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
05-08-2014, 06:01 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 11:02 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Something that irritates me. You keep saying that there is "no objective reason to [initiate] violence", or that violence is inherently illogical, or the half dozen other ways you put it.

It demonstrates your very flawed understanding of what objectivity and logic are. Logic is not objective in the sense that you are trying to use it. Logic is objective in that the rules don't change. Logic is not objective in the sense that it applies universally everywhere all the time.

There are objectively logical reasons why someone might initiate violence. You have something I want. If I take your head off I am free to have it. I can formulate an objectively logical argument for why taking your head off would ultimately lead to me goal of getting your stuff.

1) You have stuff I want
2) I can take your head off
3) if I take your head off, I can have your stuff

1 is true by observation. 2 is true by demonstration. 3 follows from 1 and 2. Objectively logical.

What you are trying to say, and failing to demonstrate, is that for the good of humanity in general violence is always a bad idea. After twenty pages of people berating you, you recently added an "initiation" clause, so people can hurt others who hurt them first.
All these 20 pages we've been trying to establish that taxation is violence at all. People threw bullshit at me like imaginary contracts with imaginary entities (society). I have never said that the topic is a hippy dippy nonviolence pacifistic thing. I have always talked about aggression and defense.
The topic is moral philosophy. By definition, that involves universal rules for multiple people. If the question was only what you want unilaterally, then sure, your desires are logically consistent with themselves.
But if consistency with other people is considered, or with humanity as a whole, as in objective morality, then it's a different case altogether. If something is moral for you, it must be also moral for another person and simultaneously.
If there are two guys in the room, you may tell them a logical reason for one to take the other's head off and call it morality. But then only one of them will be moral and the other will be necessarily immoral.

And if it's not universal, it can't be objective morality.
Let's say non-initiation of violence is moral. This is something all people can do simultaneously. But if we say fighting for our country or paying taxes is moral, then it's not universal. There has to be someone to fight against or someone to pay taxes to, who is an exception from the rule, thus it can not really be a moral, universal rule.
Yes, there can be exceptions from the logic of universality, but these exceptions must be empirical, scientific. Children are such an exception, there's the biological fact of age, size and brain development, so if a child hits you, you don't hit back.

Yes, we can divide humanity into masters and slaves or law-givers and taxpayers and call that moral - but how do you objectively prove who will be the master and who slave? By skin color? Skin color is just a few genes that have no moral meaning, that's a non sequitur. If you make a moral argument and this moral argument is anything less than universal and simultaneous for all people at all time, it's a crappy argument and good luck getting empirical evidence for 7 billion people.

There is no objective morality. You could make the claim that one kind of government, or nongovernment, whatever, is preferable to another for some subjective reasons. You would never arrive at objectivity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 06:24 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 06:31 PM by earmuffs.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Quote:A thing like violence in itself isn't moral or immoral, initiation of violence is.

Wrong.

Quote:A killer remains a killer

Except in the case of the Panda which sat down one day and decided it really likes bamboo.

Quote:And of course we are allowed to defend on behalf of others

SHITDICK!
This is what I've been fucking saying you fucking moron!!
The government forces you to pay taxes because you breach MY rights. It's defending my rights to live in a policed, educated etc.. etc.. state.

Fucking hell, you just said a big part of what I have been saying!
You are such a dishonest cunt.

Quote:a citizen has not initiated violence against the government by keeping his money and not paying taxes that somebody else made up against him.

Yes he has.
By being part of society he agrees to those rules and as such he breaches them when he doesn't pay taxes and the government comes to my heroic defensive like a knight in shinning armor and throws your worthless ass in jail.

You said it yourself "shit doesn't just fall from the sky" (I'll ignore the fact that rain, snow, and other various things do actually fall from the sky occasionally). If you want things like police, education, firefighters etc.. than you gotta pay taxes.

Quote:I never, ever, talk about violence only.

See rev's signature.

Quote:So my argument stands, it is impossible to objectively justify *initiation of violence*.

No it isn't. You haven't offered ANY evidence to prove your position.
You said it's immoral to initiate violence. This isn't evidence, this is YOUR OPINION.
Where's the evidence that initiating violence is immoral? Morals are subjective.

You're:
- ignorant
- stupid
- dishonest
- a cunt
- in need of a good skullfucking by an aids ridden water buffalo (can't blame the water buffalo btw, it's defending itself against your initiated bullshit)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like earmuffs's post
05-08-2014, 08:17 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Is he still claiming that there will be no crime if people stop spanking their children?

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
05-08-2014, 11:31 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
No, he's trying to claim that initiated violence is ALWAYS immoral and as such government is immoral and as such it should be abolished.

He has yet to provide evidence for:
- initiated violence is always immoral
- he has the degrees he claims he does
- he is not a cunt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
05-08-2014, 11:55 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 04:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Again, I have never thought of the knowledge as something to be proud of. I think of it as fun and interesting stuff that I think is also quite vital for the world. Can I be proud of something if it's also fun for me? Consider I enjoy myself and I totally to forget that less informed people are meanwhile struggling to save face as scholars despite of never having studied this stuff.
(by the way, I'm a 26-years old college student and I have studied Austrian economics under the only Czech anarcho-capitalist professor at a private college. Only now I enrolled at government university for the masters program.)

Yeah Lumi, we who worked many years for our own degrees are "less informed people" and the only reason we disagree with you is to save face. Not because making idiotic assertions and stroking your ego in public are annoying and people feel duty bound to take you down a peg. You never thought of yourself as being super smart but one day you noticed you were never wrong... Dodgy

Of all the conceited twits I've ever come across...

Cue Lumi coming back with more stuff about how I'm a broken human being and my parents must have been the embodiment of evil Dodgy

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
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
06-08-2014, 01:48 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
After reading this whole thread, I have a suspicion that Luminon isn't a real person. Yes their is a real person that does the typing, but the persona of Luminon is a farce. I think the person behind that account is just playing a character. There is no other way to explain the bull shit that is coming from him. Most of what he says is nonsensical rambling with no clear point. Half of the rest of what he says is said in such an over the top condescending way that he has to know that not a single person would take him seriously. The rest is just regurgitation of talking points from random conspiracy websites. How he has time to post all this garbage is beyond me, but I think most of what comes from Luninon, he doesn't even believe himself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 05:57 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2014 06:31 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 11:55 PM)morondog Wrote:  Yeah Lumi, we who worked many years for our own degrees are "less informed people" and the only reason we disagree with you is to save face. Not because making idiotic assertions and stroking your ego in public are annoying and people feel duty bound to take you down a peg. You never thought of yourself as being super smart but one day you noticed you were never wrong... Dodgy

Of all the conceited twits I've ever come across...

Cue Lumi coming back with more stuff about how I'm a broken human being and my parents must have been the embodiment of evil Dodgy
Hey MD. Nobody here can tell the difference between an argument and a personal relationship with an abstraction. I say, heart-strings are not arguments. Then they turn vicious on me.

I continue the discussion for the few people who haven't yet turned vicious. I try to get across as much arguments as I can before they turn vicious, defensive, berating my rationality and so on. Maybe it shows something that people who are against me turn out to be pretty nasty, like Rev, Cjlr and Muffs. But it's me who is going through a mental hospital, sorting through patients to find one who won't collectively hiss and spit at me and try to claw out my eyes. I look for someone who doesn't go nasty when I don't validate his culture. Could I do it better? Hell, yeah. But it would be pretty stupid to listen to advice at a mental hospital. People don't react to me, they react to the evil monster that does the worst crime imaginable - invalidating one's culture. People project what is their worst fear, with Cjlr for example it is the fear of being singled out as wrong and stupid. As kids say, who says that, he is that.

Culture is powerful. Not validating the culture is a mortal crime in most cultures. Not killing people for not validating a culture is a pretty new invention. The idea that a purely rational or empirical argument might be stronger than a cultural reference sounds pretty wild. Refusal to validate the culture is like a personal insult, the most conceited thing you can imagine. Everyone knows their nation is the best, their sports team is the best, everyone defends their mother, their profession, their right to treat children as property. Cardinal Smurf is right, people would resist anyone resisting that.

(05-08-2014 05:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have studied philosophy - yet another thing you have wrong.

The rest is word games. Of course I can deny your principle. However, what I claimed is that the 'principle' is trivial.
Your claim is a bare assertion and proves nothing.
No, you can't. Words have identity and if you use words to deny that words have identity, you confirm that identity. But it sure is fun to watch you trying Laugh out load
In reasoning, bare assertions are THE method and proof. The research subjects are properties of logic and natural language, such as identity and sequentiality.

(05-08-2014 05:52 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  @Luminon: Being a parent and having been a (not terribly) abused child I can see why Stefan's philosophy on parenting sounds so appealing. I raised both my daughters managing to control most (but not all) aggression and not using corporal punishment except under a few circumstances.
I commend you for your efforts. Still, there's a way to improve. There are two ways of looking at this. Spanking is an ancient practice and even if it was quite new, it's something your parents did and by now it's about 40 years obsolete. I think first studies against spanking went out in 1940's. And if you want your children to like you and visit and comfort you in your old age, in the distant future, you need to treat them with moral standards of the future! (Molyneux argument) Who would today, in the internet and iPad age voluntarily visit and comfort someone who has beaten them up according to some inhumane 1890's Bavarian lederhosen sauerkraut Hitler-raising tradition? Everyone knows old people tend to be more racist, homophobic, and violent towards children, towards the littler weaker you. And what do we do with old people? We shove them into old people's homes because nobody really wants to hang out with them. And nobody wants to entrust their children to such grandparents.

What I write next is a very tough and unpleasant thing to say, even more so because to be really free is not to self-attack or hate yourself for making a mistake. It is about being curious why did you do that. I could not begin to change until I managed to realize my mistakes and imperfections consciously without breaking down in depression over them. I was punished for every mistake that realizing or admitting a mistake was a very dangerous thing that endangered my social and familial standing. It took some years to get rid of that. So I wonder how will you take what I'm about to say.

You have just told me that you have managed to control most (but not all) aggression and not using domestic violence except under a few circumstances. Your spouse is much more sturdy and neurologically developed person than a child and can leave any time and survive. But you should have much higher standards with your children than with your spouse.
There is no possible reason to hit and yell at children. Whatever you hit and yell for, be it a broken glass vase, you tell them loud and clear that a stupid piece of furniture is more important than a person. People are superfluous and worthless and they heal just by time, but flower vases and computers are hard to come by and they don't grow back together.

A mafioso neighbour needs to break your kneecaps just once and your relationship with him will be changed forever, especially when he never apologized and never said he will never do it again, never made a commitment to non-violent neighbouring and when he treats strangers (no beating or yelling) better than neighbours. This is something that is never talked about in families, but children are keenly aware of having been beaten by an enraged giant, just like you don't just forget or get over a mugging, rape, getting shot, or any combat situation. The balance of power is permanently skewed and the only way you will find that out is in utter disrespect towards you when they begin to feel more independent and sure of themselves in puberty. Corporal punishment almost always stops with puberty - not because of newly found parental compassion, but because the kids are bigger and can hit back. Because of hypocrisy on parent side.
Please don't take it as a sermon or something, if I didn't get into philosophy I might do the same and snap a few times too - but get into your head that violence against children is worse than violence against your woman. That is a very bitter pill to swallow.
Although statistically women are more verbally and physically abusive towards partners, their attacks are more serious and they are also three times as likely to be violent towards boys than girls. Try to get some compassion as a battered husband and society will have none.
http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom...22388.html

Don't worry, most of the FDR shows are more pleasant and fun than that. I am giving you a little taste from the harder side...

(05-08-2014 05:52 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I see evidence from other parents both from my generation and newer generations that the practice of corporal punishment and the expression of aggression toward one's children seems to be in significant decline, at least in California.
I'm glad you say that. However, I'm not sure how that works. Where I come from, the worst parenting was assured by WW1, WW2 and 40 years of Communism. People are traumatized out of their humanity. For example, my grandfater from mother's side was mentally ill due to stress when he narrowly escaped a Nazi group execution when he was 12. Consequently, my grandparents' marriage was shitty, my mother's upbringing was shitty, and my mother is a bad mother and a bad person, despite of some great natural talents of covering it up very well. I think my father's side has a similar story, only less militant rural and more religious urban.

(05-08-2014 05:52 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  However, it seems overly optimistic to suppose that it will be easy to suppress parental aggression and that this will necessarily lead to a utopian ideal. It also seems simplistic to suppose that aggressive parenting is necessarily the cause of aggression when speaking of a species of animals. I can't say with certainty that my parenting practices were wholly responsible for my children's demeanors.
Utopian ideal? How often do you beat and verbally abuse your wife? (or nowadays vice versa) We both know what zero tolerance is.

I have this metaphor, a child's brain is like a slowly growing explosion of neurons that grows according to the oxygen of love, attention and time spent with parents. Child brain activity mirrors mother's brain activity, parents literally shape the child's brain. Mother also determines the epigenetic expression of genes in the child. Humans are not just animals, humans are by far the most adaptable species. I don't have the studies with me right now, but the epigenetics, prenatal development and behavior is linked. As if we were already evolving ourselves for life out of the womb by mother's stress hormones or something.

Yes, babies don't remember anything from their early months, but that's because they're under construction and your time with them, mood, voice, face and touch is doing the work, the things you can't fake. Their fight/flight/freeze response and pain response is being programmed for all the later life, the earlier, the stronger and by the age of 5 it is pretty much finished and is altered only with extreme effort. You are not a parent, you are a programmer of the most sophisticated computer on Earth that took millions of years to develop. And you only see this cultural MS Windows on top that is slow and gaudy and just a few hundred thousand years old that seems to work even if we use violence against children. But it's just an expansion pack. If you think that by installing the cultural MS Windows of English and reading your programmer job is done, you're mistaken. What you say doesn't matter, children adapt to your automatic responses, something that you don't control unless you've been to therapy before marriage and chose a partner after the therapy, not before.

(05-08-2014 05:52 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Also, I've heard Molyneaux's suggestion parents should be kinder to their kids, but haven't heard any plans on how to control this. Has he any ideas how to implement such a plan in any nation? Not sure how things are in Canada (I hear they're really nice) but here in the US there are some parents who take great offense to being told how to raise their kids.
Many nations have banned spanking, for example Sweden (or most of Europe) and it seems to work quite well. But government can do this good thing and still enforce social policy that subsequently destroys children by bad mass education and miseducation and hurts adults by social policies that punish them for working.

Molyneux was almost killed by Canadian government, because a few years ago he got throat cancer and the socialized medicine scheduled him for a scan half a year later. Instead he went south to USA immediately, paid money for a scan, got chemo and radiation and survived. If he waited in Canada for the government, he'd be probably dead by now, with metastases everywhere.

So I'm pretty sure Stef has no "national" plan to end spanking. Instead he offers free books and runs a call-in show with thousands of free podcasts that reaches tens of millions of people and stopped hundreds of thousand of children from being spanked. He gets a lot of thankful letters from parents - none from children yet, but that may change Wink
I think his plan is - have friends (I'm not there yet myself) - and then talk to them about your moral standards and then frown at them in disapproval for domestic violence against smaller and weaker family members. Get them to agree and then get them to talk to and frown at their friends.

(06-08-2014 01:48 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  After reading this whole thread, I have a suspicion that Luminon isn't a real person. Yes their is a real person that does the typing, but the persona of Luminon is a farce. I think the person behind that account is just playing a character. There is no other way to explain the bull shit that is coming from him. Most of what he says is nonsensical rambling with no clear point. Half of the rest of what he says is said in such an over the top condescending way that he has to know that not a single person would take him seriously. The rest is just regurgitation of talking points from random conspiracy websites. How he has time to post all this garbage is beyond me, but I think most of what comes from Luninon, he doesn't even believe himself.
I do believe in everything I say, but the other stuff, you may very well be right. We don't have a singular personality, we have a whole ME-cosystem inside. We slip in and out of roles very fast. Frankly, I have my doubts about some people here, whom I do not believe they would behave like that in real life.

OTOH, saying "over the top" and "condescending", that's not me. I am just a guy on the internet, but you were a little guy being talked at and treated as a piece of property by big parents and teachers, who were oh so sure of all the bullshit they said and who controlled you. It can't possibly be me who installed this feeling into you, because it's not me you spent 10 or 20 years with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 06:50 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Just remember folks, this is all just status quo for Lumi.

[Image: 81z%2B9u8sVwL._SL1228_.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
06-08-2014, 07:08 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 05:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 05:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have studied philosophy - yet another thing you have wrong.

The rest is word games. Of course I can deny your principle. However, what I claimed is that the 'principle' is trivial.
Your claim is a bare assertion and proves nothing.
No, you can't. Words have identity and if you use words to deny that words have identity, you confirm that identity. But it sure is fun to watch you trying Laugh out load
In reasoning, bare assertions are THE method and proof. The research subjects are properties of logic and natural language, such as identity and sequentiality.

Words have identity? No, words have meaning. And words only have the meaning we give them. They are invented, they don't stand on their own.

Pure reasoning from bare assertions provides no knowledge; only evidence can do that.

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
06-08-2014, 07:10 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 05:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  But it's me who is going through a mental hospital, sorting through patients to find one who won't collectively hiss and spit at me and try to claw out my eyes. I look for someone who doesn't go nasty when I don't validate his culture. Could I do it better? Hell, yeah. But it would be pretty stupid to listen to advice at a mental hospital. People don't react to me, they react to the evil monster that does the worst crime imaginable - invalidating one's culture. People project what is their worst fear, with Cjlr for example it is the fear of being singled out as wrong and stupid. As kids say, who says that, he is that.

This thread is a comedy gold mine. Laugh out load

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: