Are there any smart Trump supporters?

FauxRoux

FauxRoux

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you call it offensive force when segregation is outlawed.

you don't know what words mean, or you are in a cult that is even more racist than the KKK.
Click to expand...
Right..because in his view any legislation passed by government is offensive coersion since they didn't ask him (or any of us...unless you count voting of course) when they made the law....

And before its pointed out many laws were made before we were born so how could they ask...(rob)...there is recourse to challenge a law if you so desired. It happens somewhat frequently.

...he has a very literal interpretation of his view regardless of how ironic, hypocritical or downright opposite the end result is from its intended purpose. Although in all fairness we are at odds as to what that final result would be given his universal rule....somehow....

His having the freedom seems more important then if that freedom leads to stability, safety or any of the other things we automatically associate as being "free".

Robs been quite obtuse on how this is suppose to create a better world in application as opposed to just theory.
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
FauxRoux said:
Right..because in his view any legislation passed by government is offensive coersion since they didn't ask him (or any of us...unless you count voting of course) when they made the law....

And before its pointed out most laws were made before we were born so how could they ask...(rob)...there is recourse to challenge a law if you so desired. It happens somewhat frequently.

...he has a very literal interpretation of his view regardless of how ironic, hypocritical or downright opposite the end result is from its intended purpose. Although in all fairness we are at odds as to what that final result would be given his universal rule....somehow....

His having the freedom seems more important then if that freedom leads to stability, safety or any of the other things we automatically associate as being "free".

Robs been quite obtuse on how this is suppose to create a better world in application as opposed to just theory.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he doesn't care about that, or if he does, it comes secondary to liberty in his mind. Liberty is the most important thing, even if it results in worse outcomes. The means justify the ends, which is incredibly ironic..
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
FauxRoux said:
If you don't get what I'm saying you are in no position to tell others they dont either. I get what I'm saying. So does padawan and seemingly the other folks reading this thread.

No amount of pointing out the flaws of the current system will validate yours.

And I didn't misstate it. I didn't "state it" at all. Can you please stop completely making shit up in an attempt to steer the conversation back to your talking points? I mean c,mon man....your taking a comment about a fantasy in which government magicaly works and using it to stear us back to the broken record of why your idea is somehow validated shearly by democracies shortcomings?

Because an irrelevant negative always proves a positive, right?


What part of "ideal fantasy world" don't you get? The whole point was that if your world view relys on a scenario that doesnt exist to function (namely...on a world where a universal rule magically covers all eventualities) why don't we just envision a democracy that functions while we're daydreaming?....So you then pointing out what is inherently wrong with democracy as a response shows either an inability to keep up with the conversation or truly as you said, you just "don't get it"....

P.S. also you've already brought that point up...its really the only one you've got....and it STILL doesn't validate your ideals ability to function as described....


Yes yes....for the 4th time, I get all that. and again...stop telling me what I mean ..so far you have been wrong every time you have done so and its a b.s. way to try to stear my points into something that helps your 1 point... Either state which part of an anarchistic movement you think is applicable to your 1 point or stop bringing it up. You alluding to our lack of knowledge and giving a link to what anarchy means is not proof you have any better clue about it then I do. It mearly shows you know how to link to it. Nor is the link lending weight to your argument.

The thing is YOU haven't added any of those "anarchistic guidelines" to your little "manifesto"...so is it my job to insert the blanks into your ideal for it to function? Or are you just adding bits as you go?

If something is missing that will make your ideal function properly then that's your job to present in the moment, not my job to guess after the fact.

I didn't take anything else into consideration because YOU didn't present anything else. So don't play this off as OUR ignorance for not agreeing with you, if anything it would be ineptitude in YOUR presentation....although in this case its simply that we don't agree with you.

But personally it sounds like you're caught in a number of logical fallacies and are now trying to dig your way out as opposed to simply copping to a half boiled idea.

For all you have written so far, in all the different ways you have tried to present it this is really the only thing you've had to say...


And as it stands its such an oversimplification as well as inflexible to any nuance that it simply won't function as described. It has nothing to do with democracy, or our understanding of anarchistic movements. Its entirely because of the shortcomings of your argument.

So if we're going to keep riding this rollercoaster of circular logic of yours I'm just going to keep responding with...
Click to expand...

So, when a person like you or I has no right to do something (because it is wrong to do) it can become right to do if enough people give themselves fancy titles and get people like you to believe them?

How does a thing which is wrong for you or I to do become right if other people do it?


FauxRoux said:
If you don't get what I'm saying you are in no position to tell others they dont either. I get what I'm saying. So does padawan and seemingly the other folks reading this thread.

No amount of pointing out the flaws of the current system will validate yours.

And I didn't misstate it. I didn't "state it" at all. Can you please stop completely making shit up in an attempt to steer the conversation back to your talking points? I mean c,mon man....your taking a comment about a fantasy in which government magicaly works and using it to stear us back to the broken record of why your idea is somehow validated shearly by democracies shortcomings?

Because an irrelevant negative always proves a positive, right?


What part of "ideal fantasy world" don't you get? The whole point was that if your world view relys on a scenario that doesnt exist to function (namely...on a world where a universal rule magically covers all eventualities) why don't we just envision a democracy that functions while we're daydreaming?....So you then pointing out what is inherently wrong with democracy as a response shows either an inability to keep up with the conversation or truly as you said, you just "don't get it"....

P.S. also you've already brought that point up...its really the only one you've got....and it STILL doesn't validate your ideals ability to function as described....


Yes yes....for the 4th time, I get all that. and again...stop telling me what I mean ..so far you have been wrong every time you have done so and its a b.s. way to try to stear my points into something that helps your 1 point... Either state which part of an anarchistic movement you think is applicable to your 1 point or stop bringing it up. You alluding to our lack of knowledge and giving a link to what anarchy means is not proof you have any better clue about it then I do. It mearly shows you know how to link to it. Nor is the link lending weight to your argument.

The thing is YOU haven't added any of those "anarchistic guidelines" to your little "manifesto"...so is it my job to insert the blanks into your ideal for it to function? Or are you just adding bits as you go?

If something is missing that will make your ideal function properly then that's your job to present in the moment, not my job to guess after the fact.

I didn't take anything else into consideration because YOU didn't present anything else. So don't play this off as OUR ignorance for not agreeing with you, if anything it would be ineptitude in YOUR presentation....although in this case its simply that we don't agree with you.

But personally it sounds like you're caught in a number of logical fallacies and are now trying to dig your way out as opposed to simply copping to a half boiled idea.

For all you have written so far, in all the different ways you have tried to present it this is really the only thing you've had to say...


And as it stands its such an oversimplification as well as inflexible to any nuance that it simply won't function as described. It has nothing to do with democracy, or our understanding of anarchistic movements. Its entirely because of the shortcomings of your argument.

So if we're going to keep riding this rollercoaster of circular logic of yours I'm just going to keep responding with...
Click to expand...

My point has been, that many people, you included, believe in two opposing things at once and get upset when that is pointed out.

You rightly recognize, the principle, that nobody can a delegate a right they do not possess, then you embrace a system which couldn't exist without that contradiction.

Then you say MY logic is circular? Interesting.

You are doing what most people do, when their cognitive dissonance bell is rung. Most of what you have been taught...is based in a lie. Peace.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you call it offensive force when segregation is outlawed.

you don't know what words mean, or you are in a cult that is even more racist than the KKK.
Click to expand...
Did it ever occur to you that you might be incorrect about all of your accusations?

It is offensive force when a person remains on their own property and another person comes to their property and demands the first person interact with them.

That is true whether the people are of the same race or different races. The person making the demand of a human interaction upon a neutral party on property owned by the neutral party is threatening offensive force.

That was true when assholes like the KKK went to black peoples homes and terrorized them. The KKK was using offensive force, the kind of force you sometimes defend.

So, it appears neither of us are fans of the KKK, but one of us (you) is a fan of the use of offensive force when it suits them.

People of all races should be free to interact on the basis ALL of the involved individuals decide, no?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
OK, you said it. We get it. Your message is not that interesting or complicated. At all. So, message received, you can go away now.
Click to expand...
Hello Fogdog. I see you popped your head up from that hole in the ground you had it stuck in.

Still pretending Bernie is about peace and love and "doing good" are you ?
 
FauxRoux

FauxRoux

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So, when a person like you or I has no right to do something (because it is wrong to do) it can become right to do if enough people give themselves fancy titles and get people like you to believe them?

How does a thing which is wrong for you or I to do become right if other people do it?





My point has been, that many people, you included, believe in two opposing things at once and get upset when that is pointed out.

You rightly recognize, the principle, that nobody can a delegate a right they do not possess, then you embrace a system which couldn't exist without that contradiction.

Then you say MY logic is circular? Interesting.

You are doing what most people do, when their cognitive dissonance bell is rung. Most of what you have been taught...is based in a lie. Peace.
Click to expand...
No amount of democracies deficiencies will make your ideal function better. You will not convince anyone objective to trade out 1 dysfunctional system for another.


So again. Full circle.

YOUR ...IDEAL...DOESNT ...WORK.... And proving democracy to have flaws does not somehow make your ideal work.

An irrelevant negative does not prove a positive
 
Last edited:
FauxRoux

FauxRoux

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Can a person delegate a right they do not possess?
Click to expand...
Clearly people can. Since some folks do it all the time.

I think what you mean is...ideally, should they be able to?

You seem to have a lot of problems discerning reality from ideals as well as ideals in theory vs application.

Rob Roy said:
You are doing what most people do, when their cognitive dissonance bell is rung. Most of what you have been taught...is based in a lie. Peace.
Click to expand...
And your doing what pretentious religious nuts do, thinking that you have some magical understanding the rest of us just can't see. I suspect because its easier to write off being the outsider if you believe yourself elevated above your peers rather then the implications of the alternative.

So just to clarify... you believe its our "conditioning" that prevents us agreeing with you? Not that perhaps your logic is flawed or that maybe we understand you just fine yet still reject your lack of scientific method (or even rational thought really) as you thus far simply ignore ALL empirical evidence presented in favor of regurgitating your painfully under thought and fundamentally flawed view?

As if pointing out government deficiencies (which is like shooting fish in a barrel) had anything to do with the drivel you have been shoveling as a political cure all.... (It doesn't).....Its the carrot you use in your bait and switch to validate the contextually irrelevant point you contingently bang on, despite its invalidity given its inability to stand on its own merit.

Try using something other then your own opinion when you're presenting something. Like facts, or even a rational hypothesis would be nice as long as you didn't guarantee a specific outcome you can't deliver.

P.S. oh...and by the by...I was raised in the Haight Ashberry by a large group of lesbians (I lovingly refer to my mothers as a "murder of lesbians").... So when you say things like..
Rob Roy said:
Most of what you have been taught...is based in a lie. Peace.
Click to expand...
It is so flat out wrong it hurts. Go preach to the kids from the bible belt or something...I'm sure somewhere in Utah your views would really "shake up the establishment, man!" But no, please...do go on about how I was raised to believe in traditional values simply because I disagree with you. Or how not agreeing with you must = me being pro current legislation.:roll:

I'm starting to wonder if you even understand how to make a "cause/effect" comparison without relying on a logical fallacy.

First step. For something to "cause" an "effect" there must be some form of verifiable relationship between the 2. So far this is about where you're at...



I'm sorry, but I've officially written this off since you seem unable to bring anything new to the table that might allow me to take you seriously.

I am truly disappointed.
 
Last edited:
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Did it ever occur to you that you might be incorrect about all of your accusations?

It is offensive force when a person remains on their own property and another person comes to their property and demands the first person interact with them.

That is true whether the people are of the same race or different races. The person making the demand of a human interaction upon a neutral party on property owned by the neutral party is threatening offensive force.

That was true when assholes like the KKK went to black peoples homes and terrorized them. The KKK was using offensive force, the kind of force you sometimes defend.

So, it appears neither of us are fans of the KKK, but one of us (you) is a fan of the use of offensive force when it suits them.

People of all races should be free to interact on the basis ALL of the involved individuals decide, no?
Click to expand...
We get it, you want to abolish civil rights so you can kick black people out of stores. We get that.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
FauxRoux said:
No amount of democracies deficiencies will make your ideal function better. You will not convince anyone objective to trade out 1 dysfunctional system for another.


So again. Full circle.

YOUR ...IDEAL...DOESNT ...WORK.... And proving democracy to have flaws does not somehow make your ideal work.

An irrelevant negative does not prove a positive
Click to expand...

Anything that is impossible, cannot happen.

Anything that is possible, can happen.

A system based in coercion, an involuntary component, which your system cannot shed, attempts to protect people from coercion, which by its very inclusion at the onset, is obviously impossible.

What seems to escape you, is the fundamental difference between the two ways people can interact.

One way, your way, EMBRACES involuntary human interactions as the primary means, that is irrefutable.

Another way, mine, REJECTS involuntary human interactions and instead embraces voluntary human interactions as the primary means.


Also, when you say "will never work" . If you mean working in every instance, we agree. That's not because the basis of "my" belief is flawed. It's because some people will not APPLY it and instead apply YOUR means of operating instead.

Can a person delegate a right they do not possess?
 
FauxRoux

FauxRoux

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Anything that is impossible, cannot happen.

Anything that is possible, can happen.

A system based in coercion, an involuntary component, which your system cannot shed, attempts to protect people from coercion, which by its very inclusion at the onset, is obviously impossible.

What seems to escape you, is the fundamental difference between the two ways people can interact.

One way, your way, EMBRACES involuntary human interactions as the primary means, that is irrefutable.

Another way, mine, REJECTS involuntary human interactions and instead embraces voluntary human interactions as the primary means.


Also, when you say "will never work" . If you mean working in every instance, we agree. That's not because the basis of "my" belief is flawed. It's because some people will not APPLY it and instead apply YOUR means of operating instead.

Can a person delegate a right they do not possess?
Click to expand...
Hahaha...god this broken record is awful and no more correct then the first time you played it.

Its like someone who upon realizing the person they are talking to doesn't speak English, repeats himself... in English...just louder.

Also you continuing to tell me I believe "X" simply because I dont believe in what you do.. Kind of makes others saying your world view is so you can sleep will 10 yr olds fair as well.

The truth is I dont believe either the current system or what you currently propose are the way to go.

Rob Roy said:
Also, when you say "will never work" . If you mean working in every instance, we agree. That's not because the basis of "my" belief is flawed. It's because some people will not APPLY it and instead apply YOUR means of operating instead.

Can a person delegate a right they do not possess?
Click to expand...
Well im glad we agree that it wont work universally, even if not on the why...and stop calling current legislation "mine"... it shows a lack of basic comprehension. Its as much "mine" as yours.. Im not for it...im just not for your ideal as its presented either. Things that are not "A" are not automatically "B" By that same logic people could argue you are pro kiddy diddler. This is not a hard premise to understand. keep up. ....but that admission is a huge step forward... Personally I believe your ideal on its own, omits human nature. Complex social interaction cant be wholly predicted/encompassed by 1 utilitarian rule.

I will say its a good ideal. It just wont stand on its own merit. You would need more structure to account for human nature. Which would lead to a system closer to the current one. Hence my question of why tear down completely vs repair whats broken (if we're speaking in ideals, since at this point speaking ideally is the closest either our ideas have to happening in reality).

And for the 20th time yes... a person can delegate anothers rights (currently in the US and many places)....people do all the time....I think what you mean (because i try not to be so pretentious as to tell you what you mean).... Should they be able to? or even... is it right that governments do?

rsz_20030711-2.jpg

Well lets take a second to enjoy something that we can all agree on...
rsz_1457964825-20160314.jpg
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
FauxRoux said:
Hahaha...god this broken record is awful and no more correct then the first time you played it.

Its like someone who upon realizing the person they are talking to doesn't speak English, repeats himself... in English...just louder.

Also you continuing to tell me I believe "X" simply because I dont believe in what you do.. Kind of makes others saying your world view is so you can sleep will 10 yr olds fair as well.

The truth is I dont believe either the current system or what you currently propose are the way to go.


Well im glad we agree that it wont work universally, even if not on the why...and stop calling current legislation "mine"... it shows a lack of basic comprehension. Its as much "mine" as yours.. Im not for it...im just not for your ideal as its presented either. Things that are not "A" are not automatically "B" By that same logic people could argue you are pro kiddy diddler. This is not a hard premise to understand. keep up. ....but that admission is a huge step forward... Personally I believe your ideal on its own, omits human nature. Complex social interaction cant be wholly predicted/encompassed by 1 utilitarian rule.

I will say its a good ideal. It just wont stand on its own merit. You would need more structure to account for human nature. Which would lead to a system closer to the current one. Hence my question of why tear down completely vs repair whats broken (if we're speaking in ideals, since at this point speaking ideally is the closest either our ideas have to happening in reality).

And for the 20th time yes... a person can delegate anothers rights (currently in the US and many places)....people do all the time....I think what you mean (because i try not to be so pretentious as to tell you what you mean).... Should they be able to? or even... is it right that governments do?

View attachment 3657842

Well lets take a second to enjoy something that we can all agree on...
View attachment 3657847
Click to expand...

Despite your wall of words attempting to reframe what I'm saying, I still appreciate your demeanor, for the most part.

In your view is it principled to forcibly delegate a right that others possess without their individual consent ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I'm sure he doesn't care about that, or if he does, it comes secondary to liberty in his mind. Liberty is the most important thing, even if it results in worse outcomes. The means justify the ends, which is incredibly ironic..
Click to expand...

The means used are part of the whole. If you use "bad means" you've already tainted the whole, Grasshopper. Embracing an ENTIRE OPERATING SYSTEM, which begins with a bad means will not lead to positive outcomes.
 
FauxRoux

FauxRoux

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
In your view is it principled to forcibly delegate a right that others possess without their individual consent ?
Click to expand...
I would have to take the facts of the individual situation into account first so as not to unintentionally create a worse injustice then the one I'm being asked to address.

Rob Roy said:
The means used are part of the whole. If you use "bad means" you've already tainted the whole, Grasshopper. Embracing an ENTIRE OPERATING SYSTEM, which begins with a bad means will not lead to positive outcomes.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the sentiment, but just because a rule is just, doesn't mean it can't be used for injustice. You show me a fair and just system and I'll show you people bending, breaking and taking advantage of it.

If a system requires all particapents to act morally to function....it won't.

Also I wouldn't say I restructured your argument....I have been pointing out its lack of structure. If you sift through that "wall of words" you will find meaning and reasoning in them.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
FauxRoux said:
I would have to take the facts of the individual situation into account first so as not to unintentionally create a worse injustice then the one I'm being asked to address.


I appreciate the sentiment, but just because a rule is just, doesn't mean it can't be used for injustice. You show me a fair and just system and I'll show you people bending, breaking and taking advantage of it.

If a system requires all particapents to act morally to function....it won't.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering the questions.

As far as your first answer, I'd say in most instances, it would be hard to create a greater injustice than to take away another peaceful persons right to be self determining. I'd go so far as saying that is akin to a form of enslavement.

My "system" isn't a one size fits all system at all. It doesn't expect or even anticipate everyone to act morally either. It accepts that some people won't, that's why defensive force is permissible. So, when a person delegates your rights without your consent, you are not obliged to OBEY. Since while you can legislate immorality, only a fool would obey an immoral law.

However offensive force which is the primary means of most kinds of systems today is not permitted and people are accountable for their actions.

Incidentally the world will remain "fucked up" until people can stop believing that systems which promote offensive force as the primary means are, "the best there is". They are recanting a lie they have been told.
 
FauxRoux

FauxRoux

Well-Known Member
You keep bringing up defensive force being permissible like we don't get it and keep completely ignoring when we point out scams, flim flams or any taking advantage of another through deception ( like is often done to children). These situations often are done with consent ,with the victim not realizing what has in fact happened until much later.

I like the direction your headed, I just feel you are letting your ideals oversimplify a complex issue. It just doesn't sound feasible to me as you are pitching it.

I mean, what are you suggesting? Mob justice?

The kicker is I've lived in the Middle East and seen druidic villages that have versions of this idea in place....can't say I'm a fan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top