Re: Who have you convinced to vote today?

Started by ManyMindsManyVoices, November 02, 2010, 02:24:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ManyMindsManyVoices

"I do my share of leading, and it is to my close friends, and in an entirely advisory capacity. Were I to go to the polls, I would sadly find that there is no, 'No one gets the office', option, and as an anarchist, I simply can't bring myself to vote for which of the two loathsome human beings will lead. The lesser evil isn't good enough for me, and so, I find that not voting really doesn't change a thing in my life, because I'll always be struggling against the people who think that this or any government really works."

"I just felt a need to play Devil's Advocate, as I so often do. I admire your conviction, and your call to conviction, just not your cause."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Vekseid

In times of strife, the greatest evil good people commit to is that of inaction.

ManyMindsManyVoices

#2
"I'm glad I don't consider myself good, then. However, I don't see myself as inactive, I say my piece, but not by voting. I help the people close to me, and I would watch the world burn so long as they, and myself, were safe. I have no problem committing 'evil' against people who would do the same to me given the chance. Give me a gun and tell me you have an army who will march and put down the people who perpetuate these acts of idiocy, and I will stand at your side and fight more viciously than you can imagine. However, give me a voting slip and I will show you a piece of paper that does nothing to cure the evil that is in the masses, not just the government that manipulates them."

"Once again, I do not challenge you, here. Do your piece your way, and so long as you do not bring harm to others, I will cheer you on, at best, and look the other way, at least."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Vekseid

Ryuka Tana, you can register your intent to avoid voting for a given office simply by refusing make a selection for that office. Then, at the very least, the discrepancy between the vote and ballot total is plain. There are evil people in this world, and they seek power as they do, but they are not going to make up every name on the ballot.

And if you are not going to do your part to seek out the good souls in this world, there will be no army for you to march with.

On the other hand, if you do, I highly doubt you will find an army necessary.

ManyMindsManyVoices

"Where I see evil, and where you see evil, are likely quite different. Going to the polls to get handed a voting card/ticket, whatever, and then hand it back, while amusing, isn't much good. Pretty much any person on the ballot constitutes an evil to me, unless their promise to me is that they will get in office and then empty every office of its officials. Show me the politician with that agenda, and you will see me standing first in line to make sure that person gets into office."

"The truth of the matter is, democracy is a pointless endeavor because what MOST people want, is not what's right by default. Voting gives the impression I believe otherwise. I would never wish to compromise my principles like that, not when I can just make the lives of myself and my loved ones easier and happier right now. When those younger than me ask why I didn't do anything, I can, without remorse, say: 'I shouldn't have had to, and when I die, I won't have to worry about it anymore.'"
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Vekseid

The purpose of organization is so that people are not working at cross purposes, and so that larger tasks than what may be done by a single person may be accomplished. If your intent is to tie your hands in the face of that, then don't let me stop you.

Don't expect me to respect it, either. I think we can have a better future than that.

ManyMindsManyVoices

"Anarchy is not without order, that is the misconception, it is without rule. In the end, if people cannot govern themselves, the world goes to hell, with or without a government. Government is just an alley by which even more corrupt people can manipulate things. At best, it's something for people to become codependent on, so I'm not so excited to stand by it."

"In the world we live, I would rather live without regrets or remorse, and the best way I can do that, is to just live as I see fit and bypass the idiocy of the government, rather than waiting for the stupidity to stop. This site is likely full of people who are shunned and kicked by the very system that's being supported. People who are downtrodden by the desires of the majority, and if even ONE person exists that is mistreated by the whims of others, something is wrong with the system."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Vekseid

I've always been curious.

How do anarchists propose to deal with invaders or manipulators? If there is no means of mass compulsion, how does it stand against those that will apply mass compulsion to it? Anarchic states don't exactly have a history of longevity to them.


ManyMindsManyVoices

"For me, it is about principle and philosophy, not practicality. If I were going to attempt to implement anarchy, I would do so with violent rule first, destroying government by force and maintaining power in an attempt to keep others from doing the same. However, with that power, I would do nothing more than put down other tyrants, and the entire thing is hypocritical in a way, but I accept that sometimes you must break ideals to keep more important ones."

"However, I would presume, in a more civil sense, anarchy does not submit that there can be no military, merely that the military cannot be run by a governing force. Anarchy puts the onus on the community to function as a whole, without the necessity to be forced. The fact that people will not do what is in the best interest of the whole without a governing body is the very reason why no government system, anarchy included, works anyway. Which is why I support anarchy as the only acceptable solution, but I believe that no solution is feasible without making a fundamental change to society or taking great strides to eradicate the self-destructive nature of humans, violently. The fact that hypocrisy is the only way it can be achieved, is just a testament to how screwed up our species is as a whole."

"Nonetheless, if you are asking me, I don't have any practical answers, just principles. I don't care about practicality, because I'm a philosopher, and anarchy is just the political view that fits my philosophical views. In the end, I am unconcerned with what happens in this life, except that I enjoyed it to the best of my abilities. If I decide that my enjoyment in this life is at an end, I would not hesitate to end this life, because life in and of itself is valueless. If everyone followed my principles, the world would need no government, and so, the best thing I can do is to simply live as I believe is right, and the best way I can save people is to teach them that they need not be saved."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Vekseid

Have you ever worked on a committee or other body responsible for making a decision, past say, twenty or thirty people, and seen it come to significant conclusions on its own without someone taking up a leadership role?

I've honestly only seen 'rulerless' societies work up to a hundred or so people. There, the rulers become forces of personality - elected by consent if not officially. Some of them start browbeating people the same way tyrants do, the community fractures, reorganizes, and fractures again until a more organized authority is placed on it so that it can grow further. Or shatters completely.

Saying that you'll just live your life is your right. For me, I see the pressure the current situation puts on a lot of people, and it breaks my heart that I can only help one or two at a time. Helping all of them means attacking the situation from whatever angle I can.

ManyMindsManyVoices

"It hurts me that I can't help more people, too. Except, I understand its because of most people that I can't help most people, and that is where my sympathies fall short. I have no tolerance for ignorance."

"That's what it comes down to, if people act the way that most people choose to act, I would rather watch the world burn then help it. That it's even a question whether or not all people are equal as a whole, or whether or not it's okay to be gay, bisexual, polygamous, or worship whomever you please... I find those things unconscionable, and there is no hope for society as long as people like that exist."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Will

Quote from: Ryuka Tana on November 02, 2010, 01:23:27 PM
"It hurts me that I can't help more people, too. Except, I understand its because of most people that I can't help most people, and that is where my sympathies fall short. I have no tolerance for ignorance."

"That's what it comes down to, if people act the way that most people choose to act, I would rather watch the world burn then help it. That it's even a question whether or not all people are equal as a whole, or whether or not it's okay to be gay, bisexual, polygamous, or worship whomever you please... I find those things unconscionable, and there is no hope for society as long as people like that exist."

I fail to see how removing government and/or rule from our lives would help this.  The protection and support of minorities by the government is one of its more attractive qualities, I think.  Throw us into anarchy, and a likely result is the oppression of those same minorities.  Do you consider that a negative outcome?

Your posts seem to be tending further from your original point, and closer to a generalized misanthropy.  Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I'm not sure it's debatable in a constructive manner.  Might be better suited for a rant thread.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

mystictiger

QuotePeople who are downtrodden by the desires of the majority, and if even ONE person exists that is mistreated by the whims of others, something is wrong with the system

The choice not to adopt a system is in itself a system. The choice not to have a government is as much a regime as any mode of being ruled. Further the choice of no rulership when imposed on a polity will result in people being mistreated by the whims of others. In this sense, anarchism is an 'all or nothing' game. Either everyone wants it, or it is imposed and this imposition renders the choice bad.

On a vaguely related note, I tend to think that order arises spontaneously in complex systems. Order has different meanings in different contexts - in atoms it could mean crystals, or chemical equiliibriums and so on. In terms of people, I think it will always result in some aspect of hierarchy. The best example I can think of of an anarchic system is that of international relations. Although states are technically equally sovereign, it is clear that not all states are equal. We then result in a process of law making by the states that have the resources to threaten, bully, or bribe their fellows.

I find your attitude to people surprising - on the one hand, you have no faith in the people that currently govern you. On the other, if they were equal, you would suddenly have faith in them? I don't think this position can be maintained - either you trust people regardless of their position, or you don't trust them. For anarchy to stay anarchy would require some degree of trust.

It's clear from the above brain-dump that I'm biased against an anarchic rulerless system being able to be preserved as a strict relationship between equals - mostly because no two people are truly the same. We are technically equal before the law, but that doesn't mean that we're in any other sense equals. The 'strong' will always have their way. I therefore regard anarchy as at best a transition state rather than an equilibrium / goal condition.
Want a system game? I got system games!

ManyMindsManyVoices

Quote from: mystictiger on November 02, 2010, 04:41:06 PM
  The choice not to adopt a system is in itself a system. The choice not   to have a government is as much a regime as any mode of being ruled.   Further the choice of no rulership when imposed on a polity will result   in people being mistreated by the whims of others. In this sense,   anarchism is an 'all or nothing' game. Either everyone wants it, or it   is imposed and this imposition renders the choice bad.
 

"Sorry, I should have said: ' if even ONE person exists that is mistreated by the whims of others, something is wrong with the world'."

"In turn, you're right, it all comes down to misanthropy. I don't support government because as an established organization, it is corrupt and arrogant. With anarchy, the corruption simply comes from the people, and while that, in and of itself is a problem, at least we aren't giving people the authority to act that way."

Quote from: mystictiger on November 02, 2010, 04:41:06 PM
I find your attitude to people surprising - on the one hand, you have no faith in the people that currently govern you. On the other, if they were equal, you would suddenly have faith in them? I don't think this position can be maintained - either you trust people regardless of their position, or you don't trust them. For anarchy to stay anarchy would require some degree of trust.

"No, no, I don't have faith in people AT ALL. The important thing I said, is that it is about principle, not practicality. People are equal, not in all ways, but everyone is given strengths to counterbalance their flaws. I'm not going to argue the point of that, because most often, in these sorts of arguments, the argument turns to the fact that there is no proof of that, and I simply don't care. I base my beliefs and principles on observation (which could spiral into just another thing I really hate about people, so I won't say anything there)."

"I avoid political topics and things of that nature because ignorance blinds most people to what I have to say, and even to the most open people, a certain amount of shared understanding must exist. I can't convey my thoughts in mere words, because words are flawed, pointless, and most people, given a chance to argue, will pick and choose which words are important and which are not."

"The end result is, I support anarchy as the only acceptable system. By this, I don't mean it is the most functional system, because it may not be. However, in a world in which NO systems work, I will not support ones that are corrupt. Anarchy, by its very nature, is not, and cannot be, corrupt, because nothing exists to corrupt. Within anarchy, corruption is found in people, and when any people use that corruption to establish tyranny, it is not longer anarchy, therefore anarchy has not been corrupted."

"If you want my solution to our world's problems, you'll find bullets and flames more to my style. I appreciate the idea of Ragnarok, purifying the world by starting over from practically nothing. The best thing I can think to happen to the world is the destruction of mankind, because I have not an ounce of hope that even the majority (even by the tiniest margin, 50.000000001%) will ever be anything less than corrupt and morally misguided or bankrupt altogether."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

mystictiger

Quote"I avoid political topics and things of that nature because ignorance blinds most people to what I have to say, and even to the most open people, a certain amount of shared understanding must exist. I can't convey my thoughts in mere words, because words are flawed, pointless, and most people, given a chance to argue, will pick and choose which words are important and which are not."

I find this idea troubling - that a thought is incapable of expression means that it cannot be debated or communicated. Which in turn renders this entire thread... somewhat pointless.
Want a system game? I got system games!

Noelle

I don't really buy into the whole "ignorance blinds most people to what [you] have to say" argument mostly because there's a huge gap between perceived ignorance of others and negligence in recognizing that your point has been heard, but still not agreed on. I think it's short-sighted and fails to take personal responsibility that it may not just be those you talk to, but a flaw in your own point of view or basic skills of communication, as well. If you're so apt to claim that words are so imperfect, then you need to apply your own rules to yourself...that it's just as likely that you are ignorant and blinded to my -- or anyone else's view as you claim others are to yours.

ManyMindsManyVoices

Quote from: mystictiger on November 02, 2010, 05:56:44 PM
I find this idea troubling - that a thought is incapable of expression means that it cannot be debated or communicated. Which in turn renders this entire thread... somewhat pointless.

"See picking and choosing which words. I said, 'I can't convey my thoughts in mere words'... You may not be doing it purposefully, but people choose what they want to hear in my arguments."

Quote from: Noelle on November 02, 2010, 06:28:59 PM
I don't really buy into the whole "ignorance blinds most people to what [you] have to say" argument mostly because there's a huge gap between perceived ignorance of others and negligence in recognizing that your point has been heard, but still not agreed on. I think it's short-sighted and fails to take personal responsibility that it may not just be those you talk to, but a flaw in your own point of view or basic skills of communication, as well. If you're so apt to claim that words are so imperfect, then you need to apply your own rules to yourself...that it's just as likely that you are ignorant and blinded to my -- or anyone else's view as you claim others are to yours.

"Funny, because I don't really buy into that because that's often the tactic employed by ignorant people to make my arguments look bad with baseless accusation. You want to see the basis of my accusation of ignorance in human beings, talk to someone, anyone, if you are even paying half the attention you should be, you've got a pretty good chance of seeing it."

"In the end, even if you don't see it that way... well, I don't care... You're just one among many people not worth arguing with, and that's why I'm not going to try to convince you of anything. I made my argument, I don't care if you see it or not, and wasting my time on trying to get you to see it just makes my life that much more miserable before I die. Why would I do that?"

"Truth be told, if my words fall on deaf ears, then I am glad to know that I tried, and that the people who ignore me chose ignorance anyway. Those people will just help the world to its inevitable goal of ridding itself of the bane of human existence. I see the good in every outcome, if you listen, the world gets better, and if you don't, then you'll be a helping hand on our species' way down, and once we're gone, the world still gets better, even if its just a barren wasteland after."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Noelle

So what I'm getting out of this is that you believe you have some kind of great and profound insight into the world that is unique to you and that everyone else who doesn't believe/agree with it too is blind and ignorant and not worth talking to.

Good to know.

ManyMindsManyVoices

#18
"Not unique to me, just hard to find, which is sad, because it's pretty damn easy to gain. Also, I recently had a conversation with a beloved old friend whose values differ greatly from my own, but she understands what is most important, enough that I don't claim ignorance on her part. It's not disagreeing with me that makes people ignorant, it's ignorance."

"Of course, the ignorant would have a lot of reason to discredit me..."

EDIT: "Remember, that to start, I mentioned my respect of Vekseid's position, even if I don't respect his viewpoints."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Will

Quote from: Ryuka Tana on November 02, 2010, 05:00:48 PM
"The end result is, I support anarchy as the only acceptable system. By this, I don't mean it is the most functional system, because it may not be. However, in a world in which NO systems work, I will not support ones that are corrupt. Anarchy, by its very nature, is not, and cannot be, corrupt, because nothing exists to corrupt. Within anarchy, corruption is found in people, and when any people use that corruption to establish tyranny, it is not longer anarchy, therefore anarchy has not been corrupted."

You propose to rid government of corruption by removing government.  That's rather a lot of overkill going on there, don't you think? 

And it could be argued that government is a natural result of people gathering together; you even allude to this when you talk about people going on to establish tyranny.  Government will most likely happen, one way or another.  So, knowing this, why support anarchy?  Because it's somehow more righteous than any other system?  It would cause so much suffering, and then would only transition into another form of government, anyway.  It certainly wouldn't cause the destruction of the human race, as you seem to be implying.  I think calling that righteous is a little hyperbolic, and short-sighted.

You say you would want to protect those close to you.  What about those close to them?  And those close to them?  The world is a gigantic web of people that are close to other people.  If you want to keep the people you care about from suffering, then that entails protecting the people they care about, and so on.  Anarchy would just cause everyone to suffer.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

ManyMindsManyVoices

"Actually, most of the people close to me, are close to my friends. We are a tight knit group, those close to them become close to the group, or eventually fall to the wayside in their lives. A little bit of suffering would be had in seeing them hurt or suffer, but such is the price to pay."

"As for the rest of it, you're not responding to the argument I gave, you're responding to the argument you think I gave. I will answer the simple question, once again: 'Why support anarchy?' Because government, by virtue of its existence, is a corruption. Anarchy means, without ruler, it doesn't mean without guidance or leader, it's just a flawed view of what it means to be a leader. Once can lead, without any political or militant power whatsoever."

"Did MLK make laws, and demand people listen to him? Did Ghandi? Did Plato or Socrates? Yet, I would call all those men leaders, in some way. Of course, now, there would be some argument made about what those people stood for, even though I said nothing about that, nor did I even say I admired those people. However, I'm going to cut it off ahead of time, and even then, that won't guarantee that those factors won't enter into the argument."

"Oh, and to cut off another irrelevant argument, tyrants CAN be leaders, but that doesn't make them good leaders. So, that some leaders 'DO' make demands and laws, doesn't make those people worthwhile."

"The point is, removing government to rid the corruption is the only way, because as long as any man claims 'rule' by any means (democratic or otherwise), there is a problem."

"Also, I didn't state anarchy would dissolve into Ragnarok, my claim is that it will happen regardless. As a species, we're too stupid not to kill ourselves off eventually. I often make the point, that in nature, no other species kills its own species off en masse like humans do. Before you contradict that argument, read the words en masse again and again. There is no Lion Hiroshima, no Wolf Holocaust, no Alexander the  Hawk, slaughtering his way through all the hawks that stand or fly in his path, and no Attila the Fish stomping out all the other fishes."

"If you can find any similar events in nature, I bet they will be on the lowest level of the evolutionary scale with single-celled organisms and insects, with barely the mental facilities to even think for themselves. So if that's the comparison you want to make to humankind, I won't argue."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Jude

You sound like a villain from a video game or anime.

ManyMindsManyVoices

"As is to be expected, honestly. Heroes are created by the conscience of the majority, which is foolish and corrupt. So, it stands to reason, that on occasion, what's reasonable might sound villainous."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Will

Quote from: Ryuka Tana on November 02, 2010, 07:35:58 PM
"Actually, most of the people close to me, are close to my friends. We are a tight knit group, those close to them become close to the group, or eventually fall to the wayside in their lives. A little bit of suffering would be had in seeing them hurt or suffer, but such is the price to pay."

"As for the rest of it, you're not responding to the argument I gave, you're responding to the argument you think I gave. I will answer the simple question, once again: 'Why support anarchy?' Because government, by virtue of its existence, is a corruption. Anarchy means, without ruler, it doesn't mean without guidance or leader, it's just a flawed view of what it means to be a leader. Once can lead, without any political or militant power whatsoever."

While getting rid of corruption in government is important to me, lessening the suffering of others is more so.  It's an issue of priorities.  I can't justify causing that many people to hurt and die, just to say that corruption in government is dealt with.

Quote"Did MLK make laws, and demand people listen to him? Did Ghandi? Did Plato or Socrates? Yet, I would call all those men leaders, in some way. Of course, now, there would be some argument made about what those people stood for, even though I said nothing about that, nor did I even say I admired those people. However, I'm going to cut it off ahead of time, and even then, that won't guarantee that those factors won't enter into the argument."

They did not make laws, because they did not live in a vacuum of laws.  Anarchy will proceed to order, one way or another.

Quote"Oh, and to cut off another irrelevant argument, tyrants CAN be leaders, but that doesn't make them good leaders. So, that some leaders 'DO' make demands and laws, doesn't make those people worthwhile."

No, it does not.  But it does make a pretty strong case that government is a natural part of humanity.  Even tyranny seems to be more attractive to a country than anarchy.  That should tell you something.

Quote"The point is, removing government to rid the corruption is the only way, because as long as any man claims 'rule' by any means (democratic or otherwise), there is a problem."

Again, I cannot justify the awful consequences of an order-less society just to say that we've handled corruption.  You don't even know for sure that you could keep the people you care about safe and comfortable in a society like that.  Doesn't that uncertainty bother you at all?  I believe it's the main reason that anarchy never lasts.

Quote"Also, I didn't state anarchy would dissolve into Ragnarok, my claim is that it will happen regardless. As a species, we're too stupid not to kill ourselves off eventually. I often make the point, that in nature, no other species kills its own species off en masse like humans do. Before you contradict that argument, read the words en masse again and again. There is no Lion Hiroshima, no Wolf Holocaust, no Alexander the  Hawk, slaughtering his way through all the hawks that stand or fly in his path, and no Attila the Fish stomping out all the other fishes."

"If you can find any similar events in nature, I bet they will be on the lowest level of the evolutionary scale with single-celled organisms and insects, with barely the mental facilities to even think for themselves. So if that's the comparison you want to make to humankind, I won't argue."

I don't see what that proves.  There are examples of malicious intra-species behavior in animals, dolphins for instance.  If they had the physical ability to kill a whole bunch of their own kind, they very well might.  No other species does as much for the conservation of other species as we do, either; saying as much doesn't prove anything about their nature as good or evil.  They might would, if they could.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

mystictiger

Quote"See picking and choosing which words. I said, 'I can't convey my thoughts in mere words'... You may not be doing it purposefully, but people choose what they want to hear in my arguments."

QuoteAs is to be expected, honestly. Heroes are created by the conscience of the majority, which is foolish and corrupt. So, it stands to reason, that on occasion, what's reasonable might sound villainous

Quote"Not unique to me, just hard to find, which is sad, because it's pretty damn easy to gain. Also, I recently had a conversation with a beloved old friend whose values differ greatly from my own, but she understands what is most important, enough that I don't claim ignorance on her part. It's not disagreeing with me that makes people ignorant, it's ignorance."

You cannot simmultaneously maintain the position that your position is reasonable, unintelligible (or at least incapable of being reduced to words), and only open to those who have gained the same insight as you! Occupying any two mutually excludes the third.

You have now moved on from saying that government is corrupt to saying that the majority is corrupt. Your position is therefore that every other position is wrong, simply because you don't hold it.
Want a system game? I got system games!

ManyMindsManyVoices

"I might concede your last point, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't argue it."

"In the end, I keep saying, anarchy isn't practical in our world, doesn't matter to me. I watch people suffer in great numbers in this system, and just because the suffering isn't rioting and death, doesn't make it better. So often, I see people who would be better off in death, because emotionally, people are constantly wrecking them for who they are, what they believe, or just because they aren't quite normal."

"In my opinion, that's a million times worse than the destructive chaos of anarchy."

"I've heard all the arguments about this, none of them are convincing, because no one addresses the core problem. There isn't any way to address the core problem, which is the MASSIVE numbers of ignorant people that are allowed to live and harm the world just by their existence."

Quote from: mystictiger on November 02, 2010, 08:08:50 PM
  You cannot simmultaneously maintain the position that   your position is reasonable, unintelligible (or at least incapable of   being reduced to words), and only open to those who have gained the same   insight as you! Occupying any two mutually excludes the third.
 
  You have now moved on from saying that government is corrupt to saying   that the majority is corrupt. Your position is therefore that every   other position is wrong, simply because you don't hold it.
 

"I always held the majority is corrupt... Also, both of your statements are fallacious. Saying the majority is corrupt and saying every other position is wrong are not the same thing. That's like saying, 'you agree that lions aren't tigers, so you must also believe tigers aren't cats', I made no such assertion. I would make no such sweeping accusation about anything."

"As for the first part, you've apparently decided your belief of what is reasonable is the only valid one, because that's the only way you can make a definitive statement regarding what can or cannot be reasonable. Therefore, your accusations about me, are more likely a reflection of your arguments."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

ManyMindsManyVoices

"I should correct my statement, because I used the word 'reasonable' myself. That was a foolish use of the word, but honestly, I can't think of a way to put that statement that really conveys its meaning, so I just typed blindly. I have a habit of typing while my thoughts are still forming, and then using phrases I didn't quite mean."

"I usually make good on correcting them when pointed out, so in that case... I guess all I can say is, the majority creates the heroic ideals, and I stand vehemently opposed to the majority, because of its idiocy, so naturally, I would sound villainous."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Noelle

You talk a lot about ignorant people without actually pointing out who exactly and why you're qualified to judge them. If the world is better off without mankind, then why are you here? Why not promote suicide cults and why not just go out and do what you want right now? As far as I can tell, you play by all the societal rules while simultaneously decrying them.

Furthermore, you enjoy the benefits of the government and those so-called "ignorant people" while declining to mention them. The quality of life you enjoy, the technologies you're enjoying at this very moment, your clothing, your food -- Guess what? The things you do every day come at the cost of others, which, as far as I can see, makes you just as bad as the "ignorant people" you go on about by destroying others with your ignorance. The food you eat comes at the cost of destroying the environment, inhumane treatment of animals, immigrant labor --  the clothes you wear can come from sweat shops and forced, dirty, underpaid labor and can contribute to pumping more chemicals in the air as it is transported halfway across the world. The streets you live on paved over some creature's natural habitat. Why do you get to cast judgment on everyone else? Why do you get to be so enlightened and still commit the same sins you look down on?

The "core problem" here isn't being addressed because it's greatly flawed. It's not an established fact (unless you'd like educate us with actual, tangible proof of your claims), it is a construct of your opinion and philosophy and ultimately a loaded question. I can't tell you why so many ignorant people are allowed to live while inadvertently hurting others with their ignorance because I don't believe in a philosophy that makes me superior to the rest of the human race who differs in point of view and choice. If I phrase a question such that I say "Have you stopped being an idiot?", you can't exactly answer yes or no without implicating yourself to being an idiot. If you ask "Why are so many ignorant people allowed to live?", I can't tell you without implying that I actually believe in your view.

Jude

#28
Quote from: Ryuka Tana on November 02, 2010, 08:31:16 PM
"In the end, I keep saying, anarchy isn't practical in our world, doesn't matter to me. I watch people suffer in great numbers in this system, and just because the suffering isn't rioting and death, doesn't make it better. So often, I see people who would be better off in death, because emotionally, people are constantly wrecking them for who they are, what they believe, or just because they aren't quite normal."
I find it disturbingly presumptuous that you believe people are better off dead who are in those circumstances.  What is your rationale?  I would think as long as you're alive and able to pursue happiness you're better off than being dead -- unless you couple these opinions of yours with an equally fundamental religious viewpoint, then I could see some twisted logic to them.

I can't imagine seeing non-existence as a viable alternative to life as a sane position -- that's a suicidal belief, not a concept held by a rational mind.
Quote from: Ryuka Tana on November 02, 2010, 08:31:16 PM"In my opinion, that's a million times worse than the destructive chaos of anarchy."

"I've heard all the arguments about this, none of them are convincing, because no one addresses the core problem. There isn't any way to address the core problem, which is the MASSIVE numbers of ignorant people that are allowed to live and harm the world just by their existence."

"I always held the majority is corrupt... Also, both of your statements are fallacious. Saying the majority is corrupt and saying every other position is wrong are not the same thing. That's like saying, 'you agree that lions aren't tigers, so you must also believe tigers aren't cats', I made no such assertion. I would make no such sweeping accusation about anything."

"As for the first part, you've apparently decided your belief of what is reasonable is the only valid one, because that's the only way you can make a definitive statement regarding what can or cannot be reasonable. Therefore, your accusations about me, are more likely a reflection of your arguments."
You seem convinced that things are so bad in the system that anarchy would be better -- I couldn't agree less.  The natural state of man, this anarchy that you refer to, is avoided at all costs by most for a reason:  it is needless and pointless suffering on a grand scale.  Without a governmental system there is no basis for cooperation other than some idealized view of human nature (a view that is total fantasy when you examine anthropological, psychological, and scientific evidence).

Government exists to limit actions which infringe on other people's ability to live their own life without damaging external influence.  Despite how corrupt our government can be at times, I see no reason to believe that government has failed this duty on such a grand level that anarchy would be preferred.  You mention a whole class of people who you claim have been mistreated by the system (homosexuals, the polyamorous, and others who aren't normal), yet the most egregious offenses you can list are nothing compared to the horror that people experience in less-civilized, more anarchic states.

We have it pretty good.  We rarely experience theft or assault, and can rely on other individuals to do their part to keep our society functioning.  It takes the effort of countless people coordinated into one gigantic union to produce the kind of cultural and technological sophistication we all enjoy.  Elliquiy is a product of our ordered lifestyle, as is the internet, art, literature, and every other positive achievement of humanity.  Advocating throwing all of that away because there are people in our society who don't approve of  certain abnormalities is ridiculous.  Very, very few injustices exist in our world compared to even 100 years ago, back when women couldn't vote and our society was infinitely more conservative.  Things are getting better, but they'll never be perfect.

The reason why I said you reminded me of a villain from a video game or anime is because a lot of what you say doesn't seem well thought-through or mature.  There's an awful lot of vague emotional weasel words or opinions that on the surface seem well-reasoned but have the depth of a piece of paper.  The whole "I don't care" attitude and supreme confidence is quite frankly juvenile.

The worst sufferings of our society are nothing compared to a daily struggle for survival and the pain of pre-civilized life -- not to mention the way humanity used to toil in absolute uncertainty for a relatively short amount of time.  Life is infinitely better now; there may still be a little bigotry left in our civilized minds, but at least it's no longer a fundamental tenet of existence.

mystictiger

Quote"I always held the majority is corrupt... Also, both of your statements are fallacious. Saying the majority is corrupt and saying every other position is wrong are not the same thing. That's like saying, 'you agree that lions aren't tigers, so you must also believe tigers aren't cats', I made no such assertion. I would make no such sweeping accusation about anything."

You have said that you cannot express your justification in words.
You have said that you can only reach enlightenment through experience
You have said that the majority are corrupt.
You have said that ignorant people harm the world merely through existence.

The corrupt majority are presumably those that have not undergone this process of enlightenment.
You presumably do not regard yourself as being corrupt.
You are therefore advocating that those that do not agree with you are somehow not worthy of living simply by virtue of the fact that they disagree with you / have not been enlightened.
Want a system game? I got system games!

ManyMindsManyVoices

"Yes, I do consider myself corrupt, it is just part of being human. I only stand separate by being enlightened, and yes, I do believe I am enlightened. I won't explain why, I don't need to, I am happy to know what I know for myself."

Quote from: Noelle on November 02, 2010, 09:16:57 PM
You talk a lot about ignorant people without actually pointing out who exactly and why you're qualified to judge them. If the world is better off without mankind, then why are you here? Why not promote suicide cults and why not just go out and do what you want right now? As far as I can tell, you play by all the societal rules while simultaneously decrying them.

Furthermore, you enjoy the benefits of the government and those so-called "ignorant people" while declining to mention them. The quality of life you enjoy, the technologies you're enjoying at this very moment, your clothing, your food -- Guess what? The things you do every day come at the cost of others, which, as far as I can see, makes you just as bad as the "ignorant people" you go on about by destroying others with your ignorance. The food you eat comes at the cost of destroying the environment, inhumane treatment of animals, immigrant labor --  the clothes you wear can come from sweat shops and forced, dirty, underpaid labor and can contribute to pumping more chemicals in the air as it is transported halfway across the world. The streets you live on paved over some creature's natural habitat. Why do you get to cast judgment on everyone else? Why do you get to be so enlightened and still commit the same sins you look down on?

The "core problem" here isn't being addressed because it's greatly flawed. It's not an established fact (unless you'd like educate us with actual, tangible proof of your claims), it is a construct of your opinion and philosophy and ultimately a loaded question. I can't tell you why so many ignorant people are allowed to live while inadvertently hurting others with their ignorance because I don't believe in a philosophy that makes me superior to the rest of the human race who differs in point of view and choice. If I phrase a question such that I say "Have you stopped being an idiot?", you can't exactly answer yes or no without implicating yourself to being an idiot. If you ask "Why are so many ignorant people allowed to live?", I can't tell you without implying that I actually believe in your view.

"First of all, I do reap benefits, because I see the world as an irreparable mess. I don't care if I decline it more, because I am helping the one cause I have hope for, the slow decline of our species. In the end, why should I waste my time do anything more than being happy and comfortable before I die (that's rhetorical, while I'll listen to your reasons, I can almost guarantee I won't care afterward)?"

"As for tangible proof, there's no such thing. You cannot prove to me anything, because I can refute it, even if my refusal is completely outrageous and unbased, as long as you cannot prove my refusal to be completely, 100% untrue, then no actual proof can exist. So, I can say, the entire world is under the whims of a God who likes to fuck with people's heads. I can say, that God actually warps the known laws of physics when no one is looking, just because he can. You can't prove that isn't true, or a number of other outrageous philosophical statements, or even reasonable philosophical statements. So, all proof, far enough removed, is baseless. I live by what I (me, and only me), can perceive, so I can't make you perceive things with my brain, so no proof can be given."

Quote from: Jude on November 02, 2010, 09:39:29 PM
  I find it disturbingly presumptuous that you believe people are better   off dead who are in those circumstances.  What is your rationale?  I   would think as long as you're alive and able to pursue happiness you're   better off than being dead -- unless you couple these opinions of yours   with an equally fundamental religious viewpoint, then I could see some   twisted logic to them.
 
  I can't imagine seeing non-existence as a viable alternative to life as a   sane position -- that's a suicidal belief, not a concept held by a   rational mind.

"That last statement, and many of your statements are as baseless as mine, and only hold true because most people perceive them that way. Yet you hold them like facts and swing them like a blade of righteousness as much as I do. The difference is, I know, at the end of the day, I might just be totally fucked and wrong, and there's not anything I can do about it because I can't honestly make an educated philosophical decision based on anything other than my perceptions."

"That's how I stand apart, I'm screwed and corrupt, and I accept it and try to better myself. Most people, don't even stop to consider that, don't even begin to consider other people. I've come to my conclusions about the best thing for mankind because I have spent so much time considering other people, I've come to realize they don't deserve my consideration because they refuse to even try to be open-minded."

"Believe what you want, come to my house and lynch me for your beliefs, but it doesn't change what I believe to be true, and it doesn't change that you don't KNOW anything. I'm sorry if it offends you or bothers you that I can see the close-minded ignorance of the masses, but it doesn't change what I see, and I will call what I see to the skies even if God himself kills me for it."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

mystictiger

If you are corrupt, why are you not dead?
Want a system game? I got system games!

ManyMindsManyVoices

"I'll get there... I live by principles that I find acceptable, so I don't feel a need to die yet. I have hope for my life personally, for now, and when that fades, I'll decide what path to take to death."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Noelle

You have failed to answer any real criticism here except with hypocrisy, inaccuracy, and a real lack of substance. Telling people "you can respond, but I don't care" is incredibly inconsiderate, as well as a cheap and unimpressive brickwall tactic. You haven't addressed any inconsistencies anyone has pointed out to you in any logical detail except to go on further about your own philosophies that we're trying to talk about. Telling people they aren't addressing this or that and then turning around and saying you "can't prove anything" when someone challenges those questions is not an enjoyable or even intelligent way to debate. I am completely stepping out of this conversation now and do not wish to speak further with you on the subject. I wish you the best of luck in your ventures into anarchy and whatnot.

mystictiger

I truly pity you. It must be a bleak world that you live in to see your fellows as ignorant masses deserving only of scorn and death. I cannot debate this topic with you as you are unable to describe your position as you maintain that your position is only achievable through some subjective process of enlightenment only open to your being. I am unable to empathise with you as you maintain an utterly subjective view on the world with no space for the objective, or even the inter-subjective.

In this regard, your standpoint is utterly incommensurate with any other perceived reality. You say I 'KNOW' nothing, and am probably incapable of ever knowing anything. You cannot explain the purpose of your outlook nor what you regard its truth criteria to be, nor the basis on how you make value judgments. There is no shared ontology, epistemology, or methodology. There can be no interaction, no dialectic, no resolution. You are therefore not comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and the number 4.

So good luck with that and I hope it works out well for you. I'm with Noelle.
Want a system game? I got system games!

Zakharra

 You're kind of coming across as a nihlist that hasn't gotten the nerve to start killing people yet.

Quote"Yes, I do consider myself corrupt, it is just part of being human. I only stand separate by being enlightened, and yes, I do believe I am enlightened. I won't explain why, I don't need to, I am happy to know what I know for myself."

That comes off as being hypocritical.  ' I do believe I am enlightened. I won't explain why, I don't need to,' , with the other posts you've done calaling most people ignorant and worthy only of death, is not helping your position.

ManyMindsManyVoices

"Does it seem like I'm trying to help my position? My debate with Vekseid remained civil because Vekseid was debating on respectable terms. I spend enough time getting into these long arguments, to waste my time trying to detail the ideals behind my arguments. Words would not convey the meaning well enough, and I don't have the time to waste even beginning to try, because it takes me hours to convey these thoughts in person to people I care about. Why spend any real time on people who I have no interest in trying to help, because they have decided they don't want my help?"

"As for the nerve to kill people, it's not so much that... If I thought killing any individual would make things better, I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's just that I alone don't have nearly the skill, armament, or power to put down all the people it would take to make a real change. So, let them put themselves down, it happens all the time. Between, war, drugs, drinking, obesity, pollution, and the number of other astronomically stupid things people do to themselves, I'd rather just let them die in their own time."

"I am glad most of you have decided to give up the argument, because it's not one worth having. Come to see me in Florida with an open mind and a few hours of free time, and if you don't prove yourself too stupid to talk to in the first 10-20 minutes, maybe you'll learn something."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Zakharra

[qiote]"As for the nerve to kill people, it's not so much that... If I thought killing any individual would make things better, I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's just that I alone don't have nearly the skill, armament, or power to put down all the people it would take to make a real change.[/quote] 

That right there makes me question your sanity a bit.  You're admitting that if you  did have the skill, arms or power to do it, you would do so.  Which is frightening.   I'm sorry, but you are really coming across as a nihilist.

Also, most of the people here have been polite and respectable. You're also avoiding the argument by saying this,
QuoteWords would not convey the meaning well enough, and I don't have the time to waste even beginning to try, because it takes me hours to convey these thoughts in person to people I care about. Why spend any real time on people who I have no interest in trying to help, because they have decided they don't want my help

If you cannot put something out in a forum like this in a coherent manner, then your skills or persuasion won't amount to much since this is the best way to reach a lot of people (youtube aside). Mainly because we're scattered all over the world and cannoty meet face to face.  I kind of doubt a lot of people would want to meet someone who would be willing to kill them if he thought they were too stupid or ignorant to live, if he could get away with it.

ManyMindsManyVoices

"The invitation was open-ended, and less than an expectation. Given how many people I've met that I haven't killed, you'd have to be a pretty loathsome individual, or in a really stupid situation, for me to suddenly pick some stranger to kill."

"As for questioning my sanity, no question, I'm a sociopath, bordering on psychopath, I never bother to question that. However, I find that most great insight comes from people with at the very least a mental deficiency. People who see the world clearly are often seen as insane, because a clear view of the world reveals a pretty dark sight."

"Otherwise, I'm not looking to convince anyone, if they learn something, and want to gain more, I'll speak with them further. Otherwise, I am TRYING to shut people out. Read my words, I think people are generally too fundamentally ignorant to actually accept what I have to say. I say it because I believe that's what needs to be done, but I'm not going to waste my time elaborating."

"Okay, I'm out, I'm just repeating myself at this point. If someone wants to gain something from my perspective, PM me, and maybe I'll give a damn to talk to you."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Zakharra

Quote from: Ryuka Tana on November 03, 2010, 01:50:46 AM
"The invitation was open-ended, and less than an expectation. Given how many people I've met that I haven't killed, you'd have to be a pretty loathsome individual, or in a really stupid situation, for me to suddenly pick some stranger to kill."

"As for questioning my sanity, no question, I'm a sociopath, bordering on psychopath, I never bother to question that. However, I find that most great insight comes from people with at the very least a mental deficiency. People who see the world clearly are often seen as insane, because a clear view of the world reveals a pretty dark sight."

"Otherwise, I'm not looking to convince anyone, if they learn something, and want to gain more, I'll speak with them further. Otherwise, I am TRYING to shut people out. Read my words, I think people are generally too fundamentally ignorant to actually accept what I have to say. I say it because I believe that's what needs to be done, but I'm not going to waste my time elaborating."

"Okay, I'm out, I'm just repeating myself at this point. If someone wants to gain something from my perspective, PM me, and maybe I'll give a damn to talk to you."

I am going off of what you did say,
QuoteIf I thought killing any individual would make things better, I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's just that I alone don't have nearly the skill, armament, or power to put down all the people it would take to make a real change.

Which is, to be honest, damned frightening. If you did have the power, you said yourself you would do ity because YOU think they are too stupid/ignorant(your definition)to live.

  And you follow up by this;
QuoteHowever, I find that most great insight comes from people with at the very least a mental deficiency. People who see the world clearly are often seen as insane, because a clear view of the world reveals a pretty dark sight."

Again you are saying that people who are considered insane to be able to see the world clearly. What's to say that others see the world clearly and just disagree with you. A LOT of people are likely like that. Yet you've written them off as stupid or ignorant and on your 'To be killed' list.

QuoteI think people are generally too fundamentally ignorant to actually accept what I have to say. I say it because I believe that's what needs to be done, but I'm not going to waste my time elaborating."

To be honest, that is one of the stupidest things I think you've said.  A lot of people do accept things, but they are willing to work within the system to try and change it. Not smash it to pieces. Most people, I think, would disagree with your view. You seem to be automatically dismissing people who do disagree as stupid and ignorant.

If you feel that way about people, why did you start this thread in the first place?

Will

Well, to be fair, he didn't start the thread.  It was split off of the thread of the same name in On-Topic.  Still, that's even more inexplicable, really.  It's a rather angry, malicious response to something very benign.  With no apparent desire to explain or back up the content therein.  Why post it, if that's the case?
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

AtlasEros

I'm a bit late on this thread but I voted.  It took about 10 minutes of time total.  There were also 3 issues on my ballot, since there were issues on ballots across the country, this leads me to find the reason of not voting because you didn't want to vote for either of the people that ran for a position to be less than valid.  I've heard lots of excuses for not voting, I've always looked at them as laziness.  Even if you don't want to vote for a person, you can write in votes & there may be issues you could vote on, on that ballot.  Even though 1 vote is a tiny thing, it does give you a tiny bit of power over the direction of your country or state. 
O/O

ManyMindsManyVoices

"I'm in a foul mood, particularly concerning politics, so I'm going to just start and see where this rant goes, like all the others. Let me start by saying, I really don't care how people view me, or what people think about my practices, thing is, I've dealt with enough arguments and debates to understand that people rarely consider an entire argument, they usually just follow up on the last thing said, and if something is left unsaid, it clearly means nothing. Which is why I generally end my arguments prematurely, with a statement that it's simply to complex to waste my time arguing about."

"To clarify on the point that my argument is too difficult to put into words, I should say, I could probably do it, but I would have to write a couple thousand words, and still, it would be a poor representation. The fact of the matter is, I have tried to explain it to the open-minded and been shut down because people have had stupidity drilled into them day after day after day after day. It just isn't worth arguing over, when I know close-minded people will remain close-minded. I make my point, because I refuse not to, because I am the lesser man if I make no attempt to enlighten others."

"If you are so blind as to not see all the stupidity and evil in humans around you, then that is pathetic. If you can't see where something is wrong if even one human being suffers while another lives in luxury, then don't begin to judge me. A million men have stood in the face of death rather than be tortured and forced to live under someone's shoe, and the truth is, death is the better option. Why am I enlightened? That's simple, because I refuse to turn a blind eye on the world. You might see a homeless man and turn away, or even offer him change... However, you cannot begin to explain to him why he has to live the way he does, while you do not. I have given up on this world, because I cannot stand alone against the waves of ignorant masses."

"As for you, Atlas, you apparently missed the idea of Anarchy. Voting on ISSUES is still supporting a worthless and failing system. I'm still voting against thousands of stupid people. So it isn't laziness, it isn't even a statement, I just don't care. In the end, if it's that important, I'll make it happen. If I can't, I'll die trying, and everyone who has to drown in the sea of stupidity, should have stepped up and done something about it, not with a piece of paper and an opinion, but with will and blood. I hate to watch people suffer, but with the world in the state that it's in, I simply let it go because people simply allow the suffering, or suffer because they are ignorant."

"I can't relieve my misanthropy any more here, because, in the end, I can't really speak my mind here. Even if I could, I would be screaming at the deaf."
My O/Os * Everyone should read 1/0

This is the Oath of the Drake. You should take it.

Will

If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac