Thought crimes?

[Dr Kynes]

Rome split in two. Byzantium persisted after the Western branch went tango uniform. The Byzantines are given somewhat short shrift by historians sanctioned and commissioned by the other leading brand, which still maintains its offices as a sovereign patch of urban Rome.

It is an interesting prejudice that Byzantium is excluded from Europe Proper. cn

its based on the Greek definitions of the Orient and Occident. anything east of the Bosporus Straits is Orientalis including Asia Minoris Asia Majoris and all parts east. anything west is Occidentalis,, including Europa Britannia Hibernia and everything else all the way out to Utter Thule.

Byzantium is defined by it's Orientalness rather than it's Romanness. in culture architecture, legalism, vernacular language, religious ritual, and attitude regarding the rest of the world, byzantium is decidedly Oriental. only their ritual latin remained roman in origin.

 

[cannabineer]

its based on the Greek definitions of the Orient and Occident. anything east of the Bosporus Straits is Orientalis including Asia Minoris Asia Majoris and all parts east. anything west is Occidentalis,, including Europa Britannia Hibernia and everything else all the way out to Utter Thule.

Byzantium is defined by it's Orientalness rather than it's Romanness. in culture architecture, legalism, vernacular language, religious ritual, and attitude regarding the rest of the world, byzantium is decidedly Oriental. only their ritual latin remained roman in origin.

But it's defined thus by West European Chauvinists. In this instance, I question the soundness of the definition. It isn't ... definitive, in the classical sense.
Consider also the different ways the eastern boundary of Europe has been defined and redefined through the relevant ages. It's rather arbitrary. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

How many Romans do you think really died at the battle of Cannae?

those were republican romans, we is talking imperial rome here.

the events at discussion occurred well after Carthage was pounded into submission by Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, and Carthage ceased to be a power in the Mediterranean.

 

[Dr Kynes]

But it's defined thus by West European Chauvinists. In this instance, I question the soundness of the definition. It isn't ... definitive, in the classical sense.
Consider also the different ways the eastern boundary of Europe has been defined and redefined through the relevant ages. It's rather arbitrary. cn

the Bosporus was always accepted by the Greeks as the eastern border of Greece, even when Troy was in the east. the Bosporus is the partition used since antiquity to demarcate between east and west. i think its pretty definitive.

 

[ChesusRice]

those were republican romans, we is talking imperial rome here.

the events at discussion occurred well after Carthage was pounded into submission by Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, and Carthage ceased to be a power in the Mediterranean.

But do you think the numbers involved were real or inflated?

I know that history said hannibals troops didnt have time to kill all the fleeing romans so they hamstrung them so they could continue the pursuit of the survivors

 

[Dr Kynes]

But do you think the numbers involved were real or inflated?

I know that history said hannibals troops didnt have time to kill all the fleeing romans so they hamstrung them so they could continue the pursuit of the survivors

meh. i know of no official roles of the legions sent to carthage in the second punic war that could be used to confirm the claims made by succeeding generations of historians. every number offered up from antiquity must be evaluated through the customary inflation used by history professors to increase the drama and the scope of their favorite battles.

remember history is now considered one of the "Humanities" and thus real numbers and record keeping are only of secondary concern to their "scholarship"

also at that time all roman soldiers were the sons of propertied men who owned land, and had their own wealth to support the arms and armour of their sons. had the carthaginians actually had half a chance to capture a roman of that era they would have ransomed them for a pretty penny, not killed them.

beware when accepting numbers from questionable sources.

 

[cannabineer]

the Bosporus was always accepted by the Greeks as the eastern border of Greece, even when Troy was in the east. the Bosporus is the partition used since antiquity to demarcate between east and west. i think its pretty definitive.

Between Europe and Asia, OK. But East and West were much more loaded terms, and that divide ran through Europe ... in different places at different times and depending on criterion. Note how Byzantium is derogated as Eastern in the eyes of the keepers of Western traditions (sic!). cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

Between Europe and Asia, OK. But East and West were much more loaded terms, and that divide ran through Europe ... in different places at different times and depending on criterion. Note how Byzantium is derogated as Eastern in the eyes of the keepers of Western traditions (sic!). cn

occidentalis : west.

orientalis: east


that some dudes cant keep this straight is no skin off my beak.

i use Greenwich Mean Time to determine +/- off the Prime Meridian. i will NEVER use the "Swatch Meridian". they can eat a dick. others may use their own time zones, just as many different groups use their own caledars to demarcate the years (its variously 1300 something or 1500 something depending which moslem calender you look at, or 5000 something in judaism. dont get me started on the asian calendars) this doesnt change the simple fact that its now 2012 in most of the world.

even if that is "Occidentalism"

 

[cannabineer]

occidentalis : west.

orientalis: east


that some dudes cant keep this straight is no skin off my beak.

i use Greenwich Mean Time to determine +/- off the Prime Meridian. i will NEVER use the "Swatch Meridian". they can eat a dick. others may use their own time zones, just as many different groups use their own caledars to demarcate the years (its variously 1300 something or 1500 something depending which moslem calender you look at, or 5000 something in judaism. dont get me started on the asian calendars) this doesnt change the simple fact that its now 2012 in most of the world.

even if that is "Occidentalism"

~grin~ That reminds me of a story about true language. Some men were arguing about it, and an old Englishman shut them all down with the following bit of profundity:

"Take this object. The French call it 'un couteau'. The Germans refer to it as 'ein Messer'. However, when all is said and done, it is actually a knife." cn

 

[Rob Roy]

a few wealthy landowners a few hundred years ago created the constitution and through it the original form of the government we see horribly mutated and deformed today. that original government was a society which would give the people a voice, yet protect the minority voices from oppression by the majority. (blah blah blah slaves blah blah yeah we all can see that problem ourselves)/. this government was established to create a nation strong enough to defend itself against the imperialist powers, but gentle enough to allow the liberty of the people (the white people, the ones with balls, if you insist on dragging up every problem in history then you are the poor debater). this government and nation, like all nations is intended to exist in perpetuity. this means that descendants will presumably have the same if not greater rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as their forefathers. demanding that every successive person to be born into the nation agree in toto with the codes laws and regulations, as well as every move made by the nation over the last 250 years is ridiculous.

consent is presumed based upon the knowledge that should the US have been determined to be tuely unfair and unworkable the oppressed are free to depart and raise their kids elsewhere. (case in point liberia, canada mexico etc) the US does not have an iron curtain (or a bamboo one either) keeping residents prisoner. if i decide to pack up and move to canada mexico cuba spain england france or any other nation i may, taking my wealth with me when i go. therefore remaining in this nation gives implied consent to be governed, and having the right to vote gives one a voice (however small) in the workings of the nation and your local government too.

That is consent.

the prospect of lysander spooner or yourself moving deep into the wilderness to live out your dreamy noble savage lifestyle as a back woods hermit is not irrelevant. it is HIGHLY relevant. if you believe every interaction between persons and the government which forms the framework for the society as a whole must be mutual, consensual and transactional, then moving off to the wilderness, to "Grow Beards, get Weird and disappear up in the Mountains" (~Mathers, Dre, Trice et al, 2007) is entirely relevant. in such a utopian lifestyle, you would only be disturbed in your anarcho-hermitic reverie when you chose to interact with others, and eventually when your corpse becomes food for passing wolverines and coyotes.

that lysander spooner and yourself have chosen to NOT indulge in this option (though many have) implies consent to interaction with OUR society and it's relevant government agencies and regulatory bodies.

You used a lot of ink to sidestep the question. You seem to do that alot. So if others can give your "consent" for you, what does consent mean ?


By the way my "noble savage" dream as you put it, rests on the idea that people shouldn't harm others, your "society" seems based on others making decisions for you sometimes hundreds of years prior to your birth and then calling it consent....sounds more like submission doesn't it ?


As an aside, I did like the term Anarcho hermitic reverie, not bad. Mind if I use it ?

 

[Dr Kynes]

citizenship in a nation-state is not like a gym membership were you can opt out of sauna and massage benefits to save money, nor is it like the ala carte menu at your local hoffbrau. you cant just get the pilsner and suasages, you have to take the saurkraut and liverwurst too.

 

[Rob Roy]

citizenship in a nation-state is not like a gym membership were you can opt out of sauna and massage benefits to save money, nor is it like the ala carte menu at your local hoffbrau. you cant just get the pilsner and suasages, you have to take the saurkraut and liverwurst too.

... Yes but in a gym membership scenario a person is free to go to the gym across the street or no gym at all. In your scenario, you are admitting that practically speaking when government is involved no choice exists. In that regard it appears that you agree with me that "consent" is an improper term to apply to citizenship. The more accurate term would be submission backed by threats of force for noncompliance.

So if a person is forced to submit to something, even when they harm no other....are they "free" ?

 

[Dr Kynes]

... Yes but in a gym membership scenario a person is free to go to the gym across the street or no gym at all. In your scenario, you are admitting that practically speaking when government is involved no choice exists. In that regard it appears that you agree with me that "consent" is an improper term to apply to citizenship. The more accurate term would be submission backed by threats of force for noncompliance.

So if a person is forced to submit to something, even when they harm no other....are they "free" ?

dont try to mischaracterize my statements or twist their meaning to suit your buffleheaded belief system.

you are free to move to the country of your choice if the US is simply unbearable.

you may even petition to change the laws of this nation, your state or your town to suit your fantasy world.

 

[Rob Roy]

dont try to mischaracterize my statements or twist their meaning to suit your buffleheaded belief system.

you are free to move to the country of your choice if the US is simply unbearable.

you may even petition to change the laws of this nation, your state or your town to suit your fantasy world.

Ahem ...If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, which of course is what a Bufflehead is.

Okay so on one hand you say a person's consent CAN be given by others, then when I say that it really isn't consent rather it should be called submission you deny this? You were the one that inserted a "must accept" caveat into the equation when you said liverwurst et al is on the menu whether a person likes it or not. Removal of choice is the act that also changes consent to submission. Now who's a bufflehead ?

Your "move out of the country argument" is flawed too. In a free country people should be free to interact or not. Being forced to comply or move is hardly an endorsement of freedom.
Not to mention it's not so easy to move these days even if a person were inclined to do that.

Petition to change the laws? PUHLEEZE....that's really funny. I've spent lots of time doing "petioning", but when the words can be manipulated and the state is giver of the law, judge and jury the game is rigged.

My "fantasy world" is based on the simple premise that it is wrong to initiate aggression. Do you agree with that or not ? I'm really curious what your one word answer for that is.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Ahem ...If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, which of course is what a Bufflehead is.

Okay so on one hand you say a person's consent CAN be given by others, then when I say that it really isn't consent rather it should be called submission you deny this? You were the one that inserted a "must accept" caveat into the equation when you said liverwurst et al is on the menu whether a person likes it or not. Removal of choice is the act that also changes consent to submission. Now who's a bufflehead ?

Your "move out of the country argument" is flawed too. In a free country people should be free to interact or not. Being forced to comply or move is hardly an endorsement of freedom.
Not to mention it's not so easy to move these days even if a person were inclined to do that.

Petition to change the laws? PUHLEEZE....that's really funny. I've spent lots of time doing "petioning", but when the words can be manipulated and the state is giver of the law, judge and jury the game is rigged.

My "fantasy world" is based on the simple premise that it is wrong to initiate aggression. Do you agree with that or not ? I'm really curious what your one word answer for that is.

since we are going to reductio the shit out of this here absurdum, then i shall characterize your views as they appear to me:

in your view, there can be no law, no tax no policy, no organization, and in fact no country save that EVERY PERSON agree specifically with EVERY SINGLE LINE ITEM OF EVERY POLICY AND TAX or it is all invalid, illegal and offensive t your delicate anarcho-sensibilities.

thats silly. it's Anarcho-Retarded if you find living within the constraints of a society so distasteful then move to the wilderness like Ted Khazinski, and unabomber the fuck out of yourself.

I do not gently stroke the worn pages of a tattered copy of Walden and jerk off, nor do i indulge in the fantasy of a marxist paradise were all men are equal free an inexplicably prosperous despite the lack of any infrastructure, regulation or restriction on any activity of any description, including agriculture, industry, mercantilism and banditry, though it seems you consider them all to be identical in their wickedness and evil.

a farmer's son does not elect to be born on a farm, and in fact children have no consent at all in their creation, so when an angsty teen slashes his emo wrists he is naturally "Opting out" of his non-consensual presence on this mortal coil. likewise, the proximity of wilderness areas where you could wander off and become a freaky hermit living in a cave and wearing the skins of coyotes indicates you have "opted in" for living in society. nobody s forcing you to stay, the yukon territories are right there waiting, or if you prefer a faster method of travel to your anarcho-utopean wonderland, all you need is deep water, a heavy stone and a short rope.

 

[ChesusRice]

Hey you have to retract that last paragraph

He may be unstable enough to take you up on it

And you dont want to be responsible in any way for that

 

[canndo]

the argument comes down to the one I had with my child when she wailed "but I don't wanna...". The end result is..."although your needs are important to us here in this household, your wants play a far less significant role, for you see, being a part of this family involves doing things that you do not particularly wish to do" - I usually just replied "tough".

 

[Dr Kynes]

the argument comes down to the one I had with my child when she wailed "but I don't wanna...". The end result is..."although your needs are important to us here in this household, your wants play a far less significant role, for you see, being a part of this family involves doing things that you do not particularly wish to do" - I usually just replied "tough".

when i said "i dont wanna" i was usually informed by my momma that "i dont wanna smack you in the face, but..."

 

[cannabineer]

Ahem ...If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, which of course is what a Bufflehead is.

Okay so on one hand you say a person's consent CAN be given by others, then when I say that it really isn't consent rather it should be called submission you deny this? You were the one that inserted a "must accept" caveat into the equation when you said liverwurst et al is on the menu whether a person likes it or not. Removal of choice is the act that also changes consent to submission. Now who's a bufflehead ?

Your "move out of the country argument" is flawed too. In a free country people should be free to interact or not. Being forced to comply or move is hardly an endorsement of freedom.
Not to mention it's not so easy to move these days even if a person were inclined to do that.

Petition to change the laws? PUHLEEZE....that's really funny. I've spent lots of time doing "petioning", but when the words can be manipulated and the state is giver of the law, judge and jury the game is rigged.

My "fantasy world" is based on the simple premise that it is wrong to initiate aggression. Do you agree with that or not ? I'm really curious what your one word answer for that is.

I tend to concur. "Never start a fight, but always finish one" seems like sound policy, both at the individual and societal level. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

I tend to concur. "Never start a fight, but always finish one" seems like sound policy, both at the individual and societal level. cn

your statement is an excellent summation of my personal philosophy. unfortunately robby will take this as concession to the dubious wisdom of lysander spooner, and conclude that he was right about all of his wacky numbskull anarcho-starvationalist beliefs. next stop, somalia.

choosing to NOT be the guy who shakes down other kids for their lunchmoney does not mean i wish to indulge in all the other idiotic claims of the spoonerites, or embrace robby's insane claim that all of society should be consensual and transactional, and every person should opt in or out of every policy or tax he doesnt believe in. thats stupid in the extreme. i aint got no kids, so i should get arefund for every dollar i paid that went t the schools, i aint never been in jail, so want my prison monies back, no cop ever did anything for me but give me tickets, i want all my cop money back. my house never burt down, i want my fire department money back. i aint never started no war s i want my military money back...

so all told the government owes me EVERY DIME of income and payroll tax i ever paid, and about 3/4 of my excise and stamp taxes back too.

ill expect my check for pretty close to 1.8 million dollars by next week.