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 ... 109110111 112113 ... 256
3301
« on: November 05, 2015, 04:03:08 PM »
The social stigma surrounding an act is enough. However effective violence and coercion may be at stopping undesirable behavior, they are morally reprehensible and undesirable in their own right.
This seems like a really awful society to live in. The populace doesn't magically come to others defense all the time. What kind of fantasy world is it where mob justice is fair, reasonable, and effective? Were the lynch mobs the epitome of fair society?
Democracy itself is a form of mob justice, that's what I'm arguing against. What is democratically-imposed law other than a lynch mob sending specially-trained men with body armor and badges to do the lynching?
Ostracism and social stigma do not require violence, and those who try to use violence to impose their ideals and desires should be ostracized themselves if they survive their assaults on other people.
I think it's pretty obvious that a society like what I advocate needs everyone to be on the same page regarding human rights. That's why I know it won't happen in my lifetime. Maybe someday, maybe never. But it is feasible, and far more morally upright than any society that exists or ever has.
Government exists BECAUSE people can't be expected to be moral and considerate in behavior.
They can to a good degree, if the social consequences are steep enough and the community largely shares values.
Any outliers who decide to aggress risk getting themselves killed in defense. It would be a very poor decision.
Except social stigmas and community values can be largely arbitrary and as history has shown, dangerously bigoted.
Well yeah, that's human nature. These values will exist with or without a state. They'll exist in any setting with one or more humans interacting. Would you prefer a state exist to back these values up with organized thugs?
3302
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:50:31 PM »
The social stigma surrounding an act is enough. However effective violence and coercion may be at stopping undesirable behavior, they are morally reprehensible and undesirable in their own right.
This seems like a really awful society to live in. The populace doesn't magically come to others defense all the time. What kind of fantasy world is it where mob justice is fair, reasonable, and effective? Were the lynch mobs the epitome of fair society?
Democracy itself is a form of mob justice, that's what I'm arguing against. What is democratically-imposed law other than a lynch mob sending specially-trained men with body armor and badges to do the lynching?
Ostracism and social stigma do not require violence, and those who try to use violence to impose their ideals and desires should be ostracized themselves if they survive their assaults on other people.
I think it's pretty obvious that a society like what I advocate needs everyone to be on the same page regarding human rights. That's why I know it won't happen in my lifetime. Maybe someday, maybe never. But it is feasible, and far more morally upright than any society that exists or ever has.
Government exists BECAUSE people can't be expected to be moral and considerate in behavior.
They can to a good degree, if the social consequences are steep enough and the community largely shares values. Any outliers who decide to aggress risk getting themselves killed in defense. It would be a very poor decision.
3303
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:47:11 PM »
I don't believe everyone has the right to do literally whatever they want. I believe the only limit to your negative rights is the point at which your actions would violate the negative rights of another person. You can spit all you want as long as you don't spit on me or mine.
Private owner A fairly purchased and owns his land, which includes the headwaters of a river.
He dumps his shit and trash in the river, which negatively effects anyone downstream.
Those downstream have some options.
They can build a filter to keep his shit out.
They can talk to private owner A and ask that he cease his activity. From here they can agree to go to an independent conflict-resolution organization and figure it out from there.
If private owner A refuses to cooperate, they will do what they need to to keep his shit out of their segment of the river, maybe dam it up.
Violence isn't necessary here and if anyone downstream assaults owner A he is right to defend himself.
It would be smart for everyone who controls a segment of the river to sit down with the others and write out a contract addressing these matters.
So basically owner A is allowed to detriment others and everyone as a whole has to play around it?
Why exactly should those downriver not violently solve this problem if owner A refuses to compromise? It seems that leaving owner A alone causes a lot more net suffering than confiscating his land and detaining him. Sure breaking owner A's consent may be a negative consequence, but so to is everyone having to deal with a toxified river.
What I want you to explain is why you think that owner A's consent is inherently more valuable than the quality of life of others.
The non-aggression principle is something that should be used reasonably, not dogmatically. You've not made it clear what's happening to the river here. Is owner A pissing and shitting downstream or is he dumping toxic waste? If what he's doing is endangering or damaging other people or their property, they can do what they have to to protect themselves after diplomatic options are exhausted or made impossible. If he's doing something trivial, it would be outrageous to assault him. Whatever solution you follow, you are going to have to go out of your way. Building a dam or shooting owner A both take effort. But the social consequences of shooting owner A will likely outweigh the cost of damming up your segment of the river- not even addressing the inherent dangers and chance you'll get yourself killed. I don't take the NAP to its logical conclusion- if I did I'd be saying you could attack someone for projecting light waves onto your yard or something. I'm not. Further, net suffering or net happiness is a retarded metric irrelevant to people who aren't utilitaricucks.
3304
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:37:49 PM »
The social stigma surrounding an act is enough. However effective violence and coercion may be at stopping undesirable behavior, they are morally reprehensible and undesirable in their own right.
This seems like a really awful society to live in. The populace doesn't magically come to others defense all the time. What kind of fantasy world is it where mob justice is fair, reasonable, and effective? Were the lynch mobs the epitome of fair society?
Democracy itself is a form of mob justice, that's what I'm arguing against. What is democratically-imposed law other than a lynch mob sending specially-trained men with body armor and badges to do the lynching? Ostracism and social stigma do not require violence, and those who try to use violence to impose their ideals and desires should be ostracized themselves if they survive their assaults on other people. I think it's pretty obvious that a society like what I advocate needs everyone to be on the same page regarding human rights. That's why I know it won't happen in my lifetime. Maybe someday, maybe never. But it is feasible, and far more morally upright than any society that exists or ever has.
3305
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:28:50 PM »
I don't believe everyone has the right to do literally whatever they want. I believe the only limit to your negative rights is the point at which your actions would violate the negative rights of another person. You can spit all you want as long as you don't spit on me or mine.
Private owner A fairly purchased and owns his land, which includes the headwaters of a river.
He dumps his shit and trash in the river, which negatively effects anyone downstream.
Those downstream have some options. They can build a filter to keep his shit out. They can talk to private owner A and ask that he cease his activity. From here they can agree to go to an independent conflict-resolution organization and figure it out from there. If private owner A refuses to cooperate, they will do what they need to to keep his shit out of their segment of the river, maybe dam it up. Violence isn't necessary here and if anyone downstream assaults owner A he is right to defend himself. It would be smart for everyone who controls a segment of the river to sit down with the others and write out a contract addressing these matters.
3306
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:23:53 PM »
You can have societal standards and rules without the existence of a violent territorial hierarchy imposing those rules using threats or open violence. How do you enforce anything without the eventual fallback to using force?
Ostracization. It may not be a crime to cheat on your partner, but you will face significant social consequences if someone finds out. Nobody has the right to imprison you for cheating, and most people recognize that, but they can exercise their right not to interact with you. The social stigma surrounding an act is enough. However effective violence and coercion may be at stopping undesirable behavior, they are morally reprehensible and undesirable in their own right.
3307
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:17:59 PM »
You can't agree with me that there is no society that places the individual above the collective and then come around and say that this anarchic society you refer to has at least one rule that prevents individuals from pursuing certain courses of action. Which one is it?
What if I want, as an individual, to establish a violent society? Wouldn't you then have to compromise my right to say "no" to your anarchic society if you wanted the anarchy to survive? This is why it isn't possible.
There are the rules imposed via cultural and social means, not violent. You could try to rob me, but if you survive your attempt, you will and should be shunned. You can try to start whatever community projects you like so long as you are not imposing your will on others through violent means. Everyone must consent. If you try and impose your new culture violently, anarchists can and should use whatever means of force they possess to defend themselves. Meanwhile, outsiders will view you in a negative light, and possibly help defend those you are assaulting. You're probably going to get yourself and any followers (though why anyone would follow you willingly is beyond me) killed. I don't believe everyone has the right to do literally whatever they want. I believe the only limit to your negative rights is the point at which your actions would violate the negative rights of another person. You can spit all you want as long as you don't spit on me or mine. Anarchism is the absence of an imposed hierarchical structure, not one in and of itself. You wouldn't be saying "no" to anarchy so much as you'd be saying "yes" to some form of hierarchy. Ideally, enough of us would say "no" and you'd have to back down or be killed trying to force someone else to do something.
3308
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:01:35 PM »
What is true civility anyways? A society in which the rights of all individuals, including the oft-ignored but extremely important right to say "no", are respected. And by definition there is no society that places the individual above the collective; otherwise the society would be useless and meaningless, and you would have total anarchy, a state in which the individual is, by the laws of the definition of anarchy, considered more important than the collective. EXACTLY The pesky thing about humans is that their social tendencies will, at that point, cause them to form groups with rules, and then you have society again. Even under anarchy you have society. Just society free from violently imposed rules. You can have societal standards and rules without the existence of a violent territorial hierarchy imposing those rules using threats or open violence. Civil society? Maybe not. But I'm not sure what you think of as civil anyways.
Anarchist society is the only societal structure that has the potential to be civil. Hierarchy imposed violently is by its very nature uncivil and immoral.
3309
« on: November 05, 2015, 12:35:13 PM »
Paul Ryan
3310
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:47:20 AM »
POST YFW CATHOLICFAGS GET SHIT ON 
3311
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:35:51 AM »
I have no idea what the cause was. If you didn't know your friend was troubled, it doesn't sound like you were much of a friend.
3312
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:33:12 AM »
Houston voted down HERO.
It IS Texas, so that shouldn't surprise anyone.
and it just boiled down to "They're gonna rape a girl in the bathroom" so that's pretty bad
What the hell is HERO
http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Houston_Anti-Discrimination_HERO_Veto_Referendum,_Proposition_1_%28November_2015%29#Text_of_measure
Question gives the best summary "Are you in favor of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, Ord. No. 2014-530, which prohibits discrimination in city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment, and housing based on an individual’s sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy?"
only scumbags think they can tell private employers why they can or can't hire someone. City services is one thing, private is a whole fucking other.
3313
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:07:30 AM »
collectivism is largely tied to the notion of a greater universal good and other consequentialist bullshit that necessarily entails coercion.
unless you can provide incentive, which is the only tricky part
working for the greater good should be all the incentive you need, tbh
but it just doesn't work that way for some people
(because they're selfish cunts)
I really do agree (Except for the notion that there is a greater good) However Every person has the right to be a selfish cunt. And we can treat them like selfish cunts, no problem. But we can't just force them to contribute.
3314
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:01:14 AM »
People working together =\= a collectivist society where people are forced to work together
there's no real difference, but i mean, whatever
that's not necessarily what a collectivist society entails anyway
collectivism just means group priority--however you achieve that is gonna vary, but it doesn't have to be forced
collectivism is largely tied to the notion of a greater universal good and other consequentialist bullshit that necessarily entails coercion.
3315
« on: November 05, 2015, 10:55:09 AM »
Point being, in a collectivist setting, you will be forced to do things you are deeply personally opposed to. And nobody's going to give a shit if you think it's a bad idea. You're a minority, shut the fuck up and follow for the "greater good".
you're already forced to do things you're "deeply personally" opposed to
that goes for every society ever
a truly individualistic society would not do this. A voluntary society is the only society that does anything more than paying lip service to the rights of the individual.
3316
« on: November 05, 2015, 10:47:18 AM »
Point being, in a collectivist setting, you will be forced to do things you are deeply personally opposed to. And nobody's going to give a shit if you think it's a bad idea. You're a minority, shut the fuck up and follow for the "greater good".
3317
« on: November 05, 2015, 10:44:48 AM »
Fuck the individual, tbh
sorry but you're in a collectivist society, nobody cares what you think :^)
ideally
the population is getting too low because of the last famine
we're sending you to the breeding camps. you will be compensated 55?beets for your absence from the labor force
oh i get it, this is supposed to trigger me because i'm against breeding or something
nowhere in collectivism does it say you have to breed though, so that's all right
population is low. high council has chosen breeding camps as a solution to the problem of population. You have been selected based on desirable genes and IQ.
get on the truck now. It's for the Greater Good™
i'm actually on the high council
we decided a long time ago that breeding camps are retarded and that it would be smarter to sterilize everybody
are you mentally disabled?
we're rerouting this unit to the mental evaluation tent for testing
i can't both have a desirable IQ and be mentally disabled
find a better way to demonstrate the ebuls of cullectibism because you're not doing a very good job
this unit is failing to doublethink Exterminate please
3318
« on: November 05, 2015, 10:41:41 AM »
Fuck the individual, tbh
sorry but you're in a collectivist society, nobody cares what you think :^)
ideally
the population is getting too low because of the last famine
we're sending you to the breeding camps. you will be compensated 55?beets for your absence from the labor force
oh i get it, this is supposed to trigger me because i'm against breeding or something
nowhere in collectivism does it say you have to breed though, so that's all right
population is low. high council has chosen breeding camps as a solution to the problem of population. You have been selected based on desirable genes and IQ.
get on the truck now. It's for the Greater Good™
i'm actually on the high council
we decided a long time ago that breeding camps are retarded and that it would be smarter to sterilize everybody
are you mentally disabled? we're rerouting this unit to the mental evaluation tent for testing
3319
« on: November 05, 2015, 10:37:01 AM »
Fuck the individual, tbh
sorry but you're in a collectivist society, nobody cares what you think :^)
ideally
the population is getting too low because of the last famine
we're sending you to the breeding camps. you will be compensated 55?beets for your absence from the labor force
oh i get it, this is supposed to trigger me because i'm against breeding or something
nowhere in collectivism does it say you have to breed though, so that's all right
population is low. high council has chosen breeding camps as a solution to the problem of population. You have been selected based on desirable genes and IQ. get on the truck now. It's for the Greater Good™
3320
« on: November 05, 2015, 10:33:10 AM »
Fuck the individual, tbh
sorry but you're in a collectivist society, nobody cares what you think :^)
ideally
the population is getting too low because of the last famine we're sending you to the breeding camps. you will be compensated 55 beets for your absence from the labor force
3321
« on: November 05, 2015, 10:29:30 AM »
Fuck the individual, tbh
sorry but you're in a collectivist society, nobody cares what you think :^)
3322
« on: November 05, 2015, 10:26:42 AM »
Only a society that places the individual above the collective can ever be truly civil.
3323
« on: November 05, 2015, 01:09:30 AM »
3324
« on: November 04, 2015, 11:36:39 PM »
Wait, aren't Sikh's pacifists? Or is that Jainists?
Well, they carry knives around with them at all times.
The modern Kirpan is no more a knife than a pry bar is.
Well yeah, Sikhs in first world countries get cucked and can't carry seriously effective weapons. Sikhs in their homeland, though...
3325
« on: November 04, 2015, 11:31:09 PM »
Wait, aren't Sikh's pacifists? Or is that Jainists?
Well, they carry knives around with them at all times.
well then i must be seriously mistaken
Sikhism is a pretty based warlike religion. Sikhs are required to be armed at all times, to the point where even countries like Canada usually exclude them from knife laws. The religion was founded as a reaction to Islamic abuses in India, and so Sikhs always needed to be ready to defend themselves and others.
3326
« on: November 04, 2015, 10:54:10 PM »
I made two attempts in the last year or so.
It's really hard to talk about. For me at least. You have to understand when you're in a place like that, you're not thinking right. You don't reason like you should.
3327
« on: November 04, 2015, 10:24:22 PM »
 >3 tours of duty in Afghanistan, 1 in Bosnia. >First Sikh to command a regiment in Canadian Forces. >detective in Gang Crime Unit in Vancouver PD Canada's new Defence Minister was born to remove kebab How can one man have so much bloodlust that he'd volunteer to go to Afghanistan three times?
3328
« on: November 04, 2015, 09:58:46 PM »
Fascism is rooted deeply in Greece?
LOL
O
L
It's literally the democracy country.
Ancient Athens might have been practicing the rough beginnings of what they called democracy. However, you forget that Sparta was a militarised society, mainly trained and refined to keep their huge number of slaves and servants in check. On top of that outside of Athens most others had their own kings or lords.
But it wasn't fascism. Neither is a monarchy.
Spartan ideology wasn't all that far from fascism.
Veneration of the state and the spartan people over the individual, collectivist worldview, extreme militarism, avoidance of materialism, focus on producing the strongest people possible.
The connections are strong IMO.
Eh maybe
Either way one city state isn't all of Greece.
Exactly.
Thebes and Syracuse were monarchies, Corinth was an oligarchy until Kypselos took over, but then an assassination of the current tyrant decades later returned it to the rule of a select few families. Eretia was run by the religious class until the Athenians took it over, if I recall right.
Then there was the Makadonian kingdom... and the Hellenistic nations of Epirus, Seleucid, and the Ptolemaic kingdom were all dynasty based.
I'm so fucking excited to declare Classical Studies as my minor
3329
« on: November 04, 2015, 05:47:16 PM »
Fascism is rooted deeply in Greece?
LOL
O
L
It's literally the democracy country.
Ancient Athens might have been practicing the rough beginnings of what they called democracy. However, you forget that Sparta was a militarised society, mainly trained and refined to keep their huge number of slaves and servants in check. On top of that outside of Athens most others had their own kings or lords.
But it wasn't fascism. Neither is a monarchy.
Spartan ideology wasn't all that far from fascism. Veneration of the state and the spartan people over the individual, collectivist worldview, extreme militarism, avoidance of materialism, focus on producing the strongest people possible. The connections are strong IMO.
3330
« on: November 04, 2015, 02:23:17 PM »
I feel like I'm going to be put on a watch list for visiting Golden Dawn's website to read their manifesto.
Do they have an english page or did you have to use a translator?
https://xaameriki.wordpress.com/the-manifesto-of-golden-dawn/
"1) I embrace the third major ideology of history, the one that is the most rooted in the history of my people. Opposed both to communist internationalism and universalism-liberalism." wtf lol it's okay to use the word fascism
Pages: 1 ... 109110111 112113 ... 256
|
Show Posts