Anime, Hentai, Manga, Bishoujo Games, Live Action Films, Music, Art, and Erotic Doujinshi Discussion Forum

It is currently November 21st, 2017, 9:00 am


All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: July 29th, 2008, 12:25 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Bloodfairy wrote:
I wouldn't say I'm an Anarchist. Anarchism, as any political doctrine, requires some sort of philosophical-political reading corpus, and I haven't ever read a book about any of those matters.

I'd rather say it's a state of mind put into a bigger context.
What other term would you use to describe your ideology?
Absolute freedom is absolute chaos because most people are not able to use their freedoms in a productive way.

Bloodfairy wrote:
In fact, I think you're starting from a wrong point of view. It's due to egotism that society works.

I am very much aware of that, I have spent some time analysing human behavior (as well as I can with my limited intellectual capacities). But I won't go on now and talk about my psychological musings since we should at least remain in a social/political frame here.

Bloodfairy wrote:
42317 wrote:
But please keep in mind that not all people are fit to bear these responsibilities. There are people who need guidance in form of laws because they lack intellect,

Far as I know, mentally disabled people are a small minority of people.
I dunno how intelligent the people you meet are, but there are morons, who are not clinical nutcases, who will bring themselves down (like, by abusing drugs) and the bad thing is they take innocent others with them. Like the drunken driver.

Bloodfairy wrote:
42317 wrote:
people who need to be protected of themselves because they'd do harmful stuff out of curiosity or boredom
Protection of yourself? Isn't your life yours, your body yours, to dispose of it as you please?

People are careless. They apply things to their body without realizing the full extent of damage they can do. That's not freedom, that's stupidity, and in relation to what I said about the common love for responsibility - I kinda like the idea of organizations who do some more thorough thinking and protect people from their own (and others') ignorance and stupidity.
Like kids who are beaten by immature parents. The parent can't stand the constant crying and loses his nerve. These kids will probably love you for saying "Well, your parents are free people, live with it." It might also be within the freedom of the kids to run away, but try that when you're just a few years old...

Bloodfairy wrote:
42317 wrote:
An addicted owner of a small or medium company might destroy his business, and more than that the existence of his workers.
It's the owner who decided to play WoW. It's a decision like any other one, and he seems to have beared the consequences on his own.

And what if I'm one of the employees? Always working hard, getting the job done right - and then the company goes down because my boss is a damn irrational addict? I can live with the idea that the company failed because the competition did a better job, but a vital part of the company - the boss - losing interest in the real world and his responsibilities of leadership? Anybody is free to do with his own life what he thinks proper, but the parts that overlap with other people's wellbeing need some compromise. You can't let other people suffer and use your personal freedom as an excuse.
It is egotism that drives human progress, but humans also form a social network, which would not exist if evolution hadn't "thought" it was a good idea. Social bondings limit personal freedoms by giving us mutual responsibilities, but they also give us important advantages. To use these advantages we need certain rules of behavior and an entity that enforces these rules for the common good.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: July 29th, 2008, 1:58 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: July 5th, 2008, 12:06 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Spain
My term is Strabigotry. Weird enough, I know.

Quote:
I dunno how intelligent the people you meet are, but there are morons, who are not clinical nutcases, who will bring themselves down (like, by abusing drugs) and the bad thing is they take innocent others with them. Like the drunken driver.

I'm not very clever myself, but when I perform an action, I assume it has an impact on other people, and I must be ready to accept whichever consequences come from it. If I drink before driving, I'm assuming that I'm a lethal danger in the road.
Nevertheless, it's the state-created justice and its unjust penalty system which creates this problem. If the victim could choose his agressors's penalty, drivers would not drink, fearing that the penalty applied to them would be fearful enough.

Quote:
People are careless. They apply things to their body without realizing the full extent of damage they can do. That's not freedom, that's stupidity, and in relation to what I said about the common love for responsibility - I kinda like the idea of organizations who do some more thorough thinking and protect people from their own (and others') ignorance and stupidity.
Like kids who are beaten by immature parents. The parent can't stand the constant crying and loses his nerve. These kids will probably love you for saying "Well, your parents are free people, live with it." It might also be within the freedom of the kids to run away, but try that when you're just a few years old...


If people are careless, it's their right and their responsibility. They'll assume the consequences, whether they like it or not. What those organizations can do with them is give them moral recomendations, which I have nothing against, as far as they don't want them imposed in any coactive forms.
The part of the kids... Even if some mad Anarchists believe that kids can be handled as a property, allow me to reject that point of view.

Quote:
And what if I'm one of the employees? Always working hard, getting the job done right - and then the company goes down because my boss is a damn irrational addict? I can live with the idea that the company failed because the competition did a better job, but a vital part of the company - the boss - losing interest in the real world and his responsibilities of leadership? Anybody is free to do with his own life what he thinks proper, but the parts that overlap with other people's wellbeing need some compromise. You can't let other people suffer and use your personal freedom as an excuse.
It is egotism that drives human progress, but humans also form a social network, which would not exist if evolution hadn't "thought" it was a good idea. Social bondings limit personal freedoms by giving us mutual responsibilities, but they also give us important advantages. To use these advantages we need certain rules of behavior and an entity that enforces these rules for the common good.


If you're one of the employees, you have a right to be pissed off because your boss is being such a moron that he's throwing away his property. Nevertheless, you can try to persuade your boss, and try to use whichever moral reasonings you can. But again, don't impose your morals by using the coactive machinery of the Leviathan! Convince, don't impose!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: July 29th, 2008, 3:15 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 18th, 2007, 6:40 pm
Posts: 375
Location: vancouver, canada
no government at all?
sounds dangerous.
that would solve the population problem. :)
though there is also a very high chance of destroying much of the planet before our numbers diminish.

there are many programs that simply would not be able to exist without government. many companies would not be able to run as most rely on government subsidies especially in research and development. many jobs would be lost. many would die and/or be homeless.

it would be an interesting place.

meh, go for it! only the strong shall survive! we shall see how cruel and inhumane we can get!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: July 30th, 2008, 12:33 am 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
I think that 42 is clarifying my stance much better than I ever could. :wink:

Basically, I believe that he's right. Absolute freedom would only lead to anarchy. In an ideal world, everyone would use their freedom with responsibility. Trouble is, we do not live in an ideal world. I believe that the fundamental nature of humanity is selfish; not that they are necessarily evil, but they will always attend to their own needs before others. If it's a choice between somebody else suffering or yourself or your loved ones suffering, the stranger will always be the victim.

Therefore, we still need laws. We still need restrictions on the freedoms people can have, because people cannot be trusted with absolute freedom.

Convincing people will only go so far too. At some point in time, you WILL have to impose your will upon another. Suppose you had somebody who kept dumping their rubbish on your front lawn. You tell him to stop. He doesn't. You serve him with a police order to stop. He still doesn't. What do you do then? Dump the rubbish back on his lawn? Take him to court? Suppose he refuses to attend? Ultimately there are people who will not stop being assholes unless you MAKE them stop. Force is always the final arbiter behind any point of contention.

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: July 30th, 2008, 6:53 am 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: July 5th, 2008, 12:06 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Spain
Did I ever reject the use of force for countering violations? Never did I. But when I speak of impositions, I speak of the State. The state doesn't take into account who's right or wrong, but the sole interest of a caste of bureaucrats. The State can't make real cost/profit analysis, since they'll be always influenced by certain sources. I'm talking of private security forces and private justice, misters.

S'pose the rubbish neighbor. If he's not enough of a fool, he'll have hired a security force. But if the commitment of a crime is proven, your agency and his/hers will come into agreement and set up the proper chastise for his/her deeds. That happens in car accidents today, I think.

And I'm telling you again: it's due to selfishness that we can make such a society possible. Since everyone looks for his own interest, the appropiate checks and balances can be established without State intervention..

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: July 30th, 2008, 1:47 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 18th, 2007, 6:40 pm
Posts: 375
Location: vancouver, canada
you do realize you will create a place where everybody is in complete fear?
that only the rich will have protection? not exactly a place conducive to progress and learning.
a place full of exploitation and greed with no real recourse.

you must already be in the upper class to approve of such an idea. :)

though i am curious as to why you would want such a place. many people cannot handle absolute freedom, many do not want to think and fight for themselves. if you want to rid the world of such people, then yes, that would be one good reason.

i imagine we would eventually revert back to whatever was before the industrial age... small farming towns relying on our neighbours... oh wait! would that be considered a government of sorts too? ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: July 30th, 2008, 2:19 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Bloodfairy wrote:
when I perform an action, I assume it has an impact on other people, and I must be ready to accept whichever consequences come from it. If I drink before driving, I'm assuming that I'm a lethal danger in the road.

It seems like you are intelligent enough to realize that you'll be a danger to others if you drink and drive, so I assume you won't do it. But many people won't consider themselves a danger because they don't care about others - and that must not happen.

Bloodfairy wrote:
it's the state-created justice and its unjust penalty system which creates this problem.

Inhowfar is the legal system injust? Are you a lawyer? Do you have objective insights or is this just your personal opinion?

Bloodfairy wrote:
If the victim could choose his agressors's penalty, drivers would not drink, fearing that the penalty applied to them would be fearful enough.

Which would actually lead to lynching. Are you mad? :blink:

And how does a dead victim choose the aggressor's penalty?
Besides, death sentences have never stopped anyone from committing major crimes.

Bloodfairy wrote:
If people are careless, it's their right and their responsibility. They'll assume the consequences, whether they like it or not.

You're evading my central point: Innocent victims of someone's selfdestruction.
No one has the right to make anybody suffer! No matter what the reason might be.

Bloodfairy wrote:
Even if some mad Anarchists believe that kids can be handled as a property, allow me to reject that point of view.

What kind of comment is that? Who said something about kids = property? The implied question was:
Do you approve of the parents "freedom" and "right" to treat their kids however they like or do you approve of forceful measures to save such kids from physical and psychological harm?

Now don't give me "It's the neighbors' right to step in." Yes, it's his right and his duty to step in to protect the weak - but who does? If there's a one-sided brawl on the street how many people will look the other way, fearing they might be involved in a harmful way, fearing complications in their own more or less cozy lives, fearing the responsibility that comes with such a feat? Some will look after you after the situational threat has disappeared. But while there's still violence in progress all will look the other way, with a very few fine exceptions.

No, people are not fit sor such absolute freedom, they'd rather live in blissfull ignorance. That's why I like the idea of government officials who are obliged by law to take measures to protect the weak. Your neighbor won't save you from domestic violence. But if you're lucky he'll call the police.

Bloodfairy wrote:
If you're one of the employees, you have a right to be pissed off because your boss is being such a moron that he's throwing away his property. Nevertheless, you can try to persuade your boss, and try to use whichever moral reasonings you can.

That might be realistic in an environment in which I am close enough to the boss to know him and to know what's going on. Which I think is a rather rare situation. Most people will just be notified that they'll be unemployed soon and if they're lucky they'll read the details in the newspaper.
I want proper authorities to punish such people. I'm no friend of angry mobs with torches and forks.

Bloodfairy wrote:
The state doesn't take into account who's right or wrong, but the sole interest of a caste of bureaucrats.

What do we have courts for? The laws upon which the courts decide have grown from our respective value systems, which means they are formulated in accordance with the general public's sense of justice. I'd like to believe that is at least true in democratic societies.

Bloodfairy wrote:
private security forces and private justice, misters.

Which is these days anonymous with "Blackwater". :lol:
I'm sure you are aware of the connotations.
And that newly born synonymity has caused Blackwater International to withdraw from that type of business. :clap:

Bloodfairy wrote:
S'pose the rubbish neighbor. If he's not enough of a fool, he'll have hired a security force. But if the commitment of a crime is proven, your agency and his/hers will come into agreement and set up the proper chastise for his/her deeds. That happens in car accidents today, I think.

What dreamland are you from? Car accidents involve insurances, men and women in suits whom I pay to take over parts of my personal responsibility and deal with other people of their sorts. BUT they deal with each other in compliance to laws.
In your anarchic reality (as opposed to your utopian dream) my littering neighbor will most likely hire some thug to prevent me from bugging him, which is a threat to my health and life. Of course I can hire a thug of my own or more of them, but it will mean that I have to redirect parts of my limited resources to unproductive security which I could use for something better. And what will be the end of it? At the end of the proxy war either me or my neighbor will come to serious physical harm in an escalation of violence - in the end: rule of the stronger, law of the jungle.

NO!

Bloodfairy wrote:
Since everyone looks for his own interest, the appropiate checks and balances can be established without State intervention..

That is utopian! If any written laws and civil controls were to disappear, there'd be a fight for supremacy, and the party which is the most resourceful will win. If the affected people are lucky they'll get a benevolent ruler, if not they'll live in hell. The existing order will soon enough be questioned by other ambitious people which will then lead to another bloody mess, and so on. There will never be a healthy equilibrium. If the strong are always free to assume power, there never will be.

That is some sort of anarchic dream, that there will be a period of fighting but after that will emerge the never-ending golden age of peace for everyone. But since ambitious humans will never be content with what they have they will destroy any existing order, no matter how benevolent it might be.

If humans were only individuals it actually might work, but there is also the felt need to belong to a social network, because it makes them feel more secure. People will form groups to distinguish themselves and their interests from other groups. The people give produce or/and money (= taxes) and in return the group offers a degree of social security. Once the group reaches a certain size the group needs an organizational structure to properly do what it was formed for. Organization means hierarchy and rules. That means ambitious people who lead and it means people who follow.
Which is to say that a realization of anarchy would after some time lead back to nation-like structures.
I fear it won't work, Bloodfairy.

Besides if the national governments fall, the corporations will take over. *gulp*
A government is a more or less controllable and to some degree transparent entity - but corporations are pure tyrannies. The oligarchy (called the board of directors for example) will choose their own successors and worker drones have no say in this. I'd rather vote for a detached prime minister than be completely stripped off of my right to influence matters of leadership.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: October 2nd, 2008, 11:18 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
WWWWOOOOOWWWW!!!!! SWEET A LINK ABOUT THE ELECTION!!!! :nose: 8) :wink: someone get me away fro mmy computer now!. (Joking)

Alright as I have not been around for ruffly 5 months I'm not going to read all the posts, therefore I read 42317's post. Which seems likey you guys are talking the justice system. One of my favorite topics. hehehehehe :twisted: :gatsu: 8)

Alight no offense to bloodfairy, but you are serious nivee (sorry my misspelling is back along with me.). In what world do you live? If people have done something wrong their going to do the best to avoid the usually harmful repercations of that action. It's called self preservation. :mrgreen: Yes I am jaded, I'm not trying to lecture or pick a fight. It's simply my oppinion. If people readily took responsibility for the wrong doings we wouldn't need cops, or judges or most of the judicial system.

As for the death penalty. I'm for it actually. :shock: Yeah i have a feeling most aren't going to be surprised by that. I beleive that there are sins for which death the adijit (misspelled sorry). :mrgreen: Rape, serial murder, sexually abusing a child, genocide, ethnic cleansing, running a big business into the ground for personal profit and torture. I belive that such acts heed the heaviest penalty aplictable outside of torture. Has the death penalty ever stopped people from killing others? Don't know to be honest. :shifty: However I think it is a good detergent for people that are contemplating. The people that might do one of these things for personal gain and aren't sycodic.

However itneresting this debate is, this is a thread on the election, not the phiosophy thread. Can we get back on topic here? :shame:

I think Odama is going to win. At leats as things look right now. Not to certain I'm happy about that. He gives me a creepy feeling but Mcain thus far has shown to be rather disconected with the current stae of not only The USA but also the world.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: October 3rd, 2008, 3:59 am 
Offline
Post Master

Joined: March 18th, 2007, 4:11 am
Posts: 1512
Location: British Columbia, Canada
The Adict wrote:
I think Odama is going to win. At leats as things look right now. Not to certain I'm happy about that. He gives me a creepy feeling but Mcain thus far has shown to be rather disconected with the current stae of not only The USA but also the world.

Odama only got a 6.4 overall critic score.

http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/puzzle ... lt;title;0

Never heard of Mcain, is that game good?

_________________
Myanimelist.net List


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: October 3rd, 2008, 12:18 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Your joking right? :blink: :? :diss: :shifty: I probably spelt his name wrong. He's the Reblican conidate. He's 73, white hair total disconect from the modern world. The white guy . . . yeah that guy.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: October 3rd, 2008, 8:47 pm 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
He's being sarcastic, Adict. The first link he posted should have been a dead giveaway. :P

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: October 4th, 2008, 4:30 am 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
Mmsven wrote:
Odama only got a 6.4 overall critic score.
http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/puzzle ... lt;title;0
Never heard of Mcain, is that game good?

Good one. :lol2:

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: October 4th, 2008, 9:33 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Yeah I kind of thought that, but I had alreayd replied and I thought it would be good to carry on the joke.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: October 7th, 2008, 12:02 am 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: June 18th, 2007, 1:06 am
Posts: 818
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

Little story on Obama's donors.

:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US 2008 Presidential Election
PostPosted: October 9th, 2008, 12:01 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
zero_chaos wrote:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403
Little story on Obama's donors.

They're both not fully waterproof, are they?
Furthermore I wouldn't trust anyone who applies for leadership of the single most powerful country in the world.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group