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
26-08-2014, 06:49 AM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2014 06:52 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 06:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We have obligations to each other, not to some invisible man in the sky, because we all share this planet with one another and our actions affect one another.

For fuck's sake you're as thick as a fucking brick... Facepalm
Prove it. Prove the unchosen positive obligations. Otherwise
- you have the obligation to blow my dick and make me a sandwich afterwards
- God has the obligation to put me in Hell, because I am just too wicked
- women have the obligation to wear burkas, because that's what their society says.
These are all unchosen positive obligations. You either disprove them all at once, or you disprove none, or you ignore the unchosen positive obligation aspect.

Do you say that women are morally or legally (same thing?) obligated to wear burkas, because that's what their legitimate government says? Women are supposed to wear burkas and men are supposed to beat women when they don't wear burkas. It's the Law, where they come from. Hail geography!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 07:15 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 06:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We have obligations to each other, not to some invisible man in the sky, because we all share this planet with one another and our actions affect one another.

For fuck's sake you're as thick as a fucking brick... Facepalm
Prove it. Prove the unchosen positive obligations.

We all live on Earth, so if we don't want to kill off our entire species, we all have an obligation to do what we can to preserve an ecosystem capable of sustaining our species. We are all in this together. If you'd rather not be, you're always free to kill yourself, thus eliminating yourself from the equation.


(26-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Otherwise
- you have the obligation to blow my dick and make me a sandwich afterwards

I'd just as soon kill you, so there is that.


(26-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  - God has the obligation to put me in Hell, because I am just too wicked

Nice red herring you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it...


(26-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  - women have the obligation to wear burkas, because that's what their society says.

Unfortunately, if that is their consensus, then they do. Doesn't mean we have to agree with it, doesn't mean we can't do what we can to change the consensus. But if the consensus obligates that action, and enforces it with laws and punishment, then they do (however unfortunately) have that socially dictated obligation.

Once again, nuance is anathema to the True Beliver™.


(26-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  These are all unchosen positive obligations. You either disprove them all at once, or you disprove none, or you ignore the unchosen positive obligation aspect.

[Image: h5D7A63D2]


(26-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7125904640/h5D7A63D2/
Do you say that women are morally or legally (same thing?) obligated to wear burkas, because that's what their legitimate government says? Women are supposed to wear burkas and men are supposed to beat women when they don't wear burkas. It's the Law, where they come from. Hail geography!

Unfortunately, that's life. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but that is their societal norm, their social obligation. Myself, and the society that I'm obligated to, doesn't agree with that; it doesn't mean we get to dictate to them what to do. We can try to reason with them, show them a better path, or lead by example. But their social consensus is just as legitimate for them, as our social consensus is legitimate for us; and they're all equally subjective arbitrary human constructs.

And no, your 'property rights' are not any less subjective, so just drop that canard before you even try to start.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
26-08-2014, 07:24 AM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2014 09:14 AM by Chas.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 06:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We have obligations to each other, not to some invisible man in the sky, because we all share this planet with one another and our actions affect one another.

For fuck's sake you're as thick as a fucking brick... Facepalm
Prove it. Prove the unchosen positive obligations. Otherwise

What proof? They exist in societies. We can observe their existence.

Quote: - you have the obligation to blow my dick and make me a sandwich afterwards
- God has the obligation to put me in Hell, because I am just too wicked
- women have the obligation to wear burkas, because that's what their society says.
These are all unchosen positive obligations. You either disprove them all at once, or you disprove none, or you ignore the unchosen positive obligation aspect.

No, there is no proving or disproving of them - there is only accepting or rejecting.
And, no, it is not all or none; that is just your shallow, absolutist thinking lacking nuance.

Quote:Do you say that women are morally or legally (same thing?) obligated to wear burkas, because that's what their legitimate government says? Women are supposed to wear burkas and men are supposed to beat women when they don't wear burkas. It's the Law, where they come from. Hail geography!

First prove that their government is in any way legitimate.

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
26-08-2014, 07:45 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 06:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-08-2014 09:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "Oh, you don't believe the Bible the Prophet Molyneux? Just let me quote some Biblical passages Prophet Molyneux for you..."

Presuppositionalism! It's not just for theists anymore.

You're no more than a bad joke at this point, ol' Lumi.
Well, you told me, read a book! So I did. You didn't say which book.

I actually did.
(13-08-2014 01:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Protip: when I tell you to read a book, I am telling you to read new things; to read different things, things that do not merely re-affirm your presuppositions and intuitions - above all, implicitly, to be ready to learn. This self-awareness and willingness to introspect and evolve are evidently beyond your capacity.

But this rather self-demonstrating little exchange is interesting in its own right.

(26-08-2014 06:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  All people here believe in unchosen positive obligations, I don't. They believe that someone far away has the moral right to order our lives, because society, because human nature...

That is a ridiculous straw man.

Neither I nor any reasonable person might draw that from anything anyone has said here.

Only you manage to come up with such nonsense - because that's your presupposition, and no matter what anyone else says to you, you just keep plugging away at it.

(26-08-2014 06:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't see any difference between that and...
God has a plan for you. God is good, God created you, so you must obey!
Lenin and the Party committee have a plan for you, to save you from evil capitalists who want to sell an iPad to you.
Obama has a plan for obligatory health insurance. It's for your health, health is a good thing, ergo you must obey! Obey, obey, obey, and then maybe once in 4 years put a piece of paper in a box, while the people you obey have the other 1459 days to make sure their interests are secure no matter how the elections go.
And, I'm the bad guy here, don't forget about that.

The lunatic raving of a paranoid schizophrenic is not compelling.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
26-08-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-08-2014 08:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-08-2014 03:27 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  Why must you be so dense. You have no evidence to back up your claims. You just pull shit out of your ass and throw it up on the wall to see if it sticks. None of it sticks because all you have is diarrhea. Even the most libertarian people I have ever talked to understand externalities and come up with better bullshit than what you come up with.
There are market externalities, ergo, people have to be herded at gunpoint to pay to solve them. Riiight. There is original sin, too.

(25-08-2014 03:27 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  People don't naturally think about the long term. People are naturally exploitative of their environment. They want to make the most as quickly as possible, and very few people think about how there actions today will affect even themselves in 5 or more years. The whole fucking 80's was a lesson about the dangers of short term thinking. We are still trying to get over that clusterfuck of a decade, but peoples natural tendencies are still to do what feels best now. It's why if you offer someone $100 today or $200 a year from now, most people will take the $100 today.
Not if their property is respected. Not if they are free. Not if they stop being shielded from responsibility. Not if they stop electing politicians who promise them to relieve their anxiety about natural consequences of their actions, only if they say goodbye to 60 % of their income. Politicians breed people to be stupid, short-sighted, dependent and willing to part with their taxes - it's called a tax farm and major part of it is public education. I've been there and they gave me zero evidence for everything they said. Giving evidence would... slow down the lessons!

(25-08-2014 03:27 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  Ownership rights don't change a thing. People will use up as much as they can as quickly as they can if that means they can increase their short term profits. They don't give a damn about the future because they can't touch the future. They can feel today, tomorrow is nothing but a dream.
Yes, you have summed up how people are very well. That's why I am so afraid to let them write and enforce laws.

(25-08-2014 03:27 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  Some how you think people will change just because they are living in your imaginary anarchist utopia. Just a few post ago you claim you don't believe in GDP. Like it's an opinion. No matter what you think about how the GDP is calculated its a real fucking thing you moron. Your opinion on whether it should be calculated differently is an opinion. You are entitle to opinions, but don't be so stupid to claim it does't exist. Next your going to tell me magnetic fields don't exist because you don't like the how the fields are calculated.

I still can't believe that you think externalities don't exist, or didn't exist prior to 1850. What fucking universe do you get this shit from. Stop pulling things out of your ass.
You have complaints now. But if I went into politics and won with my opinion, you would submit to me without a complaint. Suddenly, I would be right and virtuous and obedience-worthy! Magic.
Government spending isn't people's spending, it's made-up lobbyist rent-seeking bullshit and printed money. Economy never made sense, until I learned that.

(25-08-2014 07:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, as if the premise of the video-game Evil Genius and applied it to reality...
Eh, it sounds too much like Obama's foreign policy, only more difficult. Who else has 700 military bases around the world, secret prisons and reads Angela Merkel's private mail? Public sector criminality is too easy to make a game about it.

Angela Merkel reads Angela Merkel's private mail, your friends Assad and Putin have secret prisons (which is odd, because you've heard of them) and military bases aren't criminal.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 03:13 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2014 04:11 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We all live on Earth, so if we don't want to kill off our entire species, we all have an obligation to do what we can to preserve an ecosystem capable of sustaining our species. We are all in this together. If you'd rather not be, you're always free to kill yourself, thus eliminating yourself from the equation.
True. But none of that positively points at any specific form of governance or human social organization, much less any specific government agency and amount of its funding. So I would call that red herring, only I have a greater point to make. If anything, we are obliged to use science to research human behavior and come up with a whole new objectively proven form of human social organization.
To my knowledge, the only such thing so far has been The Venus Project, of all things. I was convinced by anarcho-capitalist arguments, but that doesn't mean it's my favorite kind of society. I think the next generation of anarcho-capitalists would say, screw this money thing and switch over to TVP.

(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  - God has the obligation to put me in Hell, because I am just too wicked
Nice red herring you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it...
No red herring, your scare tactics of human extinction is no different from priests' Doom's day. There is no evidence that a lack of a particular form of governance (republic, democracy, oligarchy) would lead to extinction of human species. You don't make this argument outright, but let's get it off the table.


(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unfortunately, if that is their consensus, then they do. Doesn't mean we have to agree with it, doesn't mean we can't do what we can to change the consensus. But if the consensus obligates that action, and enforces it with laws and punishment, then they do (however unfortunately) have that socially dictated obligation.
Consensus? What consensus is it, if it doesn't include women and children?
What consensus is it, if we can disagree with it and even try to change it? How can consensus be unfortunate?
Consensus leading to laws and punishment is just tautology, it's just circular. What are they doing? Their consensus. What is their consensus? The things they do. Why do they do what they do? Because it's the consensus.
It doesn't tell us why or how is it justified, because it isn't. What you say in this elaborate wording is basically, they use force, because they can. That's the best argument they have - that any culture has.

(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Once again, nuance is anathema to the True Beliver™.
You are right, because nuance, is that your argument? I say, every single nuance needs to be proven with empirical evidence. The natural sciences are based on nuances of matter and energy Wink

(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: h5D7A63D2]
That is an absolute statement, so Obi Wan calls himself a Sith lord, or he's a liar, or really bad at logic.
But I like the hands-on approach to personal relationship with Force Consider
[Image: 53317330.jpg]

(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unfortunately, that's life. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but that is their societal norm, their social obligation. Myself, and the society that I'm obligated to, doesn't agree with that; it doesn't mean we get to dictate to them what to do. We can try to reason with them, show them a better path, or lead by example. But their social consensus is just as legitimate for them, as our social consensus is legitimate for us; and they're all equally subjective arbitrary human constructs.
Yes!!! I totally agree. That is a rare occurrence so I will try to present my argument at length. I don't see what is there to disagree with, so please point it out.

The subjective arbitrary thing you just described is called culture. I am not against culture per se. There are great many advantages to it. Religion is a culture and religion provides for a sense of community, can trigger placebo healing effects, gives longer life maybe, and so on. Similarly, the culture of nations and democracy make for more orderly environment. There are some disadvantages to it, but the great thing about human beings, we can compensate for a great deal of discomfort and we can get used to pretty much anything that doesn't get us killed instantly.

Humans are genetically shape and behaviorally as diverse as dogs and our minds are as programmable as computers, so there is really no particular human nature. What culture does is shaping human nature as a vessel shapes water. This is why culture is not just a harmless entertainment, it's a powerful instrument. Science controls natural world. But culture controls the human world, which in some ways is more effective than natural. So we really want the culture to be based on the science of human thinking and relations, which is the various disciplines of philosophy etc, not on pseudoscience of human relations, which is nationalism, religion and so on.
So what is the content of culture now? Arbitrary and subjective. And I think that's harmful.

However, there is a way to get out of this subjective arbitrary vessel and start shaping ourselves towards objective, universal standards of fairness, use solid methods to minimize disadvantages and maximize advantages in society. That way to rise above the arbitrary culture is called philosophy, morality, reason, logic, scientific method and evidence. But for that the culture must not be obligatory. That's really a bad thing to do, to threaten someone who doesn't conform to culture. Forcing people to pay taxes against their will is like forcing atheists to go to church and pay tithes.
Surprisingly, people can't even be forced to be rational about science and logic, because rationality isn't based on force. (only physics Tongue )

I'm just a wimp, so I don't say stop obeying the culture. My proposal is, recognize that the culture is forced on you, recognize that there are objective disciplines which are better than that, talk about it and raise your children without forcing.

I agree that our social consensus is just as legitimate to us, as it is to them, i.e. not at all. There is no science or objective reasoning behind it, so it can't be morally/rationally obligatory for anyone. You can oppose the consensus and still call yourself rational and moral. And if others force you to jump on their cultural bandwagon and participate, it is they who are immoral and irrational. There is no evidence or objective reasoning that your national consensus is more morally/rationally obligatory to you than the Sharia consensus in Saudi Arabia - the only difference is geography and geography has no meaning besides geography. It is more forcefully, culturally obligatory, but that is not proven, rational or moral.
That is all the point I wish to make, what is objective and voluntary and what is subjective and forced. Too bad we can't change it, we have to suck up and pay taxes. This is why I am in favor of peaceful parenting instead of cultural indoctrination of children.

(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And no, your 'property rights' are not any less subjective, so just drop that canard before you even try to start.
I can't say there are or aren't property rights. But I can say with absolute authority, a rational proposal either is, or is not. Screw nuances, like property rights for some, or sometimes, or from certain age or income bracket, screw that. Every nuance requires objective empirical proof. When you say nuance, you have to bring science. Reason has clear-cut yes-no principles and these are the only way how to prevent damage in the long term, to diminish the amount of unpleasant nuances, so to speak.

So then there is a test. This argument was made to me and I had to accept it. Someone who writes there are no property rights, owns the keyboard he uses to deny them, he owns his hands, his mouth, he owns himself. So it's a self-detonating statement. His own action proves him wrong. Fuck, he owns his actions, as I just said! It's like ownership is encoded in our language. Surprise surprise, there is such a thing as ownership rights. I can't get around this argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 03:18 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Someone who writes there are no property rights, owns the keyboard he uses to deny them, he owns his hands, his mouth, he owns himself. So it's a self-detonating statement. His own action proves him wrong. Surprise surprise, there is such a thing as ownership rights. I can't get around this argument.

If I tie you up, you're fucked. Try again Sleepy

It's kinda telling that even an argument *this* fucken retarded, you find compelling.

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
26-08-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 03:18 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Someone who writes there are no property rights, owns the keyboard he uses to deny them, he owns his hands, his mouth, he owns himself. So it's a self-detonating statement. His own action proves him wrong. Surprise surprise, there is such a thing as ownership rights. I can't get around this argument.

If I tie you up, you're fucked. Try again Sleepy

It's kinda telling that even an argument *this* fucken retarded, you find compelling.

He can't get around the argument because it's fucking circular.

Accepting its presuppositions, he can't find a way out of it from a position which implicitly accepts it.

So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
26-08-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Perhaps we might consider what a real philosopher might say on the subject:



... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
26-08-2014, 04:15 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
PS: what has ol' Stefan "self-detonating" Molyneux been up to this past week?



... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: