Fogdog
Well-Known Member
What language is this?
This is what happens when politics go one sided
- Thread starter Flowki
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I recognize the individual words but what you wrote makes no sense. What language are you using?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You're right about one thing. America is not a thriving country.
The rest of this is psychotic drivel, spewed by someone with no education in politics or perspective on current events and their consequences.
These two issues are as closely related as your bathroom mirror.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I wonder why you support ideas which require a threat in order to be funded ?
If I thought I had a good idea and you didn't want to participate in it or fund it, do I have a right to make you pay me anyway?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you voluntarily agreed to pay property taxes and sent your kids to public schools. take some responsibility for your own choices in life, you food stamp mooch
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So, basically you are in agreement that individual people should have the authority to use defensive force to defend themselves, but no individuals have the right to use offensive force and if they do they are the "wrong kind of authority" ?
Science? A broad topic, which requires definition of the parameters before I can answer your question.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your nose is growing Pinocchio. I grow my own food and eat road kill.
Property tax is an oxymoron, as it tries to meld together two distinct and opposing meanings into a single term as if they go together. Intentional repetition by your master which creates common acceptance of an oxymoronic concept and creates an Orwellian doublespeak normal for simpletons like you, doesn't mean it isn't an oxymoron, Moron.
If you owned something and I and / or a gang of my friends could decide how you used it, whether you can make improvements to it or not etc. and also had the ability to set an annual theft amount that I would take from you or steal your house, is it really still "your property" ?
Flowki
Well-Known Member
If people need a government to tell them they have the ''right'' to attempt self defense.. then they are fucking idiots. It's an instinct.
I'd argue about the pretense of rights and context of offensive force. As we have come to understand it the use of aggressive force is wrong, but by who's measure?, certainly not by any of the laws of nature. We are a species that has a lot of brain power, the battle was of academics who made up ''rights'' in order to have a chance in a world that was otherwise governed by ''physicality''. Not that having a chance academically is a bad thing, nor was physicality all about rape and murder. Your rights only exist for as long as those with physical power over you abide by the ''rules'' and aside from that rights is like money, a lot of it at that top, not so much at the bottom. Giving people a false sense of rights makes them think they are safe and in turn drop the ability to truly defend themselves. As they also abide by the rules in order to validate the falsity of rights they offer no real opposition and are easy to rule by more powerful people in either sense. ''Rights'' you could say are a control mechanism that allowed smart academics to manipulate their way to the top, control armies thus control populations. They are more dangerous as they have the brains to manipulate those with aggressive natures in the most damaging way, such as blitzkrieg, napalm, nukes, etc. A manipulation method, patriotism.
Good people with physical ability don't use force at all these days, that's partly why some evil academic people have an easy time. ''Offensive force'' is often deliberately mislabeled by academics. What that force is, should you contemplate miss used academia as an attack, is defense against that attack through physical force. Our society's now are heavily governed by academic rules and rights to the point that any physical attack on a person that is academically doing you wrong is against the law. Flip that around, it's like somebody wanting to beat you but you are not allowed to talk and calm the situation as it's against the attackers ''rights''.. you just have to accept you can't fight back and take the beating in silence.
I don't suggest a world governed by one or the other is better, the strong or the smart have shown to fuck things up all the same.
By science I mean has it saved more than it has destroyed. Penicillin has saved countless lives but pollution is taking countless lives. Cave men were susceptible to nature but only possessed sticks and stones to kill each other with.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Specifically, who are you talking about? Who deliberately mislabeled "Offensive Force"? What did they say? Which academics "made up rights" and what did they say?
Why is it bad that people are no longer legally able to attack those who say things they disagree with? For fucks sake, are you saying you want us to return to trial by combat and dueling for a perceived insult?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I think if I don't like something done to me, then I probably shouldn't do it to other people. In nature, animals generally do not adhere to that. What makes us human (I hope) is the ability to distinguish, discuss and alter our behavior in regards to how we treat and respect other humans.
Thank you for clarifying your science question. I think the jury is still out, but what concerns me is when / if people act like beasts and misuse science the question could be answered as well as maybe become moot in one incident of science.... for instance...
Last edited:
Flowki
Well-Known Member
Treat people how you expect to be treated only works if everyone is a decent person, it's impossible, how people ''think the world should be'' over how it factually is will continue irreversibly by natures rule. Science could remove elements of free will and aggression but you no longer have peace and happiness because they have no opposite to define them. Maybe that definition can be computer simulated but human nature in such a controllable state would be a dream come true for evil men.I think if I don't like something done to me, then I probably shouldn't do it to other people. In nature, animals generally do not adhere to that. What makes us human (I hope) is the ability to distinguish, discuss and alter our behavior in regards to how we treat and respect other humans.
Thank you for clarifying your science question. I think the jury is still out, but what concerns me is when / if people act like beasts and misuse science the question could be answered as well as maybe become moot in one incident of science.... for instance...
What I hope someday
Science is all that makes us human, take away that and we are shitting in the grass like everything else. You can make good of science billions of times, as your photo depicts it only takes one bad act to undo so much. We don't know what future destruction science will invent but historically the level always increased. We seemed to delve from the physical of throwing stones into the periodic table and then deeper into quantum physics. That scientists are getting a better understanding of the smallest building blocks is pretty scary. It's like messing with plankton in the food chain.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You may have mistaken me for a pacifist, I'm not. I think we should begin our interactions by treating people the way we'd like to be treated, meaning most people like the ability to determine their OWN lives, so respecting that is key.
It's the most compassionate way I know of to be and logically is the path to our own freedom.
That doesn't mean I'm blind to the idea that some people like to determine their own lives AND determine your life for you whether you want them to or not. Those people should be ignored if you can, made to pay restitution and dealt with using defensive force if necessary. It's a justice based philosophy.
Science? My photo? I was going bra less in that photo. Nice rack eh? No science or silicone in those furry mammaries, they're real. What's wrong with shitting in the grass?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Dueling over a perceived insult is kind of silly, but when you involve egos the size of "government leaders" it becomes extremely dangerous for innocent people as they get drawn into large scale conflicts which have nothing to do with them, and they reflexively begin bleating (and bleeding) for "their team". Then lots of people die needlessly, because they've been trained not to perceive themselves as free individuals, rather they've been trained to become useful idiots / worker bees and available cannon fodder.
So deuling was a way to confine senseless death only to the idiots who perceived the insults themselves rather automatically dragging thousands of other people into it. Today, that kind of idiocy, dragging thousands along in senseless violence takes a government to achieve and turns silly duels into large scale warfare.
You're welcome.
Flowki
Well-Known Member
It's a great idealistic way to live I'd like that too honestly. But realistically ''his way'' of living may in directly harm your way of living, like dropping a dead carcasses up stream. In his mind he is not doing anything wrong if he's a little slow or badly educated. For you to go stop him doing that, even though it makes sense, is in his view trying to force authority over him. So he goes back to his barn, grabs a shotgun and now the whole system falls apart. Potentially not the best example but people would, with no ill intent develop bad practices that they will defend. This is why some level of authority is important, people learn to listen to it and it does help avoid situations or practices that took a lot of lives in the past. As I said violence etc is not going away, what we can look at is how long we live now and the standard of life people have under authority compared to the times that were more like you describe. It's mostly pros and cons between the two while science destroying or saving the planet is ongoing.
Be careful where you make such jokes.. the far left might take it serious demanding you are legally considered a real biological women then protest for your right to pee standing up because doing it sitting down is sexist. Nothing wrong with shitting in the grass, but some folk have clearly been smoking it.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
What's a 'good people'?
Isn't one man's freedom fighter another man's terrorist?
Gotta leave the absolutist thinking behind. It gets you in trouble with reality.
Flowki
Well-Known Member
Do you have the capacity to understand what good really is?. In nature an animal or insect will take or do what it needs to survive, yes, sometimes including killing things that are a threat to it's own survival. Sometimes you get a mad dog, sometimes you get a mad human, that's life. In a man made society most of us don't directly kill, but we do very often take way more than we need to survive, indirectly killing many more people by resource hogging or terrible practices. ''Good'' by the most simplistic definition is taking what you need to survive and doing only what is necessary to achieve it. How far away from that are most of us in today's society? (myself included). No religion can be proved so none of it's commands or requests hold any weight.. and the fact that all religions are seriously out dated show them for what they are. The laws of nature hold plenty of weight because they are consistently relevant no matter how much human civilization changes. In-fact the more humans change the more evident the laws of nature become, or the consequence of breaking them. We don't want to learn anything from nature because it kills profits and makes our lazy ass lives harder.
You want to speak about reality.. as if we have all not been born into this alternate system. A species born to run spends most of it's time sitting on it's big fat ass watching trash tv.. but no man made laws are being broken so ''good person''.
I don't know what you imply by absolutist.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
What does all this mean?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
impenatrablese
Flowki
Well-Known Member
That context (capacity provided) that answers your questions and statement aside from absolutist, can you specify?.