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
23-08-2014, 07:28 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-08-2014 06:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 05:32 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I scored a 1, stemming entirely from my step-mother whom I was never on good terms with. Our contact was limited, and eventually I cut off all contact with her, but reconnected with my father when they later divorced (she had cheated on him, and was a bundle of psychosis herself). But I also scored 14 across the Resilience questionnaire, so there is that. Guess I'm not the second coming of Emperor Facist McSatan... Drinking Beverage

So I'm more likely to smoke and become an alcoholic; except that in reality I can count the number I drinks I have in a year on just both hands (single digits here), and my parent's own smoking habits killed any alure it might have ever had (they have long since quit themselves and couldn't be happier).
Well, you're the only one here who tries some activism with the system, that's showing some signs of life Consider
So, how were you disciplined as a child? Were you negotiated with? Were you and your wishes respected?
How about the school system, how did you like that? 13 years or so, that's enough to form an opinion. What if you didn't want to go to school, or wanted to learn something else or just didn't like the way it was taught? How much would you pay for such a hotel stay or education course on free market?

Lumi, if you think I'm going to sit here and let you attempt to armchair psychoanalyze me with anything near the ineptitude you've shown at every other turn, you have to be out of your fucking mind. Drinking Beverage

I'd rather do something less painful and more productive with my time, like slamming my dick in the oven.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-08-2014, 07:43 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2014 07:54 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-08-2014 07:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Lumi, if you think I'm going to sit here and let you attempt to armchair psychoanalyze me with anything near the ineptitude you've shown at every other turn, you have to be out of your fucking mind. Drinking Beverage
So suddenly it's about me? Where's your anger about shitty treatment and public education, where you have to raise your hand and ask if you can go to take a piss?
I don't need to psychoanalyze you. I went to the same kind of school and similar enough kind of family to know that it sucked and that all of these people could have done way better. You think regulations make people better? I tell you what makes people better, you keep your money and make your choices with them. Good or bad choices, people learn fast what works for them. Faster than the damn 13 years in public education, after which you still need full job training.
Regulations are a joke, people under regulations stick with each other. Once we give our money out and the state pays them, all bets are off, we can only pray they will treat us nice. Of course they will treat us nice most of the time, we overpay them and they give us no choice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-08-2014 07:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 07:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  Except nowhere in there is the phrase 'block to one's psyche' or even the word 'block' used.

So, no, your statement wasn't scientific. It is more of your made-up terminology.
So it's called psychological repression, so what? It feels like a block. Or a blind spot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_repression

'Repression, a key concept of psychoanalysis, is a defense mechanism, but it pre-exists the ego e.g. 'Primal Repression'. It ensures that what is unacceptable to the conscious mind, and would, if recalled, arouse anxiety, is prevented from entering into it';[2] and is generally accepted as such by psychoanalytic psychologists.[3]

"and is generally accepted as such by psychoanalytic psychologists."
And not generally accepted by other psychologists.

From the same article:
"However, regarding the distinct subject of repressed memory, there is debate as to whether (or how often) memory repression really happens[4] and mainstream psychology holds that true memory repression occurs only very rarely."

So, there's that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-08-2014, 08:51 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-08-2014 07:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 07:28 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Lumi, if you think I'm going to sit here and let you attempt to armchair psychoanalyze me with anything near the ineptitude you've shown at every other turn, you have to be out of your fucking mind. Drinking Beverage
So suddenly it's about me? Where's your anger about shitty treatment and public education, where you have to raise your hand and ask if you can go to take a piss?
I don't need to psychoanalyze you. I went to the same kind of school and similar enough kind of family to know that it sucked and that all of these people could have done way better. You think regulations make people better? I tell you what makes people better, you keep your money and make your choices with them. Good or bad choices, people learn fast what works for them. Faster than the damn 13 years in public education, after which you still need full job training.
Regulations are a joke, people under regulations stick with each other. Once we give our money out and the state pays them, all bets are off, we can only pray they will treat us nice. Of course they will treat us nice most of the time, we overpay them and they give us no choice.

[Image: tumblr_mrhtxdDyx71rtsxxvo1_250.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
23-08-2014, 09:19 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2014 01:24 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-08-2014 08:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: tumblr_mrhtxdDyx71rtsxxvo1_250.gif]
My thoughts exactly! We're just some guys on the internet. You didn't make me go 13 years into shitty schools and bossed me around, neither did I. Some other wankers did. Well, don't involve me, tell them how do you feel about that, if they're still alive.


(23-08-2014 08:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  "and is generally accepted as such by psychoanalytic psychologists."
And not generally accepted by other psychologists.

From the same article:
"However, regarding the distinct subject of repressed memory, there is debate as to whether (or how often) memory repression really happens[4] and mainstream psychology holds that true memory repression occurs only very rarely."

So, there's that.
No, there's not. I have not said anything about repressed memories. What I am concerned about are clear memories, but without the original emotional background to go along with them. When people laugh about being chased and beaten by someone thrice as big and angry, or when they brag about "my dad used to beat the shit out of me and look, I turned out fine", that's what I mean.
Why do you think the horror movies are so popular? Most of us were in such situations, that was our experience and the horror stories give us a guilt-free, blame-free reflection on the emotions.

(22-08-2014 10:22 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Those jolts get easier to manage with time but they don't entirely go away.
I don't think they should, actually. I learned to be empirical about pain. Our emotions are here to protect us. If there's pain, there must be a reason for it. I relax and concentrate on it and journal, seek word association and search the web for hints. I look for thoughts or sights that make the pain stronger, I go where it hurts the most.
Then, at some point, some unexpected small word or experience triggers it. I break down and come to remember all the early emotions in layers in which they were repressed. It's pretty bad, it's an agony. Whatever the defenses are, they're always less bad than what they protect. But it's still just a makeshift lid on the poison. When there's pain, there's a lot more where it came from and I need to get it out. It's in there, almost as fresh as when it was inflicted on me. And if I don't deal with it, I won't be emotionally available in similar situations and people often lash out before they realize what's happening and blame innocent bystanders. That's how these wounds spread on others.

It is scary, you might fear that when you let go, it will never end. But there I got the confidence in empiricism and reality, that all causes are final. And they always are. I always feel much better afterwards. That's what I do. I don't know if that's applicable with you, because it is like a part-time job, one of the most difficult a person can do.

(22-08-2014 10:22 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Ask yourself, what is it that all parties want from the relationship?

With some of my friends, for example, it's very simple... they want security... I want availability/capacity. I provide a a rent-free room (a place to hide from whatever horrors their life has thrown at them) and they offer whatever services they are willing to provide (ironing, cleaning, other).

If it is well-managed, value is created for all concerned.
Good to know. If people want their value, it shows me a good measure on how much I should want. And if I feel like I want too much, that's a feeling to catch onto, work on it for a few weeks and use it as a lead to some repressed experience.

(22-08-2014 10:22 PM)DLJ Wrote:  For the non-neuro-typicals, we can adopt models like this to help us.

How the 'normals' do it so effortlessly is something that I know that I will never understand... so I have stopped trying. I will never become like that so I will just have to go with the tools that are available to me.
Good. Nowadays I'm not sure what is the difference. I just know my two brothers are neurotypical, but they're messed up in much the same way though outwardly it shows differently. I'd gladly have all the Asperger's in the world for what's that worth, if I fixed the damage that I know is not Asperger's.

The tools I have available are my Chinese meridian chart and my feeling of block, pain and congestion at specific spots along major meridians. I don't know what's in my brain or genes, but I know how the meridians work. As long as there is a bioelectric scab to pick at, I will do so and the process seems to extend all the way up into the brain. It's a way to check the progress.

(22-08-2014 10:22 PM)DLJ Wrote:  The unintentional and intentional abuse that I received as a child was and is part of who I am now.

I realise now that it was only ever a two-way transaction.

When I see a parent getting embarrassed / frustrated / angry / violent with an ADHD child in a supermarket, I can see both sides of the equation now. I understand the mis-communication that is happening.

I understand the suffering I caused my parents when I had a freak-out when I was in the barber's chair (my son did the same).
My parents now understand it too... they now know that it was real pain. Not that that changes anything much, other than the ability to cope with the past and the future.

It is a journey, my friend. You trip up or are tripped... you stand up and keep walking.
Here. Another empirical thing I learned from Moly is, there is no suffering that you caused to your parents. That is not your concern, never was. You are supposed to shit, piss have needs, that's your job. There is nothing in the world that ever justified huge person getting angry and hitting someone small and dependent. Except Stockholm syndrome.
Parenting is the most important job in the world, it is programming the humane AI into the most complex computer. When I ask about how they prepared for the job, you know what I get? Nothing. They read up on how to feed the baby so that they won't go to jail, but not a single parent I have seen so far had read a book on emotional development and parenting. And they all held their children 100 % responsible when they don't study well in school. You know what I call that? Pure, undiluted, fireworks-shooting douchebaggery.

What is the natural response to this infernally deep douchebaggery? Anger. Lots and lots of anger, as much as it takes, all the empirical anger in the world is good, no remorse. It has been there all along, I guarantee it. All emotions and feelings are empirical, all are precious and I tell you, the stronger ones must go or the subtle emotions will be afraid to show up.

Yes, I freaked out about the barber too. What I learned was that my mother is completely indifferent to my feelings, but she is afraid of what neighbors and her mother would think and say that she has a long-haired kid. She'd rather smack me, yell and bribe rather than act like an adult and stand up for me and let me have my hair the way I want - because, hell, I might never do anything reasonable for her ever again, I might just go crazy and want to have long hair forever, that would be a terrible thing! The slippery slope is opening below her like an abyss and my long-haired wickedness must be stopped! Or neighbours would blow her head off with weapon-grade frowns.
Yes, I understand my parents, but I also understand how criminally incompetent they were and how they invested everything to lie and cover for their incompetence, rather than fixing it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 02:50 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
https://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf

I found a FAQ from one conference, where R. T. Long answered popular objections against market anarchism. I know you guys are frustrated and irritated beyond all recognition so you probably won't read the document. But could you please say which arguments do you subscribe to? We're both surprised that even relatively smart people like Robert Nozick or Ayn Rand were not in favor of total market anarchism.
It will serve as (a rather very humbling) experience for me. Why?
- I don't know how many people I've convinced, about 13, seems from the poll. But the unconvinced ones, let me see.
- I see now how I could explain everything in a simpler way.

Of course you guys are so irritated that I expect many "all ten" answers. Maybe it might be better to point out which arguments against anarchy you think aren't good.

(1) Government is Not a Coercive Monopoly
(2) Hobbes: Government is Necessary for Cooperation
(3) Locke: Three “Inconveniences” of Anarchy
(4) Ayn Rand: Private Protection Agencies Will Battle
(5) Robert Bidinotto: No Final Arbiter of Disputes
(6) Property Law Cannot Emerge from the Market
(7) Organized Crime Will Take Over
(8) The Rich Will Rule
(9) Robert Bidinotto: The Masses Will Demand Bad Laws
(10) Robert Nozick and Tyler Cowen: Private Protection Agencies Will Become a
de facto Government
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-08-2014 02:50 PM)Luminon Wrote:  https://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf

I found a FAQ from one conference, where R. T. Long answered popular objections against market anarchism. I know you guys are frustrated and irritated beyond all recognition so you probably won't read the document. But could you please say which arguments do you subscribe to? We're both surprised that even relatively smart people like Robert Nozick or Ayn Rand were not in favor of total market anarchism.
It will serve as (a rather very humbling) experience for me. Why?
- I don't know how many people I've convinced, about 13, seems from the poll. But the unconvinced ones, let me see.
- I see now how I could explain everything in a simpler way.

Of course you guys are so irritated that I expect many "all ten" answers. Maybe it might be better to point out which arguments against anarchy you think aren't good.

(1) Government is Not a Coercive Monopoly
(2) Hobbes: Government is Necessary for Cooperation
(3) Locke: Three “Inconveniences” of Anarchy
(4) Ayn Rand: Private Protection Agencies Will Battle
(5) Robert Bidinotto: No Final Arbiter of Disputes
(6) Property Law Cannot Emerge from the Market
(7) Organized Crime Will Take Over
(8) The Rich Will Rule
(9) Robert Bidinotto: The Masses Will Demand Bad Laws
(10) Robert Nozick and Tyler Cowen: Private Protection Agencies Will Become a
de facto Government

I'll humor you and read this but from the start it is self serving and not actually dealing with the real problems (as this system is not able to) but rather hand waving them away.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 03:24 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2014 03:29 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-08-2014 02:54 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I'll humor you and read this but from the start it is self serving and not actually dealing with the real problems (as this system is not able to) but rather hand waving them away.
Thank you.
By dealing with real problems, I guess you mean guarantees. With all respect, I heard abolitionism had a flaw too, it did not deal with the problem of Afro-American unemployment. Abolitionists hand-waved that away and just threw the blacks into the economy.

What if guarantees are impossible in the social world? Or rather, what if any government-based guarantees would come at such a high price that would stifle productivity and social life and lead to totalitarian regime? What if a life without guarantees (but with free field for human ingenuity for new solutions, such as scientific) is so profitable, that the increased life standard itself will serve as a new guarantee of peace? What if the market is already a powerful system of dealing with problems and we only need to free it? Please note, that the market does not need to contain solutions, it only facilitates access to all human ingenuity. Every solution costs something and only market supports the solutions we actually can afford.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-08-2014 02:54 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 02:50 PM)Luminon Wrote:  https://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf

I found a FAQ from one conference, where R. T. Long answered popular objections against market anarchism. I know you guys are frustrated and irritated beyond all recognition so you probably won't read the document. But could you please say which arguments do you subscribe to? We're both surprised that even relatively smart people like Robert Nozick or Ayn Rand were not in favor of total market anarchism.
It will serve as (a rather very humbling) experience for me. Why?
- I don't know how many people I've convinced, about 13, seems from the poll. But the unconvinced ones, let me see.
- I see now how I could explain everything in a simpler way.

Of course you guys are so irritated that I expect many "all ten" answers. Maybe it might be better to point out which arguments against anarchy you think aren't good.

(1) Government is Not a Coercive Monopoly
(2) Hobbes: Government is Necessary for Cooperation
(3) Locke: Three “Inconveniences” of Anarchy
(4) Ayn Rand: Private Protection Agencies Will Battle
(5) Robert Bidinotto: No Final Arbiter of Disputes
(6) Property Law Cannot Emerge from the Market
(7) Organized Crime Will Take Over
(8) The Rich Will Rule
(9) Robert Bidinotto: The Masses Will Demand Bad Laws
(10) Robert Nozick and Tyler Cowen: Private Protection Agencies Will Become a
de facto Government

I'll humor you and read this but from the start it is self serving and not actually dealing with the real problems (as this system is not able to) but rather hand waving them away.


I will Be responding as I read each section.

Section 1 Government is not coercive:

A truly juvenile attempt here. Considering that most of us live in participatory governments it does not apply. He make an analogy to being forced to wear a funny hat but fails to address how one could go about changing any system that was that pointless. So far he gets an F on this objection.

Section (2) Hobbes: Government is Necessary for Cooperation

Total dodge of the problem. Every example is set in an arena where if the non-legal dispute is not resolved there is a legal recourse. Not very impressive so far.

Section (3) Locke: Three “Inconveniences” of Anarchy

Again he is trying to force a centuries out of date practice that was discarded for a more efficient system, in this case Middle Ages Merchant Law, why do these types always act as though the last 3 centuries have not happened? Again he is reducing problems to a scale that is no longer coherent. ATM Cards are his example, yet he avoids areas where the market does not unify, the old cliche about hot dogs and hotdog buns comes to mind.

Oh this is rich in the people are not unbiased in their own cases he is just bloviating. This is really pathetic, but no more than I expect from one of these treaties. Libertarian/anarchists are so stunted in their thinking.

Section (4) Ayn Rand: Private Protection Agencies Will Battle

Cart before the Horse here. This whole argument is just mental masturbation at it's finest as he neither defines nor states how these entities will come into being yet assumes that they will be superior to the current model. This is the point where I just start banging my head against the desk. He has left the realm of reality and has gone full bore into fairyland.

Section (5) Robert Bidinotto: No Final Arbiter of Disputes

Ah at least he admits that this is a real problem and does not even bother to defend his system here. So here is a big Fail when even an apologist has to say yeah we have no answer to this. However the author did go up a bit in my opinion for being honest enough to admit that.

Section (6) Property Law Cannot Emerge from the Market

This seems to be a red herring. Or at best a form of debate between 1 batshit insane cult (Randians) and another (Anarchists) Rather like Muslims and Christians fighting over whether you can eat pork or not.

"Well, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about what happens if different branches of the government disagree about how to resolve things."

He either doesn't understand the balance of power or he is lying. There is in fact a formula in the constitution for handling exactly this, so he fails again. Both his objections are rather well sketched out and have a ton of legal precedent. He seems to be talking out of his ass here.

Section (7) Organized Crime Will Take Over


A rather large dodge as he tries to shift the blame for organised crime (which flourishes best in low government settings) as a function of government rather than being opportunistic. However he at least admits this is a real concern even as he downplays it.

Section (8) The Rich Will Rule

Wow what a load of horseshit this was. One is reminded of Luminon's endorsement of private citizens owning nuclear weapons. Utterly misses the point of the objection and is therefore just another red herring response.

(9) Robert Bidinotto: The Masses Will Demand Bad Laws

This is nonsensical if there is no government at all there can be no Laws Q.E.D. Yeah this is incoherent drivel.

Section (10) Robert Nozick and Tyler Cowen: Private Protection Agencies Will Become a de facto Government

More mental masturbation about these fantasy agencies. No my purple unicorn would never behave that way because he only eats cabbages. Useless.

So final grade 2/10 F. He does not actually address the major issues that have been brought up here and elsewhere about this system and is relying on magic to fix the major problems. He was slightly better than the majority of Libertarian/Anarchist writers in that things were spelled correctly and he did not immediately go to "lol conspiracy" though he did hint at it a few times. Much as with any other proponent of this system he has done nothing but preach to the already converted as none of these points make even the slightest headway against the very real and persistent issues those of us who oppose such a system hold.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Revenant77x's post
23-08-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-08-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 02:54 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I'll humor you and read this but from the start it is self serving and not actually dealing with the real problems (as this system is not able to) but rather hand waving them away.
Thank you.
By dealing with real problems, I guess you mean guarantees. With all respect, I heard abolitionism had a flaw too, it did not deal with the problem of Afro-American unemployment. Abolitionists hand-waved that away and just threw the blacks into the economy.

What if guarantees are impossible in the social world? Or rather, what if any government-based guarantees would come at such a high price that would stifle productivity and social life and lead to totalitarian regime? What if a life without guarantees (but with free field for human ingenuity for new solutions, such as scientific) is so profitable, that the increased life standard itself will serve as a new guarantee of peace? What if the market is already a powerful system of dealing with problems and we only need to free it? Please note, that the market does not need to contain solutions, it only facilitates access to all human ingenuity.

Go fuck yourself Luminon seriously call me pro slavery again. If anyone here is in favor of that it is you.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: