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
16-08-2014, 01:11 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(15-08-2014 11:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  (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)

Sort of like Spinal Tap, but less funny? Consider

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-08-2014, 04:22 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 04:31 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(15-08-2014 10:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  You don't see that "regulation" and "bailouts" aren't the same thing. Your head is too far up your ass.
In case you didn't see it from the rectal depths, I didn't claim that. But every economist knows that a corrupt regulation is an advantage to corporations that can afford it. It takes out the competition and steers customers their way.

(15-08-2014 11:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.
Molyneux never tells people to deFOO. He tells them to talk to their parents honestly and be curious and if there's a problem, go to therapy. It's parents who go ape-shit from bad conscience and throw people out, instead of listening and being curious. Molyneux is very much pro happy family, that's why he runs the show. He never tells how it's supposed to go, but if people can't talk freely to their parents and instead talk to some internet head, then the odds are not good.
If someone beats you up to make you listen and then stops only because you're getting too big and it's getting awkward, not for any newly found moral awareness, the odds are not good.

You can find parents complaining that the son is locked up in his room, listening to this droning voice... Well, why don't they show some curiosity about his interests?

(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?

It ended up being an Adidas sport jersey.
I don't know, but you can look forward to reading the full report in the fall.
https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilen...3-7-14.pdf

It doesn't come as a surprise to me, according to Chomsky in his speech last year the lower 70 % in USA have no influence on policy whatsoever - and EU is worse.
http://www.alternet.org/visions/chomsky-...free-press

Another reason why I am a free market voluntarist is, average person in the street has no idea how politics and economics work. They often vote both for smaller government and "free" (government-paid) services. Actually, I just analyzed some Czech data in the SPSS software on that and the Pearson's correlation between of people who voted logically to reduce both govt power and reduce govt spending, that's around 20 % at best. People want their cake and eat it too and government schools do nothing to teach them. (and the ignorance is remarkably stable across gender and age)

(16-08-2014 12:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  @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.
The problem is, none of what people said so far is a challenge to anything, much less to my views Sad People aren't educated how to argue. They can argue against Christians, but that's all.

Lawrence Kohlberg doesn't sound bad, but I think he puts the cart in front of the horse. It is not up to me or anyone to say how society should be, it is up to objective principles and scientific studies. Let's stick with the objective stuff and see how the society turns out freely. I think Kohlberg listed a development of child morality, if the child's developmental needs are fulfilled. Every child goes through these stages and in the first stages the baby is a needy sucking black hole for resources and gives nothing back but shit in it's own weight every day. A baby may not remember consciously some stages, but the memory is in brain construction. Fulfillment of child's needs is an absolute priority to get through the needy stages satisfied, validated, affirmed and confident to be kind and generous to other children, animals and adults.
Unfulfilled needs during brain construction set in deep as powerful neuroses that drive a lifetime addictive repetitive behavior with various effects. Why? Because lacking during dependent or developmental stages is a life threat for the child, evolution taught us.
Consequently, I think Kohlberg's list reflects how the treatment of children in western history was getting progressively less and less violent. Which would mean every single historical adult was suffering from uncontrolled deprivation neurosis and the improvement of history means improvement of parenting.
Consequently, we can go from bloody history to peaceful history in 5 years of universal peaceful parenting. Fuck the slow historical evolution, brain development science offers a shortcut.

(16-08-2014 12:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  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?
I'm not sure how the island analogy applies. But in practice, I do not accept social groups with governance, unless it's only volunteers in them (save for family, that needs peaceful parenting). I accept only one system of ethics and that is objective philosophical principles and free market trade, objectively comparable in numbers of money. I'm not sure what do you mean by governance, but DROs can solve conflicts between customers of various DROs, by investigation and exploring the cheapest option. For example, you might want to check out Ronald Coase's theorem and "least cost avoider". But the beauty of DROs is, that they are not dependent on Coase, they can try any good idea and stick with whatever works market-wise, locally or whatever. So you can't say "what about this idea", because on free market you could try that out for yourself, create your own Dispute Resolution Organization and be successful. This is why I say market is not a fixed system to accept or reject, it's a metasystem, a supportive environment for people's freedom and their own systems. All it needs to work is to renounce aggression, that frees up our possibilities enormously. Parenting only starts when you renounce aggression as an option. And farming industry only started when slavery was renounced as an option, which freed people to invent huge harvesting machines...

(16-08-2014 12:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  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?

Nope, I don't accept any of that. Yes, social evolutionism was a popular 19th century area of study you also remind me of structuralism of Talcott Parsons.
Yes, people in the past behaved as mechanisms - organizations or large competing and evolving group organisms. But they do that only if they're culturally brainwashed and deprivation-neurotic. This is not how healthy people behave. You can not even look at the present hierarchical corporations and forms of governance as natural, because they were built by humans in captivity. If neurotic people found corporations, their corporations will look like small governments. But corporations can also be built on network basis with very flat structure and freedom, Molyneux founded such a company and it did well and is still doing well and he took care to not make it very hierarchical. But quality of people determines the quality of corporations.

I tell you, healthy humans are like the P2P network on the internet, living like one network of sovereign individuals linked together by voluntary bilateral relationships (trade, love, sharing, etc). Healthy humans make a sharp distinction between a "governance" that can initiate violence and "governance" that can't, and they choose only the latter, because only the latter can be responsible at all.
Humans are walking computers of enormous capacity and are by no means necessarily subject to slow historical development of culture. Healthy humans are capable of a leap from Kuhlberg's level 1 to the level 3 in five years, provided that these years are the formative first 5 years of life.

We don't have time to load in a shitty cultural software into child brains and observe in European history how it slowly evolves and gets more liberal, logical, consistent and objective. We already have the final version of liberty and consistency, it's called philosophy and we can install it directly into children's brains through peaceful philosophical parenting! We are not a deterministic gene-driven vermin, we are highly programmable walking computers with enormous variability. There is no "not there yet culturally" excuse for us. Every parent who neglects, yells at or hits a child, deliberately installs the stone age culture despite of seeing countless examples of modern peaceful culture on TV and everywhere. The fact that parents do not hit and yell in the public or in front of friends, strangers, policemen and priests proves that they are perfectly aware that they are doing wrong. The fact that they deny this wrong, blame the child and pose as victims perverts the moral values of a child and this is nothing short of evil. The violent history is not a slow but necessary development, it is the result of a prevalent and deliberate sabotage and malevolence in early human programming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 04:31 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 04:35 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 04:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(15-08-2014 11:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.
Molyneux never tells people to deFOO. He tells them to talk to their parents honestly and be curious and if there's a problem, go to therapy. It's parents who go ape-shit from bad conscience and throw people out, instead of listening and being curious. Molyneux is very much pro happy family, that's why he runs the show. He never tells how it's supposed to go, but if people can't talk freely to their parents and instead talk to some internet head, then the odds are not good.
If someone beats you up to make you listen and then stops only because you're getting too big and it's getting awkward, not for any newly found moral awareness, the odds are not good.

You can find parents complaining that the son is locked up in his room, listening to this droning voice... Well, why don't they show some curiosity about his interests?


LOL what? Be careful of absolutist statements using words like 'never' dumbass.

"Therapist who told podcast listeners to shun their families reprimanded"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...le4846791/


Five years ago, a Mississauga therapist named Christina Papadopoulos took part in an online podcast with her husband and described how one day she cut off contact with her parents, whose company she found phony and stifling. [note from EK; notice here she didn't say 'abusive' or anything to that effect]

Ms. Papadopoulos also said she was worried her online musings about shunning her relatives might land her in trouble with “the psychology community.”

Her fears came true this week when, in an unprecedented disciplinary case, the College of Psychologists of Ontario found her guilty of professional misconduct because she used the Internet to counsel people to emulate her and sever ties with their families.

A disciplinary panel of the college heard Tuesday that Ms. Papadopoulos, a psychological associate, gave improper advice on a number podcasts made with her husband, Stefan Molyneux.

A self-described Internet philosopher, Mr. Molyneux is behind hundreds of posts, podcasts and videos on his website, Freedomain Radio, that discuss a range of topics from a libertarian mindset. “Stef and I, we have the capacity to help the world,” Ms. Papadopoulos says in one podcast.

The couple has garnered little attention in Canada, but several parents from Britain and the United States have told The Globe and Mail that their children consulted Freedomain Radio, then became estranged from their families.

The college began investigating after two formal complaints, one in 2009 and the other in 2011.

“As parents we will have hope that this judgment will help to prevent others suffering the devastating pain and damage that our families have endured,” the 2009 complainants said in an e-mail to The Globe.

The other complainant wondered if Ms. Papadopoulos grasped the effects of her acts. “If she has genuinely realized the damage and distress she has caused … perhaps she will find ways to undo some of the harm she has done and will help people to be reunited with their families,” the complainant said in an e-mail.

