Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It sucks being healthy!!!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
    What a joke. The fact that human nature is hierarchic in a hierarchic society does not mean that a hierarchic division of people among different tasks is necessary for social life. It's not the capitalist institutions which satisfy human needs. It is the working people of capitalist society who shape themselves to fit the institutions of capitalist society.

    Your idea that civilization always defaults to a state, or a government, is metaphysical, non-empirical, ahistoric definition based on no facts and useless assumptions. Your entire post was full of slippery slope fallacies. Explain your stance on why this takes place, and leave your useless assumptions behind. Not interested in answering loaded questions.
    I'd say that 80% of everyone I've ever met (across 3 countries, 40+ cities/towns/villages and Gods know how many cultures) panics in a situation of non-authority and seeks the authority of another before acting. It's why fashion trends emerge, why certain celebrities are loved or hated, how fads are formed, why people stay in abusive relationships, how pseudoscience is believed...etc
    Even in areas where there is no official authority, people look up to others. The most 'popular' choice becomes the popular authority. This authority can then get away with a metric-shit-tonne more abuse than your run-of-the-mill person can. Think of the 30bad crew. One normal person on the forums says they can't quit cooked food? Attacked by the community. Banned by the 'authorities'. People accept the decision. Their 'leaders' start eating cooked food? Cooked food good. Or of some of the dumb fashion trends people follow. Everyday person wears a bright pink jacket? Pink's not popular. Pink bad. Gross. Unfashionable. Don't be seen with it. Celebrity/local popular person/fashion designer wears a bright pink jacket? Bright pink jackets sell out. Everyone seen in one at some point. Everywhere makes their own version to sell. That same person who was 'gross' before, who is still just wearing the jacket because they want to? They're hot now.

    Hell, I've worked out that, if you stand nearer the edge of the curb when waiting to cross, 8/10 people waiting next-to/behind you will NOT cross until you do so. When it's safe to cross before a car and I wait on the curb, the person behind me waits. When I step out and quickly move past a car that was getting pretty damn close, that person decides it's safe to cross and walks out after me. I've almost got people run over by doing that and sprinting in the last minute. Thrilling to watch such imbecility.

    Most people choose to be ruled in matters where ruling is not enforced.
    --
    Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

    --
    I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
    I'd apologize, but...

    Comment


    • if the people had the ability to organize themselves, some would choose communes and others would choose capitalist areas. As long as no government were involved, no one would be coerced into doing something that they don't want to. No useless taxes, no "social contracts" which I never signed, no brainwashing. People need to be liberated from enslavement. Their minds must be engaged.

      Isolated examples don't mean everyone. People are already beginning to wake up. There is no phantom guiding me, there is just a need for freedom and affirmation for potential. Only the state and war mongering private corporations want war. Obama for example is a war criminal in every example of the term.

      Do you ever wonder why the state slanders and yet fears anarchy and freedom so much? Hint: it's not because people are inherently violent savage creatures. They're the only violent savages around.
      Last edited by Derpamix; 09-11-2013, 04:21 PM.
      Make America Great Again

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
        if the people had the ability to organize themselves, some would choose communes and others would choose capitalist areas. As long as no government were involved, no one would be coerced into doing something that they don't want to. No useless taxes, no "social contracts" which I never signed, no brainwashing. People need to be liberated from enslavement. Their minds must be engaged.

        Isolated examples don't mean everyone. People are already beginning to wake up. There is no phantom guiding me, there is just a need for freedom and affirmation for potential. Only the state and war mongering private corporations want war. Obama for example is a war criminal in every example of the term.
        I do think communes or tribes are the natural human state. I just also find that most people are incapable of fully independent action. My isolated examples are from across Gods know how many cultures and subcultures, hundreds of communities, 3 countries (physically), 20 countries (online) and tens of population centres. And I have met very few humans who do not seek leadership in even very simple matters.
        If your general person thought independently, there wouldn't be such a huge bias towards 'popular culture'. The most common diets, fanbases, music genres...etc would be the most common by a fraction of a percentage, not by a landslide. Yet your everyday delta seeks authority. Where they find no authority, they assign authority to one of those who desire it. Then they ask authority what they must do.
        --
        Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

        --
        I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
        I'd apologize, but...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kochin View Post
          I do think communes or tribes are the natural human state. I just also find that most people are incapable of fully independent action. My isolated examples are from across Gods know how many cultures and subcultures, hundreds of communities, 3 countries (physically), 20 countries (online) and tens of population centres. And I have met very few humans who do not seek leadership in even very simple matters.
          If your general person thought independently, there wouldn't be such a huge bias towards 'popular culture'. The most common diets, fanbases, music genres...etc would be the most common by a fraction of a percentage, not by a landslide. Yet your everyday delta seeks authority. Where they find no authority, they assign authority to one of those who desire it. Then they ask authority what they must do.
          Yet, in my short life, I've never seen people so distrustful of government, and so resentful of big businesses(the GMO thing caught like a wildfire). Even now, this website, despite looking for leadership as you say, it's directly rebelling against the God awful health guidelines established by the state. It's small steps, it is not impossible. Anarchism is a permanent struggle. I have hope that it will happen though.

          Once people attach themselves to this ideology, even if it were lead by example, they are engaging their minds and struggling against the authoritarians that have atrophied them. It's not about being led, so much as being coerced into following. Democracy does not represent freedom or equality, it is a tool of the state. It has failed. There are obvious winners and losers among the outcome, as well as the obvious influence and corruption.
          Last edited by Derpamix; 09-11-2013, 04:34 PM. Reason: *following derp
          Make America Great Again

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
            Yet, in my short life, I've never seen people so distrustful of government, and so resentful of big businesses(the GMO thing caught like a wildfire). Even now, this website, despite looking for leadership as you say, it's directly rebelling against the God awful health guidelines established by the state. It's small steps, it is not impossible. Anarchism is a permanent struggle. I have hope that it will happen though.

            Once people attach themselves to this ideology, even if it were lead by example, they are engaging their minds and struggling against the authoritarians that have atrophied them. It's not about being led, so much as being coerced into leading. Democracy does not represent freedom or equality, it is a tool of the state. It has failed. There are obvious winners and losers among the outcome, as well as the obvious influence and corruption.
            People fight current authority because it is failing them. Don't get your hopes up. They will seek another authority. They vote red, then blue, then red, then blue, each time expecting novelty. Now that's wearing off, they'll vote green or yellow, or walk themselves into a dictatorship (which frequently arise from weak democracies such as those that currently abound in the West).

            I've reached the conclusion that a majority of the human population can no longer be educated in these matters, just brainwashed one way or another. You can brainwash them into accepting a truth, but it's still just brainwashing. Then again, if that gives you results, what does it matter? I manipulate people all the bloody time. If they're so weak as to accept my authority, then why not take advantage of their weakness? Survival of the fittest at its finest.

            Don't wait for others to awaken. Educate those who can be educated. Brainwash those who cannot be educated but may be useful. Allow these brainwashed people to put you and the educated on a pedestal. Use your position of authority to form your own tribe. Cut yourself off from the rest of them. Enjoy life.
            Waiting for others to awaken is futile and will just waste the time you'd otherwise enjoy.
            --
            Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

            --
            I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
            I'd apologize, but...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kochin View Post
              People fight current authority because it is failing them. Don't get your hopes up. They will seek another authority. They vote red, then blue, then red, then blue, each time expecting novelty. Now that's wearing off, they'll vote green or yellow, or walk themselves into a dictatorship (which frequently arise from weak democracies such as those that currently abound in the West).

              I've reached the conclusion that a majority of the human population can no longer be educated in these matters, just brainwashed one way or another. You can brainwash them into accepting a truth, but it's still just brainwashing. Then again, if that gives you results, what does it matter? I manipulate people all the bloody time. If they're so weak as to accept my authority, then why not take advantage of their weakness? Survival of the fittest at its finest.

              Don't wait for others to awaken. Educate those who can be educated. Brainwash those who cannot be educated but may be useful. Allow these brainwashed people to put you and the educated on a pedestal. Use your position of authority to form your own tribe. Cut yourself off from the rest of them. Enjoy life.
              Waiting for others to awaken is futile and will just waste the time you'd otherwise enjoy.
              Maybe I have too much hope in mankind, then.

              I believe our rights are inalienable. Each person born to the world is heir to all the preceding generations. I believe the whole world is ours by birth rights alone. Duties imposed as obligations or ideals, such as patriotism, duty to state, worship of a deity, submission to higher classes or authorities, respect for inherited privileges, are heinous lies. Given that, submission to these forms of slavery means to surrender your life. I don't believe that people are too stupid to do anything, let alone something as simple as what they are born as.

              I think that if I were to pass off my thoughts, I would leave it up to them, otherwise I'm no better than the fascist state which I hate. If this means a never-ending struggle until I die, and see my hopes crash and burn, then it is what it is. I feel, at least I will have held steadfast to my ideals.

              It all comes down to coercion versus free will. You are right though, I need to just learn to enjoy my own life.

              Now, Jefferson:

              "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
              Last edited by Derpamix; 09-11-2013, 05:04 PM.
              Make America Great Again

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                I've been in a lot of situations where everyone is civilized and no one is governed.
                "Civilized" in that context means being agreeable with each other. That is far, far below the threshold needed to keep together the massive civilization that we have today. Don't you know that tribes tend to split up once they get close to a couple hundred or so? Natural human agreeableness would not hold together modern civilization.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                  "Civilized" in that context means being agreeable with each other. That is far, far below the threshold needed to keep together the massive civilization that we have today. Don't you know that tribes tend to split up once they get close to a couple hundred or so? Natural human agreeableness would not hold together modern civilization.


                  pls go with this overdone statist bootlicking argument.
                  Make America Great Again

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mr. Anthony View Post
                    I just want to point out that on a thread where Wilt is lamenting not being able to meet women who are "up to standard" I've now gotten TWO women who are very much "up to standard" to consider coming out to Colorado to hang out and hike and possibly make out.

                    Wilt, do you want some personal training on this?
                    Up to standard because they want to fuck? Being states away from you, you must have some low standards.

                    Up to standard because they are smart? Not by my observation.

                    Comment


                    • Mr. A, give up on trying to teach someone too dumb to learn...

                      He obviously thinks no one is "up to standard" aside from mom and his right hand.
                      Last edited by turquoisepassion; 09-11-2013, 05:31 PM.
                      ------
                      HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).

                      My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links


                      Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes

                      " The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by diene View Post
                        The central axiom of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, and the non-aggression principle is based on the idea that each individual owns him or herself (self-ownership). The non-aggression principle simply states that one person may not initiate force against another person. This is because the initiation of force violates the other person's property rights in himself. In this sense, libertarianism is grounded in property rights. It is not based on the ideas of the Founding Fathers or the early United States (although some Founders had libertarianesque views, those ideas were not fully developed). For more information on this topic, I recommend the following article by Stephan Kinsella: What Libertarianism Is - Stephan Kinsella - Mises Daily

                        I consider myself to be a Rothbardian. This means that I mostly subscribe to the views/teachings of the libertarian political theorist, Murray Rothbard. Now, some of Rothbard's views changed at different times during his life, and he was not always 100% consistent (for example, near the end of his life, he became anti-immigration, which really didn't make much sense since he was also an anarchist) so this can be confusing to people. Most Rothbardians today just subscribe to Rothbard's libertarian views and ignore his deviations--it's not a cult after all.

                        So, yes, I am an anarchist, but this does not mean that I believe in chaos. For some reason, a lot of people equate anarchy with chaos or disorder, everybody killing everybody else on the streets. This is not the case. Anarchists simply do not believe that the state should have a monopoly over the legitimate use of force (because we don't believe that the initiation of force is ever legitimate).

                        It is, however, legitimate to use force in self-defense, and, in an anarchist society, there will still be courts (and by courts, I mean, a decision-making body that resolves disputes--so it would be more like a mediation/arbitration panel than actual judges in robes) and security forces (something akin to a police force, except they won't get to shoot people and dogs with impunity). Many people have come up with theories of how this would work. These services will most likely be provided by insurance companies because insurance companies would have an interest in ensuring that their clients' persons and property are safe.

                        Also, regardless of what role the government plays, the government's authority always comes from force or the threat of force. In the end, the government can only tell you what to do or not do because it can arrest you and even kill you if you didn't comply. It is this characteristic (? for lack of a better term) that libertarians object to.

                        Edited to Add: This thread has really been derailed now.
                        The non-aggression principle is liberal weak sauce. Competition is a fundamental part of human life. If you restrict competition from going on in the public's eye, it will go on behind closed doors. What's wrong with that? Less stability, less checks and balances of power, and ultimately less sovereignty of each individual. Today, governments stand in the way of guys like Bill Gates from lording over the entire world like a Risk game. Without it, the capitalism nature is exponential, so power consolidates into far fewer hands than it would with governmental checks against them.

                        "Liberties", again a vague concept, are good. However, there must be a tradeoff of liberties vs non-liberties for a working society to exist. Anarchism, once again, removes competition and power structures from the public eye. In the private eye, with modern society, you'll find nothing but selfish and destructive people doing business with no checks at all except the "evil" government. I thank fate that we have government for those situations.

                        The utopian libertarian/anarchist society has never existed and will never exist. Any anarchist society will necessarily break apart into groups no larger than roughly 200 people. At that point, I agree that there can be some level of peace within the society. Ironically though, the inter-society violence sometimes raises the total level of violence above modern day standards. I say sometimes because there have been countless tribes in history, and I only know a small fraction. This is the evidence of human history speaking.

                        And my argument against going back to tribal living is simply: Humans can do more than that. We can and should achieve great things. We should exceed Earth's humble confines. We should learn, create, explore, and ultimately achieve the maximum potential of the human mind until we evolve to an even higher potential. If you're not growing, why are you living? And factually speaking, human tribes are guaranteed to die within a set period of time because of the changing climate/sun/solar system. Achieving and exploring humans are not.
                        Last edited by wiltondeportes; 09-11-2013, 05:43 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by diene View Post
                          The central axiom of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, and the non-aggression principle is based on the idea that each individual owns him or herself (self-ownership). The non-aggression principle simply states that one person may not initiate force against another person. This is because the initiation of force violates the other person's property rights in himself. In this sense, libertarianism is grounded in property rights. It is not based on the ideas of the Founding Fathers or the early United States (although some Founders had libertarianesque views, those ideas were not fully developed). For more information on this topic, I recommend the following article by Stephan Kinsella: What Libertarianism Is - Stephan Kinsella - Mises Daily

                          I consider myself to be a Rothbardian. This means that I mostly subscribe to the views/teachings of the libertarian political theorist, Murray Rothbard. Now, some of Rothbard's views changed at different times during his life, and he was not always 100% consistent (for example, near the end of his life, he became anti-immigration, which really didn't make much sense since he was also an anarchist) so this can be confusing to people. Most Rothbardians today just subscribe to Rothbard's libertarian views and ignore his deviations--it's not a cult after all.

                          So, yes, I am an anarchist, but this does not mean that I believe in chaos. For some reason, a lot of people equate anarchy with chaos or disorder, everybody killing everybody else on the streets. This is not the case. Anarchists simply do not believe that the state should have a monopoly over the legitimate use of force (because we don't believe that the initiation of force is ever legitimate).

                          It is, however, legitimate to use force in self-defense, and, in an anarchist society, there will still be courts (and by courts, I mean, a decision-making body that resolves disputes--so it would be more like a mediation/arbitration panel than actual judges in robes) and security forces (something akin to a police force, except they won't get to shoot people and dogs with impunity). Many people have come up with theories of how this would work. These services will most likely be provided by insurance companies because insurance companies would have an interest in ensuring that their clients' persons and property are safe.

                          Also, regardless of what role the government plays, the government's authority always comes from force or the threat of force. In the end, the government can only tell you what to do or not do because it can arrest you and even kill you if you didn't comply. It is this characteristic (? for lack of a better term) that libertarians object to.

                          Edited to Add: This thread has really been derailed now.
                          Women that can write so eloquently about libertarianism while referring to Rothbard, Mises Daily, and the Non-Aggression Axiom are hard to find. If you lived closer, I'd be attracted to you like white on rice on a paper plate in a snowstorm .
                          In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

                          This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            The utopian libertarian/anarchist society has never existed and will never exist. Any anarchist society will necessarily break apart into groups no larger than roughly 200 people.
                            You just destroyed your own argument. You have no facts, or evidence. The rest is redundant, and you're droning on about a whole of nothing, particularly your contradictory final paragraph.

                            A state utopia will never exist either, and it has been, and currently in practice everywhere. You blame human beings on the downfall of society, but place necessity on the state to control these people. Does that not mean that your state is failing? The failure of people is done by the state enabling policies that repeatedly fail these people.

                            You are now King of the world, free to do whatever you want with the Earth's society. What laws, policies, et al. do you create to "fix" everything? How do you fix the economy that the state has ruined through deceitful "borrowing" and printing useless paper currencies that have no real meaning. The history of money is that at every turn it has been created by states. Virtually every naturally emerging market in history has been a credit-based one, and the state has later commodified this credit for the purpose of paying soliders who do not have the necessary social ties to maintain the network of trust necessary to function within a credit economy.

                            Do you expand government even more? Do you decrease government? You have all the answers apparently, enough to discredit widescale anarchy based on the fact it has never existed(it hasn't), so surely you can enlighten me.
                            Last edited by Derpamix; 09-11-2013, 06:00 PM.
                            Make America Great Again

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                              What a joke. The fact that human nature is hierarchic in a hierarchic society does not mean that a hierarchic division of people among different tasks is necessary for social life. It's not the capitalist institutions which satisfy human needs. It is the working people of capitalist society who shape themselves to fit the institutions of capitalist society.

                              Your idea that civilization always defaults to a state, or a government, is metaphysical, non-empirical, ahistoric definition based on no facts and useless assumptions. Your entire post was full of slippery slope fallacies. Explain your stance on why this takes place, and leave your useless assumptions behind. Not interested in answering loaded questions.
                              Ok... slow down, buddy. I wish you could see the irony in advocating Nietzsche and libertarianism or anarchism at the same time.

                              My comment that libertarianism being anti-social does not mean a "libertarian society" (in quotes because one never has and never will exist, except as defined loosely and in tribes) wouldn't be social. I meant that being anti-government often equates to being anti-society, which equates to being anti-social. If you're anti-government and still social, you probably either don't work hard enough for your 'ideals', or you are friends with a bunch of other dumb or questionable people too.

                              Capitalist institutions and working people within the society satisfy human needs as well as human goals. In fact, capitalist institutions are fundamentally made of humans. Artistotle's very definition of citizenship is to become a (small) part of the institution itself.

                              When did I say civilization defaults to a state? According to my definition, civilization *is* a state. Anything else, aka tribal living, is not civilization; therefore it is uncivilized. The features of modern civilization can *only* exist with a state though. Perhaps that is what you were referring to. Are you saying that's non-empirical? I believe I'm 100% backed by empirical evidence. As we moved from the stone age, to the bronze age, to the iron age, to the industrialized age, to the computer age, the need for the state has increased. Why? Because all of these advancements have made it easier for individuals to exponentially increase their power over others. Government helps protect the 99% from the 1%.

                              That last little emotional burst was nice because I'm ready and psyched for any kind of heat, but I'm not sure you can bring it.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post


                                pls go with this overdone statist bootlicking argument.
                                I can't watch right now. Please paraphrase.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X