|
archangelwar posted:Why? Haha, that is an amazing line! Obviously wealth is all important, the sins that created that wealth need to be forgotten and forgiven. In short, get over it, this land is
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
absolem posted:How the hell am I supposed to give it back to someone I don't even know existed? What, your thread isn't working out the way you hoped so you are blaming us? What the hell, take some personal responsibility. And you don't give the land back, jackass, you re-evaluate your ideas because they don't work in the real world.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
absolem posted:One of the nicest things about my beliefs are that they are objective. I mean, there is objective-ness in so many other areas, why couldn't I have it here? More than maybe anything else, the idea that there is no rational way to proscribe morality terrifies me. Ancap-ism seems to be pretty ballin', especially since nothing else seems to even remotely work, IRL or in theory. Morality is probably the easiest thing in the world. Humans have built in empathy pathways, they are built into our biology; that is where our morality comes from. If you have to actually stop and think about whether or not something is moral, then you have some serious issues.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful I probably wasn't really clear in my post above, but our morality changes over time. Is that bad? Nope, it is good. Morality actually evolves with society, it grows as society grows, it changes as society changes, etc. Morality is about how we treat one another and ourselves, right? If we aren't going to use a religious definition, we have to use something, so I'd say that morality is how we treat others and ourselves. Caros is right, morality is subject to change, it is also subject to environment and society. If there were a cataclysm tomorrow, morality would go out the window for a lot of people, and personal survival would be the primary operating system for a lot of people. Since we are living in a somewhat civilized society, most of us operate under a moral system day to day. Morality is not rational, it isn't religious, it is social and biological. Morality relates directly to our society and our place within it. I guess it is rational in that we behave morally so we don't lose what we have in society: job, lover, etc. I would argue that is more of a social norm, and a social penalty than morality, however. Every single one of us commits an immoral act on a regular basis, but these are generally small and meaningless things that don't matter. You've compared stealing a dime to murder and rape... once you've said something like that you've lost the argument because there is no comparison. A transgression against another person, no matter the size, isn't the issue. We are social beings and we are constantly loving with each other endlessly, what does matter is the actual damage done. If you can't understand that intent and outcome matter, then everything you say is fantasy. Pohl fucked around with this message at 02:33 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I can't tell of this is better or worse than the Brony guy who tried to get campaign donations a few weeks ago. Where did the OP go? We were having such an interesting conversation and then he just vanished. VitalSigns posted:Turns out, the superiority of the white man can be proved a priori. When you are right, you are right. At that point you may as well use every tool available to eradicate the Jew. (I'm not even going to strike that out).
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Caros posted:Still posting in D&D, so I think we scared him off. I saw that he just posted in another thread. Running off is not the morally correct thing to do, however. He was so excited for this thread, too. VV Beat ya! 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:You're entire belief system is based on a teenager level understanding of the world and sociopathy towards your fellow humans. You came in the politics thread telling everyone else they have no understanding of economics think about this, in all this arguing have you posted a single piece of evidence or fact or has it all been "no u are wrong because I say so" poo poo man, it isn't like most of us in this forum have degrees in social sciences. I mean, really... how many of us had to take years of econ classes and then suffer through years of stats and then discuss policy and econ as it related to society? No one loving has that knowledge.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
absolem posted:I can't keep up with this at all anymore (especially since this was a queer day off from work). So, I'll leave it at this: very little got done here. I'm still not convinced that ancap-ism is wrong, but if you want to throw some other positions at me to look at, I promise to give them a fair shake and report back (if the thread is still around). I just want everyone to know that its not that I refuse to consider change, but that I'd like to be careful about it.It would be nice to find a better system, I just don't know if it exists (so point me towards one if you like). No one expects you to reply to every post here, just pick the one that interests you the most and reply to that. I never said you couldn't post in the other thread, I just suggested that you keep the discussion in this thread or the other libertarian thread. I'm sorry if I came across as an rear end in a top hat. Well, I am an rear end in a top hat. Don't take it personally.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Your years in schooling are irrelevant you should just know how the economy works through "common sense" I mean have you ever heard of "supply and demand" They taught me supply and demand, but then I had a few semesters of 'social theory', and gently caress, I don't know what to think. They taught me all about Marx ,Durkheim and Weber and Mills. I've got this Sociological Imagination now, and I can't make it stop. Edit: I know you asked me a rhetorical question, I just wanted to toss out some names that didn't involve assholes. I posted this in the other thread after he started this thread. I think it fits. I couldn't believe he would start a thread, but I told him to go for it. The OP is the smiley of course, I knew what would happen. Pohl posted:Haha, I can't believe that loving worked. Pohl fucked around with this message at 04:01 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
I've never read Hoppes but the name makes me thirsty.Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Hobbes is basically the anti-libertarian so it'd be the weirdest typo. I made the same mistake.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 04:44
|
|