This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ
Pages: 1 ... 878889 9091 ... 256
2641
« on: January 05, 2016, 11:55:02 PM »
Only Democrats will cry about dying children, then blame the gun, ignoring the fact that it's their own goddamn parasite voting livestock in places like Shitcago and DC, that's #1 responsible for Gun Related Homicide in the US.
Calm down Max, not all girls are like that. It's going to be okay. Put the liquor away.
Was he even talking about women? I'm confused on this whole thing.
And what is the point of this thread?
2642
« on: January 05, 2016, 11:25:39 PM »
With the amazing atmosphere of pre-war Fallout, I could see a game like that being very fun.
You literally just like the aesthetics why does it even need to be Fallout at this point
2643
« on: January 05, 2016, 11:23:27 PM »
It's funny because Charlie reposts the shit he finds here, as opposed to Facebook like the other dads his age
2644
« on: January 05, 2016, 11:21:53 PM »
Only Democrats will cry about dying children, then blame the gun, ignoring the fact that it's their own goddamn parasite voting livestock in places like Shitcago and DC, that's #1 responsible for Gun Related Homicide in the US.
Calm down Max, not all girls are like that. It's going to be okay. Put the liquor away.
2645
« on: January 05, 2016, 11:13:46 PM »
Of course they fucking would, they don't consider fetuses to be human beings, Max.
2646
« on: January 05, 2016, 10:44:54 PM »
jesus christ, talk about completely missing the point
2647
« on: January 05, 2016, 10:38:26 PM »
Door, can you articulate why coercion is the paramount metric of a society?
It isn't, really. But, being the basis for the authority of the state, it is of chief importance to our current society and culture. Who knows, maybe in a society free of coercion, we'll find some other equal ill we've been living with for centuries. I don't think I can say what is the paramount metric of a society. Respect for personal autonomy? All I can say is that I believe coercion is the paramount ill of our society.
2648
« on: January 05, 2016, 10:29:42 PM »
I think where we disagree here is whether there must be coercion.
I want to get a better position on your moral philosophy.
Let's say we've found a way to measure coercion and express it as a percentage. And we know, say, that anything beyond a 20pc reduction leads to significant losses in human well-being. Would you renounce your position as an anarchist, and simply advocate for that 20pc reduction?
Can you measure well-being and express it as a percentage? I find the idea that there is a real "greater good" questionable. Can we really reduce right and wrong to a mathematical equation? I don't think so. Wrong is wrong, and I don't believe you can justify an immoral act with a positive outcome. Murdering a man may prevent him from murdering others, but it still entails committing murder oneself. So no, I do not believe that something like "well-being" justifies engaging in violent or coercive acts.
2649
« on: January 05, 2016, 10:01:30 PM »
You cannot make a claim to morality while actively engaging in violence and coercion. You just can't. You might be able to say you're less of a cunt than the next guy, but you'd still be a cunt.
So what? Maybe life requires some of us to be cunts in order to function properly.
If you think that's immoral, I can kind of understand it, but saying "You just can't" without any kind of consequentialist basis isn't a very good argument. Don't get me wrong, I know where you're coming from--I used to be an anarchist after all.
But if life requires cunts, it seems to make a lot more sense to navigate in a moral space commensurate with reality, rather than some idealised one.
I think where we disagree here is whether there must be coercion. I don't think coercion is something that necessarily must occur. But the conditions for an anarchist society to exist are very stringent. Most people need to be on the same page to prevent it falling into violence and hierarchy once more. So I agree that a state should exist right now. It'd be near impossible to go without one at the moment. But ideally, down the line, I think a people aware of the hypocrisy of statism could, if well armed and prepared, function without it. It's a pipe dream, though.
2650
« on: January 05, 2016, 09:48:48 PM »
http://www.restoreninevehnow.org/?page_id=103Welcome to Restore Nineveh Now, the website for the Restore Nineveh Now initiative. The reason for this page and the initiative is to transform what currently exist on paper into a geographical, physical and cultural reality. Let us explain.
The region in north-western Iraq, the Nineveh Plains, has for thousands of years been the home of the Assyrians, the original Iraqis. The Assyrians (who are Christian), as well as other peoples like the Yezidis (who are polytheistic), have for generations endured persecution at the hands of Muslim like the Kurdish Badr Khan in the 19th century, Saddam Hussein in the 20th century, and presently, the so-called Islamic State or ISIS.
In all of these instances, little help or protection has come from external powers, and the Assyrians, Yezidis and others of the Nineveh Plain have had to fend for themselves. In fact, when ISIS extremists invaded Northern Iraq in the summer of 2014, the Iraqi military and the Kurdish Peshmerga fled, leaving the Assyrians and Yezidis with no choice but to flee for their lives, a mass exodus of tens of thousands of people.
