New York rules its cool to look at kiddie porn

[Moxie]

For all intents and purposes, Ron Paul is an anarchist. He supports being able to completely drop out of the system and make a new system.

Ron Paul doesn't want property owners along the border to be free to let certain people onto their land. To enforce this he wants to use the muscle of the US military (which is funded by forced taxation). This doesn't exactly sound like a hardcore anarchist.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I find these convos funny.

...for the same reason the blind man thinks its funny that somebody would care what color car they drive.

 

[guerilla]

...for the same reason the blind man thinks its funny that somebody would care what color car they drive.

No, I find them funny because I am the guy arguing that blacks will be able to participate in civil society and some of you are arguing that they have always been, and will always be slaves and a savages.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

No, I find them funny because I am the guy arguing that blacks will be able to participate in civil society and some of you are arguing that they have always been, and will always be slaves and a savages.

Strawman.

See how easy that is?

 

[guerilla]

Strawman.

See how easy that is?

How easy it was for you to type "Strawman." or how easy it was for you to mis-identify a strawman?

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I didn't misrepresent your position. I compared it to positions in a different argument.

You guys kill me when you try to catch me on fallacies. All the ones I make, you guys miss, and the ones I don't make, you think you catch me on, lol.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I didn't misrepresent your position. I compared it to positions in a different argument.

You should tighten up your language then, because you gave no indication of using an a analogy. As typed, your statement is clearly a strawman.

"I am the guy arguing that blacks will be able to participate in civil society and some of you are arguing that they have always been, and will always be slaves and a savages."

If that's not a strawman because you claim you meant to use it as a comparison, then it's just a flawed analogy. I know you want to think you're Martin Luther King by defending the rights of pedophiles, but there is no comparison. Fuck it though, you've already compared yourself to Galileo in this thread, might as well shoot for the moon.

 

[guerilla]

You should tighten up your language then, because you gave no indication of using an a analogy.

Yeah, because I didn't post this;

I find these convos funny. I imagine people had these sorts of discussions about integrating blacks into civil society 200 years ago.

Here is a tip. Since you make logical fallacies in some of your posts and many of your rationales, focus on understanding why those statements are logically fallacious before you try to identify other people making them.

Fuck it though, you've already compared yourself to Galileo in this thread, might as well shoot for the moon.

I didn't just compare myself, I compared all libertarian anarchists to Galileo. That includes guys like Jake, LukeP, Geomark etc.

 

[Moxie]

The Church officials were willing that heliocentrism be taught as a hypothesis (not a fact) and discussed in scientific circles, so long as the faith of the ordinary people was safeguarded. But Galileo began to teach his theory loudly and widely, insisting that it was proven fact. It was not yet proven; not enough data existed to prove it.

Galileo


...it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers

So basically if Galileo was around today he might be a vocal proponent of theories like evolution and global warming, which would cause Guerilla to be all like "CAN YOU PROVE IT, YOU IDIOT PEASANT?"

 

[guerilla]

Yes Moxie, because I meant that we were literally like Galileo.

I do have a question for you. What is your best post on this forum? I am curious to know what your answer is.

 

[Moxie]

What is your best post on this forum?

This one right here. Yes, you would probably also be at a higher level than me on World of Warcraft if I/we played it.


Logical Fallacies» Red Herring

It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic.


Pissing contest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



you win

 

[guerilla]

Yes, you would probably also be at a higher level than me on World of Warcraft if I/we played it.

I play Eve. There are no levels.

It's a sandbox that favors cooperation over individualism.

It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic.

I wasn't introducing another topic. You troll me all the time, so I figured I would engage you for once. You don't want to talk about anything substantive, and a good 30~50% of your recent posts are about me or towards me, so I was just curious, what content do you think is your best. I knew it wouldn't be any of the posts to or about me.

you win

I'm a libertarian. I want a society where we all win.

 

[southbound]

The fact I am having a productive civil discussion with Super, and I think I had one with southbound is positive.

Yeah man, agreed.

I'll have to pick this up again with you in a bit. Right now I don't have the time I need to really read through and analyze everything thoroughly enough to go much deeper, and engaging you further without doing that would be pretty unfair. I think we have a lot of overlap in how we view things (though admittedly you've spent far more time discussing it up to this point so you are able to articulate your stance better), but there are also places where there looks to be a significant gap, and that intrigues me. So rain check for now, but going forward I'm interested to see how you apply your ideas to a few situations, most of which have to do with dealing with society/large groups. It seems to me that human nature has a lot of characteristics that make widespread, long term adoption of anarchy and libertarianism impossible.

Also, after seeing how this thread has developed - damn you have some patience and dedication for continuing while everyone seems to be trying to kick you in the balls, haha. :thumbsup:

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Why don't they do this now?

Kill over ridiculous reasons? They do.

I'm not sure this would necessarily be the case, but let's say it is. Why is this a problem?

I suppose it's not.

Not sure I understand this.

Is subjectivism something like: you believe in something and so to you that belief is true?

No. That was rational behavior. Consistent with the facts they understood.

They misunderstood the facts though. Based on reason (which is based on evidence), they did not act rationally. Again this assumes that some sort of absolute morality/reason/rationality exists.

Knowing isn't based exclusively on evidence. If that was true, we would never be able to progress technologically because without evidence, we could never know something new, which makes the unknown, unknowable.

To claim that all knowledge is inductive and not deductive essentially means you don't believe logic exists.

How can you know something without evidence?

Your position isn't correct, because for values to be objective, we would need to be omniscient. Basically, God. But if you know everything, you're no longer acting. By removing uncertainty, everything is just following a script.

We would need to know what absolute values are, yes. We're obviously not at the point of perceiving them now, but you could argue that we're evolving towards that knowledge. Just because we don't know what objective values are doesn't mean they don't exist.

But it is impossible for us to derive perfect choices without becoming God-like.

This is true. I think it's conceivable that at a certain point (if we make it that far) humans will be able to understand absolute values. Many of us understand absolute values today (ie killing innocent people is wrong). The trick then will be acting only on those values. It's not following a script, it's evolving towards more prosperity.

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact. It is a verifiable statement. It is logically consistent with itself.

I like chocolate ice cream best is a value statement. You cannot analyze this statement logically.

Man's values are not cardinal, they are ordinal. We basically rate things by their value to us, and so vanilla ranks lower than chocolate ice cream for me. It doesn't rank 3.76892 (a cardinal number) times lower. It is just lower comparatively.

I can see where you're going with this, because it does seem slightly absurd to conceive of a way to measure whether or not chocolate or vanilla is better (based on how your body chemistry reacts to the flavors). It would be rather tough to argue with someone and tell them their brain is tricking them into believing chocolate is better than vanilla.

In the same way it's tough to argue with someone and tell them their brain is tricking them into believing they talk to God when they pray.

 

[jacky8]

Don't take it personal and don't get frustrated, that's just the way his mind works. His condition does not allow him to see things the way most people do, but its not his fault.

Imagine trying to explain to a blind man why the appearance of a car is important. He may insist that the aerodynamics are the only thing that matters, explaining eloquently why fuel efficiency should be the only factor that people consider while buying a car, and how anyone that thinks otherwise is being impractical, etc - sound familiar?

The blind man is incapable of truly understanding why appearance matters, because he can't see it. He also works under the assumption that the value systems of everyone else should be similar to his since it's only practical (after all, he's right about the importance of fuel efficiency). However, you can argue till you're blue in the face, but a blind man will never be able to appreciate the importance of aesthetics to others. To him, it would simply be illogical.

Once you understand that you'll know that the only reason to argue with guerilla is for the sake of others that might be reading it. Now Jake on the other hand - I'd love to get him involved in one of these threads but I can never seem to get him to jump down the rabbit hole...

Yes, and this will go on and on when his mind says, "No admission for criticism." Not cool

Be careful what you ask for.


You're entitled to your opinion.


Of course it does. Government is based on violence.


I'm not assuming any conditions. I'm simply applying logic and my understanding of economics.


Not with violence in anarchy.


All profit is psychological.


I never said it was better. I said it was much better at many things and worse at others.

I would like all government to disappear in the next 50 years. Anything else is probably just a sideways move.


I don't think people deserve anything. Nature doesn't discount accidents of birth. I'm lucky to be born where I am. Some people are unlucky to be born where they are. None of us had a choice either way.


It's the same thing.


Does you feel it is fair to judge me, make claims that I am doing something unseemly or untoward, and then when called on it, refuse to offer specifics?

If you're going to accuse me of something, be a man and come out with it, or go fuck yourself. Understand?


I don't care except to point out that's it's pretty hypocritical for you to judge me personally (my mental health), to judge what I do (how I make money), and then you won't open yourself up to the same criticism.

I've already replied to most of this on this thread. Don't feel like writing another essay as you'll reject it anyway. Later

 

[ChrisDouthit]

Not good!

 

[guerilla]

I've already replied to most of this on this thread. Don't feel like writing another essay as you'll reject it anyway. Later

Yeah, you responded to everything except the false claims you made about me.

And as expected, when called to explain yourself, you run.

That's why people don't pay attention to what you say.

 

[Scattered]

Child pornography - you decide

Viewing child pornography online not a crime: New York court ruling | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

 

[jacky8]

Now you're asking me to repeat all that I've said earlier in this thread

Yeah, you responded to everything except the false claims you made about me.

No false claims

And as expected, when called to explain yourself, you run.

Explained everything. Re-read the posts

That's why people don't pay attention to what you say.

Keep thinking so if you like. Already explained how you are living with delusions and all that. You refuse to acknowledge. Start all over again from my first post in this thread

 

[guerilla]

false claims

 

[ThisWebThing]

Backlash grows at N.Y. ruling on viewing of child porn