Ms. Papadopoulos advocated a practice called deFOOing, or dissociating from one’s family of origin, the panel heard.

“Your statements in support of deFOOing are not supported by current professional literature or consistent with the standards [of the college],” prosecutor Peter Osborne said at Tuesday’s hearing.

It wasn’t a typical case involving a patient-therapist relationship. Ms. Papadopoulos’s lawyer, Lisa Hamilton, told the panel her client’s file “may be unique for this college. I certainly am not aware of any other cases like this, involving the Internet.”

Ms. Papadopoulos gave advice on podcast segments called “Ask a Therapist.” While family separation is sometimes appropriate in cases of abuse, she didn’t assess whether this was properly applied when she made her podcasts, said an agreed statement of facts read at the hearing.

In a 2007 podcast that a complainant signalled to the college, Ms. Papadopoulos and Mr. Molyneux discussed her parents’ shortcomings, calling her relatives “second-handers,” an epithet from the author Ayn Rand about dependent people.

“You’ve never directly confronted your parents on their corruption?” he asked.

“I came close to it a few years ago, which led to my separating from them, my deFOOing,” she replied.

In another podcast, the couple discussed a listener who wrote a letter describing how he cut ties with his family and rerouted his mother’s daily e-mailed pleas titled “We love you” into his junk mail folder.

“She’s trying to push your buttons. She’s trying to appeal to your guilt,” Ms. Papadopoulos said. “The best thing to do under those circumstances is just not to engage. …The moment you respond back, she knows she’s got you.”

At Tuesday’s hearing, Mr. Osborne said, the perception of Ms. Papadopoulos’s objectivity was compromised because her husband’s website solicits donations.

Ms. Papadopoulos works as clinical director at Mississauga’s Meadowvale Psychological Services. The college reviewed 10 records from her practice and found she had not recommended deFOOing to her clients, Mr. Osborne said.

Ms. Papadopoulos didn‘t speak at the hearing, except to enter her plea. In the statement of facts, she said “she was, with the benefit of hindsight, naive about the use and possible misuse of information distributed via the Internet.”

As part of the penalty, she accepted a reprimand and pledged not to give more online psychological advice. She will have to complete a course of studies and will have a peer mentor her for a year, at her expense. She will be suspended for six months if she doesn’t meet all the requirements by Dec. 31, 2013.

Mr. Osborne said the public would be better protected if Ms. Papadopoulos’s shortcomings were remedied, rather than just imposing a punitive measure such as a suspension.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 05:31 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 05:43 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 04:31 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  LOL what? Be careful of absolutist statements using words like 'never' dumbass.

"Therapist who told podcast listeners to shun their families reprimanded"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...le4846791/
Nah, these are at best circumstantial accusations. There is no evidence of telling people what to do - other than what parents are already supposed to do. We are supposed to talk to our parents. And we are not supposed to stay with abusive people. Can't a wife divorce an abusive husband?
We do not deFOO our families, our families deFOO us if we talk to them honestly how we feel and they don't want to hear it. That's something that happens so often that if we even need to talk about it, the damage is probably done and an internet conversation can't make it any worse. There is nothing morally wrong about sharing online one's own experience with family and one's own actions.
Of course, it probably is against government regulations if a therapist talks like that to people who are not their clients, I can understand that. Well, that was an unprofessional thing to do and Mrs Papadopoulos paid for it. Is there anything but just this one incident from 7 years ago that gets rehashed every time Molyneux is mentioned?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 05:40 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 05:31 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:31 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  LOL what? Be careful of absolutist statements using words like 'never' dumbass.

"Therapist who told podcast listeners to shun their families reprimanded"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...le4846791/
Nah, these are at best circumstantial accusations. There is no evidence of telling people what to do - other than what parents are already supposed to do. We are supposed to talk to our parents. And we are not supposed to stay with abusive people. Can't a wife divorce an abusive husband?
We do not deFOO our families, our families deFOO us if we talk to them honestly how we feel and they don't want to hear it. That's something that happens so often that if we even need to talk about it, the damage is probably done and an internet conversation can't make it any worse. There is nothing morally wrong about sharing online one's own experience with family and one's own actions.
Of course, it probably is against government regulations if a therapist talks like that to people who are not their clients, I can understand that.

Read the whole article fucknuts...

“Your statements in support of deFOOing are not supported by current professional literature or consistent with the standards [of the college],” prosecutor Peter Osborne said at Tuesday’s hearing.

She gave out blanket advice, under the guise of being a professional, that was not in line at all with professional standards or the literature; as determined by a board of her professional peers. She plead guilty to professional misconduct. There is a big difference from breaking away from abusive relationships, and her advice to completely sever ties like she had because she found her own parent's merely "phony and stifling"; not abusive mind you, just "phony and stifling".

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 05:52 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 06:53 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 05:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Read the whole article fucknuts...

“Your statements in support of deFOOing are not supported by current professional literature or consistent with the standards [of the college],” prosecutor Peter Osborne said at Tuesday’s hearing.

She gave out blanket advice, under the guise of being a professional, that was not in line at all with professional standards or the literature; as determined by a board of her professional peers. She plead guilty to professional misconduct. There is a big difference from breaking away from abusive relationships, and her advice to completely sever ties like she had because she found her own parent's merely "phony and stifling"; not abusive mind you, just "phony and stifling".

I wonder what professional literature does the prosecutor Peter Osborne mean. Alice Miller, a classic in the field (Drama of The Gifted Child) did not even realize her family was abusive until decades later, IIRC when she had a family of her own. So did John Bradshaw, another classic. If I read Conrad Baars and Anna Terruwe, they too point out the cold behavior of parents as having far-reaching consequences. Sure, they're not the current literature, but it's not like parents took their advice to heart. Instead what we see is an extreme rise in psychopharmacology industry, such as Zoloft and other antidepressants. Drug the kids, destroy 10 % of their brain mass. If families can drug non-compliant kids, this is getting serious in more ways than one - personally, politically, scientifically, financially...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiUeOLfV5z8 (sources below the video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvAR7sxyRe0
Everyone knows that victims of abuse may suffer from Stockholm syndrome, which is bonding with one's abusers and defending them. Stockholm syndrome was described on a case of robbery and abduction in Stockholm. If it can happen with robbers never seen before, then families must be full of it.

If children consider someone on whom they are dependent and spent 20 years with "phony and stifling", then the actual state of family must be much worse. Of course here we are getting into a politically sensitive area. Parents go to therapists who do not blame them but get the child on meds. And if children seek independent help, then shit hits the fan and parents start protesting. I smell rat.

Anyway, that was 7 years ago and whatever prosecutor wanted, he got, so what the hell is your problem? No personal lawsuit, just one slap over the fingers in 7 years due to breaking formalities of the wife's profession, that's a pretty good score in such a sensitive conversation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 07:05 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 07:27 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Looks like Molyneux just repeated my overall point. God doesn't exist, state doesn't exist. It's a response to one well-known Thunderf00t. I think he sums up it perfectly how all the people here argue, only with less insults.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 07:28 AM
Re: RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 07:05 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Looks like Molyneux just repeated my overall point. God doesn't exist, state doesn't exist. It's a response to one well-known Thunderf00t. I think he sums up it perfectly with Bastiat's words.




And also family doesn't exist, nor abuse or much else of what you've ever discussed here.

I thought your overall point had more value than empirical bickering, I guess I am the fool for listening to your ideas of seeking goodness.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 07:45 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 07:50 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 07:28 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And also family doesn't exist, nor abuse or much else of what you've ever discussed here.

I thought your overall point had more value than empirical bickering, I guess I am the fool for listening to your ideas of seeking goodness.
Nobody is a fool for seeking goodness. Rather, family does exist, it's a biological, sexual and material relationship. Abuse does exist too, medically proven. (Bomb in the brain video, it's testable and measurable, look up the Adverse Childhood Experiences study) I can well imagine a person being a fool for denying that.
Furthermore, if you listen to this Molyneux video and look up the Non-Aggression Principle, this is a rational argument, not empirical bickering. Molyneux mentions three Aristotle's principles of thinking. Again, not empirical bickering at all. There is some, but only because people are unable to comprehend a rational argument, as almost everyone here plus Thunderf00t show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 07:56 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 07:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Furthermore, if you listen to this Molyneux video and look up the Non-Aggression Principle, this is a rational argument, not empirical bickering. Molyneux mentions three Aristotle's principles of thinking. Again, not empirical bickering at all. There is some, but only because people are unable to comprehend a rational argument, as almost everyone here plus Thunderf00t show.

Don't go blaming us for your short-comings. Your arguments for your opinions are irrational - you can *call* them rational all you want, it will not make it so.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: