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
14-08-2014, 04:22 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2014 04:53 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 06:13 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  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.
Look, none of that is an argument. Everyone looks like a Great Mind, when everyone else around can't make an argument, can't define concepts without cultural references and can't post any research or data or literature. Deconverting to atheism just once does not make you a thinker. I grew up in a crazy home and I deconverted many times from many various things, which is nothing short of an extreme sport. There are very dramatic and moving stories of people who lost god-belief, but I went through an equivalent of that about half dozen times. I don't think anyone here can relate to that.

As for the parents, I'd rather take it as a confirmation of what I say. In our society, parents enjoy automatic authority, virtue and obedience just because they squeezed a person out of their private parts. They don't actually need to study parenting or treat the child nice, they only need to be bigger and stronger. When a child grows up, there are two apex predators who compete for this *might makes right* niche in our brains: the God and the State.

Of course, whatever is in our brains, we consider a part of us. Whatever gets installed before we learn skepticism, has a free pass. And I don't mean god or state specifically, but might makes right, or alternatively, many makes right. It doesn't. Yet everything I heard here are just variations on this theme. Many makes right, even if you never heard of these guys and they're not even that many, but by then they have the might.

[Image: 10592677_766932066683814_5972431397488857107_n.jpg]

(13-08-2014 06:13 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  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?
Full time student, part time self-therapy.

(13-08-2014 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.
There's a gun (military-industrial-financial-prison complex) in the room. Choosing our masters in charge of that every 4 years does not make us free.

(13-08-2014 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

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.
Nevermind. If my side wins, you will get the talking heads and papers by which your species orient themselves in murky waters.
Meanwhile there are some heads and papers on the childhood violence topic you might want to check out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-uk...45EEB95C80
Especially look at the study reference and ACE study.
http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse1
http://www.acestudy.org
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 04:49 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(14-08-2014 04:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 06:13 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  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.
Look, none of that is an argument. Everyone looks like a Great Mind, when everyone else around can't make an argument, can't define concepts without cultural references and can't post any research or data or literature.
As for the parents, I'd rather take it as a confirmation of what I say. In our society, parents enjoy automatic authority, virtue and obedience just because they squeezed a person out of their private parts. They don't actually need to study parenting or treat the child nice, they only need to be bigger and stronger. When a child grows up, there are two apex predators who compete for this *might makes right* niche in our brains: the God and the State.

Of course, whatever is in our brains, we consider a part of us. Whatever gets installed before we learn skepticism, has a free pass. And I don't mean god or state specifically, but might makes right, or alternatively, many makes right. It doesn't. Yet everything I heard here are just variations on this theme. Many makes right, even if you never heard of these guys and they're not even that many, but by then they have the might.

(13-08-2014 06:13 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  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?
Full time student, part time self-therapy.

You need a new therapist. Drinking Beverage

Quote:
(13-08-2014 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.
There's a gun (military-industrial-financial-prison complex) in the room. Choosing our masters in charge of that every 4 years does not make us free.

O, googy - more libertard twaddle.

Quote:
(13-08-2014 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

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.
Nevermind. If my side wins, you will get the talking heads and papers by which your species orient themselves in murky waters.
Meanwhile there are some heads and papers on the childhood violence topic you might want to check out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-uk...45EEB95C80
Especially look at the study reference and ACE study.
http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse1
http://www.acestudy.org

The ACE study is about abused children. I'm sorry if you were; most people were not.

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
14-08-2014, 05:33 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(14-08-2014 04:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  The ACE study is about abused children. I'm sorry if you were; most people were not.
I must disagree. 90 % of American parents use domestic violence against their kids and that is an abuse. Your mafioso neighbor needs to break your kneecaps just once in order to change your neighbouring relationship permanently. I see a strong case that mainstream upbringing is abusive and in cases that it's not, the public school system is abusive.
I mean, these are people who had never read a single book on emotional development! And were raised by wartime generations. Emotional resources that we don't have and don't even read about can not be passed down to further generations.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-to-spank/

British middle class parents seem to hit their kids hundreds of times a year.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/28/wo...your-kids/

However, at least hitting is a pretty obvious, overt thing. But emotional coldness and unavailability is worse, you can never notice something that was never there. There are hardly any studies about that and no legal action is possible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 08:50 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(14-08-2014 05:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(14-08-2014 04:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  The ACE study is about abused children. I'm sorry if you were; most people were not.
I must disagree. 90 % of American parents use domestic violence against their kids and that is an abuse.

90%, in one study, might have, at least once used corporal punishment, which is not equivalent to spanking, much less domestic violence (a term with an actual legal definition, but you clearly don't give a shit). But why be honest, when disingenuous equivocation supports your point so much better?

This is a beautiful example of your confirmation bias, by the way. You have an entire chain of reasoning, and you are convinced that partial affirmation of step 1 is definitive proof of step 5. It's the insane troll logic of the True Believer™.

(14-08-2014 05:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Your mafioso neighbor needs to break your kneecaps just once in order to change your neighbouring relationship permanently. I see a strong case that mainstream upbringing is abusive and in cases that it's not, the public school system is abusive.

You see a strong case. We've already established that your deranged worldview is not representative and certainly not privileged.

(14-08-2014 05:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I mean, these are people who had never read a single book on emotional development! And were raised by wartime generations. Emotional resources that we don't have and don't even read about can not be passed down to further generations.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-to-spank/

And we see here that though you see a strong case, this is because you are incapable of processing sources.
(and here we fondly recall that earlier in this very thread you attempted to cite satire to support your baseless assertions - a genuine classic moment)

Lemme guess: you hit the ol' google for "spanking bad" or words to that effect. You copypasted the link you found without bothering to read it or the analysis it presents, and you absolutely did not consult any original research papers.

I did read your link.
Quote:In the few studies that have compared spanking with other forms of punishment, such as restriction of privileges, grounding and time-outs, all the punitive measures examined resulted in similarly negative outcomes in children...

So there's that.

Turns out children don't like to be punished. I'm shocked, Lumi, shocked. But if children were competent to be fully responsible for their own actions we wouldn't call them children. So there's that too.

But you don't have time for that. You have bias to confirm!

(14-08-2014 05:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  British middle class parents seem to hit their kids hundreds of times a year.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/28/wo...your-kids/

Incidentally, this article also fails to provide direct references to the source literature.

(14-08-2014 05:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  However, at least hitting is a pretty obvious, overt thing. But emotional coldness and unavailability is worse, you can never notice something that was never there. There are hardly any studies about that and no legal action is possible.

Gee, there are no comprehensive studies quantifying vague impossible-to-define feels? I'm positively shocked, ol' Lumi. Shocked I say!

Except emotional neglect is legally actionable. So clearly you never actually looked at the law. Because you have feels about it, and damn the statutes.

But perhaps I might take this opportunity to remind you that my wonderful parents never hit me, and I still think you're more full of bullshit than a constipated bull. Whoops!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
14-08-2014, 09:00 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 06:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Recently I have heard that when things are explained as for what they actually mean, no buzzwords, everyone's a libertarian.

As a new member I am late to the party so I will just respond to the original post.

That sentence is just absurd on its face. I would be wary of whomever told it to you. And in my anecdotal experience, the opposite is more often true. So-called libertarians I discuss with turn out to not be remotely close to libertarians when you discuss with them long enough. They use the label because it was trendy (keyword: 'was'), not because it fit their worldview.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 09:01 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(14-08-2014 09:00 AM)Michael Colton Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 06:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Recently I have heard that when things are explained as for what they actually mean, no buzzwords, everyone's a libertarian.

As a new member I am late to the party so I will just respond to the original post.

Oh, if you've got a few hours to kill, do read the whole glorious trainwreck.

OP is a masterclass in presuppositional circular reasoning and confirmation bias.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 09:56 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2014 10:03 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(14-08-2014 09:00 AM)Michael Colton Wrote:  As a new member I am late to the party so I will just respond to the original post.

That sentence is just absurd on its face. I would be wary of whomever told it to you. And in my anecdotal experience, the opposite is more often true. So-called libertarians I discuss with turn out to not be remotely close to libertarians when you discuss with them long enough. They use the label because it was trendy (keyword: 'was'), not because it fit their worldview.
Hello and welcome to the show. Please don't let the perpetual warfare spoil your experience. If you discern who provides quality info and who is just harping as an armchair skeptic, that would be great Wink

You might have a point there, if I understand. It may be that the libertarians have their own problems, fears and bad experiences. I greatly recommend therapy to have a look at some deeper issues. One should not call himself a libertarian if he uses authoritarian methods of parenting in his own family.

What I meant, nobody tells you that he wants to be ruled, dominated and enslaved, because he is a bad person and can't be trusted with making his own decisions. Unless he is wearing a skimpy latex suit and you are his dominatrix. Nope, everyone in his own view is not perfect, but responsible enough and doesn't need to be supervised by a greater power - which is a Libertarian stance.
It's always some other people who are suspicious and need to be guarded, not the one who says that. That person may choose an example, Lenny, and then talk about guys like Lenny who are out to get everyone. Which is why we need yet another kind of people, the governors, to protect us from guys like Lenny.

The problem is, there's no way in the world to prevent guys like Lenny from reaching political offices or any other positions of power. As far as we are concerned, we can't separate them, not by voting, not by force, no way to tell apart a governor-person from a guy like Lenny. There's just one kind of people in the world, guys like Lenny. Which makes this argument sound really weird.
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FD..._lenny.mp3
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 10:04 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(14-08-2014 09:56 AM)Luminon Wrote:  What I meant, nobody tells you that he wants to be ruled, dominated and enslaved, because he is a bad person and can't be trusted with making his own decisions. Unless he is wearing a skimpy latex suit and is accompanied by a dominatrix. Nope, everyone in his own view is not perfect, but responsible enough and doesn't need to be supervised by a greater power - which is a Libertarian stance.

I am aware of that point, H. L. Mencken rather famously spoke about it at length. The issue is that libertarianism cannot be reduced to simply avoiding the restricting of one's decisions. A libertarian stance is also one that believes that governments should not be maintaining highways, should not be funding fire departments or police departments. Libertarianism is not just the argument that people's choices should be restrained, but also that the government should not support things such as infrastructure.

If someone wants to remove the regulative effects of government but keep the supportive ones, they are a small government classical liberal - not a libertarian. To think that the average person at their core is supportive of such a stance is rather silly.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 10:17 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(14-08-2014 10:04 AM)Michael Colton Wrote:  To think that the average person at their core is supportive of such a stance is rather silly.

On the contrary; that sort of presuppositionalism is foundation to all of ol' Lumi's - ahem - "arguments".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 10:40 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2014 11:08 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(14-08-2014 10:04 AM)Michael Colton Wrote:  I am aware of that point, H. L. Mencken rather famously spoke about it at length. The issue is that libertarianism cannot be reduced to simply avoiding the restricting of one's decisions. A libertarian stance is also one that believes that governments should not be maintaining highways, should not be funding fire departments or police departments. Libertarianism is not just the argument that people's choices should be restrained, but also that the government should not support things such as infrastructure.

If someone wants to remove the regulative effects of government but keep the supportive ones, they are a small government classical liberal - not a libertarian. To think that the average person at their core is supportive of such a stance is rather silly.
I wouldn't go that far. Most people don't know what government is, they think it is their daddy who can take care of everything, just throw money at him. Preferably some other people's money.
For example, government does not maintain highways, it just takes people's money and makes an overpriced deal with the highway maintenance companies, on which they both get rich. It's just an involuntary middleman.


Except from policing that people need now, I tell you, there are no regulative or supportive effects of government, only destructive. Market is a huge global computing network, in principle similar to SETI@home and it can't get better by having central socialist planners such as Obama willy-nilly interfering with it. Most libertarians know the case of Alaskan cod fishing, which went on for 300 years, privately owned and cared for by the fishermen. But then government moved in, took over the protection of cod, and the cod was fished out in a generation.
Who right in their mind would voluntarily support an institution that makes some goods more expensive or downright unavailable? When you put it like that to a common man in the street, he will be a libertarian for a moment, before he learns the name of the institution. It's like some momentary libertarian quantum entanglement between us, before the culture kicks back in.

Btw, do you have any specific link on where H. L. Mencken talked about that? I might want to check him out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: