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
13-08-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 12:59 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I don't know man. Your concepts in raising children seem woefully simplistic to me. You make it sound as easy as raising chickens or growing corn.

The flawless logic of the True Believer™: monocausotaxophilia.

cjlr's vocabulary-building word of the day

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
13-08-2014, 01:37 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 01:44 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 12:59 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I don't know man. Your concepts in raising children seem woefully simplistic to me. You make it sound as easy as raising chickens or growing corn.
I'm not making it simplistic, I'm not saying anything at all. Sorry to use the Cjlr phrase on you, but we're supposed to read books. Books on parenting, with emphasis on emotional development, not feeding and growing. When you read these books, you realize what things your parents did wrong and how did it damage you. This is when the "fun" starts, also therapy.
Trust me, after the therapy you won't say it's simplistic. It may be one of the most difficult thing a person can do in life, to revise their own childhood with developmental and psychological science.


Also, here's one meme for EK, so much for govt accountability.
[Image: 53527892.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 01:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 12:59 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I don't know man. Your concepts in raising children seem woefully simplistic to me. You make it sound as easy as raising chickens or growing corn.
I'm not making it simplistic, I'm not saying anything at all. Sorry to use the Cjlr phrase on you, but we're supposed to read books. Books on parenting, with emphasis on emotional development, not feeding and growing. When you read these books, you realize what things your parents did wrong and how did it damage you. This is when the "fun" starts, also therapy.
Trust me, after the therapy you won't say it's simplistic. It may be one of the most difficult thing a person can do in life, to revise their own childhood with developmental and psychological science.

"I am right and you are either ignorant or neurotic or both if you do not recognise it."

Presuppositionalism: not just for theists anymore!

Protip: when I tell you to read a book, I am telling you to read new things; to read different things, things that do not merely re-affirm your presuppositions and intuitions - above all, implicitly, to be ready to learn. This self-awareness and willingness to introspect and evolve are evidently beyond your capacity.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
13-08-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 10:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Lumi, I'm going to give you ten seconds to stop, reconsider what you just wrote, and see if you don't want to retract it before I shove your point back so far up your ass it'll be knocking your teeth out of your mouth.

Done? Reconsidered? No?

Good, let's get started.

Your argument here boils down to 'only consequences matter, not principles'. Okay, let's run with that. we have plenty of examples of states that are, get this, not police states or fascist dictatorships! We have plenty of examples of states that are horribly supressive, and others that wonderfully progressive.

Here you try to single out and implicate the United States, presumable to damn the underlying principles of a democratic republic state, by pointing to the abuses of some police forces within it. Your argument being "your systems allows for some police to abuse their power, therefore the state is unjust". Okay, now let's apply the same idea but reverse it. Let's look at examples of state-less regions, and let's look at their track record for protecting human rights and freedom. Do you really want me to go there? because I don't know of any state-less, anarchy friendly region that is not consumed by war, strife, and human rights violations on a scope and scale as to me the LAPD blush.

Now here is where you might attempt to argue, "that's not fair, they're not following my principles!". Fair enough, to which I'd retort, the abuses of the police forces stem from them not abiding by the principles of a representative government and the consensus of their citizens. The police, much like elected officials, are 'public servants'; problems and abuse arise when they're no longer held accountable to that standard. I propose that the system we have is in dire need cleaning and restructuring, fist among them being election reform to attempt to regain the democratic process and make government once more accountable to the will of the people it is meant to represent. On the other hand you think we should ditch the whole thing. But whereas I can point to examples of current states that operate peacefully and well, what examples do you have of peaceful anarchy of a nation-sized region?
Nope. Most of this thread was that government is wrong in principle. You haven't disproven that. Now I also showed that it's also wrong in consequences. This plus that means you've got no leg to stand on.
Don't tell me about state-less regions, because they're usually big smoking craters after failed states. I don't say raise hell and chaos, I say raise children peacefully and when they grow up, they'll see the state as a medieval barbaric custom, just as I do. Yes, I agree having one orderly mobster is better than having multiple mobsters fighting for dominance, but that doesn't make them morally better.
We have of course numerous examples of failing states and government crises and scandals, so there's that Drinking Beverage Power corrupts.
I think we can agree that a smaller state is safer, there's less to watch. But with various reforms you're trying the impossible. You're trying to create this hybrid dracorn animal, that breathes fire at bad people, but doesn't eat princesses, in fact it likes to carry them. I don't think it works that way but you could make a minarchist case for having a small dracorn that doesn't eat many princesses but still can scorch a bad person or two. But then I'll tell you, dracorn is inherently immoral and also in a few generations it eats and grows to be huge and turns out to have been a regular princess-eating dragon all along.

If you excuse me, that was just a small paraphrase on the philosophical fairy-tale about Argoth and the dragon. You can give it a listen, it's quite fun.
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FD...Dragon.mp3

(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  An unfortunate casualty of the misplaced 'war on drugs', which when combined with the 'war on terror', has seen a steady trend of abuse and the use of excessive force. I'll not deny that, because I don't condone it either. The DA and the police aren't as accountable as I would like them to be, and that can be fixed; we can change the system without burning it all down around us.
I don't say burn it down. I say, do whatever you have to do, but raise your children with talk, show, reasoning and negotiation, without time-outs, force and yelling. So when they grow up, they'll see this chimeric hybrid of a dracorn that you're trying to stitch together. And they'll say, what the fucking hell is that?! Why do we still have this insane ancient pre-medieval custom around?

Of course your plan can never work. USA were founded as the smallest and most transparent government ever, now it's the biggest and most expensive. Secondly, if voting could change anything, they'd make it "undemocratic" long ago. Rulers know that voting can be gotten around, if they're good at it. Only young inexperienced tax farmers like Kim Jong Un can't put on a convincing show and must keep it strict with junta and all. But even though it looks like you have a chance of changing the system, there's the majority, quotas, guidelines and so on, you really don't. Every single public sector employee is against you to displace your papers or whatever. (remember when NSA faced an audit? LOL Computer failure)
But the only thing you really have a control over is shaping the brains of your children. If you don't use violence, they'll see violence as foreign.


(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  See the first point, where I absolutely ruin your shit when you attempt to argue 'only consequences matter' in your favor.

Also, that gang rape is still a violation of the consensus (at least here in the United States). Here in the US we have outlawed rape, because we have a consensus that forcing sexual intercourse upon another individual against their consent is wrong. This is put into law, a law enforce by those whose job it is to enforce the law (i.e. police). So the 'consensus' of the gang rapists is superseded by the consensus of the much larger group of people (the country) that have already weighed in on this issue with laws and regulations. If they do commit rape, they are in violation of that consensus and will be brought to justice for defying it; and no amount of crying out to libertarian principles (or statist strawmen) will save them.

Fucking hell, we should give you your own law (like Godwin's) for crying 'Rape' to justify your position... Facepalm
OK, you have said that pussy-rape is bad, but wallet-rape is good. Give me your money. Oh, it's good, but only if I have a blue costume on? What are you, some sort of social metaphysicist?

(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Disagreeing with the consensus doesn't make you immune to the repercussions if you violate it in certain ways. Actions have consequences, and unilaterally defying the agreed upon consensus (laws) will have repercussions (being found in violation of said laws). And they do have the power to enforce it, with force if necessary, because enough of them agreed that they can and should. Don't like it? Try to argue for a change in the consensus; but just flat out ignoring it will bite you in the ass.
Social metaphysics. Buzzwords. There is no objective way how people are excluded or included from a consensus. The geography is chosen quite arbitrarily. There's nothing about rocks and shrubbery that says I should give money to this or that band of people. Countries don't exist, they're imaginary lines on a map. To pay real money for imaginary map lines is crazy.

(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Because the market will magically label everything perfectly (even though there is no regulation making them do so), and will never lie about the labeling (even though there is no ramification for defying non-existent regulation), and you'll never have to worry about seeking redress from the seller because they will never do wrong (even though this have never been observed and has no basis in empirical reality), and they can be trusted to never do wrong because of their reputation (even though public trust would be issue given non-perfect information availability); and all of this will work because of free-market capitalism?

Send in the magically free-market pixies, we need more pixie-dust here to hide reality!
Market is a neuron network computing. Money bills carry numeric information like computer bytes, people act as decision-making nodes and the whole system together has an enormous processing power to get everything right and make products available to people who want them. That's how market is, it's an "internet of things". It's much more efficient than a billion of bureaucrats.
People 100 years ago didn't have these concepts from computer science, they actually had to study economy, but now I can directly point at how the same principle works in IT.

(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  People and corporations can, and very often will, do whatever they can get away with. You've never made a compelling case for how making it even harder to hold them accountable for their actions, will be a net positive. Arguably our biggest problem in the United States right now is the lack of accountability; corporations are not accountable to the government, the elected officials and the police are not accountable to the people. How is less accountability here going to make things better jackass?
Corporations are naturally accountable. If they make a crappy product, people stop buying it. Corporations go bankrupt. Yay revenge!


(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You make the government accountable to the people, and make it responsive to the consensus. There is no guarantee that things won't go 'wrong', and to demand otherwise is naive in the extreme; we are all human after all. The single, most fundamental aspect that neither of us can do away with the people themselves. I hope that by having people participate in a government that efficiently represents them, so that they can negotiate and come to terms and create agreed upon consensuses that will help them all to get alone and operate with one another. This will allow the government and the laws to change as the people change, and this is what he have (in principle, if not always in practice) in the United States. Even the highest law in the land, the Constitution, is amenable to later revisions to reflect the changes in society and the world. It has been changed in the past, and will be changed in the future. This relies on the government representing and operating on a general bell curve. Just look at marriage equality and the decriminalization of marijuana, see how things are progressing as the national consensus changes.

But no, somehow things will all magically be better when we have zero accountability and allow everyone to fend for themselves...
Free market is a full personal accountability for both individuals and corporations. It's also the most free yet democratic thing ever invented. It has all these things built-in and you do not need to create artificial layers of constitution, laws and institutions with these mechanisms spelled out. I guarantee you, once they get set in, economic principles secretly overrule this theater and people will begin to make deals beyond the official policy, checks and balances. This creates a lot of artificial problems, which calls for more laws, more controlling institutions, more spending on justice... The thing gets so big that it's impossible to control and everything gets hidden in there.

Plus, none of what you say is economically productive. Net government worth is pure loss. Market is both democratic and productive. Yay efficiency!

And, I still don't quite understand how a "representative" is supposed to be useful. I mean, some guy I don't know is magically supposed to know what I need? And that guy isn't even a scientist or engineer, he doesn't know about roads, sewerage, plumbing, power plants... Oh, he can hire these people? Well, then let's skip him as a middleman and raise capital and build roads ourselves. At least Plato said, that kings must be philosophers. Philosophers know what is truth, good, justice, beauty, that sort of stuff. But reps aren't even philosophers. They get a lot of money and rights thrown at them, but giving away our money ties our hands and their hands are tied because they are totally clueless on HOW to solve problems. But they sure like the money, which is why they blame problems on previous administration and ask for more money to fund the police to beat protesters in case they protest against there being too much taxes and police.

Hey, I like Jurassic Park too!

[Image: 367ifz.jpg]

Presuppositionalism and magical thinking writ large. Holy fuck-nuts, you are as dumb as a stack of bricks. I'll have to get back to thoroughly unpack this massive pile of horsehit when I have enough time to put on my creek waders.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 02:56 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 02:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Presuppositionalism and magical thinking writ large. Holy fuck-nuts, you are as dumb as a stack of bricks. I'll have to get back to thoroughly unpack this massive pile of horsehit when I have enough time to put on my creek waders.
Nevermind, you seem well-protected against thoughts that make people seem weird and unpleasant. I'm glad to see that I can't cause any damage through negligence, such as shattering one's worldview. But someone might want the thrill and maybe I could find the magic bullet that would get through to you. I wonder if there is a password for that, but I suspect I have found the arguments that open people's minds, only there's nothing inside but lots and lots of anger.

Don't take this the bad way, you're the smart person there.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 02:56 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 02:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Presuppositionalism and magical thinking writ large. Holy fuck-nuts, you are as dumb as a stack of bricks. I'll have to get back to thoroughly unpack this massive pile of horsehit when I have enough time to put on my creek waders.
Nevermind, you seem well-protected against thoughts that make people seem weird and unpleasant. I'm glad to see that I can't cause any damage through negligence, such as shattering one's worldview. But someone might want the thrill and maybe I could find the magic bullet that would get through to you. I wonder if there is a password for that, but I suspect I have found the arguments that open people's minds, only there's nothing inside but lots and lots of anger.

Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
13-08-2014, 04:39 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 02:56 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Nevermind, you seem well-protected against thoughts that make people seem weird and unpleasant. I'm glad to see that I can't cause any damage through negligence, such as shattering one's worldview. But someone might want the thrill and maybe I could find the magic bullet that would get through to you. I wonder if there is a password for that, but I suspect I have found the arguments that open people's minds, only there's nothing inside but lots and lots of anger.

You have presented nothing to shatter anyone's worldview, you have only parroted the usual libertarian cant and added your own fantasy that every evil stems from raising children with any discipline or boundaries.

Of course, that make s sense if the society you promote has no discipline or boundaries, so there's that.

And telling us that the only thing in our minds is 'lots and lots of anger' is so enormously egotistical of you that it's amazing your head doesn't explode.

I wonder what your next monomania will be? I never saw this one coming. Consider

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
13-08-2014, 04:52 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 05:00 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 04:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course, that make s sense if the society you promote has no discipline or boundaries, so there's that.
You don't get discipline or boundaries by having watchmen to impose them, because watchmen use their watching powers to loosen their own boundaries and discipline and tighten ours. It's like giving our balls to a selected powerful group, hoping that they won't squeeze them too much and that they will squeeze only the bad people's balls and not, let's say anti-ball-squeezing protesters'.

The only real boundaries and discipline come from needing other people to pay us for our work voluntarily, which requires us to treat them nicely, or they will find someone else to pay. Choice is quality. Voluntary choice is feared both by criminals and governments, that is why they work so well together in the war on drugs. When other people are free, it places a great discipline on us to treat them well, or they'll leave.

(13-08-2014 04:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  And telling us that the only thing in our minds is 'lots and lots of anger' is so enormously egotistical of you that it's amazing your head doesn't explode.

I wonder what your next monomania will be? I never saw this one coming. Consider

My next monomania? Hopefully a girlfriend.
Well, you certainly don't come up with any links, books or articles. It's quite difficult to work for both ends of the conversation Consider
I think people like that resist everything new, but then go working for whoever wins, because they have no plans of their own. If only there was a faster way of sorting them away, letting them be in peace and reaching someone new Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 06:04 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 06:09 PM by Chas.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 04:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 04:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course, that make s sense if the society you promote has no discipline or boundaries, so there's that.
You don't get discipline or boundaries by having watchmen to impose them, because watchmen use their watching powers to loosen their own boundaries and discipline and tighten ours. It's like giving our balls to a selected powerful group, hoping that they won't squeeze them too much and that they will squeeze only the bad people's balls and not, let's say anti-ball-squeezing protesters'.

The only real boundaries and discipline come from needing other people to pay us for our work voluntarily, which requires us to treat them nicely, or they will find someone else to pay. Choice is quality. Voluntary choice is feared both by criminals and governments, that is why they work so well together in the war on drugs. When other people are free, it places a great discipline on us to treat them well, or they'll leave.

The root of your problem is your misunderstanding that 'the watchmen' impose anything.
The people make the rules in a democratic society and employ 'watchmen' to see that the law is followed.

Yet you insist on reifying government as if it existed independently of the people.

Quote:
(13-08-2014 04:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  And telling us that the only thing in our minds is 'lots and lots of anger' is so enormously egotistical of you that it's amazing your head doesn't explode.

I wonder what your next monomania will be? I never saw this one coming. Consider

My next monomania? Hopefully a girlfriend.
Well, you certainly don't come up with any links, books or articles. It's quite difficult to work for both ends of the conversation Consider

It is difficult to find any serious scholar arguing against your nonsense. It's like asking me to find references against the existence of the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

Quote:I think people like that resist everything new, but then go working for whoever wins, because they have no plans of their own. If only there was a faster way of sorting them away, letting them be in peace and reaching someone new Consider

The only new thing you have presented is your odd idea that all problems stem from childhood discipline.

The rest is just the same old libertarian twaddle.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
13-08-2014, 06:13 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
If what you've said so far about your upbringing is true (I'm not sure how much to trust you now) then I wonder how much of this stems from resentment toward your parents. The main theme I'm seeing here is anti-authoritarian. You seem to perceive yourself as a Great Mind who needs nobody else for anything.

Now I'm worried about you man.

Are you a full-time student or are you working while in school? Or did you graduate already?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: