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
27-08-2014, 02:29 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Oh, but while we're at it, why not take a census?

How many people have participated in this thread?

How many have agreed with ol' Lumi?
(hint: zero)

Then we'll know how many more need wander through before we hit that magical 1 in 200 who's worthy of joining the ranks of the True Believing Supermen, Apostles to the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh).

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 02:56 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, but while we're at it, why not take a census?

How many people have participated in this thread?

How many have agreed with ol' Lumi?
(hint: zero)

Then we'll know how many more need wander through before we hit that magical 1 in 200 who's worthy of joining the ranks of the True Believing Supermen, Apostles to the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh).
Well, there are the 13 brave people in the poll. I made it anonymous, so I don't know who you are. But you've made my favorite choice Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 03:00 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 02:56 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, but while we're at it, why not take a census?

How many people have participated in this thread?

How many have agreed with ol' Lumi?
(hint: zero)

Then we'll know how many more need wander through before we hit that magical 1 in 200 who's worthy of joining the ranks of the True Believing Supermen, Apostles to the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh).
Well, there are the 13 brave people in the poll. I made it anonymous, so I don't know who you are. But you've made my favorite choice Thumbsup

I haven't voted in your facile poll.

Those who picked your transparently railroaded third option cannot be presupposed to agree with you on anything, ol' Lumi.

Certainly nobody who's bothered posting does in any way.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-08-2014, 03:50 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 02:56 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, there are the 13 brave people in the poll. I made it anonymous, so I don't know who you are. But you've made my favorite choice Thumbsup

I haven't voted in your facile poll.

Those who picked your transparently railroaded third option cannot be presupposed to agree with you on anything, ol' Lumi.

It strikes me that 'No Wing' implies little more than a highly moderate centralised stance or complete indifference to politics altogether, as opposed to what Lumi is trying to make it mean...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Free Thought's post
27-08-2014, 04:04 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 03:50 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I haven't voted in your facile poll.

Those who picked your transparently railroaded third option cannot be presupposed to agree with you on anything, ol' Lumi.

It strikes me that 'No Wing' implies little more than a highly moderate centralised stance or complete indifference to politics altogether, as opposed to what Lumi is trying to make it mean...

Yes given it's lack of context it is entirely disingenuous for Luminon to claim that people taking that choice are in agreement with him.

(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
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
27-08-2014, 04:37 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 02:05 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is utterly daft. That is not what philosophy is.
Anyone could say that. You get no points if you don't actually say what is philosophy, for comparison.

Oh, come on. Philosophy is the study of knowledge and truth - it doesn't create it.

Quote:
(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  You need to invent a new word because 'philosophy' isn't what you describe.
Well, you don't describe it at all! Anyone could say that.

I just did.

Quote:
(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  First you need to prove that reality adheres to your 'first principles'.
They are self-evident, they prove themselves, they are inherent in general properties of matter and energy. Merely formulating them in language is a sufficient proof.
http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html
All objective things are derived from these principles.

So kc's Calvinism is true by that definition.

Quote:
(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  First you need to prove that reality is a formal system. Hint: It's not.
If it has principles, it's a formal system. The rest is fuzzy logic.

You really don't know what a formal system is. You need to read a book. I suggest Mathematical Logic by Stephen Cole Kleene. Or Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.

Quote:
(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Philosophy rules nothing. Philosophy is a human invention.
Philosophy is the only thing that rules human brains without damaging them.

That is incoherent.

Quote:
Atheism is a small example of philosophy.

No, it isn't. It is a result of the philosophy of skepticism.

Quote:All reality obeys philosophy, i.e. is naturally consistent with itself and never changes without a cause.

Philosophy is not something to be obeyed. It is a process, an activity, invented by humans.

Quote: The only area where philosophy can be potentially non-present, is human brain.

The only place philosophy occurs is in minds.

Quote: Yet it could be said there is inherent rationality present in all forms of language and if children are natural scientists, they are also philosophers and linguists. They explore the properties of reality in much the same way in order to receive stimulation and live. Philosophical (real, consistent) stimulation is the only way to grow up with a healthy and sane brain.

Incoherent nonsense based on an outré definition of philosophy.

Quote:Philosophy occurred naturally in various cultures and philosophers have independently thought of the same principles. Philosophy a human name given to properties of reality which apply to everything in general and are certain and necessary. We are walking nexi of reality in which mind and world intersects and philosophy must apply to both. It is the only way for us to be truly human and maintain our principal identity/integrity.

More incoherent nonsense based on an outré definition of philosophy.

Quote:
(27-08-2014 01:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Science is trustworthy to the extent that it works. Science is also a human invention.
"It works" is an argument from effect, consequentialism. It is a fallacy, because it has zero predictive power. It's an argument from iPad.
The real reason why science is trustworthy is the principle of identity. Things are what they are, under the same circumstances they behave identically, so we have certainty that they will work and if they don't, there is an empirical reason for it.

But things don't, in fact, behave identically. There is randomness as shown by quantum mechanics.

Things behave statistically.

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
27-08-2014, 10:09 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2014 12:43 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Here's a real simple experiment Lumi, considering how much you love 'science'.

Take your principles, and actually live by them. Disregard your 'obligations' to everyone and everything else in your society, live the to the beat of your own drum. Be a consensus of 1.

Attempt to completely fall off the grid. Explain to the tax collectors that you don't recognise their authority and the powers bestowed upon them by your fellow citizens, right before shooting them for attempting to limit your freedom; prove to us that you truly value your freedom above all else, including the lives of others.

Please don't come back until after you've either tracked down and visited one of us personally, giving us an update on your progress that doesn't require using any technology or infrastructure that would indebt you to society at large. Conversely you can just pussy out and post on the forums, thereby implicitly admitting that you're ideals aren't worth the trouble required to live by them.

Let's see how long this takes. Anyone want to make a bet here?
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. Tax collectors have guns, I recognize that and submit to violence.

Here in the United States, IRS agents can be armed, same as any other police force. Ironically enough our citizens can be armed too. I personally wish we didn't have so many guns around, and that the police and right-wingers weren't in some sort of sick arms race with one another. But given the fact that we do have loonies that think like you do (see: Cliven Bundy), I cannot at all be surprised when they start supplying AR-15's to some IRS Agents.


(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I am not obligated to get shot to prove a point.

No, but it would save the rest of us some trouble.


(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I just say, there is a gun in the room, do you support using the gun against me even if I stay peaceful and only defend myself? I don't, do you? Let's take moral sides.

I don't. But if you consider an IRS Agent doing his job as a 'use of force' worthy of a violent response? Then fuck you.


(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The other bullshit you say is, that if I use some infrastructure, then I approve of how it was financed.

I never said you have to approve. But taking something without paying for it is theft. Killing someone who attempts to recover stolen property is felony murder.

If you don't want to be accused of stealing from the public, by using publicly paid infrastructure, then you need to drop entirely off the grid. Using anything publicly funded without paying taxes, is effectively stealing from everyone else who does pay taxes. You may now claim that it's simply not feasible, and I'd agree with you. Welcome to the real world.


(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Nope. I have no choice, and there is no morality without choice.


You do have a choice, drop completely off the grid! Or admit that by using public infrastructure without paying for it is in effect theft from the public, and be prepared for the consequences of your choices. You do have a choice, but nobody said it had to be a convenient one.



(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  if a slave can't escape, does it mean he agrees with slavery? If Nelson Mandela in prison accepted food and housing and bedsheets from the jailers, does that mean he agreed with apartheid?


Hooray! You never can go a single post with horrible false analogies, can you Lumi? You never seem to disappoint...



(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And stop equating a formalized habitual violent mob rule with benefits of technology and society.

I will, when you quite equating society with "habitual violent mob rule" you stupid cunt.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-08-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 04:04 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 03:50 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  It strikes me that 'No Wing' implies little more than a highly moderate centralised stance or complete indifference to politics altogether, as opposed to what Lumi is trying to make it mean...

Yes given it's lack of context it is entirely disingenuous for Luminon to claim that people taking that choice are in agreement with him.

You say that like you expected better of him.
Oh foolish rev you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 12:23 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 02:56 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, there are the 13 brave people in the poll. I made it anonymous, so I don't know who you are. But you've made my favorite choice Thumbsup

Brave? How much bravery does it take to sign an anonymous poll on the internet in some podunk little thread?

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
28-08-2014, 12:42 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Let's note, right here, that Lumi has ignored 90% of the post he responded to.


(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's simple as that Lumi, and I can't help but laugh at the ultimate irony; that for as much as you argue for freedom, you seem entirely ignorant of how your 'objective' principles ignore the consent of other people!
Laugh out load I just LOL'd. Nobody gets a free pass on objective principles. We can deny them verbally, but only because the social language has a capacity to put together words in illogical ways. In mathematics this would not compute. Because the social language is so primitive, we need philosophers to compute it and check for deviations from the principles, which are known as fallacies and sophistry. But whole culture is based on sophistry.

They're all still human constructs, and you still need to convince other human being of their importance, which is a subjective valuation. You still need to sell your ideas, and you still suck at it.

The world isn't rational, people do stupid shit. Look at the motorcycle boom from last decade, where retiring baby-boomers went out and bought tons of motorcycles. Most of what they bought were Harley-Davidson's, even though they are objectively overpriced, unreliable, archaic pieces of technology; they still outsold by orders of magnitude their cheaper, more reliable, and more powerful competition. Because people subjectively valued the H-D's more, they had a cultural cache that other bikes lacked; and there were plenty of people willing to throw done more cash for nostalgia and being with the 'it' crowd, than in purchasing an objectively better bike.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You argue that your property rights are logical and objective, and I merely point out that unless others consent to agree with you, they are meaningless in any real world sense.
Nope, they are not dependent on consent of others, they are a part of your identity, or integrity as it is also called. A principle may get broken, of course, but that also breaks your integrity and the thief's morality. It does not happen without consequences, which is the point.

And if nobody agrees with you, what will be the consequences? Nothing. Without consent, ideas have no real world power.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The principle says, one who breaks a principle loses morality, that is the consequence. The usual result is a widespread bloodshed and suffering, generally loss of freedom.

Now that is conclusion jumping.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I derive, prove and express that in my Czech philosophical writings... Obeying the first principles (integrity, universality, variability) is the only way to maximize the overall variability of any system. In social world, sticking with the principles means maximum secure freedom for everyone and this secure freedom is its own reward, virtue and happiness, people never revert back to more enslaved state. Only systems based on violation of principles go through this boom and bust cycle of republics growing into democracies decaying into oligarchies and exploding in dictatorships, that's because they have no objectivity and no consistency within culture. That's right, having a consensus within a culture means jack shit, in long term.

No, it means the consensus evolves fuktard. Nothing you have shown would at all stop others from just starting up their own governments, and recreating your hated cycle all over again. You've shown nothing that would convince anyone here to consent to your ideas, which means they have zero real world power. You'd still need to get people to agree with you for it to work, and once again, you suck at selling your idea.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Now for as much as you whine against coercion, what is your option here? Will you coerce them to consent to your subjective interpretation of your claimed 'objective' property rights? What if they get by without ever having needed that concept, and it's entirely alien to them? Would you force them to consent to your viewpoint? Because unless you can convince them willingly to agree with you, then all of your reason, logic, and 'objective principles' mean fuck all in any real sense; they're nothing more than thought exercises.
Good point. Obviously, I can't force people to obey reason, that would defeat the argument. I can try to explain this stuff, but there is about 1 person in 200 who can consider a rational argument alone on its own merit without mixing it with cultural consensus. I can raise children philosophically (Alice Gopnik - The Philosophical Baby) which is what I want to do in any case.
But other than that, I just keep having these conversations as a sport, philosphy as a performance art, as Moly says.

Right, so it seems you now agree, that your ideas mean nothing unless you can sell them to people. Without their willing consent, it's all only so much thought experiments. This is an implicit admission that my point, that you must gain a consensus, is correct. Unless you live in a vacuum (and you don't), you will have to deal with other people; and unless you can get enough of them to agree, your ideas will fall by the wayside.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And therein lies the ultimate irony, the massive flaw of all your arguments. That unless you can get them to agree, to get them all to consent to your principles, you would be in effect violating your own principle to impose them on others without their consent.

And I'm pretty sure your Prophet Molyneux (pbuh) has argued that, in violating your own principles, you invalidate all of your own arguments. Laughat
There is actually a nifty trick in here. These first principles, this anarcho-capitalism, it is not actually a thing imposed on people. It is what is left when all imposing stops. You don't want to work at WalMart? Fine, find someone else to employ you. You don't want to buy an iPad? Fine, you get to keep your money (yay!) and I keep the iPad. Kenneth Minogue (no idea who was that) said, capitalism is what people do when you leave people alone. People can defend themselves well enough from other people. I heard there's even private police in Detroit now because the state police all but abandoned some parts of it. There are buses with wi-fi and beer in Detroit, private-run too.

The point being, you don't live in a vacuum. Just go and do your own anarcho-capitalist thing on your own, see how far that gets you. See how much protection your vaunted first-principles garner you, when you're the only one drinking the Kool-Aid.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I mean, none of that is a problem if everything is modular, you just buy or sell the things you want and don't impose anything on anyone else. This whole objective morality thing is actually completely passive, it has no positive "thou shalt make elections" or shit like that. It has no unchosen positive obligations. And when you choose something, that's between you and the person you're obliged to.

Wow, the idea that choosing to do nothing, is somehow not a choice? Inaction is not a choice? This is what you get when your head is shoved so far up your ass you can see daylight.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That isn't a problem for me because I argue that once you are part of a social group (even as small as a family, which ironically most of us are born into), a social contract, you implicitly consent to the fact that you might not always agree with everything that is done by the group or not always get your way.[/q]
No, that is where we actually differ. Social groups are just abstractions, they don't exist empirically, so they can not give people empirical obligations.

[Image: f67334bc58f2468bad15312669d5edaa0afe4c44...0d296b.jpg]

empirical
adjective
-originating in or based on observation or experience.
-relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.
-capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
-of or relating to empiricism.

The United States exists, empirically, and we are a social group within it. Other smaller groups exist within it, and they empirically exist as well. Rotary Club? They exist. YMCA? They exist. The Secular Student Alliance? They exist.

If you are a member of the YMCA, you are obligated to pay your membership dues. They charge you, and you pay, or else you loose your membership. Checking your bank statement, or a receipt, is empirical evidence of that obligation.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I know it sounds weird coming from me, but I have seen UFO, yet I have never seen a nation, a family, or a state.

No, you equating a UFO to be more real than a nation? That sounds about par for the course.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  All I have actually seen were just people, buildings and sometimes a gun. That's all I can prove that really exists.
I don't say abstractions don't exist, they do, but not in the same way that my money. We say abstractions when we don't know or can't be specific and abstractions have no buttons to push to control them, they're just shadow images of what is really happening.

Your money is a fiat currency, an abstraction, it represent a nebulous and fluctuating agreed upon value that is carried by the trust others have in the government that prints it.

FAIL.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But by participating in the group, you are consenting to this implicitly, because it is the nature of human interaction; negotiation. There is always a give and take. Long ago we learned that trading some freedom to work collectively as a group greatly increased our chances of survival, and we have evolved accordingly ever since. You are born (not by your choice) to your parents (not of your choice) and are hopefully cared by them (also not your choice). There are a lot of things that we don't get to chose, by the nature of the reality that we live in.
Hey, I like groups. Groups are natural. I just make distinction between groups where power is involved. Power is like a gravity well, everything bends towards it and creates a hierarchy based on who's closer to it. Well, screw that.

Then go be a group of one. Drinking Beverage



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There is an alternative, such as flat network groups. Also, there are hierarchies based on other things than power - competence, skill, knowledge, written voluntary contract, objective things like that.
I am OK with that too. Anything but a power hierarchy. Power is not reason or virtue, any asshole can be powerful.

Still power. If a group values compromise, then the best negotiator might hold sway and influence. If the group values strength, then the strongest may lead. If a group values conquest, then a great strategist may have the most power, even if he's not the strongest. A group that values artistic expression might be led by their greatest musicians. It is still skill and power and influence, just in different shades and flavors; assuming of course that they are operating within meritocracies with good information access.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, there are big corporations like that, but this is what you get when people grow up in family where power, force and coercion are used for child upbrining, children are programmed with that pattern and learn to seek it or create it to feel secure. Just like I feel better when I face at least 20 enraged people on the forum.

Oh yes, please do espouse on child psychology with the same skill and aplomb you've demonstrated with regard to philosophy and reality; I'm sure we're all waiting on baited breath for the next great secondhand dictation from the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh).



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Logic and axioms don't give a flying fuck about your vaunted first principles, you don't live in a logic simulator, you live in the real world; where things aren't always logical, fair, or rational. Fight against that all you want, be an petulant indignant little internet shit-stain all you want; it won't change the nature of the reality you live in.
Actually, they do, give a fuck, logic and axioms are closely related to first principles.

And they still mean fuck all if nobody else agrees with you that they are, in fact, important and worthy enough to build their lives around. You do not exist within a vacuum, and ideas have no power in and of themselves; ideas require people to act upon them.

You cannot be this obtuse...



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Real world is a logic simulator, only most of this logic is fuzzy logic, a many-valued logic.

Wrong. Logic is the use and study of valid reasoning. Reasoning is a human construct. Logic does not dictate reality, reality dictates logic.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We use empirical sciences to keep track of that. But the world we really live in is a world of conscious mind, in a way, we never really leave this world. And having clear logic and well-defined objective concepts in the world of mind is like having strong, hard muscles and a six pack in the world of beach volleyball.

But humans and their minds aren't objective, so there is that...



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  On the other hand, what we call culture is like a terrible gooey parasitic infestation in the world of mind. It has no shape, no solid argument, it's like a mist, you can't disprove it, but it you try to go against it, men in costumes will come and beat you up. You can say I am dogmatic and absolutist that I have principles, but well, that's the only thing anyone can really have in the world of mind. The gooey plague of culture oozes over everything until the only thing that's left is to elect someone into power who promises to fix everything.

Wow, you need to get a hold of Stark, you sound like you need a good THC trip to mellow you the fuck out.

Sorry, but the world isn't as clean and 'objectively' perfect as you'd like to imagine it is inside your mind. But reality doesn't exist solely inside your mind, sad day for you.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The philosophy I do now is not a neat academic philosophy. It is like a crowbar of objectivity to the headcrab of culture. It's like amputating legs of dumbness on the battlefield of reason. People always squirm and scream that they don't wanna... As I said, it's not pretty and about one patient in 200 has a hope of survival.

I was waiting for the narcissism to pop up again, and as usual, you don't disappoint.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not what I want, I am more at home at another branch of philosophy, which is metaphysics, and then philosophy of language, of science (I kid you not) and general systems theory, metatheory, metaanalysis, shit like that... It is basically being a glorified translator between worldviews, some of which want to kill each other. So I am really a man of peace. The world sucks, not me. You can wave away all my arguments, that's a small price for getting to rehearse them.

God god, if you butcher those as bad as you already do philosophy and science...



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 10:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You either get enough people to agree with you, or all of your philosophy is nothing more than thought exercise with no real world impact. Society, human interaction and negotiation, is getting people to agree with; to consent to a particular argument, rationalization, or viewpoint.

So long as you interact with other human beings, you will be involved in this war of ideas.

And in a war, sometimes you lose.
No, nothing like that. In voluntary interactions, the result is always win-win, or there is no interaction at all.

Can you guarantee all action will be voluntary? No? That's what I thought.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Either both parties are satisfied (or at least better off than they have been), or they look for other parties, that's the absence of power over the other. These win-win interactions are very different from everything we experienced with government and also in our family, but market is based on them.

Okay, now substantiate that. This should be good for a laugh.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  On the market, you never lose.

[Image: tumblr_inline_mn2nhwDTTT1rbumi6.gif]

Weeping



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't say you win much, but you always get something for your money and you know what it is and you choose that.

You hear that folks? Fraud? It simply doesn't exist.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  With government, all money get pooled and you never get back more than you have put in.

Lies. Some people do get more, some people get less. Then again some people need more, other people need less. I live in a part of the country that will almost never need help from FEMA, as opposed to someone living in tornado alley or the gulf coast; but I still pay into it gladly knowing that everyone else is too, and that if I were to get hit with a freak natural disaster that they would be there to help me too without question.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'd argue that we both actually never experience negotiation except when the goal is a win-win interaction, when power is rejected as an option, period. This is what peaceful parenting is about, negotiating with the child. The purpose of negotiation is arriving at a better deal than the ideas we had separately.

Not necessarily, negotiating is not limited to just formal discussion for mutual benefit. Every time two or more people interact that are not in perfect agreement, some amount of negotiating will occur; formally or informally.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  People together voluntarily produce more than involuntarily. It's a synergic effect.

Is that true in all instance? Prove it.



(27-08-2014 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Frankly, I have never understood this war of ideas. In my teens I believed lots of New Age stuff and I went to atheist forums to enlighten people, or get enlightened. I have never seen this as a war and a loss. Until this kind of conversation.
Yes, THIS is a war, because people get to insult and slander me wholesale, I fight for my reputation. And frankly, you fight for your self-respect. We can't be so different yet both moral.

Life is struggle, life is conflict; you are an animal, you can only maintain your life by consuming the cells of other organisms living and dead. Organisms compete, people compete, their ideas compete; competition breeds improvement. Are your ideas are having trouble competing?

[Image: wambulance_logo.jpg]

Well your go to rebuttals seem to be butchering science and philosophy, quoting the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh), employing false analogies, ignoring inconvenient facts about reality, and indulging in rampant narcissism. Is it any wonder why none of us take you, and by proxy 'your' ideas, seriously?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: