if was not the parents neither the authorities of the state who taught the children to murder
I'm really sorry, I can't even parse this sentence, so I don't know what is it that you mean to give you a meaningful response. As far as I know, you originally asked me who taught these adolescents to commit murder, and I responded to you that it was authority figures (likely their parents) who taught them violence first-hand. I think that should resolve your question. Or maybe I got the question wrong? |
|
|
|
I'm not interested in another appeal to authority faliacy, no.
For starters, I wasn't talking to you, so your reply is alien to me. Moving on. You've already established that you, MoonShadow, have a particular form of brain damage (product of child abuse in all likelihood) that makes you impervious to reason. It's no wonder that you'd reinterpret an offer for a book on child abuse as "appeal to authority fallacy" -- you can't stand to think about the topic, and you will do everything in your power to derail it, because you would rather die than admit that you're a child abuser. And you can have any opinoin you wish, so long as you don't try to impose that opinion upn me and claim it's reason.
Despite your paranoia, no one is doing that here, or planning to do that. All I personally did is informing you that what you do with your children and what you believe about your activities is wrong and malevolent. More than that, I cannot do. The therapy you need isn't in these forums -- it's in the hand of a well-studied professional. And now, I've had far too much crazy and animosity to digest from you, so you've been added to my ignore list. Good bye and good riddance. |
|
|
|
Well, I never said that the welfare programs had to stop... Just that they had to support themselves. I wonder how Food Stamps would do, having to compete against Goodwill?
I know I wouldn't give my money to Food Stamps, if I had a choice. I'd probably give it to Goodwill. |
|
|
|
If a murder was not taught neither by the authorities of the state neither by it parents, who taught them?
Do you think this murder was motivated by his parents or by the state? If neither, who or what motivated the 15 years old boy to murder?
I don't want to be mean, but I answered this question already and I honestly don't feel like repeating myself. Maybe you're asking a different question? |
|
|
|
I beg to differ, respectfully. I consider Myrkul's analysis and participation here to be a resounding success. I agree with Myrkul that statism, like any other religion or other authoritarian cult, can be understood as a disease characterized by humans abusing each other, mainly propagated from parent (or other authority figure) to child, when the authority figure beats or yells at the child "because I say so / for your own good". Regardless of the dictionary definition of statism. You are free to agree with whatever misinterpretation you accept as factual. Thanks, you're right and I appreciate your tolerance and understanding. I'm also free to agree with Myrkul's correct assessment of his observations. Thus, I did :-) There's incredible amounts of evidence supporting this view, too. If you're interested, Lloyd deMause's work "The origins of war in child abuse" will more than quell any thirst you might have for evidence supporting this observation. Please, present this "incredible amounts of evidence" which you claim to substantiate Myrkul statements. Somehow I don't think copypasting a whole book along with all its citations would constitute acceptable behavior here. I pointed you to the book in question so you could afford yourself the information you're requesting right now. It's, of course, up to you to learn more by cracking it open. Your choice. I can also recommend to you the Bomb in the Brain series http://fdrurl.com/bib highly, highly recommended, especially if you are more audiovisual than lettery lettery (I'm pretty sure that the book I recommended was made into an audiobook by the same author of the Bomb in the Brain series, if you're into audiobooks -- that's how I got that book into my brain). I hope you enjoy this as well. Have a great day! :-) |
|
|
|
They can't, because change.org can't make change. (See what I did there?  ) |
|
|
|
|
They can collect 50 million signatures -- if they attempt to secede in any practical way, anyone doing anything to support that end goal will no doubt be slaughtered like pigs.
That is the unfortunate reality. Never bring a signature to a gunfight. :-)
|
|
|
|
[...]
Three thousand years. That's 300 generations of humans
[...]
Well said. yeah ok The number may be a little off, but for the most part of mankind, the time to be pregnant with child was beginning of adolescence. Don't let your modern cultural beliefs color the facts of history. :-) Have a nice day! |
|
|
|
Assuming they would be open-minded enough to consider it, how would they do that in a sane way?
What would those steps be?
Step 1: Sound money system. Sorry Banksters, gotta earn your interest from now on. Step 2: No more gun control laws. Step 3: No more tax laws. Sorry, IRS goons, maybe you can find accounting jobs. Step 4: Anyone who wants to can start a military or police force with which to defend their fellow citizens. Step 5: The court system is dissolved. Arbitration, not government courts, decides cases. Congratulations, peaceable dis-assembly of the State. This is hard to do. One in two people living in any contemporary society gets their bread buttered from the teat of the State. Chances are, these parasites will revolt and murder others just to keep the sweet stolen milk flowing to their mouths. |
|
|
|
What you see in the prison is the inevitable result of having taught these adolescents that violence was how you get your way -- they become violent individuals and use violence themselves.
Are you implying that for every underage murder inside that prison, the respective parents taught them to kill? If not, who taught them to resort to violence? I have absolutely no doubt that every child in that prison was taught violence by authorities (probably their parents) on a first-hand basis, if you know what I mean. Go into a prison and interview violent offenders for their childhood, then tell us what the common thread in their lives is (spoiler: child abuse). |
|
|
|
Nagle was one of the guysthe guy shouting the loudest for a total crash of bitcoins valuation here on the forums last year.
He was absent since it went back up, now he is trolling you guys on wikipedia, successfully it seems since the sentence of concern is still there and kicking.
I knew that name sounded familiar. I remember viewing his "algorithm" on Wikipedia last year and wondering "how does a computer scientist not seem to understand the definition of a ponzi scheme." Selective ignorance. Happens to the smartest of us all. |
|
|
|
It is my contention that Statism is a form of Stockholm Syndrome, You contention do not change the meaning of established words or concepts: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/statism?q=statismThe goal of your thread completely failed. Statism is not a disease or a affection which requires a cure or a healing. Statism is just and solely a political perspective. You are, of course, free to disagree with any political perspective. I beg to differ, respectfully. I consider Myrkul's analysis and participation here to be a resounding success. I agree with Myrkul that statism, like any other religion or other authoritarian cult, can be understood as a disease characterized by humans abusing each other, mainly propagated from parent (or other authority figure) to child, when the authority figure beats or yells at the child "because I say so / for your own good". Regardless of the dictionary definition of statism. There's incredible amounts of evidence supporting this view, too. If you're interested, Lloyd deMause's work "The origins of war in child abuse" will more than quell any thirst you might have for evidence supporting this observation. Political issues are really just the evolved manifestation of dysfunctional family issues, of course, in disguise. |
|
|
|
Conclusion: You suffer from stockholm syndrome, and are currently rationalizing your parents' violent behavior towards you as loving, when in fact it was abusive. Furthermore, you seek other parental figures to tell you what to do, in the form of a state. Should this parental figure disappear, you are afraid you will be unable to act in a peaceable manner toward other human beings. I am truly sorry for your damaged condition. You should seek psychological help.
This is not an argument, Myrkul; this is trolling. While I don't mind a humorous jab every now and again, this doesn't qualify. You have literally just attempted to undermine your opposition by accusing him of a psychological condition that would presume to affect his objectivity. It's an ad hominem. Do not do this again. It is my contention that Statism is a form of Stockholm Syndrome, and that statists, to the extent that they defend the violent actions of the State, are engaging in behavior consistent with Stockholm Syndrome, likewise people who defend their parent's violent actions. But, since you're the moderator, and have the "big guns," I reluctantly bow to your force majeur. Consider that line of argument closed. I agree with Myrkul that MoonShadow is exhibiting the telltale "apologizing on behalf of the aggressor" behavior characteristic of Livestockholm Syndrome. I'm almost sure that MoonShadow was abused as a child, came to believe that the abuse was "for his own good", and is now repeating the same appalling relationship dynamic with people he has physical power over. Abuse victims who identify the abuse as abuse rather than a good thing, don't end up abusing others. The acknowledgement of abuse as such, is the key, well-studied, confirmed, scientifically validated difference between an abuse victim that goes on to abuse others, and an abuse victim that goes on to live a peaceful and happy life. Oh, one more thing: People with brain damage cannot be persuaded with arguments -- those only work on healthy brains. Want an effective tactic to deal with abusers? Just point their damage out and then ostracize them. |
|
|
|
Oh, hi! (...) Would you please address this post? I wish to know what are your arguments regarding violence against children and teenagers. I wish to read arguments regarding this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZhxktkN7EIThis video shows scenes of a rebellion inside a special prison in Brazil for children which have committed violent crimes, including murder. The detainees are all under 18 years old. They made the civil servants of the prison hostage after few adult visitants managed to sneak fire guns inside the prison to free part of the detainees with links to a criminal faction. Few civil servants were beat and one was shoot. The police force had to intervene with rubber bullet guns. What are your arguments regarding violence against children in the context of the above video? Using aggressive violence to obtain anything from anyone (obedience, money, whatever) is not only malevolent but also destructive, especially when the victims are children or adolescentsWhat you see in the prison is the inevitable result of having taught these adolescents that violence was how you get your way -- they become violent individuals and use violence themselves. |
|
|
|
It breaks my heart when I read this story while being 100% certain that in the end the solution to all these problems will be found in violence that caused the problems in the first place i.e. in a small gang of thugs enforcing arbitrary rules through violence robbing people of their freedom and wealth i.e. a democratic government. Will they ever learn?  Greece is the great-grandparent of the very concept of the modern State. They have repeated the same poisonous charade for about three thousand years, failing again and again. Three thousand years. That's 300 generations of humans, doing the same destructive shit over and over, like lunatics, unaware that the very thing they worship is what keeps destroying them. I do not hold any hope that they will learn. In fact, I think they'll just murder each other, completely oblivious to what really ails their society, as the rulers who engineered this disaster and profited from it quietly laugh all the way to the European Central Bank. For those who defend the State with cries of "what about the poor": tell us, o magnanimous examples of generosity with other people's money, what about the poor now, as the State inevitably collapses? |
|
|
|
'ATHENS, Greece (AP) — A sign taped to a wall in an Athens hospital appealed for civility from patients. "The doctors on duty have been unpaid since May," it read, "Please respect their work."' LOL antisocialized health care. This is the endgame: http://mises.org/daily/3650OTOH, places like this are ripe for agorism. Bitcoin has great potential here. |
|
|
|
|
I agree that any attempt to institute any new form of organizing society (mutualism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism) by way of violence (revolution, coup, mass expropriation, whatever) will be ultimately self-defeating, destructive and hypocritical. Every time such a course of action has been attempted, the result hasn't been the institution of the new desired order, but rather a more ruthless form of government.
So let's be careful about suggesting anything like that.
|
|
|
|
States are big organisations. And a lot of states were used to very bad things (I mean really bad things like genocide or willingly cause mass starvation). A state is not a good nor a bad things per se.
Normally, I would ask you "how exactly do you know that?" but this time I won't. You are very much wrong when you say that. Forgive me, but no, states weren't "made" to do "bad things" -- they chose to do these evil things themselves. You can't sit here and tell me that Hitler's government was somehow "used" to execute the Endlösung, or Stalin was duped into the purges, or Lincoln was bamboozled into executing the Sioux massacres. I'm not an idiot to believe such an outrageous and nonsensical theory, and neither are the other people in this thread. "Governments are used by evil people to do bad things" is a false statement of belief, mere and vain apologetics to discharge / disclaim / minimize States' responsibility for the mass murders and other evil things they deliberately chose to do. The observable reality is that the evil people are in government, that they conceive and carry out their mass murderous agendas, and that you can't deny this. Your attempt to deny this is a palpable symptom of Livestockholm Syndrome -- "I can't afford to accept the reality that these abusers are actually abusers, so I'm going to invent a reason to believe that they are not." This reminds me of the good ole' excuse "but my dad didn't know any better, that's why he beat me up" excuse, that lots of people use to apologize for abusive brutes. |
|
|
|
Of course can and will the state force you to reveal at least one adress. But how will they force you to give them all of your adresses you're dealing with?
If theres a way to force you in compliance a state will do so. But I don't see how in this case.
record your internet activity, make the use of strong encryption to hide activity a crime, secure a warrant for your home/computer/safetydeposit boxes, make penalty for the refusal to provide key to encrypted files/partitions worse than the underlying crime (i.e. it is 5 years in prison and forfeiture of the value of the address for failing to reveal it, but 30 years in prison and forfeiture of all assets for not providing the passphrase), use enhanced interrogation techniques (a euphemism for torture make no mistake about it), employ the use of drugs to compel you to testify against yourself, deem your non-compliance the actions of an enemy of the state and seize all property and assets (truthful or not), keep you under surveillance, compel your neighbors, business associates, family members to testify against you. Worst case scenario deem you a national security risk and assasinate your without due process or trial. While that might get them your private keys it may make other subjects less likely to hide things from the govt for fear thus future "misunderstandings" might result in their extermination. Not saying the state will do so however the state makes the rules. The idea that there is a limit to what the state "can" do is just laughable. Governments have murdered more of their own people (people they exist to protect) than any criminal, terrorist or foreign enemy ever has. U.S.S.R. (1917-1987) 61,911,000
Communist China (1949-1987) 35,236,000
Nazi Germany (1933-1945) 20,946,000
Nationalist (or Kuomintang) China (1928-1949) 10,076,000
Japan (1936-1945) 5,964,000
Cambodia (1975-1979) 2,035,000
Turkey (1909-1918) 1,883,000
Vietnam (1945-1987) 1,678,000
North Korea (1948-1987) 1,663,000
Poland (1945-1948) 1,585,000
Pakistan (1958-1987) 1,503,000
Mexico (1900-1920) 1,417,000
Yugoslavia (1944-1987) 1,072,000
Czarist Russia (1900-1917) 1,066,000 Note these aren't govt killing "others" (i.e. the United State's extermination of Native Americans, or the number of humans who died under slavery) there are the govt killing "self" and just in the last century. Exact numbers may not be known but a pretty conservative number is that ~200 million "citizens" were killed by their own government just in the prior century. This needs to be further up. Just because the place we live isn't called "The Soviet Union" does not mean that you won't see the same tactics being used. Governments today already are more intrusive than the Soviet Union -- they're just not as openly violent... yet. |
|
|
|
Of course, the non-propertarian has no "right" to that body he's using, so why is he trying so hard to keep control of it?
Because fuck logic. Whenever a person can't understand that what they want to do contradicts what they are saying, I just know that said person is wronger than Papal rape and no argument will persuade this person. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
