

A nation must take care of its own people. We can intervene and assist other nations, but in the end they must ensure that countrymen-people have food and education.

You realise that countries and borders are artificial things? We are one humanity. Why doesn't your statement say "humanity must take care of its own"?

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
05-08-2014, 04:18 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 04:53 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(04-08-2014 05:17 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(04-08-2014 04:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I just want one thing from you, remember it correctly: initiation of violence is impossible to justify objectively with reason and logic. All excuses for coercion and violence in society and family are as full of shit as a regular church sermon.

If any counterexample exists for your statement, your statement is false.
I therefore present a counter example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader
You say initiation of violence is impossible to justify objectively with reason and logic. I say that restraining the BTK killer in the form of his arrest and incarceration was objectively justified based on his actions and the further threat he presented to people. Do you agree that his arrest was justified? If yes, your statement is false. If no, what should have been done?
Everyone wants to make morality something distant, unreal, things you never encounter. Gun and boat scenarios, hanging from the flagpole and falling into someone's apartment... Nonsense. Give it a moment of fair thought. A thing like violence in itself isn't moral or immoral, initiation of violence is.
Morality isn't a flicker, if it's real, it must have existence in time. We become immoral when we attack, but we don't become moral a minute after just because we're not attacking anybody at the moment. A killer remains a killer, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And of course we are allowed to defend on behalf of others, if we see someone else attacked, we defend the victim.

The only one who was initiating (not defending with) violence was Dennis Rader and his arrest and incarceration was perfectly all right, just a direct consequence of his actions. Standard thing. However, the non-obvious thing is, that a citizen has not initiated violence against the government by keeping his money and not paying taxes that somebody else made up against him. So the government is immoral in initiating violence against the citizen or threatening him with court action and fines and house raid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: