TOPICS:
MAY 19, 2008 05:15 PM
LSlice said:
Ok, whatever, here is what I said:
I define the use of force as government. If the bloods set up a cartel in Newark, that's government. If a guy robs you at gunpoint, he's acting as government. The genuinely accepted theory is that it's better to have one group have a monopoly on the legitimate, or socially acceptable, use of force.
The fact that individuals have the right to own guns does not mean they have the unrestricted right to use them. If a corporation has a private armed force, they are acting as a government. If the legitimate state condones this, it's what we anarchist nuts call "soft fascism" or the merging of the state and big business. The power of money is only the use of force as long as there is a state monopolized currency. If competing currencies would be legal, you would be free to create your own bank and currency system, and if you could find other individuals who would work with your currency, you would not be beholden to nig businesses' money. As I said earlier, there is some question with regards to acces to natural resources, although I don't think you have an inherent right to developed resources you did not contribute to.
You do know that your idea was tried at one time, and was a miserable failure? Back in the 1800s, banks were able to issue their own currency. My father has a $10 bill issued by a bank in Kansas. The problem is, such bills can be refused by anyone. That is the reason this idea doesn't work. Ranchers would bring their cattle from Texas up to Kansas to put them on the trains. They'd be paid in the currency issued by the local bank, and head home. When they get home, they try to spend the currency, but the local bank and businesses either refuse the money, or only give a fraction of the face value.
The same thing occurs in Great Britain. I was on a trip that first stopped in Scotland, and I changed some of my money into pounds, issued by the Bank of Scotland. Theoretically, they exchange exactly 1:1 for pounds issued by the Bank of England. However, when I made my way down to London, several of the small local shops refused to accept the bills (I think some denominations were less likely to be accpeted than others because of counterfeiting problems).
MAY 19, 2008 05:18 PM
bean said:
LSlice said:
I define the use of force as government. If the bloods set up a cartel in Newark, that's government. If a guy robs you at gunpoint, he's acting as government. The genuinely accepted theory is that it's better to have one group have a monopoly on the legitimate, or socially acceptable, use of force.
Good lord that's a retarded and unproductive way of looking at it. Now I don't feel so bad that my well thought out comment in response to your last non-response got eaten when my browser crashed. I don't think there's anything I have to discuss with you any further with regard to government or society. It's not that I have a problem rationally discussing things with people who have wildly divergent viewpoints from mine, it's that I can't communicate with you when you're using totally different definitions for common words, because at that point, we're not even speaking the same language.
Perhaps, and I agree, it does seem like we are speaking and thinking in entirely different terms. I would point out, however that my use of the term is not a definition completely out of left field.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-George Washington.
MAY 19, 2008 05:21 PM
LSlice said:
Ok, whatever, here is what I said:
I define the use of force as government. If the bloods set up a cartel in Newark, that's government. If a guy robs you at gunpoint, he's acting as government. The genuinely accepted theory is that it's better to have one group have a monopoly on the legitimate, or socially acceptable, use of force.
Is my boisterous forceful laughing at you government?
MAY 19, 2008 05:21 PM
coyotemike said:
LSlice said:
Ok, whatever, here is what I said:
I define the use of force as government. If the bloods set up a cartel in Newark, that's government. If a guy robs you at gunpoint, he's acting as government. The genuinely accepted theory is that it's better to have one group have a monopoly on the legitimate, or socially acceptable, use of force.
The fact that individuals have the right to own guns does not mean they have the unrestricted right to use them. If a corporation has a private armed force, they are acting as a government. If the legitimate state condones this, it's what we anarchist nuts call "soft fascism" or the merging of the state and big business. The power of money is only the use of force as long as there is a state monopolized currency. If competing currencies would be legal, you would be free to create your own bank and currency system, and if you could find other individuals who would work with your currency, you would not be beholden to nig businesses' money. As I said earlier, there is some question with regards to acces to natural resources, although I don't think you have an inherent right to developed resources you did not contribute to.
You do know that your idea was tried at one time, and was a miserable failure? Back in the 1800s, banks were able to issue their own currency. My father has a $10 bill issued by a bank in Kansas. The problem is, such bills can be refused by anyone. That is the reason this idea doesn't work. Ranchers would bring their cattle from Texas up to Kansas to put them on the trains. They'd be paid in the currency issued by the local bank, and head home. When they get home, they try to spend the currency, but the local bank and businesses either refuse the money, or only give a fraction of the face value.
The same thing occurs in Great Britain. I was on a trip that first stopped in Scotland, and I changed some of my money into pounds, issued by the Bank of Scotland. Theoretically, they exchange exactly 1:1 for pounds issued by the Bank of England. However, when I made my way down to London, several of the small local shops refused to accept the bills (I think some denominations were less likely to be accpeted than others because of counterfeiting problems).
I don't have a problem with the government issuing currency. If they do the best job, then everyone would use the government's currency. However, I don't see how allowing competition can hurt, especially since the if your model is true, the vast majority of people would continue to use the official government currency. Perhaps all that allowing competing currency would do is serve as a check to irresponsible monetary practices by the central bank.
MAY 19, 2008 05:23 PM
attn_ho said:
LSlice said:
Ok, whatever, here is what I said:
I define the use of force as government. If the bloods set up a cartel in Newark, that's government. If a guy robs you at gunpoint, he's acting as government. The genuinely accepted theory is that it's better to have one group have a monopoly on the legitimate, or socially acceptable, use of force.
Is my boisterous forceful laughing at you government?
Not unless you can laugh in bullets.
MAY 19, 2008 05:26 PM
LSlice said:
coyotemike said:
LSlice said:
Ok, whatever, here is what I said:
I define the use of force as government. If the bloods set up a cartel in Newark, that's government. If a guy robs you at gunpoint, he's acting as government. The genuinely accepted theory is that it's better to have one group have a monopoly on the legitimate, or socially acceptable, use of force.
The fact that individuals have the right to own guns does not mean they have the unrestricted right to use them. If a corporation has a private armed force, they are acting as a government. If the legitimate state condones this, it's what we anarchist nuts call "soft fascism" or the merging of the state and big business. The power of money is only the use of force as long as there is a state monopolized currency. If competing currencies would be legal, you would be free to create your own bank and currency system, and if you could find other individuals who would work with your currency, you would not be beholden to nig businesses' money. As I said earlier, there is some question with regards to acces to natural resources, although I don't think you have an inherent right to developed resources you did not contribute to.
You do know that your idea was tried at one time, and was a miserable failure? Back in the 1800s, banks were able to issue their own currency. My father has a $10 bill issued by a bank in Kansas. The problem is, such bills can be refused by anyone. That is the reason this idea doesn't work. Ranchers would bring their cattle from Texas up to Kansas to put them on the trains. They'd be paid in the currency issued by the local bank, and head home. When they get home, they try to spend the currency, but the local bank and businesses either refuse the money, or only give a fraction of the face value.
The same thing occurs in Great Britain. I was on a trip that first stopped in Scotland, and I changed some of my money into pounds, issued by the Bank of Scotland. Theoretically, they exchange exactly 1:1 for pounds issued by the Bank of England. However, when I made my way down to London, several of the small local shops refused to accept the bills (I think some denominations were less likely to be accpeted than others because of counterfeiting problems).
I don't have a problem with the government issuing currency. If they do the best job, then everyone would use the government's currency. However, I don't see how allowing competition can hurt, especially since the if your model is true, the vast majority of people would continue to use the official government currency. Perhaps all that allowing competing currency would do is serve as a check to irresponsible monetary practices by the central bank.
How could the competing currency have any value for trade across state or national lines?
MAY 19, 2008 05:33 PM
coyotemike said:
LSlice said:
coyotemike said:
LSlice said:
Ok, whatever, here is what I said:
I define the use of force as government. If the bloods set up a cartel in Newark, that's government. If a guy robs you at gunpoint, he's acting as government. The genuinely accepted theory is that it's better to have one group have a monopoly on the legitimate, or socially acceptable, use of force.
The fact that individuals have the right to own guns does not mean they have the unrestricted right to use them. If a corporation has a private armed force, they are acting as a government. If the legitimate state condones this, it's what we anarchist nuts call "soft fascism" or the merging of the state and big business. The power of money is only the use of force as long as there is a state monopolized currency. If competing currencies would be legal, you would be free to create your own bank and currency system, and if you could find other individuals who would work with your currency, you would not be beholden to nig businesses' money. As I said earlier, there is some question with regards to acces to natural resources, although I don't think you have an inherent right to developed resources you did not contribute to.
You do know that your idea was tried at one time, and was a miserable failure? Back in the 1800s, banks were able to issue their own currency. My father has a $10 bill issued by a bank in Kansas. The problem is, such bills can be refused by anyone. That is the reason this idea doesn't work. Ranchers would bring their cattle from Texas up to Kansas to put them on the trains. They'd be paid in the currency issued by the local bank, and head home. When they get home, they try to spend the currency, but the local bank and businesses either refuse the money, or only give a fraction of the face value.
The same thing occurs in Great Britain. I was on a trip that first stopped in Scotland, and I changed some of my money into pounds, issued by the Bank of Scotland. Theoretically, they exchange exactly 1:1 for pounds issued by the Bank of England. However, when I made my way down to London, several of the small local shops refused to accept the bills (I think some denominations were less likely to be accpeted than others because of counterfeiting problems).
I don't have a problem with the government issuing currency. If they do the best job, then everyone would use the government's currency. However, I don't see how allowing competition can hurt, especially since the if your model is true, the vast majority of people would continue to use the official government currency. Perhaps all that allowing competing currency would do is serve as a check to irresponsible monetary practices by the central bank.
How could the competing currency have any value for trade across state or national lines?
In the modern era, where communication is instantaneous, is could have alot of value. People might restrain its use for trade of specific types of goods or services. The masses would only use it if it held its value better then the official currency. One thing I think people fail to see is that alot of the suppossed failures of the free market were more so technological failures, and that much of the improvement of living standards comes from increases in technology, rather then the expansion of government.
Of course, it's quite possible that no one would use a competing currency. But if that's the case, what's the harm in legalizing it? This would solve the moral dilemma that Sock Puppet was referring to with ownership of money as a form of government power.
MAY 19, 2008 05:43 PM
LSlice said:
In the modern era, where communication is instantaneous, is could have alot of value. People might restrain its use for trade of specific types of goods or services. The masses would only use it if it held its value better then the official currency. One thing I think people fail to see is that alot of the suppossed failures of the free market were more so technological failures, and that much of the improvement of living standards comes from increases in technology, rather then the expansion of government.
Of course, it's quite possible that no one would use a competing currency. But if that's the case, what's the harm in legalizing it? This would solve the moral dilemma that Sock Puppet was referring to with ownership of money as a form of government power.
I won't claim to be any sort of economic . . . . well, anything. But it seems to me that having two competeing currencies would either partially of fully devalue both currencies at the same time.
MAY 19, 2008 05:46 PM
LSlice said:
Ok, whatever, here is what I said:
I define the use of force as government. If the bloods set up a cartel in Newark, that's government. If a guy robs you at gunpoint, he's acting as government. The genuinely accepted theory is that it's better to have one group have a monopoly on the legitimate, or socially acceptable, use of force.
The fact that individuals have the right to own guns does not mean they have the unrestricted right to use them. If a corporation has a private armed force, they are acting as a government. If the legitimate state condones this, it's what we anarchist nuts call "soft fascism" or the merging of the state and big business. The power of money is only the use of force as long as there is a state monopolized currency. If competing currencies would be legal, you would be free to create your own bank and currency system, and if you could find other individuals who would work with your currency, you would not be beholden to nig businesses' money. As I said earlier, there is some question with regards to acces to natural resources, although I don't think you have an inherent right to developed resources you did not contribute to.
Thank you, I think I have enough to understand your basic position.
But we're back to the place we started:
- All of that may well work properly while business is not constrained by lack of natural resources.
- Where is the mechanism to control business when it chooses to threaten its own (long-ish term) survival by expending irreplaceable resources?
MAY 19, 2008 07:19 PM
SockPuppet said:
LSlice said:
Ok, whatever, here is what I said:
I define the use of force as government. If the bloods set up a cartel in Newark, that's government. If a guy robs you at gunpoint, he's acting as government. The genuinely accepted theory is that it's better to have one group have a monopoly on the legitimate, or socially acceptable, use of force.
The fact that individuals have the right to own guns does not mean they have the unrestricted right to use them. If a corporation has a private armed force, they are acting as a government. If the legitimate state condones this, it's what we anarchist nuts call "soft fascism" or the merging of the state and big business. The power of money is only the use of force as long as there is a state monopolized currency. If competing currencies would be legal, you would be free to create your own bank and currency system, and if you could find other individuals who would work with your currency, you would not be beholden to nig businesses' money. As I said earlier, there is some question with regards to acces to natural resources, although I don't think you have an inherent right to developed resources you did not contribute to.
Thank you, I think I have enough to understand your basic position.
But we're back to the place we started:
- All of that may well work properly while business is not constrained by lack of natural resources.
- Where is the mechanism to control business when it chooses to threaten its own (long-ish term) survival by expending irreplaceable resources?
The answer I believe, is the dilemma we are soon to face. Systematic change will be required. And I think, frankly, it will probably wind up being something like world socialism. However, I think a truly free market system, like the one I am envisioning, would be radically different from the modern world of business, and would support a more sustainable economy. There's actually a name for this concept: Sustainable capitalism. You can google it if you like. It gets back to Mill's point that perpetual growth is not necessarily the most desirable thing for an economy.
And this ties back to the monetary issue. Constant growth is necessary in a system where currency is created to regulate the market and is backed by future debt. If money is backed by tangible assets, it's supply is only expanded when the economy is ready to expand based on technological innovation, not constantly as a normal state of affairs, which is ultimately impossible. Although Malthus did not factor technology into mhis equation, his basic point was right. I would recommend reading Jared Diamond's Collapse for a case analysis of real world malthusian corrections (genocide).
Although it's a grim prospect, do you think, realistically, the US entitlement system for seniors, which, according to Comptroller General David Walker, will eventually require 80% income tax, is likely to be sustainable over the next forty years, with all the pressing ecological factors?
Adroitbeing
I'm lost
September 2003
MAY 20, 2008 08:42 AM
I remain overwhelmed by the number of inaccuracies and the repeated misuse of concepts taken out of context. You are indeed a master deconstructionist and we have fallen into your trap.
Of course you embrace chaos, especially when you author it. Having done so, you can shift gears, change subjects, insert useless content, and continue shifting the platform, which gives you control; it's chaos for everyone but you. Then of course you repeatedly fail to respond to the rebuttals of your assertions; well played.
EG, you can't use a single quote from George Washington to define an entity as complex as government. You are a human being comprised of muscle, skin, bone, and other artifacts. I might call you a jerk, but you certainly would not take that on as a complete definition would you? Earlier, I offered that you were probably not intellectually dishonest, but I was wrong.
Your David Walker quote, removed from context is another perfect abuse of hyperbole.
Once, a very long time ago as a young hippie, I rode the wave of smash the state. It too was anarchistic, and wild, and fantasy filled. Then I realized that if I smashed the fucking state, someone would need to create a viable alternative. Who would that be? Moreover, if I simply smashed the state to fulfill my own bourgeoisie-filled fantasy and created all this chaos; what would be done to ensure that others who were ill prepared for this change could thrive?
LSlice deconstructionism is a useful technique to learn why things work or do not work. However, you've abused the model and crossed the line to immature anarchism for the simple purpose of stirring up shit. Why don't you come back when your thinking has matured and you have a better grasp on your motives?
MAY 20, 2008 12:43 PM
Adroitbeing said:
I remain overwhelmed by the number of inaccuracies and the repeated misuse of concepts taken out of context. You are indeed a master deconstructionist and we have fallen into your trap.
Of course you embrace chaos, especially when you author it. Having done so, you can shift gears, change subjects, insert useless content, and continue shifting the platform, which gives you control; it's chaos for everyone but you. Then of course you repeatedly fail to respond to the rebuttals of your assertions; well played.
EG, you can't use a single quote from George Washington to define an entity as complex as government. You are a human being comprised of muscle, skin, bone, and other artifacts. I might call you a jerk, but you certainly would not take that on as a complete definition would you? Earlier, I offered that you were probably not intellectually dishonest, but I was wrong.
Your David Walker quote, removed from context is another perfect abuse of hyperbole.
Once, a very long time ago as a young hippie, I rode the wave of smash the state. It too was anarchistic, and wild, and fantasy filled. Then I realized that if I smashed the fucking state, someone would need to create a viable alternative. Who would that be? Moreover, if I simply smashed the state to fulfill my own bourgeoisie-filled fantasy and created all this chaos; what would be done to ensure that others who were ill prepared for this change could thrive?
LSlice deconstructionism is a useful technique to learn why things work or do not work. However, you've abused the model and crossed the line to immature anarchism for the simple purpose of stirring up shit. Why don't you come back when your thinking has matured and you have a better grasp on your motives?
/clap
/clap
/clap
well said.
MAY 20, 2008 12:44 PM
Adroitbeing said:
I remain overwhelmed by the number of inaccuracies and the repeated misuse of concepts taken out of context. You are indeed a master deconstructionist and we have fallen into your trap.
Of course you embrace chaos, especially when you author it. Having done so, you can shift gears, change subjects, insert useless content, and continue shifting the platform, which gives you control; it's chaos for everyone but you. Then of course you repeatedly fail to respond to the rebuttals of your assertions; well played.
EG, you can't use a single quote from George Washington to define an entity as complex as government. You are a human being comprised of muscle, skin, bone, and other artifacts. I might call you a jerk, but you certainly would not take that on as a complete definition would you? Earlier, I offered that you were probably not intellectually dishonest, but I was wrong.
Your David Walker quote, removed from context is another perfect abuse of hyperbole.
Once, a very long time ago as a young hippie, I rode the wave of smash the state. It too was anarchistic, and wild, and fantasy filled. Then I realized that if I smashed the fucking state, someone would need to create a viable alternative. Who would that be? Moreover, if I simply smashed the state to fulfill my own bourgeoisie-filled fantasy and created all this chaos; what would be done to ensure that others who were ill prepared for this change could thrive?
LSlice deconstructionism is a useful technique to learn why things work or do not work. However, you've abused the model and crossed the line to immature anarchism for the simple purpose of stirring up shit. Why don't you come back when your thinking has matured and you have a better grasp on your motives?
You did not adress anything specifically as false, so I will reply to the sole substantive part of your argument. It is the responsibility of individuals, acting out of concern for themselves, their communties, and the general welfare, to create alternatives that don't rely on violence. You know nothing about me, but I am actually quite engaged in these efforts on a local level.
MAY 20, 2008 12:46 PM
When I say chaos, I refer to the concept of enthalpy; order that arises spontaneously from complexity.
MAY 20, 2008 12:50 PM
Since you have accused me of taking David Walker out of context, I will let him speak for himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIgrxpp97OQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXr_Ga_n0pY&feature=related
MAY 20, 2008 01:22 PM
LSlice said:
Adroitbeing said:
Of course you embrace chaos, especially when you author it. Having done so, you can shift gears, change subjects, insert useless content, and continue shifting the platform, which gives you control; it's chaos for everyone but you. Then of course you repeatedly fail to respond to the rebuttals of your assertions; well played.
EG, you can't use a single quote from George Washington to define an entity as complex as government. You are a human being comprised of muscle, skin, bone, and other artifacts. I might call you a jerk, but you certainly would not take that on as a complete definition would you? Earlier, I offered that you were probably not intellectually dishonest, but I was wrong.
Your David Walker quote, removed from context is another perfect abuse of hyperbole.
Once, a very long time ago as a young hippie, I rode the wave of smash the state. It too was anarchistic, and wild, and fantasy filled. Then I realized that if I smashed the fucking state, someone would need to create a viable alternative. Who would that be? Moreover, if I simply smashed the state to fulfill my own bourgeoisie-filled fantasy and created all this chaos; what would be done to ensure that others who were ill prepared for this change could thrive?
LSlice deconstructionism is a useful technique to learn why things work or do not work. However, you've abused the model and crossed the line to immature anarchism for the simple purpose of stirring up shit. Why don't you come back when your thinking has matured and you have a better grasp on your motives?
You did not adress anything specifically as false, so I will reply to the sole substantive part of your argument. It is the responsibility of individuals, acting out of concern for themselves, their communties, and the general welfare, to create alternatives that don't rely on violence. You know nothing about me, but I am actually quite engaged in these efforts on a local level.
"you can't prove me wrong in the posts that i actually choose to pay attention to (because they don't prove me wrong), so i'm going to keep quintuple-posting drivel in a manner that highlights either my failure to grasp the way which these boards function or that my own functioning has been impaired by one or more of any of a plethora of available substances*, so that by the time everybody is catching up, they'll have to fill pages of posts with the examples, hoping that they will instead make mosts attacking my methods as a whole rather than providing the monstrous mountain of mistakes that i either didn't bother to look up or posted deliberately, so that i might attack them for failing to cite specific fallacies."
that's what i got out of that.
*: not saying you're actually imbibing, injecting, inserting, inhaling, or instigating an instance of inebriation through use of industrial ingredients, merely that it might be a possibility.
MAY 20, 2008 01:30 PM
scylis said:
LSlice said:
Adroitbeing said:
Of course you embrace chaos, especially when you author it. Having done so, you can shift gears, change subjects, insert useless content, and continue shifting the platform, which gives you control; it's chaos for everyone but you. Then of course you repeatedly fail to respond to the rebuttals of your assertions; well played.
EG, you can't use a single quote from George Washington to define an entity as complex as government. You are a human being comprised of muscle, skin, bone, and other artifacts. I might call you a jerk, but you certainly would not take that on as a complete definition would you? Earlier, I offered that you were probably not intellectually dishonest, but I was wrong.
Your David Walker quote, removed from context is another perfect abuse of hyperbole.
Once, a very long time ago as a young hippie, I rode the wave of smash the state. It too was anarchistic, and wild, and fantasy filled. Then I realized that if I smashed the fucking state, someone would need to create a viable alternative. Who would that be? Moreover, if I simply smashed the state to fulfill my own bourgeoisie-filled fantasy and created all this chaos; what would be done to ensure that others who were ill prepared for this change could thrive?
LSlice deconstructionism is a useful technique to learn why things work or do not work. However, you've abused the model and crossed the line to immature anarchism for the simple purpose of stirring up shit. Why don't you come back when your thinking has matured and you have a better grasp on your motives?
You did not adress anything specifically as false, so I will reply to the sole substantive part of your argument. It is the responsibility of individuals, acting out of concern for themselves, their communties, and the general welfare, to create alternatives that don't rely on violence. You know nothing about me, but I am actually quite engaged in these efforts on a local level.
"you can't prove me wrong in the posts that i actually choose to pay attention to (because they don't prove me wrong), so i'm going to keep quintuple-posting drivel in a manner that highlights either my failure to grasp the way which these boards function or that my own functioning has been impaired by one or more of any of a plethora of available substances*, so that by the time everybody is catching up, they'll have to fill pages of posts with the examples, hoping that they will instead make mosts attacking my methods as a whole rather than providing the monstrous mountain of mistakes that i either didn't bother to look up or posted deliberately, so that i might attack them for failing to cite specific fallacies."
that's what i got out of that.
*: not saying you're actually imbibing, injecting, inserting, inhaling, or instigating an instance of inebriation through use of industrial ingredients, merely that it might be a possibility.
Examples are appreciated.
MAY 20, 2008 01:42 PM
LSlice said:
scylis said:
LSlice said:
Adroitbeing said:
Of course you embrace chaos, especially when you author it. Having done so, you can shift gears, change subjects, insert useless content, and continue shifting the platform, which gives you control; it's chaos for everyone but you. Then of course you repeatedly fail to respond to the rebuttals of your assertions; well played.
EG, you can't use a single quote from George Washington to define an entity as complex as government. You are a human being comprised of muscle, skin, bone, and other artifacts. I might call you a jerk, but you certainly would not take that on as a complete definition would you? Earlier, I offered that you were probably not intellectually dishonest, but I was wrong.
Your David Walker quote, removed from context is another perfect abuse of hyperbole.
Once, a very long time ago as a young hippie, I rode the wave of smash the state. It too was anarchistic, and wild, and fantasy filled. Then I realized that if I smashed the fucking state, someone would need to create a viable alternative. Who would that be? Moreover, if I simply smashed the state to fulfill my own bourgeoisie-filled fantasy and created all this chaos; what would be done to ensure that others who were ill prepared for this change could thrive?
LSlice deconstructionism is a useful technique to learn why things work or do not work. However, you've abused the model and crossed the line to immature anarchism for the simple purpose of stirring up shit. Why don't you come back when your thinking has matured and you have a better grasp on your motives?
You did not adress anything specifically as false, so I will reply to the sole substantive part of your argument. It is the responsibility of individuals, acting out of concern for themselves, their communties, and the general welfare, to create alternatives that don't rely on violence. You know nothing about me, but I am actually quite engaged in these efforts on a local level.
"you can't prove me wrong in the posts that i actually choose to pay attention to (because they don't prove me wrong), so i'm going to keep quintuple-posting drivel in a manner that highlights either my failure to grasp the way which these boards function or that my own functioning has been impaired by one or more of any of a plethora of available substances*, so that by the time everybody is catching up, they'll have to fill pages of posts with the examples, hoping that they will instead make mosts attacking my methods as a whole rather than providing the monstrous mountain of mistakes that i either didn't bother to look up or posted deliberately, so that i might attack them for failing to cite specific fallacies."
that's what i got out of that.
*: not saying you're actually imbibing, injecting, inserting, inhaling, or instigating an instance of inebriation through use of industrial ingredients, merely that it might be a possibility.
Examples are appreciated.
Crack. definitely crack.
MAY 20, 2008 01:57 PM
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
LSlice said:.
scylis said:
LSlice said:
Adroitbeing said:
I remain overwhelmed by the number of inaccuracies and the repeated misuse of concepts taken out of context. You are indeed a master deconstructionist and we have fallen into your trap.
Of course you embrace chaos, especially when you author it. Having done so, you can shift gears, change subjects, insert useless content, and continue shifting the platform, which gives you control; it's chaos for everyone but you. Then of course you repeatedly fail to respond to the rebuttals of your assertions; well played.
EG, you can't use a single quote from George Washington to define an entity as complex as government. You are a human being comprised of muscle, skin, bone, and other artifacts. I might call you a jerk, but you certainly would not take that on as a complete definition would you? Earlier, I offered that you were probably not intellectually dishonest, but I was wrong.
Your David Walker quote, removed from context is another perfect abuse of hyperbole.
Once, a very long time ago as a young hippie, I rode the wave of smash the state. It too was anarchistic, and wild, and fantasy filled. Then I realized that if I smashed the fucking state, someone would need to create a viable alternative. Who would that be? Moreover, if I simply smashed the state to fulfill my own bourgeoisie-filled fantasy and created all this chaos; what would be done to ensure that others who were ill prepared for this change could thrive?
LSlice deconstructionism is a useful technique to learn why things work or do not work. However, you've abused the model and crossed the line to immature anarchism for the simple purpose of stirring up shit. Why don't you come back when your thinking has matured and you have a better grasp on your motives?
You did not adress anything specifically as false, so I will reply to the sole substantive part of your argument. It is the responsibility of individuals, acting out of concern for themselves, their communties, and the general welfare, to create alternatives that don't rely on violence. You know nothing about me, but I am actually quite engaged in these efforts on a local level.
"you can't prove me wrong in the posts that i actually choose to pay attention to (because they don't prove me wrong), so i'm going to keep quintuple-posting drivel in a manner that highlights either my failure to grasp the way which these boards function or that my own functioning has been impaired by one or more of any of a plethora of available substances*, so that by the time everybody is catching up, they'll have to fill pages of posts with the examples, hoping that they will instead make mosts attacking my methods as a whole rather than providing the monstrous mountain of mistakes that i either didn't bother to look up or posted deliberately, so that i might attack them for failing to cite specific fallacies."
that's what i got out of that.
*: not saying you're actually imbibing, injecting, inserting, inhaling, or instigating an instance of inebriation through use of industrial ingredients, merely that it might be a possibility.
Examples are appreciated.
Crack. definitely crack.
No, no no maybe he is huffing paint/canned air/gas. I do not think it is crack.
bean
STAFF
Los Angeles, CA
MAY 19, 2008 05:14 PM