Anarchist Stuff
- Thread starter guerilla
- Start date
Because it's simply impossible to have a discussion with you regarding the subject. You just don't want to listen.
When someone disagrees with you, you tell them they're uneducated, and need to do more research.
When someone gets you into a corner, you ignore what they say, and rant about ethics and morality.
You can be hypocritical at times, by using certain debate tactics when it's beneficial to you, but when someone turns around and does the same to you, you say they're not arguing logically, so what they say doesn't count.
You can be condescending in your posts.
Within these threads you make it seem like the world is full of very black & white decisions, when you know full well it's nowhere even close.
And so on...
I don't think I am morally superior to others. In fact, I never even consider whether I am better or worse than anyone else. That you think that, maybe says something about your self-esteem moreso than anything I say or do.
No need to be insecure. Just make good posts.
John, why would we be friends? We have nothing in common. And afaict, I can't see any benefit being friends with you would have on my life.
Tbh, I liked you better when the only thing I knew about you was that you were into Megadeth.
Is that really true? I have made hundreds of posts here on this subject. I have worked through post after post after post with probably hundreds of people. There are actually a large number of people who have been receptive to what I am saying.
So are you saying I don't listen to you, or I don't listen to anyone? Because the latter seems fallacious. And if I don't listen to you, why would that be?
These are the sorts of questions I have when pursuing your take on the situation.
No, I usually try to get them to explain themselves.
Lately, and ultimately, I have to tie things up (can't go back and forth indefinitely) and people who post on subjects they are ignorant of, definitely need to bone up. You wouldn't want me to be every discussion you have about programming, I barely know anything about programming.
Unlike some of the folks here, I have the good sense not to be loud on topics I have not done the research on.
I think this is a reasonable position. But let's say it isn't.
I have done a ton of work answering questions, explaining ideas, providing more material, answering PMs, taking skype chats etc. To claim I dismiss everyone who disagrees with me is nonsense.
Because if they are rational actors, they must have some ethics, and when they say something, it usually doesn't square with a rational ethic, hence why I try to square what they are trying to say (usually avoiding principles and premises) and instead get them to confront the contradiction.
If you believe in right and wrong, then that really puts limits on you to endorse anything.
If you don't, then you're an amoral actor, and it's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't believe he or the person he is arguing with has any right to exist. It's the definition of a psychopath.
So yeah, first I try to get people to acknowledge they are not psychopaths. Then I try to get them to see they endorse psychopathic behavior.
Source it. Call me on it. If I am doing this, and it is obvious, prove it. This is a public discussion. I won't be able to run from it.
This stuff sounds like sour grapes to me. It's like Ar Scion crying that I am a big meanie, instead of defending his position, or defining his terms. Then he has the gall to claim I am playing the emotional position.
Which is it?
I don't claim to be perfect. I make mistakes. If I am doing something illogical or wrong, I will be the first person to thank you for pointing it out. Including if I make logical fallacies.
But, I suspect you won't. See, you guys can float in the argument as long as you don't source proof, don't define terms, and won't back up your claims. The minute I ask for proof from one of you guys, you attack me personally for all of my supposed flaws, which anyone can see, has nothing to do with you guys proving what you say.
If you don't like my style, put me on ignore. I am not going to kiss your ass or be buddy buddy with people who argue for a society run on violence.
But this relativistic stuff is nonsense. Even sillier coming from a computer programmer.
Reality is objectively real. If someone shoots you in the face with a gun, you have a headwound. If someone takes your stuff without your consent, that is theft. If you jump out of a window, you will fall.
There are no grey areas, where you might accidentally fall upwards out of the window, or where the gunshot to your face makes you feel great.
Relativism on its face is silly, it's a way of saying "we don't know everything, therefore we can't know anything".
But if you can't know anything, how do you know everything is relativistic? If you're a relativist, you're saying that everything is subjective and that is an objective truth. If you can't understand this contradiction (one of many I am constantly pointing out) then ...
There are two domains of knowledge. Objective reality and subjective opinion. Subjectivity doesn't apply to the truthfulness of facts (Ar Scion's problem), only how you feel about them. You might not like that gravity will kill you when jumping out of a window, and I might like it because I am trying to commit suicide. But the fact that jumping out that window will lead to death or severe injury is a fact of material existence.
Part of me likes that you guys take the low road and attack me personally, because it encourages more people to pay attention to what I am saying. But the other side of it feels like it is cheating, and I would rather discuss with you honestly and intelligently and make my point by creating a solid and compelling argument.
Again, I am here, for a limited time at least. If you can make a better argument or prove me wrong, POST IT. Don't whine about what a big meanie I am, don't complain about me at all. I am not the mortal embodiment of anarchism. You can totally refute anarchism (if it is possible to do so) in this or any other thread you like.
No one is stopping you. So have at it, or please, remain silent and stop trolling people trying to have a serious discussion. Is that <== an unreasonable request?
Question for John and Matt. Before you post again, or in your next post, can you tell me if you believe that some actions are right and some actions are wrong?
My time is running short, and I want to get at least you two sorted out in this discussion. You claim you want a sincere and intelligent debate, great stuff.
Let's do it.
Instead of you guys attacking what I post non-specifically, I would love for both of you to articulate a few positions clearly. I assume you can, because you argue a lot on this topic, and I assume you would only do that if you had a clear understanding of your own position relative to what is posted.
Sound good? Up for the challenge?
I will try to make this as quick, easy and painless as possible.
My time is running short, and I want to get at least you two sorted out in this discussion. You claim you want a sincere and intelligent debate, great stuff.
Let's do it.
Instead of you guys attacking what I post non-specifically, I would love for both of you to articulate a few positions clearly. I assume you can, because you argue a lot on this topic, and I assume you would only do that if you had a clear understanding of your own position relative to what is posted.
Sound good? Up for the challenge?
I will try to make this as quick, easy and painless as possible.
I'm saying you don't listen to anyone who disagrees with you. Instead, you just put them on ignore, and pass them off as an idiot.
Because you think I'm an idiot, I'd imagine.
No, I don't put anyone on ignore. They're just words on a screen, after all.
No, I'm not about to spend the next 4 hours going through three dozen anarchy threads. I'm definitely nowhere close to perfect, and I screw up loads more than you, but yes, you have done this.
Right, I realize there's generally dozens of solutions to any given problem.
Ok, but what happens if you're the CEO of a company that's slowly failing? You can let the company go under so everyone loses their job, layoff a portion of people, ask everyone to take a pay cut, or accept the hostile takeover bid that's on the table. Which do you do? That's definitely not black and white, but it is a decision some people end up facing. Regardless of your decision, people are going to get hurt.
Or the guy who got laid off from the company above, and decides to steal a couple loaves of bread to feed his crying kids at home? Or decides to lie to people, and sells fake products in order to feed his kids, while he looks for another job?
Or what about the fireman in a burning house who only has seconds before the roof collapses, and can only save one person instead of all three? Who does he choose? That's not black and white, and it is a decision people get faced with.
Or the new prisoner who's forced to do things he doesn't like, such as smuggle drugs, or start a fight, in order to receive protection? Again, not black and white, and people do get faced with it.
Life and this world are full of decisions like that. Very rarely is there a straight point A to B in this life, and there definitely isn't one for a good or bad life / society / world.
We've tried, but it doesn't work with you guys. There's two main flaws with anarchy, both of which correlate. One is fundamental human nature and our basic physiological makeup, and two, our basic security needs. For answers, we get humans have magically become enlightened over the past few decades to now handle anarchy, and there will be private security forces available, both of which have huge holes in them. For examples, we get things like a 10 stall campground in the US, a 6 house community, and some AnCap society that briefly existed in Iceland hundreds of years ago.
None of this is ever going to convince me us humans are capable of anarchy on a large scale. Not to mention, considering these threads, I think all 7 billion of us are going to have to get doctorate degrees before we can live in this new anarchist society.
We're not. You were the one whining about people personally attacking you, and that they can't substaniate anything.
Easy answers bro, just decline to participate. Voluntarism. Walk away and Anarchy takes care of everything else.
Super isn't on my ignore list. Reimktg isn't on my ignore list. I am replying to you. John Matrix isn't on my ignore list.
I think this ^^ is sufficient to refute your point. What do you think?
You can't imagine it's because you might be wrong, or a poor communicator, or something else?
I have finite time. The ignore list keeps me from endlessly replying to people who care less about their time. I don't put people on ignore because I disagree with them. That's silly. I mean, I have tons of posts addressing all sorts of people who disagree with me on all sorts of angles. If I was using the ignore list to protect me from opinions I don't like (see me replying to you still?) I am doing a piss poor job of it, aren't I?
But if your point is that I am guilty of doing this stuff, surely you can point to one concrete example? I mean, it's sort of bullshit to accuse me of shit, and then claim it is too much work to back up what you say. That's my issue with emp. He wants me to sit here and defend my position, that he hasn't even taken the time to understand, and if I don't, then it means I am an asshole.
That's total crap.
I don't doubt I have made mistakes, lost my cool, said foolish things, but to say it is my normal operating mode and then turtle when called to explain, how can you feel good about doing that? I couldn't.
And yet in my mind, you're notorious for posting false dilemmas. And yes, I can provide plenty of examples.
I want to elevate the discussion. Just as you question me, and you pop up in all these threads, I have between 5 and 8 quick questions to ask you. You've already avoided the first question once.
I mean, if you're not attacking me, and you really have something to say, and you really want a productive discussion, then why are you not participating in good faith?
I'm tired of the personal attacks not because they hurt my feelings, but because they waste my time. They waste everyone's time and dilute the quality of discussion in these threads. You guys repeatedly shit in these threads, over and over and over again. It's frustrating that the best you can do, when I am willing to give you the floor, to state your case, to destroy my argument, is to complain about my ignore list, or how I am condescending.
How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot?
/personal shit
Sure it's black and white because you'll make a decision. Even is you don't make a decision, that's a decision. Don't confuse choice with ambiguity. They aren't the same thing.
Those are choices. Are you trying to suggest that there is a false dilemma, and that we have to act immorally when things get tough? These are in philosophy, "lifeboat scenarios". They are supposed to make an emotional argument by generating extreme situations with a single set of options in order to undermine logical argument. I am not saying you're doing it intentionally, but that is what you're doing.
Again, you're confusing a choice, or decision, with ambiguity. Sure, people make incorrect choices based on bad information or a bad perception of reality. It was never my argument that people are perfect or can be perfect. But just because people can't be perfect, doesn't mean they shouldn't strive to be good.
Or do you disagree?
Same thing. Material reality and time require us to make tradeoffs. This is fundamental to understanding anarchism. The very fact we have to make choices, make it that much more important to have a framework to make those choices in, and a means of assessing the quality of those choices when presented.
Hence, anarchy. Different people doing different things, different ways. You just made the argument against a monopoly society. Thanks.
I don't think anyone who knows what they are talking about has ever offered those as answers. I know I have not. Are you arguing a strawman perhaps? It is possible we're talking past each other.
Anarchy simply requires a change in morality. Just as people generally accept women's rights and do not accept slavery now, that's an evolution in the prevailing morality. I don't pretend it will come quick, or even will come at all. But if we can stop seeing blacks as slaves and instead start paying some of them millions to be athletes and musicians who entertain us, and if we can stop seeing women as witches and chattel slavery and have one actually in the running to be the leader of the free world, then I don't see that people realize that all theft and aggression is wrong.
Also, appeals to a "fundamental human nature" without a clear definition or proof isn't helpful. These sorts of gross generalizations usually get employed very casually, and we're all supposed to nod our heads and go, "yeah, that's how all humans are" when psychologically, there is a TON of diversity in the species.
Where people need security, and they would need a lot less of it absent the state, the market can provide for that. I always find it funny that people don't see the power and pervasiveness of the market. Except where violence constrains it, the market provides almost everything. In the video I posted above, Stefan Molyneux makes a great point. Government corruption is actually a black market in political power. There are no courts lobbyists can use to sue bribed officials for not following through. And yet hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign finance and favors runs through this system without any laws to guide it. In fact, it happens despite the fact there are laws to stop it!
Is that an open minded approach? That no matter what argument is made, you're not going to accept it?
I wish I had the intellectual confidence to reject things I haven't even heard/learned yet. You're a much more focused individual than I am.
You could answer my 5 or 8 short questions. Why won't you? I've definitely invested 10s if not 100s of hours into replying to you (even though you claim I think you're an idiot and ignore people I don't agree with), surely you can give me 15 minutes of your time?
We both know you're going to spend hours more reading these threads and replying anyway...
You can't. You can't live peacefully in a system that will kill you for non-compliance.
Walking away isn't anarchy. It's what people will do absent anarchy, but it is not anarchy itself.
You're still making the argument that people have a right to hurt me, and the burden is on me to stop them.
You're avoiding the question of right and wrong. Again.
If someone is doing wrong to me, shouldn't they stop?
Fair points. Answer this for me...
1. Would you agree that States have murdered FAR more people than individuals have over the last 100 years?
2. WHY do you think we're at war, or starting wars by proxy, with dozens of countries around the world? What's the motive?
3. True or False: Over the last decade, the Government has expanded wars of aggression, stripped away the rights of the people and continuously create laws that further exert their control over the people.
4. See #3. If this continues, do you believe that you'll live in a "free" society despite the expansion of control?
5. If humans are so violent, does it make sense to give the legal monopoly on using violence to a small group of people?
6. If someone was breaking into your home right now to rape, rob or murder your family, is it your responsibility to defend yourself, or do you trust the police to handle the situation for you?
7. When was the last time that the U.S. Government, or any Government has ceased to expand its power from the previous year? When was the last time that a Government reduced its size and scope of power? Do you not see a pattern here?
8. Let's assume that you own a nightclub. You know you'll have fights, you'll have to deal with violence. Would you hire private security or trust the police to protect you when you call them?
9. Do you believe that the only thing stopping your neighbors from initiating violence against you is the threat of consequences from the state?
10. Would you disagree that private security is more likely to have a vested interest in protecting you than someone with a monopoly on security? Do you deny that competition in ANY business is a good thing?
11. If we only had private security today, would you say "hey, we need to give someone the monopoly on this, let's allow ONE group of people to protect our safety, that's gotta work better than giving people a choice."
I could go on all day.
But I won't.
Answer those questions honestly, and then we'll talk.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp-Q4t-kJ2Q]Noam Chomsky - Government in the future - Poetry Center, New York - February 16, 1970 - YouTube[/ame]
I know right!? We should start a thread titled "Violent Draconian Statist Stuff." Would probably blow this one out of the water.
you guys posted some good videos now ill be watching these for the rest of the not interesting stuff
Don't worry.
Robomney will abolish all free speech soon. You'll be force-fed state sponsored two-party propaganda. You'll have Fox and CNN to choose from for your talking points.
You'll blame Obama.
The sad reality is, it's not Obama. It's your belief in a broken system. And you'll blame the people trying to save you from it.
The same people who rail about the "false left-right paradigm" and then call me a rightwinger?
LOL.