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
15-08-2014, 07:48 AM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2014 07:55 AM by EvolutionKills.)
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

You know what? I'm not even going to bother with the rest. Why? Well, once you start citing cult leaders, you've fallen down from zero credibility and into the deep negatives. I thought you sounded strangely familiar to the Stefan Molyneux horseshit, and now we all know why; you're drinking straight from the tap on this one.

That's it folks, this one's a de facto cult member; but instead of praising Jesus, it's some retarded libertarian who makes a living off of donations and self-published books that aggrandize their own cult of personality. Just like Molyneux, who relies on nothing but baseless presuppositions and never cites his sources, we see the mold that Lumi has come from and attempts to ever emulate. Molyneux isn't a thinker, he's a fucking guru.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2014, 07:50 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Does anyone else think that ol' Lumi quoting his Prophet Molyneux to make every point is a little like the Christians who say "what, you don't believe the Bible? Perhaps quoting these Bible verses for you will change your mind..."

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
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
15-08-2014, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2014 10:58 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(15-08-2014 07:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You know what? I'm not even going to bother with the rest. Why? Well, once you start citing cult leaders, you've fallen down from zero credibility and into the deep negatives. I thought you sounded strangely familiar to the Stefan Molyneux horseshit, and now we all know why; you're drinking straight from the tap on this one.

That's it folks, this one's a de facto cult member; but instead of praising Jesus, it's some retarded libertarian who makes a living off of donations and self-published books that aggrandize their own cult of personality. Just like Molyneux, who relies on nothing but baseless presuppositions and never cites his sources, we see the mold that Lumi as come from and attempts to ever emulate. Molyneux isn't a thinker, he's a fucking guru.
Molyneux cites his sources, he has three full time employees to do research for him.
You told a lie and a slander. Repent Lecture_preist, apologize and stop spreading bullshit.
http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse1
http://www.fdrurl.com/israel-and-palestine
http://www.fdrurl.com/guncontrol
http://www.fdrurl.com/immigration
The truth about violence (sources listed below the video)

I think what you say is extremely rude and insensitive towards real cult victims and survivors who get physically isolated for years in some prison-like compound and get their property taken away, while they're subject to bizarre forms of abuse, often also physical and sexual.
It makes no sense to compare that with an internet conversation. Parents suck, grown children move away, parents blame a talking head for their lifetime neglect and abuse of children and play innocent. And they get away with it, because there is a deep prejudice in society against children. Parents are seen as entitled to smack and hit their children, in a way that a husband can't hit his wife or an owner must not beat a dog.

Leftist intellectuals like Noam Chomsky aren't thought of as cult leaders, because government funding makes academical culture mainstream in the media. But when someone is an intellectual but doesn't believe in economic redistribution or entitlement to hit and yell at children or get them into debt, suddenly he's a cult leader. Yeah. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2014, 04:05 PM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2014 04:08 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
A study will come out soon that you have virtually no impact on public policy as an American citizen. It's official, science says that. Two Princeton University professors, if you care.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...U-S-Policy

Noted American University Historian Allan J. Lichtman, who highlighted the piece in a Tuesday article published in The Hill, calls Gilens and Page's research "shattering" and says their scholarship "should be a loud wake-up call to the vast majority of Americans who are bypassed by their government."

Just please don't say we need more government to fix the government and regulate the bad corporations. That has been tried for about 100 years or so. The way to defeat corporations is to see how they hold up without government subsidies and bailouts from your tax money.

If you can't change politics, politics becomes unimportant. Watch out for dangers and spread the word, but otherwise no need to bother. Then you can start investing into having better life, relationships and family. You can finally have all the important conversations, like what is good and what is bad, because law isn't going to decide that for you.
http://shafers.liberty.me/2014/08/15/pol...important/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2014, 10:56 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(15-08-2014 04:05 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Just please don't say we need more government to fix the government and regulate the bad corporations. That has been tried for about 100 years or so. The way to defeat corporations is to see how they hold up without government subsidies and bailouts from your tax money.

You don't see that "regulation" and "bailouts" aren't the same thing. Your head is too far up your ass.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-08-2014, 11:01 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(15-08-2014 08:08 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(15-08-2014 07:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You know what? I'm not even going to bother with the rest. Why? Well, once you start citing cult leaders, you've fallen down from zero credibility and into the deep negatives. I thought you sounded strangely familiar to the Stefan Molyneux horseshit, and now we all know why; you're drinking straight from the tap on this one.

That's it folks, this one's a de facto cult member; but instead of praising Jesus, it's some retarded libertarian who makes a living off of donations and self-published books that aggrandize their own cult of personality. Just like Molyneux, who relies on nothing but baseless presuppositions and never cites his sources, we see the mold that Lumi as come from and attempts to ever emulate. Molyneux isn't a thinker, he's a fucking guru.
Molyneux cites his sources, he has three full time employees to do research for him.
You told a lie and a slander. Repent Lecture_preist, apologize and stop spreading bullshit.
http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse1
http://www.fdrurl.com/israel-and-palestine
http://www.fdrurl.com/guncontrol
http://www.fdrurl.com/immigration
The truth about violence (sources listed below the video)

I think what you say is extremely rude and insensitive towards real cult victims and survivors who get physically isolated for years in some prison-like compound and get their property taken away, while they're subject to bizarre forms of abuse, often also physical and sexual.
It makes no sense to compare that with an internet conversation. Parents suck, grown children move away, parents blame a talking head for their lifetime neglect and abuse of children and play innocent. And they get away with it, because there is a deep prejudice in society against children. Parents are seen as entitled to smack and hit their children, in a way that a husband can't hit his wife or an owner must not beat a dog.

Leftist intellectuals like Noam Chomsky aren't thought of as cult leaders, because government funding makes academical culture mainstream in the media. But when someone is an intellectual but doesn't believe in economic redistribution or entitlement to hit and yell at children or get them into debt, suddenly he's a cult leader. Yeah. Drinking Beverage

Come back after Molyneux stop encouraging people from deeFOOing, then maybe your shit about "it's not a real cult" would sound less like unadulterated bullshit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2014, 11:08 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(15-08-2014 04:05 PM)Luminon Wrote:  A study will come out soon that you have virtually no impact on public policy as an American citizen. It's official, science says that. Two Princeton University professors, if you care.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...U-S-Policy

Noted American University Historian Allan J. Lichtman, who highlighted the piece in a Tuesday article published in The Hill, calls Gilens and Page's research "shattering" and says their scholarship "should be a loud wake-up call to the vast majority of Americans who are bypassed by their government."

Just please don't say we need more government to fix the government and regulate the bad corporations. That has been tried for about 100 years or so. The way to defeat corporations is to see how they hold up without government subsidies and bailouts from your tax money.

If you can't change politics, politics becomes unimportant. Watch out for dangers and spread the word, but otherwise no need to bother. Then you can start investing into having better life, relationships and family. You can finally have all the important conversations, like what is good and what is bad, because law isn't going to decide that for you.
http://shafers.liberty.me/2014/08/15/pol...important/

Breitbart, the same guys that published that 'Muslim Prayer-Rug' found on the border (and thus we're being invaded by illegal alien Muslims!) bullshit-scare articles?

It ended up being an Adidas sport jersey.




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2014, 11:48 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(15-08-2014 10:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-08-2014 04:05 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Just please don't say we need more government to fix the government and regulate the bad corporations. That has been tried for about 100 years or so. The way to defeat corporations is to see how they hold up without government subsidies and bailouts from your tax money.

You don't see that "regulation" and "bailouts" aren't the same thing. Your head is too far up your ass.

Regulation of food content and medicine has saved millions of lives. In ol' Lumi's world, those people deserved to die.

But it's everyone else who's evil.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2014, 11:55 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(15-08-2014 11:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Breitbart, the same guys that published that 'Muslim Prayer-Rug' found on the border (and thus we're being invaded by illegal alien Muslims!) bullshit-scare articles?

Shush, you. Pesky facts have no place in ol' Lumi's circlejerk. You should know by now, EK, how this works: anything which supports ol' Lumi's pet obsessions is Self-Evidently and Objectively True. Anything which contradicts his assertions is Evil Government Lies. There is no place for mere truth in a world of Truthiness. Reality is subject to the feels of the True Believer. Unmutual government bad. Libertarianism bellyfeel doubleplusgood.

We must give thanks, for we have the Apostle for the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh) to guide us unworthies to the Light.

(and here we might fondly recall ol' Lumi's antics earlier in the thread, in which he cited satire to support his point; there is a point at which a lack of self-awareness ceases to be pitiable and ascends to the level of sublime)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-08-2014, 12:20 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 12:31 AM by DLJ.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Wow! It took a long time to catch up with this thread. So much to take in. Fortunately it seemed to be going around in circles a lot so I think it might be OK to have a go at summarising.

Luminon is describing / advocating an ideal society. Everyone else is saying that this is not practical.

Or words to that effect.

@Luminon,

I think that what you see as desired state (pun intended) of ethical behaviour that should replace the social grouping referred to as 'State' might be akin to the second stage of the Post-Conventional level shown below:

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
i ..... Obedience and punishment orientation (“how can I avoid punishment?”)
ii .... Self-interest orientation (“what's in it for me?” ; Paying for a benefit)
Level 2 (Conventional)
i ..... Interpersonal accord and conformity (social norms; the “good boy/girl” attitude)
ii .... Authority and social-order maintaining orientation (law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
i ..... Social contract orientation
ii .... Universal ethical principles (principled conscience)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Ko...velopment:

I'm not seeing much disagreement with this position as an ideal.

Similarly, I think we can all get behind the Non-Aggression Principle.

In fact, there are many points you raised with which I could get behind.

Please don't regard a challenge to your views as being equivalent to a pro-State position. Some here may be of that mind, of course, but I think many are accepting status quo as simply the least worst option.

Diderot Wrote:Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

Network Models (for trade, information proliferation, accountability and transparency) are the most likely saviour, certainly an enabler to a new world order.

To achieve Level 3ii it requires active governance and real power, purchasing power is not enough.

Different societies have grown slowly and at different paces with regards to ethics so the geographic-based social group has been the one that provided greatest security / continuity.

Your island analogy is a good one but assumes only one system of ethics. How does it work when there are two or more non-geographic overlapping governance systems?

(03-08-2014 10:08 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Can't people just get together as a corporation or foundation and see if they can put together enough money?

As soon as a social group forms, a system of governance (however informal) begins to establish to ensure, through fairness, accountability and transparency, a way of balancing and negotiating between different stakeholders' needs.

All of these will form a level of governance:

(03-08-2014 10:08 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ... [state] government
... corporation
... foundation
... local road corporation
... Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO)
...

The trade off is between:
Benefits Realisation
Risk Optimisation
Resource Optimisation

... and is influenced by the political, economic, social, technological etc. factors at the time.

This generates a society's Principles and Policies. Policies are enforced through defined processes.

People are accountable (or should be) for the practices and processes.

These social groupings, whether geographic (States), ideological (religions etc.), football clubs, families, virtual fora, etc. overlap and have evolved to differing levels of moral maturity.

This is why we have a clash in the UK between Sharia and State laws.

Which should have primacy? The one with the most followers? The one that most closely adheres to the universal ethical principles (to be defined)?

If all societies are at Level 3ii (above) this is not an issue. But that is not the world in which we live.

We are on that journey.

(03-08-2014 10:08 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
In a free society...

"Aye, there's the rub"

Many social groups are evolving towards this. Not all are there yet.

How best does one protect those that are from those that are not?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: