This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[Mike Christ]

Ultimately, the point is, if you understand my position, if you understand why violence is not a barrel of monkeys, and if you understand that supporting the state will inevitably kill someone you probably won't know, and you're still okay with it, then you lack empathy.  In other words, you don't connect with other people as if they were people.  From that point, there's no argument; you're not like me, who does feel something about hurting people, so we're never going to see eye-to-eye on anything.  You're the same breed of robot that the system loves to reward.  I don't know how to help you out, there.  That's the line, I'm afraid.

[myrkul]

In other words, you don't connect with other people as if they were people. 

Oh, we've established that long ago. He's a brain in a vat, and everyone else is just computer simulations.

Who are making fun of him for being a brain in a vat.

[kokjo]

I can agree with that. yes, i support rehabilitation.

Then can you explain how locking a man in a cage will achieve that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWyZHSZf3TM, the cage is there to limit his possibilities while he is getting rehabilitated.

Ultimately, the point is, if you understand my position, if you understand why violence is not a barrel of monkeys, and if you understand that supporting the state will inevitably kill someone you probably won't know, and you're still okay with it, then you lack empathy.

i have already stated that i have autism, and lack empathy but not logic.

if the state gives me a better chance of survival, then a crazy ass anarchistic system, i will take my chances.

In other words, you don't connect with other people as if they were people.

i know what it means, and its not that.

From that point, there's no argument;

oh, yes there is. are you giving up?

you're not like me, who does feel something about hurting people, so we're never going to see eye-to-eye on anything.  You're the same breed of robot that the system loves to reward.

i gets rewarded, yay!

I don't know how to help you out, there.

You can't. don't feel bad that you fail it serves no purpose, i can only emulate empathy.
 

[myrkul]

I can agree with that. yes, i support rehabilitation.

Then can you explain how locking a man in a cage will achieve that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWyZHSZf3TM, the cage is there to limit his possibilities while he is getting rehabilitated.

Except if you limit his possible actions, how will you know when he's rehabilitated? After all, the only way to know is if he fails to try to hit you again.

[kokjo]

I can agree with that. yes, i support rehabilitation.

Then can you explain how locking a man in a cage will achieve that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWyZHSZf3TM, the cage is there to limit his possibilities while he is getting rehabilitated.

Except if you limit his possible actions, how will you know when he's rehabilitated? After all, the only way to know is if he fails to try to hit you again.

so you say we should just have zero-tolerance, instead? wtf man?

I assume(without any evidence) that longer rehabilitation time means greater success.


it does not help very much, to just pull him of me and say "don't do that", and then letting him go.

[myrkul]

I can agree with that. yes, i support rehabilitation.

Then can you explain how locking a man in a cage will achieve that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWyZHSZf3TM, the cage is there to limit his possibilities while he is getting rehabilitated.

Except if you limit his possible actions, how will you know when he's rehabilitated? After all, the only way to know is if he fails to try to hit you again.

so you say we should just have zero-tolerance, instead? wtf man?

I'd like to know where you got that from... nowhere do the words "zero" and "tolerance" occur even in the same sentence with one another (well, until this one, of course).

I assume(without any evidence) that longer rehabilitation time means greater success.

Well, you know what they say about assuming.

it does not help very much, to just pull him of me and say "don't do that", and then letting him go.

On the contrary, that's the only way to know if he has learned. If you pull him off of you, tell him "don't do that," and then place handcuffs on him and prevent him from trying, it's impossible to know if he would try again or not.

[kokjo]

it does not help very much, to just pull him of me and say "don't do that", and then letting him go.

On the contrary, that's the only way to know if he has learned. If you pull him off of you, tell him "don't do that," and then place handcuffs on him and prevent him from trying, it's impossible to know if he would try again or not.

I foresee infinite recursion, and a bloody face to me.

[myrkul]

it does not help very much, to just pull him of me and say "don't do that", and then letting him go.

On the contrary, that's the only way to know if he has learned. If you pull him off of you, tell him "don't do that," and then place handcuffs on him and prevent him from trying, it's impossible to know if he would try again or not.

I foresee infinite recursion, and a bloody face to me.

Well, you see, if he continues, you continue to teach him that hitting is wrong.

Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

[Mike Christ]

Well shit!  If I'dda known you were autistic, I wouldn't have pushed so hard

And no, there's no argument.  To argue with you on the basis of empathy results in me saying "Yuh-huh" and you saying "Nuh-uh".  But then again, why are you getting into battles of philosophy knowing you're going in from a cold point of view?  For the fun of it? 

[kokjo]

Well shit!  If I'dda known you were autistic, I wouldn't have pushed so hard

And no, there's no argument.  To argue with you on the basis of empathy results in me saying "Yuh-huh" and you saying "Nuh-uh".  But then again, why are you getting into battles of philosophy knowing you're going in from a cold point of view?  For the fun of it? 

yup 4 teh lulz!

[Mike Christ]

I once thought I was autistic...but then I realized that was just another side of the schizo

[myrkul]

if the state gives me a better chance of survival, then a crazy ass anarchistic system, i will take my chances.

But it doesn't, you see?

The state is institutionalized violence. It grants a segment of the population the ability to kill you, without repercussions.

Given the choice between nobody having the right to initiate violence, and a segment of the population claiming the sole right to initiate violence, I'm going to pick the first option every time.

[Mike Christ]

What happens if someone is over-confident about their own level of empathy? Wouldn't they risk "falling from grace", cynically thinking that they're surrounded by evil people? Like any lack of mental exercise: if you don't use it, you lose it.

There aren't levels of empathy.  You either connect with other people, or you do not connect with other people (as we can see in kokjo's case.)

'Statist' is a pejorative term that basically means "non-Libertarian or non-Anarchist, and therefore evil". So you're basically accusing >95% of the world of being "sociopathic proxy killers", yet YOU are the one with empathy because you hate violence more than everyone else obviously does. Why does this Anarchy cult crap keep sucking people in like this?! I tried explaining that governments are just made up of people, and it's society's attitudes that determine the rules they play by.. but whatever.

Statism is to be in support of the state.  The fact of the matter is, most people despise violence.  I don't believe people are inherently violent; rather, they become violent when they compete over resource.  Because that's no longer a large-scale issue in developed countries, it makes sense to keep people going in circles as if they had to be violent to survive.  Most people do not realize they are statists, and most people do not understand what the state is and what it actually does.  I have nothing against someone who has no idea there is an alternative to the system that is now, and these people are not who I am against.  I am against people who do understand the state, and are still in favor of it.  These are the sociopathic proxy killers.

I want to make this absolutely clear.  People who do not understand the inherent violence in statism cannot be labeled statists; rather, they simply don't realize there's anything else.  These people are democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, whatever party you can list--the point is, they don't realize what they're doing.  Someone who does not realizing they're supporting a system of violence are being fooled.  They cannot hold blame if they don't understand what it is they're doing.  If you didn't realize you accidentally knocked me off a ledge (silly example, sorry,) and you never realized you killed me, you can't truly be held accountable; you simply didn't know!  But if you did it intentionally, and you knew you were knocking people off ledges and killing them, that's when the tables turn.

So, no, >95% of the world has no clue what their government is about, so they can't be called "sociopathic proxy killers."  It's people who realize they're doing it that troubles me.  Which is why I keep asking you

[myrkul]

I'm still not hearing "No, statists are not sociopathic proxy killers, because:"

Stop dancing around the issue.  Do you, or do you not, agree that you or I need to die to make sure everyone plays to the same rules?  This is the very core of the state, that gooey chocolaty center...

'Statist' is a pejorative term that basically means "non-Libertarian or non-Anarchist, and therefore evil". So you're basically accusing >95% of the world of being "sociopathic proxy killers", yet YOU are the one with empathy because you hate violence more than everyone else obviously does. Why does this Anarchy cult crap keep sucking people in like this?! I tried explaining that governments are just made up of people, and it's society's attitudes that determine the rules they play by.. but whatever.

No, "Statist asshole" is a pejorative. "Statist" is a descriptive term that means "a person who supports a state."

If you view that descriptive term as a pejorative, perhaps there is hope for you yet. Of course, you still have not explained how someone who supports a state is not a sociopathic proxy killer.

[kokjo]

if the state gives me a better chance of survival, then a crazy ass anarchistic system, i will take my chances.

But it doesn't, you see?

give me empirical evidence. death of violence per capita.

The state is institutionalized violence. It grants a segment of the population the ability to kill you, without repercussions.

in denmark there is no death penalty. i do not know in what delusional world you live in.

[Mike Christ]

pruning

Is it too much to ask that you fit your thoughts into one concise paragraph?    MysteryMiner pulls this same shit, because he refuses to take arguments as complete packages; instead, he isolates every single sentence as if they had nothing to do with each other.  I'm not going to be roving over every small detail; you're still circling around my points, nit-picking what you want out of my argument to fit yours.  If you're not going to answer my question, this same exact question I've presented every single time, why should I answer yours?

I want to make this absolutely clear.  People who do not understand the inherent violence in statism cannot be labeled statists; rather, they simply don't realize there's anything else.  These people are democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, whatever party you can list--the point is, they don't realize what they're doing.  Someone who does not realizing they're supporting a system of violence are being fooled.  They cannot hold blame if they don't understand what it is they're doing.  If you didn't realize you accidentally knocked me off a ledge (silly example, sorry,) and you never realized you killed me, you can't truly be held accountable; you simply didn't know!  But if you did it intentionally, and you knew you were knocking people off ledges and killing them, that's when the tables turn.

Humor me, at least once.

Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?

It's a very simple question, and begs a simple answer.  I'm going to assume, if your next response is more nit-picking, or anything that doesn't remotely resemble "yes" or no", that it's definite support.  In which case, nothing I could ever say will make sense to you; after all, you believe libertarians are basically cultists, and everything which comes out of their mouths is bullshit, right?  So why should I bother arguing if you've determined I'm automatically wrong, before I've ever had the chance to explain?  You already won, bub.  Celebrate.  Go wank.

[kokjo]

I want to make this absolutely clear.  People who do not understand the inherent violence in statism cannot be labeled statists; rather, they simply don't realize there's anything else.  These people are democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, whatever party you can list--the point is, they don't realize what they're doing.  Someone who does not realizing they're supporting a system of violence are being fooled.  They cannot hold blame if they don't understand what it is they're doing.  If you didn't realize you accidentally knocked me off a ledge (silly example, sorry,) and you never realized you killed me, you can't truly be held accountable; you simply didn't know!  But if you did it intentionally, and you knew you were knocking people off ledges and killing them, that's when the tables turn.

Humor me, at least once.

okay.

Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?

Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it.

It's a very simple question, and begs a simple answer.  I'm going to assume, if your next response is more nit-picking, or anything that doesn't remotely resemble "yes" or no", that it's definite support.

i have now answered your simple question, i hope you are able to understand my answer.

In which case, nothing I could ever say will make sense to you;

so you give up, and blame it on me? thats not fair.

after all, you believe libertarians are basically cultists, and everything which comes out of their mouths is bullshit, right?

and you have done that exact same thing to me, but im still listening to you.

So why should I bother arguing if you've determined I'm automatically wrong, before I've ever had the chance to explain?

because your arguments are just as lame as mine. Statist -> wrong wrong wrong, they are killing people by the billions! (very very rough sketch, i know)

You already won, bub.  Celebrate.  Go wank.

yeah, you too.

[myrkul]

Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?

Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it.

Well, we knew you were an evil bastard. But thanks for admitting it.

I've answered it like 3 times already, but you didn't like the answer.

You've written something after the question, but no time was it actually an answer. Kokjo there, has actually answered. You have evaded.

[Mike Christ]

snip

"Mike Christ"

"s/he"

Seriously? 

Anyway, thanks for answering my question.  Yes, I realize America's a load of horse shit, and it's probably better somewhere else.  But let's not forget, the only reason America rose to such extreme power was through government.  There is no anarchistic society which can band together and start world wars.  If America wasn't the power it was today, it would be Russia, or China, the other massive states.  The point is, I don't like war, and there is no, "But war is necessary because people are people!"  I can't explain that to a statist, as you don't seem to realize there's even an option B, that if government is simply people, why is large government always so disconnected with its people?  Certainly, Anarchism seems very out there, but it's not much different than Atheism.  If 99 out of 100 people believe God is real, doesn't that make that 1 guy a total nut-job?  Yes, because 99 people agree; they don't need logic, or reason, they just need numbers.  The state has nothing but numbers, and anyone who says, "Well, wait a second, what if--" is immediately shot down because how could there be anything different than what there's always been?

[kokjo]

Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?

Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it.

Well, we knew you were an evil bastard. But thanks for admitting it.

and now you have practicably called me insane, just because i have a different opinion than you. you are no better than the rest of the world, when it comes to your opinions. You just don't want to admit that you are forcing people, while others are very clear about that.