Politics, statism, anarchism, racism; split from: Wall Observer thread

[fonzie]

How is it that the richest continent on the planet in terms of resources (Africa) has the poorest citizens?

Because they are niggers.

Not even kidding. They have an average lower IQ, they are less empathic than other races, I personally know two black teenagers who can't tell the time on an analog clock (didn't believe it until I saw it).

Africans are dumb, man. Goes against the PC code to say it, but that's how it is.

Wow.

Just when i thought i couldn´t get any dumber in this thread today you came by.

Wow

[MrPiggles]

Why not live in a world where those murders also happen, but at least we don't have to pay the salaries of a bunch of people who fail to keep their promises to prevent it?

In places without effective law enforcement agencies and criminal justice systems, is the murder rate higher or lower than in those places with them?

[hdbuck]

Why not live in a world where those murders also happen, but at least we don't have to pay the salaries of a bunch of people who fail to keep their promises to prevent it?

In places without effective law enforcement agencies and criminal justice systems, is the murder rate higher or lower than in those places with them?

It depends wether or not you count the murders perpetrated by those supposed to prevent it.

[spooderman]

Wow that's a fresh one on the ignore list!

Pretty expert trolling there

ANYWAY

JustusRanvier thank you for having the patience to insert some intelligence into the conversation, I seem to be incapable of bringing anything constructive to the side today.

I used to be all "militant" atheist, and it bugged me how religious people would always try to place the burden of proof on me. As if I could prove a negative, and as though I was the one rejecting the default belief of a human.

Now it's the same with statists (we need a more derogatory term for them). Personally I see them as teachers pets. Arse holes that call the police rather than just talk to you face to face. People who employ middle men at everyone's collective financial expense.

Anyway I'm rambling.

Sorry for not being constructive people. If I can add something that hopefully no one can agree with it's Chomsky's definition of anarchism.

Anarchism seeks to identify and reject intelligent institutions of authority, to hold them too account and to place the burden of justification on them, 100% of the time.

Africa is not Anarchic, it is power doing what power does.

[NotLambchop]

Why not live in a world where those murders also happen, but at least we don't have to pay the salaries of a bunch of people who fail to keep their promises to prevent it?

In places without effective law enforcement agencies and criminal justice systems, is the murder rate higher or lower than in those places with them?

Somalia did pretty well...  A libber paradise!

[spooderman]

effective law enforcement agencies

Effective at what? Their stated aims? Or their hidden agendas?

And before someone responds with something about "reptillian overlords," how about acknowledging the failure of the war on drugs (if we are to believe its stated goal) or it's success if its goal is to enrich drug barons and prop up a prison industry at the expense of the bottom 15% of the USA.

Then the war on terror (WOT?)

stated goal: stop terrorism.

Logical concealed goal: use terrorism to cause terrorism. Profit from endless war.

If law enforcement stops bad people doing bad stuff, what happens if those people rise to a high position within the law enforcing institutions? Do we rely on the system itself to oust them? Because that doesn't seem to work.

[MrPiggles]

I used to be all "militant" atheist, and it bugged me how religious people would always try to place the burden of proof on me. As if I could prove a negative, and as though I was the one rejecting the default belief of a human.

Now it's the same with statists (we need a more derogatory term for them). Personally I see them as teachers pets. Arse holes that call the police rather than just talk to you face to face. People who employ middle men at everyone's collective financial expense.

Anyway I'm rambling.

No now you're just trying to insult people because they don't agree with your opinion

Seriously, with no rulers, you get lunatics who want to force their will on others putting together a mob and becoming rulers.

Like I said earlier, short of some super intelligent AI to oversee us we're never going to be capable of not having rulers.

It's human nature. There's always going to be some guy who wants to take over, no matter how perfect you are not everyone can see the advantages of living in a perfectly free society, and they will form a group, and they will try to take over, by force if necessary.

Some degree of rule is always going to be required to stop people from taking over

[MrPiggles]

effective law enforcement agencies

Effective at what? Their stated aims? Or their hidden agendas?

Effective at finding the perpetrators of murder and other crimes which violate peoples rights.

I said earlier I disagree with the war on drugs etc, you're preaching to the choir on that one.

[octaft]

Reported for what?
What's your problem with free speech?

I love when people invoke "free speech" for something like this.

Free speech only applies to the government. It does not offer you any protection from the public ripping your ass a new one for saying dumb shit.

[NotLambchop]

effective law enforcement agencies

Effective at what? Their stated aims? Or their hidden agendas?

And before someone responds with something about "reptillian overlords," how about acknowledging the failure of the war on drugs (if we are to believe its stated goal) or it's success if its goal is to enrich drug barons and prop up a prison industry at the expense of the bottom 15% of the USA.

Then the war on terror (WOT?)

stated goal: stop terrorism.

Logical concealed goal: use terrorism to cause terrorism. Profit from endless war.

If law enforcement stops bad people doing bad stuff, what happens if those people rise to a high position within the law enforcing institutions? Do we rely on the system itself to oust them? Because that doesn't seem to work.

So TL;DR:
Agencies [allegedly] fail at some of the tasks allotted them.  Solution:  get rid of the agencies.

Heads sometimes get headaches, sore throats and toothaches.  Solution:  cut them off.

[spooderman]

I love your reaction to the racism.

What about the most powerful government in the world stealing its citizens money in order to pay for police to murder minorities with near impunity, and to lock up a quarter of them in prison for non-violent crimes that the population turns a blind eye to because of centuries of propaganda against the drugs of their choice?

How do you defend this, while reflexively rejecting racism?

I object to illegitimate authority figures just as much, if not more.

Obama's rise to power to celebrated as heralding a new era of cultural growth for the USA and the whole world, while on any moral level he is a disaster. An attacker of civil liberties, a practitioner of obscure and secretive unconstitutional powers that are being used to murder individuals placed on secret lists for secret reasons without a trial.

[Tzupy]

I'll try to bring some scientific arguments in this racist ?debate?
First, people are different. Races are different, but it doesn't mean we have to disparage one another.
The most important source for the differences is evolution, because comparative advantages in Africa
are different than ones in Europe. If I'd have to live in Africa, my life expectancy would be much shorter,
for many reasons, but mainly for resistance to infections. Mutations that make people infection resistant
don't come free, sometimes they can make people dumb. Sickle cell is an example, quoting:
The origin of SCD lies in the malarial regions of the tropics where carriers are protected against death from malaria and hence enjoy an evolutionary advantage.

[spooderman]

effective law enforcement agencies

Effective at what? Their stated aims? Or their hidden agendas?

And before someone responds with something about "reptillian overlords," how about acknowledging the failure of the war on drugs (if we are to believe its stated goal) or it's success if its goal is to enrich drug barons and prop up a prison industry at the expense of the bottom 15% of the USA.

Then the war on terror (WOT?)

stated goal: stop terrorism.

Logical concealed goal: use terrorism to cause terrorism. Profit from endless war.

If law enforcement stops bad people doing bad stuff, what happens if those people rise to a high position within the law enforcing institutions? Do we rely on the system itself to oust them? Because that doesn't seem to work.

So TL;DR:
Agencies [allegedly] fail at some of the tasks allotted them.  Solution:  get rid of the agency.

Heads sometimes get headaches, sore throats and toothaches.  Solution:  cut them off.

A health analogy that would be far more appropriate:

A cancer kills its host. Solution: do your best to resist and defeat it.

[empowering]

I love your reaction to the racism.

What about the most powerful government in the world stealing its citizens money in order to pay for police to murder minorities with near impunity, and to lock up a quarter of them in prison for non-violent crimes that the population turns a blind eye to because of centuries of propaganda against the drugs of their choice?

How do you defend this, while reflexively rejecting racism?

I object to illegitimate authority figures just as much, if not more.

Obama's rise to power to celebrated as heralding a new era of cultural growth for the USA and the whole world, while on any moral level he is a disaster. An attacker of civil liberties, a practitioner of obscure and secretive unconstitutional powers that are being used to murder individuals placed on secret lists for secret reasons without a trial.

If you are addressing me... my reaction to the racism just displayed on this thread does not preculde me to having other objections to other unnaceptable situations...  however I do not know about you, but of all the things I have seen on this thread, that was the most vile bullshit ever, to not react would not be right.

[NotLambchop]

I love your reaction to the racism.
...
Obama's rise to power to celebrated as heralding a new era of cultural growth for the USA and the whole world, while on any moral level he is a disaster. An attacker of civil liberties, a practitioner of obscure and secretive unconstitutional powers that are being used to murder individuals placed on secret lists for secret reasons without a trial.

Ino, right?  The things them darkies get away with nowadays

[NotLambchop]

effective law enforcement agencies

Effective at what? Their stated aims? Or their hidden agendas?

And before someone responds with something about "reptillian overlords," how about acknowledging the failure of the war on drugs (if we are to believe its stated goal) or it's success if its goal is to enrich drug barons and prop up a prison industry at the expense of the bottom 15% of the USA.

Then the war on terror (WOT?)

stated goal: stop terrorism.

Logical concealed goal: use terrorism to cause terrorism. Profit from endless war.

If law enforcement stops bad people doing bad stuff, what happens if those people rise to a high position within the law enforcing institutions? Do we rely on the system itself to oust them? Because that doesn't seem to work.

So TL;DR:
Agencies [allegedly] fail at some of the tasks allotted them.  Solution:  get rid of the agency.

Heads sometimes get headaches, sore throats and toothaches.  Solution:  cut them off.

A health analogy that would be far more appropriate:

A cancer kills its host. Solution: do your best to resist and defeat it.

Starting with the premise that law enforcement agencies = cancer sorta begs the conclusion, no?

[MrPiggles]

I love your reaction to the racism.
...
Obama's rise to power to celebrated as heralding a new era of cultural growth for the USA and the whole world, while on any moral level he is a disaster. An attacker of civil liberties, a practitioner of obscure and secretive unconstitutional powers that are being used to murder individuals placed on secret lists for secret reasons without a trial.

Ino, right?  The things them darkies get away with nowadays

made me laugh out loud for the first time in this thread today, bravo

[Ibian]

I love your reaction to the racism.

What about the most powerful government in the world stealing its citizens money in order to pay for police to murder minorities with near impunity, and to lock up a quarter of them in prison for non-violent crimes that the population turns a blind eye to because of centuries of propaganda against the drugs of their choice?

How do you defend this, while reflexively rejecting racism?

I object to illegitimate authority figures just as much, if not more.

Obama's rise to power to celebrated as heralding a new era of cultural growth for the USA and the whole world, while on any moral level he is a disaster. An attacker of civil liberties, a practitioner of obscure and secretive unconstitutional powers that are being used to murder individuals placed on secret lists for secret reasons without a trial.

So wait, did you put me on ignore or are you agreeing with me?

[600watt]

I'll try to bring some scientific arguments in this racist ?debate?
First, people are different. Races are different, but it doesn't mean we have to disparage one another.
The most important source for the differences is evolution, because comparative advantages in Africa
are different than ones in Europe. If I'd have to live in Africa, my life expectancy would be much shorter,
for many reasons, but mainly for resistance to infections. Mutations that make people infection resistant
don't come free, sometimes they can make people dumb. Sickle cell is an example, quoting:
The origin of SCD lies in the malarial regions of the tropics where carriers are protected against death from malaria and hence enjoy an evolutionary advantage.

i don´t think scientifically humans can be classified in "races". anthropologists, paleontologists, ethnologogists, biologists are not working with the word "race", since it does not apply to the present living human beings.

While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[6] or simplistic way,[12] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[13][14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

[spooderman]

How people have patience for all that discussion?

Even in the pay per post epoch that would be beyond my patience

Lol. idk what an epoch is.

So yeah back to the point...

TDM!!!!!