However, even before the ISIS invasion of June, 2014, the Iraqi government recognized the ongoing abuse that Assyrians and Yezidis have endured at the hands of intolerant Islamists. In response, the Iraqi government asserted that Assyrians and other non-Muslims have a right to exist and govern their own future in Iraq and, on January 21, 2014, declared that on the Nineveh Plain in northern Iraq there would be a new province, the Nineveh Plain Province, which should serve as a safe haven for Assyrians and other ethnic and religious minorities.
Unfortunately, ISIS is currently occupying the lands of the Nineveh Plain Province, spreading a reign of terror – complete with beheading, torture and sexual slavery – unlike anything the world has ever seen anywhere.
Enough is enough. Terrorized by ISIS and left to defend themselves by the Arab Iraqis and the Kurds, Assyrians and Yezidis are now organizing and arming themselve, determined to protect what homes they still have and take back those that ISIS has stolen. Helping them stand their ground is the heart of Restore Nineveh Now.
The Nineveh Plain Province exist on paper. It is now time to turn it into a reality. Restore Nineveh Now’s principle goal is to mobilize the necessary human, political and financial capital needed to establish the Nineveh Plain Province. The Nineveh Plain Province is more than a geopolitical issue, it is the building of a future for millions of people determined to fight back. It is the right thing to do. Welcome to Restore Nineveh Now.
2651
« on: January 05, 2016, 09:46:36 PM »
is the one that engages in coercive activity as rarely as possible.
But this is just another way of saying "Shoot as many people as you like as long as things are okay". In order for your position to make any kind of moral sense to yourself, you have to draw a line somewhere and say "Okay, we're going to have to sacrifice human well-being for the sake of lessening coercion".
Which, to me, doesn't make much moral sense. Fr all we know, the society that promotes the most genuine human well-being is one with a significant amount of coercion. And as far as the evidence is concerned regarding past and current societies, the kinds of institutions which make a society successful and the kind of cultures and their values we've seen emerge. . . The answer appears to be that, yes, you do need quite a lot of force involved.
You cannot make a claim to morality while actively engaging in violence and coercion. You just can't. You might be able to say you're less of a cunt than the next guy, but you'd still be a cunt.
2652
« on: January 05, 2016, 09:27:29 PM »
Alhamdulillah.
Is this like the muslim version of hallelujah?
2653
« on: January 05, 2016, 09:21:20 PM »
back to school kit
Don't forget your textbooks fam 
2654
« on: January 05, 2016, 09:16:38 PM »
I don't believe the ends justify the means
Just curious: how do you measure the "goodness" of a political system? Is complete freedom, absent a government, better because it allows more freedom intrinsically than would a form of organized government (be it democracy, authoritarianism, or something in between)?
Basically I'm asking if freedom is the end-all-be-all of how you judge society.
Freedom isn't the criteria per se, absence of abuse is. A true anarchy would be absent of coercion, which makes it less problematic than any other situation. That said, I'm not delusional enough to think true anarchy could be implemented without something like 90% of the population wanting it to happen. Unless most of the world believes, a power vaccum will be filled with gangs establishing new states. So I don't advocate an immediate shift. I think the least immoral system, if there must be a system, is the one that engages in coercive activity as rarely as possible. How leadership is chosen is, in my opinion, irrelevant. A dictator or monarch who gives as much space as possible to "the people" is just as good as an elected parliament or leader. I think constitutionalism is a good way to keep the space in place, but the structure is ultimately irrelevant as long as the effect is the same.
2655
« on: January 05, 2016, 09:07:45 PM »
If you can accept women and men think different, that's perfectly fine.
But in the end if it boils down to women not being allowed to vote, or implying they have somewhat "less" of an ability to, then you lose any credibility. I think limiting the vote to certain groups based on biology is a silly think to do. If you're going to limit it, I would set up criteria based on factors relevant to policy rather than gender. In terms of the more OT issue, I don't believe everyone should vote. Why? Because so many people are uneducated in who they vote for, and what they vote for. They just listen to the masses or popular opinion without doing the research themselves and coming to their own conclusion.
Even if that conclusion was on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from my own beliefs in said law/ideology, at least that person educated themselves on the issue and came to their own decision.
Ignorance is a cancer and sadly the presidential campaigns prey on that ignorance. TV ads are useless in my opinion because of how much they lie. I get excited for the presidential race and debates, but I absolutely dead my TV and websites getting high jacked (it's only on phones I see it thanks to ad block) by blind ads. The problem, I think, is that with the state, finance, and partisanship meddling with media credibility, it has become difficult or possible to actually do the research on many issues.
2656
« on: January 05, 2016, 08:59:52 PM »
I do not believe in the right to vote. We've all been over why I feel this way, most of you disagree with me. I don't believe humans have the right to exercise control over one another, especially not based on numerical majority.
Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but this is the first time I've heard you express this. I know it's kind of shitty to ask someone to dig up old posts, but if you've made any threads about it I'd be down to read them. I think all of this is mostly unexplored territory for many people here, including myself. As much as I'll argue partisanship on here I haven't even considered the notion that the right to vote is anything but a boon on society.
I can clarify briefly, if that's not enough I can dig up some stuff. I don't believe the ends justify the means, so I am opposed to coercion in any circumstance. All state interactions are based on coercion, so I believe governments are inherently immoral institutions. Democracy isn't really any more morally upright than other systems, in my opinion. It just means coercion is controlled by majority vote rather than a small ruling class or monarch. For the same reason I don't believe in the right of a king to coerce, I do not believe in the right of "the people" to coerce.
2657
« on: January 05, 2016, 08:33:29 PM »
Am I now seriously going to have to clarify my stance on the influence of gender on political mentality and the female vote? I can do that, but I really don't feel like it because it's like half-formed as is.
As long as it's presented cogently instead of just a flippant remark like it was here I'd be interested in hearing your rationale. Separate thread maybe?
Aight.
I'm an egalitarian first, regardless of biological differences. Seeing, for example, irrefutable evidence that one ethnic group is inherently more prone to violence would not change that.
I believe natural rights are inherent to all human beings. I believe some rights are god-given, and that some are simply reasonably inherent.
I do not believe in the right to vote. We've all been over why I feel this way, most of you disagree with me. I don't believe humans have the right to exercise control over one another, especially not based on numerical majority. I am critical of all government, but I will admit to being more critical of democratic government lately.
I think it is fairly clear, based on my interactions and what I know of scientific studies, that there are mental differences inherent to men and women. Whether these are entirely biological or partially culturally-implanted, the fact of the matter is that men and women, in general, think differently. I believe this impacts the voting tendencies of men and women, although to what extent is unclear.
I recently heard it suggested that the social roles typically assumed by women, that of a nurturer and caregiver, are projected on the state when they vote, likewise men are likely to project the role of protector on the state. This is an uncomfortable thought, but I'll admit it has left an impression on me during the last week or so.
I'm not comfortable completely committing to this position, because I am not as informed as I should be on the psychological and scientific understanding of the issue, if there is one. This is where I am at the moment.
Misogynistic? You guys tell me, but if it is, tell me why. I strive for an egalitarian view always.
Reposted from DAS' thread in the Flood.
2658
« on: January 05, 2016, 08:31:26 PM »
Am I now seriously going to have to clarify my stance on the influence of gender on political mentality and the female vote? I can do that, but I really don't feel like it because it's like half-formed as is.
As long as it's presented cogently instead of just a flippant remark like it was here I'd be interested in hearing your rationale. Separate thread maybe?
Aight. I'm an egalitarian first, regardless of biological differences. Seeing, for example, irrefutable evidence that one ethnic group is inherently more prone to violence would not change that. I believe natural rights are inherent to all human beings. I believe some rights are god-given, and that some are simply reasonably inherent. I do not believe in the right to vote. We've all been over why I feel this way, most of you disagree with me. I don't believe humans have the right to exercise control over one another, especially not based on numerical majority. I am critical of all government, but I will admit to being more critical of democratic government lately. I think it is fairly clear, based on my interactions and what I know of scientific studies, that there are mental differences inherent to men and women. Whether these are entirely biological or partially culturally-implanted, the fact of the matter is that men and women, in general, think differently. I believe this impacts the voting tendencies of men and women, although to what extent is unclear. I recently heard it suggested that the social roles typically assumed by women, that of a nurturer and caregiver, are projected on the state when they vote, likewise men are likely to project the role of protector on the state. This is an uncomfortable thought, but I'll admit it has left an impression on me during the last week or so. I'm not comfortable completely committing to this position, because I am not as informed as I should be on the psychological and scientific understanding of the issue, if there is one. This is where I am at the moment. Misogynistic? You guys tell me, but if it is, tell me why. I strive for an egalitarian view always. http://sep7agon.net/serious/on-the-matter-of-women-and-the-vote/new/#new
2659
« on: January 05, 2016, 08:09:51 PM »
Am I now seriously going to have to clarify my stance on the influence of gender on political mentality and the female vote? I can do that, but I really don't feel like it because it's like half-formed as is.
2660
« on: January 05, 2016, 08:07:08 PM »
People have been just fine doing that shit for literally hundreds of years before women got the vote and people started looking at the state as some kind of nurturing parental figure rather than the strongest gang in the city.
uh
If I didn't post it in Serious, don't assume I meant it.
2661
« on: January 05, 2016, 08:05:04 PM »
before women got the vote and people started looking at the state as some kind of nurturing parental figure rather than the strongest gang in the city. I know it's a rather thrown around word
but wow you sound misogynistic af right now.
I think any credibility you had with your opinions on this is pretty much thrown out the window with something as childish and ignorant as this statement.
If you're going to write off acknowledging the biologically-run mindsets inherent to the genders as "misogynistic", your own credibility is nonexistent. That said, this is also something that was posted outside of Serious, so it's 50% shitposting. The "gubbermint is daddy" mindset isn't inherent to women, in my opinion. I wouldn't call Challenger a commie in Serious, but I would in the Flood, because it's not where we have serious discourse. Moving this thread kinda fucks me up and now I'll probably have to edit these posts so people don't get confused.
2662
« on: January 05, 2016, 07:55:06 PM »
2663
« on: January 05, 2016, 07:31:30 PM »
feldgrau best grau
suck a dick, brownies.
>krautshit
2664
« on: January 05, 2016, 07:25:50 PM »
stormtrooper aesthetics make fascism cool desu senpai
2665
« on: January 05, 2016, 07:17:07 PM »
aliens have always been in fallout though
An easter egg in Fallout 2 and wanamingos is not the same as implying in a DLC that they caused the great war, negating the entire premise of the series.
2666
« on: January 05, 2016, 07:15:12 PM »
But Nutria Brown is the true king 
2667
« on: January 05, 2016, 07:04:15 PM »
I'll be living there for a year in 2018/19.
Come to NC so we can shoot guns and smoke weed
2668
« on: January 05, 2016, 07:02:24 PM »
Again fuck off
People have been just fine doing that shit for literally hundreds of years before women got the vote and people started looking at the state as some kind of nurturing parental figure rather than the strongest gang in the city. Please, enlighten me on how we were all doing just fine until recently because of... something.
No, we're still doing pretty fine overall, unless you count poor people in urban settings, who have always been stupid and violent. They just got more stupid and violent when the institution of marriage was devalued and single parenthood was backed up by the state. Until that retard starts retarding on your shit, he can do all the retarding he wants.
He can't, though. Because that retard is causing other people to die and get hurt.
If he's actually causing people to die and get hurt, then he is retarding on their shit, and should be stopped. If he's just carrying around a gun to protect himself, or even just because he thinks it's cool, he's not causing shit and anyone with a beef can fuck off.
2669
« on: January 05, 2016, 06:50:25 PM »
Owning a gun is a privilege and not a right. Only a trained and cool headed individual that has a good and valid reason should own one.
Fuck off commie
It's my right to do whatever the fuck I want so long as I am not infringing on your rights. Get off my dick.
Your opinions are irrelevant. I've carried a gun when I needed to. My father would carry a gun when he needed to. It's a huge responsibility. The American attitude of treating guns as toys that they're entitled to own is laughable and really rather insane.
"Only QUALIFIED and TRAINED individuals like MYSELF and PEOPLE I LIKE should be allowed the means to defend themselves"
kys
Where does my like or dislike of somebody come into play?
Trained people who need a gun should have one. Not every fucking retard in the country.
More likely than not owning and carrying a gun will put you more at risk than being unarmed. It will almost always make a bad situation worse in the hands of an incompetent person.
Again fuck off People have been just fine doing that shit for literally hundreds of years before women got the vote and people started looking at the state as some kind of nurturing parental figure rather than the strongest gang in the city. Until that retard starts retarding on your shit, he can do all the retarding he wants.
2670
« on: January 05, 2016, 06:43:33 PM »
Owning a gun is a privilege and not a right. Only a trained and cool headed individual that has a good and valid reason should own one.
Fuck off commie
It's my right to do whatever the fuck I want so long as I am not infringing on your rights. Get off my dick.
Your opinions are irrelevant. I've carried a gun when I needed to. My father would carry a gun when he needed to. It's a huge responsibility. The American attitude of treating guns as toys that they're entitled to own is laughable and really rather insane.
"Only QUALIFIED and TRAINED individuals like MYSELF and PEOPLE I LIKE should be allowed the means to defend themselves" kys
Pages: 1 ... 878889 9091 ... 256
|
Show Posts
