|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Is it worth traveling overseas?"
Love you, too
Myds said:
I think sovereign nations are allowed to have their own laws that don't match what we allow in America.
Jason: THANK you for stepping up to the plate & explaining that.
To Myds: Then you cannot complain about communism or socialism.
Because where-ever those have existed,
or where-ever you think those existed
(regardless whether in absolute terms they matched what Karl Marx fought for)
because: that's the law! And that law must be upheld.
You can't complain about Sharia Law, then, either.
(I do, because I think those laws are unfair.)
It's the law (whereever it exists), and the law must be upheld.
All that you're saying, Myds, reduces to that.
You can't complain about the EU. Because "it's the law".
Well, at least, it was "the law" in UK, until Brits finally broke away.
Obviously, nations where IT IS THE LAW to allow people to CHANGE the law
are better than those that don't even allow anyone to change the law.
Needless to say, the ENTIRE concept of law itself is contradictory
in democratic nation precisely because it allows itself to be changed.
But, mainly, because law itself never addresses absolute physical
testable quantifiable consequences, never computes what's fair,
yet pretend to be fair because "it applies to everyone".
Your reasoning ("one should obey the law because - it's the law" and not for some external reasons, such as consequence) is universal, meaning,
the instant you use it in any one situation, then anyone may use it
at any time in history.
i.e. Who the hell were the Northern States in the USA pre-1861 to dictate to southern states to not allow slavery? Never mind the ENORMITY of the hypocrisy
of slavetraders to dictate to, let alone KIDNAP, villagers in Africa for slavery.
Never mind the ENORMITY of the hypocrisy of southern states to force a
Fugitive Slave Act upon northern states, dictating to northerners on THEIR OWN TERRITORY that you "got" to return escaped slaves to the South.
My point: why should some arbitrarily drawn geographical boundary "get rights"?
Why should a state get a right? Why should I or anyone else have to care about it? And why the hell should I be forced to give a damn about some abstract '
nation's rights over some individual animal's rights?
Again - I am referring to a situation involving a REAL dichotomy whereby
I have to decide between the "suffering" that some nation goes through
when one does not obey some abstract law of theirs versus the suffering
of an animal.
Obviously, in FALSE dichotomies, my not killing a cow in the USA
and my NOT whipping my dick out in the middle of Red Square, Moscow
are INDEPENDENT events. Therefore, it is logical for me to do
(or, rather, not do) BOTH things:
NOT kill a cow in the USA & NOT whip my dick out etc
I shouldn't use the word "logical". I should say OPTIMAL.
It is OPTIMAL to not do those 2 things.
I think sovereign nations are allowed to have their own laws that don't match what we allow in America.
Jason: THANK you for stepping up to the plate & explaining that.
To Myds: Then you cannot complain about communism or socialism.
Because where-ever those have existed,
or where-ever you think those existed
(regardless whether in absolute terms they matched what Karl Marx fought for)
because: that's the law! And that law must be upheld.
You can't complain about Sharia Law, then, either.
(I do, because I think those laws are unfair.)
It's the law (whereever it exists), and the law must be upheld.
All that you're saying, Myds, reduces to that.
You can't complain about the EU. Because "it's the law".
Well, at least, it was "the law" in UK, until Brits finally broke away.
Obviously, nations where IT IS THE LAW to allow people to CHANGE the law
are better than those that don't even allow anyone to change the law.
Needless to say, the ENTIRE concept of law itself is contradictory
in democratic nation precisely because it allows itself to be changed.
But, mainly, because law itself never addresses absolute physical
testable quantifiable consequences, never computes what's fair,
yet pretend to be fair because "it applies to everyone".
Your reasoning ("one should obey the law because - it's the law" and not for some external reasons, such as consequence) is universal, meaning,
the instant you use it in any one situation, then anyone may use it
at any time in history.
i.e. Who the hell were the Northern States in the USA pre-1861 to dictate to southern states to not allow slavery? Never mind the ENORMITY of the hypocrisy
of slavetraders to dictate to, let alone KIDNAP, villagers in Africa for slavery.
Never mind the ENORMITY of the hypocrisy of southern states to force a
Fugitive Slave Act upon northern states, dictating to northerners on THEIR OWN TERRITORY that you "got" to return escaped slaves to the South.
My point: why should some arbitrarily drawn geographical boundary "get rights"?
Why should a state get a right? Why should I or anyone else have to care about it? And why the hell should I be forced to give a damn about some abstract '
nation's rights over some individual animal's rights?
Again - I am referring to a situation involving a REAL dichotomy whereby
I have to decide between the "suffering" that some nation goes through
when one does not obey some abstract law of theirs versus the suffering
of an animal.
Obviously, in FALSE dichotomies, my not killing a cow in the USA
and my NOT whipping my dick out in the middle of Red Square, Moscow
are INDEPENDENT events. Therefore, it is logical for me to do
(or, rather, not do) BOTH things:
NOT kill a cow in the USA & NOT whip my dick out etc
I shouldn't use the word "logical". I should say OPTIMAL.
It is OPTIMAL to not do those 2 things.
OldZoidberg said:
First off, I don't complain about other people's rights to believe things that I wouldn't personally approve of. You've lived long enough to know that we don't live in an "optimal" world. In fact, a lot of humans behave in a way that couldn't be described as "logical." But aren't you arguing that we should obey the laws/norms in red square because it is "optimal" to do so? How is that any different from saying one should respect the laws and customs? It isn't even an overseas issue. Do you eat ham-and-cheese sandwiches in your local synagogue? No, because, it isn't "optimal" to do so, which is another word for not being a dick, which is what my point was in the very first place.
Your other question amounts to "Why are there governments?" This isn't really on-topic in the UMD, and even if you came to the conclusion that there shouldn't be governments (or police, or public roads, schools, libraries, firefighters, etc) you're not really in a position to change that. If you don't follow the laws, to paraphrase the words of the South Park Ski Instructor, "You're gonna have a bad time."
This is true whether the laws are just or not. You paint me as some lawful character who follows all laws without thinking. That isn't at all who I am. But, from a pragmatic standpoint, following the laws when you're a visitor, just like respecting the "house rules" when you are at the house of a friend, shows that you did not come to be their enemy. It isn't dissimilar from following the rules here at UMD.
I'm not addressing the rightness or wrongness of laws. I'm not speaking to animal rights here. I'm telling you how not to not share the experience of the kid in Midnight Express.
Myds said:
I think sovereign nations are allowed to have their own laws that don't match what we allow in America.
Jason: THANK you for stepping up to the plate & explaining that.
To Myds: Then you cannot complain about communism or socialism.
Because where-ever those have existed,
or where-ever you think those existed
(regardless whether in absolute terms they matched what Karl Marx fought for)
because: that's the law! And that law must be upheld.
You can't complain about Sharia Law, then, either.
(I do, because I think those laws are unfair.)
It's the law (whereever it exists), and the law must be upheld.
All that you're saying, Myds, reduces to that.
You can't complain about the EU. Because "it's the law".
Well, at least, it was "the law" in UK, until Brits finally broke away.
Obviously, nations where IT IS THE LAW to allow people to CHANGE the law
are better than those that don't even allow anyone to change the law.
Needless to say, the ENTIRE concept of law itself is contradictory
in democratic nation precisely because it allows itself to be changed.
But, mainly, because law itself never addresses absolute physical
testable quantifiable consequences, never computes what's fair,
yet pretend to be fair because "it applies to everyone".
Your reasoning ("one should obey the law because - it's the law" and not for some external reasons, such as consequence) is universal, meaning,
the instant you use it in any one situation, then anyone may use it
at any time in history.
i.e. Who the hell were the Northern States in the USA pre-1861 to dictate to southern states to not allow slavery? Never mind the ENORMITY of the hypocrisy
of slavetraders to dictate to, let alone KIDNAP, villagers in Africa for slavery.
Never mind the ENORMITY of the hypocrisy of southern states to force a
Fugitive Slave Act upon northern states, dictating to northerners on THEIR OWN TERRITORY that you "got" to return escaped slaves to the South.
My point: why should some arbitrarily drawn geographical boundary "get rights"?
Why should a state get a right? Why should I or anyone else have to care about it? And why the hell should I be forced to give a damn about some abstract '
nation's rights over some individual animal's rights?
Again - I am referring to a situation involving a REAL dichotomy whereby
I have to decide between the "suffering" that some nation goes through
when one does not obey some abstract law of theirs versus the suffering
of an animal.
Obviously, in FALSE dichotomies, my not killing a cow in the USA
and my NOT whipping my dick out in the middle of Red Square, Moscow
are INDEPENDENT events. Therefore, it is logical for me to do
(or, rather, not do) BOTH things:
NOT kill a cow in the USA & NOT whip my dick out etc
I shouldn't use the word "logical". I should say OPTIMAL.
It is OPTIMAL to not do those 2 things.
I think sovereign nations are allowed to have their own laws that don't match what we allow in America.
Jason: THANK you for stepping up to the plate & explaining that.
To Myds: Then you cannot complain about communism or socialism.
Because where-ever those have existed,
or where-ever you think those existed
(regardless whether in absolute terms they matched what Karl Marx fought for)
because: that's the law! And that law must be upheld.
You can't complain about Sharia Law, then, either.
(I do, because I think those laws are unfair.)
It's the law (whereever it exists), and the law must be upheld.
All that you're saying, Myds, reduces to that.
You can't complain about the EU. Because "it's the law".
Well, at least, it was "the law" in UK, until Brits finally broke away.
Obviously, nations where IT IS THE LAW to allow people to CHANGE the law
are better than those that don't even allow anyone to change the law.
Needless to say, the ENTIRE concept of law itself is contradictory
in democratic nation precisely because it allows itself to be changed.
But, mainly, because law itself never addresses absolute physical
testable quantifiable consequences, never computes what's fair,
yet pretend to be fair because "it applies to everyone".
Your reasoning ("one should obey the law because - it's the law" and not for some external reasons, such as consequence) is universal, meaning,
the instant you use it in any one situation, then anyone may use it
at any time in history.
i.e. Who the hell were the Northern States in the USA pre-1861 to dictate to southern states to not allow slavery? Never mind the ENORMITY of the hypocrisy
of slavetraders to dictate to, let alone KIDNAP, villagers in Africa for slavery.
Never mind the ENORMITY of the hypocrisy of southern states to force a
Fugitive Slave Act upon northern states, dictating to northerners on THEIR OWN TERRITORY that you "got" to return escaped slaves to the South.
My point: why should some arbitrarily drawn geographical boundary "get rights"?
Why should a state get a right? Why should I or anyone else have to care about it? And why the hell should I be forced to give a damn about some abstract '
nation's rights over some individual animal's rights?
Again - I am referring to a situation involving a REAL dichotomy whereby
I have to decide between the "suffering" that some nation goes through
when one does not obey some abstract law of theirs versus the suffering
of an animal.
Obviously, in FALSE dichotomies, my not killing a cow in the USA
and my NOT whipping my dick out in the middle of Red Square, Moscow
are INDEPENDENT events. Therefore, it is logical for me to do
(or, rather, not do) BOTH things:
NOT kill a cow in the USA & NOT whip my dick out etc
I shouldn't use the word "logical". I should say OPTIMAL.
It is OPTIMAL to not do those 2 things.
First off, I don't complain about other people's rights to believe things that I wouldn't personally approve of. You've lived long enough to know that we don't live in an "optimal" world. In fact, a lot of humans behave in a way that couldn't be described as "logical." But aren't you arguing that we should obey the laws/norms in red square because it is "optimal" to do so? How is that any different from saying one should respect the laws and customs? It isn't even an overseas issue. Do you eat ham-and-cheese sandwiches in your local synagogue? No, because, it isn't "optimal" to do so, which is another word for not being a dick, which is what my point was in the very first place.
Your other question amounts to "Why are there governments?" This isn't really on-topic in the UMD, and even if you came to the conclusion that there shouldn't be governments (or police, or public roads, schools, libraries, firefighters, etc) you're not really in a position to change that. If you don't follow the laws, to paraphrase the words of the South Park Ski Instructor, "You're gonna have a bad time."
This is true whether the laws are just or not. You paint me as some lawful character who follows all laws without thinking. That isn't at all who I am. But, from a pragmatic standpoint, following the laws when you're a visitor, just like respecting the "house rules" when you are at the house of a friend, shows that you did not come to be their enemy. It isn't dissimilar from following the rules here at UMD.
I'm not addressing the rightness or wrongness of laws. I'm not speaking to animal rights here. I'm telling you how not to not share the experience of the kid in Midnight Express.
MyPieRogative said: Did you see that cute squirrel?
I believe that squirrel wanted what was in your other hand (the cigarette).
Myds said:
First off, I don't complain about other people's rights to believe things that I wouldn't personally approve of. You've lived long enough to know that we don't live in an "optimal" world. In fact, a lot of humans behave in a way that couldn't be described as "logical." But aren't you arguing that we should obey the laws/norms in red square because it is "optimal" to do so? How is that any different from saying one should respect the laws and customs? It isn't even an overseas issue. Do you eat ham-and-cheese sandwiches in your local synagogue? No, because, it isn't "optimal" to do so, which is another word for not being a dick, which is what my point was in the very first place.
Your other question amounts to "Why are there governments?" This isn't really on-topic in the UMD, and even if you came to the conclusion that there shouldn't be governments (or police, or public roads, schools, libraries, firefighters, etc) you're not really in a position to change that. If you don't follow the laws, to paraphrase the words of the South Park Ski Instructor, "You're gonna have a bad time."
This is true whether the laws are just or not. You paint me as some lawful character who follows all laws without thinking. That isn't at all who I am. But, from a pragmatic standpoint, following the laws when you're a visitor, just like respecting the "house rules" when you are at the house of a friend, shows that you did not come to be their enemy. It isn't dissimilar from following the rules here at UMD.
I'm not addressing the rightness or wrongness of laws. I'm not speaking to animal rights here. I'm telling you how not to not share the experience of the kid in Midnight Express.
First off, I don't complain about other people's rights to believe things that I wouldn't personally approve of. You've lived long enough to know that we don't live in an "optimal" world. In fact, a lot of humans behave in a way that couldn't be described as "logical." But aren't you arguing that we should obey the laws/norms in red square because it is "optimal" to do so? How is that any different from saying one should respect the laws and customs? It isn't even an overseas issue. Do you eat ham-and-cheese sandwiches in your local synagogue? No, because, it isn't "optimal" to do so, which is another word for not being a dick, which is what my point was in the very first place.
Your other question amounts to "Why are there governments?" This isn't really on-topic in the UMD, and even if you came to the conclusion that there shouldn't be governments (or police, or public roads, schools, libraries, firefighters, etc) you're not really in a position to change that. If you don't follow the laws, to paraphrase the words of the South Park Ski Instructor, "You're gonna have a bad time."
This is true whether the laws are just or not. You paint me as some lawful character who follows all laws without thinking. That isn't at all who I am. But, from a pragmatic standpoint, following the laws when you're a visitor, just like respecting the "house rules" when you are at the house of a friend, shows that you did not come to be their enemy. It isn't dissimilar from following the rules here at UMD.
I'm not addressing the rightness or wrongness of laws. I'm not speaking to animal rights here. I'm telling you how not to not share the experience of the kid in Midnight Express.
There exists an optimal amount of SAFE SPACE that every individual (including prisoners, including the most racist anti-black or anti-white or the most anti-racist people, including the most sexist anti-man or anti-woman people or anti-gay or anti-anti-gay etc)
That means there exists a point where the pain & annoyance of me imposing upon someone else, taking away what little safe space they have equals or exceeds
the pain & annoyance to me of having to worry about not stepping across into
someone's safe space or "no-go" zone.
And, no - universities should NOT be safe spaces, since they are meant to be places to learn about everything, although, again - they should have certain safe spaces on them.
Basically, the safe space SHOULD be private property. NOT a neighborhood,
e.g. like a "no-go zone muslim area in England".
No doubt the civil rights people like Martin Luther King thought & argued &
agonized about these issues, although I doubt he put them into these mathematical terms, like he should have. Karl Marx had an INKLING of
mathematical modeling of fairness in his EXTREMELY dense masterpiece,
"Das Capital". But, I am not going to blame them for not using modern math game
theory terminology.
But, like I always say, the difference between right & wrong is ALWAYS how much.
These are ALWAYS math problems.
ALL choices, ALL decisions are utilitarian decisions.
Obviously, I think that some corporations have too much safe space, i.e. too much private property, because now that property is forcing itself, imposing itself too much onto what WOULD have been my private property, such as my intellectual property.
Obviously,the mind is the ULTIMATE safe space, which is why I cringed growing up
hearing about the civil rights movement & feminist movements UNNECESSARILY start attacking hate speech, making unnecessary analyses of what others feel/believe/think, when none of that is important, i..e none of that is anyone else's business.
Fighting unjust laws that physically put people into prison is a great thing.
But I really don't give a shit whether somebody hates anyone or not.
The reason obviously that many people get so angry at SJWs & feminists
is because they make UNFALSIFIABLE ARROGANT assumptions about
what other people think or "fear" or "feel", without those other people
explicitly TELLING them what's in their mind.
And all that psycho-assumptions is unimportant anyway.
I have often wanted to start an animal rights organization for people who "hate" animals: in OBSERVABLE FALSIFIABLE terms from the POV of another observer,
a person "hates" animals means "they don't like being around them".
e.g. a person hates kittens & puppies & little piglets & bunnies etc
because they poop & they smell & they leave furballs all over, etc
In other words, these people don't give a damn about cuteness.
But, these same people thing also don't want these same animals tortured, by long-term confinement, & killed. They oppose the breeding of billions of animals
for factory farms or fur farms. These are the observable falsifiable quantifiable
negative acts that these people want to outlaw.
But they are free to hate or feel whatever they want about animals,
feel they are stupid & dumb. Because those feelings have no PHYSICAL
QUANTIFIABLE FALSIFIABLE EFFECT on those animals.
Myds said:
What's being a dick is forcing new humans into existence without their permission
with guarantee of survival, then expecting/demanding the government to arrest
people for stealing or selling drugs or doing whatever they have to to survive.
What's being a dick is republicunts & demoturds like Chris Christie preaching
endlessly about "freedom" & "liberty" while forcing more laws onto individuals
restricting what drugs they may use, even though it doesn't affect anyone else.
What's being a dick is being lectured to by conservaturds to praise & honor
troops, whether you agree with the particular war they fight,
because of the hardship & suffering they endure, but then ridiculing &
insulting radicals or workers unions or anti-Wall Street activists for using
violence to fight against massive wealth inequality & endless welfare to
Wall Street, or if the Animal Liberation Front blew up a factory farm or fur farm.
Bleeding heart conservatives more concerned about a few dozen Wall Street executives' getting billions than millions of poor suffering hardship from poverty,
or more concerned with maintaining the status quo and the deaths of a few
animal breeders compared to ending the torture of the millions of animals
who would not be forced into existence if the animal breeders did not exist.
In short, being a dick is lecturing to support YOUR cause, and to demand
GOVERNMENT support your cause - which is violent force - regardless
whether the positive outweighs the negative or not,
while categorically ruling out the use of force - whether illegal or government/ legal/law - for my cause by looking ONLY at the negative
and NOT the positive.
I totally agree with all your definitions of being a dick, although I don't think they encompass all the possible ways. I want to add that I don't condone bombing. I think the only place we differ is where you seemed to have expressed, earlier, that you somehow imagine that not obeying laws and norms will not bring consequences upon yourself--often in the form of state-sponsored violence.
Even if you think that is unfair, it will happen. If the law is grossly unjust, you can take its penalty as an act of protest.
Hence I suggest people (especially those who are visitors) respect the laws and norms inasmuch as they won't bring that violence down upon themselves. In most instances, it isn't hard to do.
As I've already pointed out, we have laws and norms here on the UMD. Most infractions don't result in incarceration. (If they ever do, MessMaster, I'm sure there's a great story we'd all love to hear, provided its legal to tell!) But they carry consequences nonetheless. You could be banned from the forums, or simply shunned. They are pretty simple and clear rules to follow, and I suggest we all do.
Lastly, although I was quite an able student of higher math, I find the attempt to reduce human relations to those things that are falsifiable and formulaic in some way, misses the point. In human relations, perception is worth just as much as reality. Is that fair? Probably not. Do I like it? Not usually. Does my rage at human irrationality matter one whit? No.
But if you expect people to behave in rational, mathematically-logical way, you will regularly be disappointed. This is the very reason for the stereotype of the socially-inept programmer or physicist. Of course, it is often not true, but it happens often enough for the stereotype to exist. As Neil deGrasse Tyson once tweeted:
"In science, when human behavior enters the equation, things go nonlinear. That's why Physics is easy and Sociology is hard."
Even if you think that is unfair, it will happen. If the law is grossly unjust, you can take its penalty as an act of protest.
Hence I suggest people (especially those who are visitors) respect the laws and norms inasmuch as they won't bring that violence down upon themselves. In most instances, it isn't hard to do.
As I've already pointed out, we have laws and norms here on the UMD. Most infractions don't result in incarceration. (If they ever do, MessMaster, I'm sure there's a great story we'd all love to hear, provided its legal to tell!) But they carry consequences nonetheless. You could be banned from the forums, or simply shunned. They are pretty simple and clear rules to follow, and I suggest we all do.
Lastly, although I was quite an able student of higher math, I find the attempt to reduce human relations to those things that are falsifiable and formulaic in some way, misses the point. In human relations, perception is worth just as much as reality. Is that fair? Probably not. Do I like it? Not usually. Does my rage at human irrationality matter one whit? No.
But if you expect people to behave in rational, mathematically-logical way, you will regularly be disappointed. This is the very reason for the stereotype of the socially-inept programmer or physicist. Of course, it is often not true, but it happens often enough for the stereotype to exist. As Neil deGrasse Tyson once tweeted:
"In science, when human behavior enters the equation, things go nonlinear. That's why Physics is easy and Sociology is hard."
" I totally agree with all your definitions of being a dick"
Those were not DEFINITIONS of being a dick.
Those were EXAMPLES of being a dick.
But, thank you.
"although I don't think they encompass all the possible ways"
Correct. They do not. There exist enormously many ways people
HAVE been dicks & uncountably infinitely many HYPOTHETICAL ways
people can be dicks.
"I don't condone bombing."
Good for you. I do. Or maybe not. Depends on whom one is attacking & for which reasons. Maybe I think bombing is a wonderful GLORIOUS thing,
especially when it happens to those who themselves would bomb others
for some trivial reason, or imprison others for some trivial reason.
Whatever I feel about bombings, or imprisonment, or people eating meat,
or voting for corrupt lying hypocritical political parties - is my right
(translate: my legal right) JUST as much as ANY legal right on the part of
police, judges, authorities to do their job punishing people.
Why bombing? Why cherrypick that negative event?
I don't condone imprisoning people (or nonhuman animals).
I don't condone eating meat when vegan sources of protein are available.
"not obeying laws and norms will not bring consequences upon yourself--often in the form of state-sponsored violence"
That's right. They don't. It is still the free-will choice of individuals
(who work for the state) to choose to react. Their choice to work for the state
itself is a free-will choice.
Who are you to say what "the consequences" should be?
Maybe I think the consequences of denying Greens, Communists, Socialist,
Libertarians - WHO ARE FORCED TO PAY HUGE PROPERTY TAXES - the right to earn $200 to work the polls just like republicans & democrats do
is a firebomb, or a violent revolution.
You show yourself mentally incapable of NOT conflate the actions of one individual from the reactions of another individual.
You show your self to be mentally capable of thinking ONLY that
consequences and responsibility lies ONLY with the lawbreakers,
never with the lawmakers
"not obeying laws and norms will not bring consequences upon yourself--often in the form of state-sponsored violence" + the other stuff you said following that:
Since your statement is categorically universal, it therefore applies to ALL points
in time EVERYWHERE.
Then you are blaming (some randomly chosen examples off the top of my head):
1. slave S1 in 1860 USA for being arrested & hung for staging a slave rebellion
and killing or attempting to kill a slavemaster, because S1 broke the law
2. the Russian peasants & socialists & communists gunned down by Tsar Nicholas II in Russia in 1905 for demanding more food from their unelected leader
(this is where & when socialists & communists were hugely oppressed & persecuted by the state). Hence, according to you, the peasants/socialists
"caused" their own getting gunned down in the street. That's what "consequences" mean: cause & effect.
3. Soviet citizens, C1, C2, C3 get arrested in the Soviet Union for opposing
Lysenkoism, the dogma that bureaucrat Lysenko pushed that plants follow
Marxist collectivist doctrines, resulting in mass starvation.
So according to you, C1, C2, C3 (and whoever else) caused their own imprisonment or getting shot
4. Hungarians violently uprising against their lawful government in 1956,
get shot & arrested. Again, according to you, this was a consequence
of THEIR (the Hungarian rebels') actions.
Again - each of these individuals had names, both the oppressed & the oppressors, which I can only list with letters & numbers P(1), P(2), etc
I used to know history a lot better, and I know many people know a lot more
details about history than I do, at present, and I am grateful for that,
but, frankly, that doesn't bother me, as what has become
infinitely clearer to me is that what has become MUCH more important to me
is refining & perfecting the logistical-modeling description of historical events & logical assignment of responsibility/cause and effect to individuals.
Those were not DEFINITIONS of being a dick.
Those were EXAMPLES of being a dick.
But, thank you.
"although I don't think they encompass all the possible ways"
Correct. They do not. There exist enormously many ways people
HAVE been dicks & uncountably infinitely many HYPOTHETICAL ways
people can be dicks.
"I don't condone bombing."
Good for you. I do. Or maybe not. Depends on whom one is attacking & for which reasons. Maybe I think bombing is a wonderful GLORIOUS thing,
especially when it happens to those who themselves would bomb others
for some trivial reason, or imprison others for some trivial reason.
Whatever I feel about bombings, or imprisonment, or people eating meat,
or voting for corrupt lying hypocritical political parties - is my right
(translate: my legal right) JUST as much as ANY legal right on the part of
police, judges, authorities to do their job punishing people.
Why bombing? Why cherrypick that negative event?
I don't condone imprisoning people (or nonhuman animals).
I don't condone eating meat when vegan sources of protein are available.
"not obeying laws and norms will not bring consequences upon yourself--often in the form of state-sponsored violence"
That's right. They don't. It is still the free-will choice of individuals
(who work for the state) to choose to react. Their choice to work for the state
itself is a free-will choice.
Who are you to say what "the consequences" should be?
Maybe I think the consequences of denying Greens, Communists, Socialist,
Libertarians - WHO ARE FORCED TO PAY HUGE PROPERTY TAXES - the right to earn $200 to work the polls just like republicans & democrats do
is a firebomb, or a violent revolution.
You show yourself mentally incapable of NOT conflate the actions of one individual from the reactions of another individual.
You show your self to be mentally capable of thinking ONLY that
consequences and responsibility lies ONLY with the lawbreakers,
never with the lawmakers
"not obeying laws and norms will not bring consequences upon yourself--often in the form of state-sponsored violence" + the other stuff you said following that:
Since your statement is categorically universal, it therefore applies to ALL points
in time EVERYWHERE.
Then you are blaming (some randomly chosen examples off the top of my head):
1. slave S1 in 1860 USA for being arrested & hung for staging a slave rebellion
and killing or attempting to kill a slavemaster, because S1 broke the law
2. the Russian peasants & socialists & communists gunned down by Tsar Nicholas II in Russia in 1905 for demanding more food from their unelected leader
(this is where & when socialists & communists were hugely oppressed & persecuted by the state). Hence, according to you, the peasants/socialists
"caused" their own getting gunned down in the street. That's what "consequences" mean: cause & effect.
3. Soviet citizens, C1, C2, C3 get arrested in the Soviet Union for opposing
Lysenkoism, the dogma that bureaucrat Lysenko pushed that plants follow
Marxist collectivist doctrines, resulting in mass starvation.
So according to you, C1, C2, C3 (and whoever else) caused their own imprisonment or getting shot
4. Hungarians violently uprising against their lawful government in 1956,
get shot & arrested. Again, according to you, this was a consequence
of THEIR (the Hungarian rebels') actions.
Again - each of these individuals had names, both the oppressed & the oppressors, which I can only list with letters & numbers P(1), P(2), etc
I used to know history a lot better, and I know many people know a lot more
details about history than I do, at present, and I am grateful for that,
but, frankly, that doesn't bother me, as what has become
infinitely clearer to me is that what has become MUCH more important to me
is refining & perfecting the logistical-modeling description of historical events & logical assignment of responsibility/cause and effect to individuals.
Myds: "But if you expect people to behave in rational, mathematically-logical way, you will regularly be disappointed."
Then you cannot cherrypick & arbitrarily attack only ONE group of people for being illogical over another.
I can find logic & illogic in EVERYone, everything, every position.
Obviously it is very UNEVENLY distributed among individuals, and the magnitudes of the effects of their hypocrisies is therefore also very unevenly distributed.
Without mentioning any SPECIFIC causes, to keep this as GENERAL as possible, the 2 biggest illogicities I find are:
1. You can't preach "freedom isn't free", and then complain about people violently breaking the law to achieve it.
The fundamental bullshit of lecturing people in the present to honor & respect those who fought & died for a cause, but categorically ridiculing violent protestors today.
You can oppose a protestors' cause because you think their demands are unfair:
that they demand more benefit for themselves at some greater cost to someone else.
But, if you say: "Those protestors are wrong."
And I ask you: "Why are they wrong?"
And all you say is: "Because they are violent." Categorically, without looking at their reasons for being so, without weighing the positives of what they want
versus the negatives forced upon them, then it will uncritically follow that
all soldiers are wrong for using violence, all wars are wrong for using violence.
And, yes, imprisoning someone (which is violent force) is wrong.
The people of the past who "fought & died" either
A. probably used violence against the state, or some oppressor.
That's why the state killed them or imprisoned them.
or
B. if they did not use violence against the state, and just did a useless
nonviolent symbolic gesture, that's noble & commendable,
but what good did that symbolic gesture do for their cause,
if they don't kill members of the state or whoever is doing the oppressing,
if they don't reduce the numbers of the oppressors?
Again, I can formalize these ideas MUCH more elegantly with logistical models.
(e.g. along the lines of game theory, but incorporating what each player thinks,
as well as what they do) than I can with prose, i.e. natural language, that
we all take for granted.
2. The illogical (i.e. inconsistent) application of the Fallacy of Relative Privation (FRP).
The instant someone invokes the FRP for any reason, then anyone else is free to apply the FRP for whatever reasons THEY want.
Examples will take me too long to discuss here.
Then you cannot cherrypick & arbitrarily attack only ONE group of people for being illogical over another.
I can find logic & illogic in EVERYone, everything, every position.
Obviously it is very UNEVENLY distributed among individuals, and the magnitudes of the effects of their hypocrisies is therefore also very unevenly distributed.
Without mentioning any SPECIFIC causes, to keep this as GENERAL as possible, the 2 biggest illogicities I find are:
1. You can't preach "freedom isn't free", and then complain about people violently breaking the law to achieve it.
The fundamental bullshit of lecturing people in the present to honor & respect those who fought & died for a cause, but categorically ridiculing violent protestors today.
You can oppose a protestors' cause because you think their demands are unfair:
that they demand more benefit for themselves at some greater cost to someone else.
But, if you say: "Those protestors are wrong."
And I ask you: "Why are they wrong?"
And all you say is: "Because they are violent." Categorically, without looking at their reasons for being so, without weighing the positives of what they want
versus the negatives forced upon them, then it will uncritically follow that
all soldiers are wrong for using violence, all wars are wrong for using violence.
And, yes, imprisoning someone (which is violent force) is wrong.
The people of the past who "fought & died" either
A. probably used violence against the state, or some oppressor.
That's why the state killed them or imprisoned them.
or
B. if they did not use violence against the state, and just did a useless
nonviolent symbolic gesture, that's noble & commendable,
but what good did that symbolic gesture do for their cause,
if they don't kill members of the state or whoever is doing the oppressing,
if they don't reduce the numbers of the oppressors?
Again, I can formalize these ideas MUCH more elegantly with logistical models.
(e.g. along the lines of game theory, but incorporating what each player thinks,
as well as what they do) than I can with prose, i.e. natural language, that
we all take for granted.
2. The illogical (i.e. inconsistent) application of the Fallacy of Relative Privation (FRP).
The instant someone invokes the FRP for any reason, then anyone else is free to apply the FRP for whatever reasons THEY want.
Examples will take me too long to discuss here.
Nein said: For what it's worth, I think I found another example of someone being a dick.
You're just close-minded to alternative opinions.
Go lecture your anti-dick rhetoric to the hypocrites who insult communists & socialists (mostly imagined, but sometimes real) without listening to their complex views on economics & law, yet who demand respect for thoroughly debunked/disproved crap like creationism & anthropogenic global warming (AGW) denialism & HIV/AIDS denialism.
Nein said: No no, there are non-dicks out there who have said some of the sorts of things you said on substantive issues, and who I respect.
Yasee? Falsification, bruh!
Yasee? Falsification, bruh!
Good for you & your unimportant unquantifiable irrelevant "respect" bullshit.
Obviously, I don't respect you, either.
Obviously, you just randomly cherrypick whom to "respect" or not.
OldZoidberg said:Obviously, I don't respect you, either.
I will have to draw some comfort from the fact that you don't truly believe that, since the concept of "respect" is unfalsifiable bullshit, according to you.
But, look -- truce. I'm only teasing you for being a bit of a dick.
It's true, though, that I only find plausibility in maybe just under half of what you've said. I won't write you an essay, but generally, I think your views on law are consistent with, not just a life of non-travel, but also a life of non-leaving-the-house.
midsgunger said: lol you actually believe in that muslim no-go bullshit
put down your silly right-wing dirtrags and see the real world for yourself
put down your silly right-wing dirtrags and see the real world for yourself
Logic demands we look at all evidence and counter-evidence,
and ADD UP the positives & negatives.
I have heard some "horror stories", to quote, from sources such as Pat Condell
regarding neighborhoods in UK or Sweden being no-go areas for non-Muslims.
Also, Muslims are the rightwingers. The most conservative cult on the planet.
As much as I like that RT News presents ALTERNATIVES to lamestream
media in the USA, I know THEY have a pro-Russian agenda too.
I don't find their pro-Russian agenda bad.
But I DO find it INCREDIBLY irritating the way they label ANY protests
against muslims & islamofascism as being "rightwing".
I mean, I recall they covered a story, I think in Sweden,
where gay rights activists protested the anti-gay policies
of muslims in "muslim sections" (for lack of a better label)
of Stockholm. RT News IDIOTICALLY called the gay rights activists
"far right wingers".
No: Whoever puts tradition, the status quo, the way things are or have been,
when those do not agree with what is fair,
above doing what's fair is the rightwinger/conservative.
So, obviously, since the status quo DOES change PAINFULLY SLOWLY
with time, but varies more fluidly with place, who the rightwinger or conservative
varies.
One must be aware of avoiding
the Fallacy of Argument to Moderation -
i.e. claiming that "the truth must lie somewhere exactly in the middle" -
of just assuming only half of the reported no-go zones are real.
Not having full information simply means not having full information.
I personally do NOT have enough information to make a general judgement.
All I can respond to are individual incidents, of a no-go zone, that I hear & say,
"If that's true, then it shouldn't be."
I'm imagining everyone in this conversation with dick in one hand beating their meat so fucking hard as they type with the other. I can't even finish reading all this. Great job gentleman! lol
:notworthy:MyPieRogative said: I'm imagining everyone in this conversation with dick in one hand beating their meat so fucking hard as they type with the other.
But wait, you're in the conversation. So that means... you're whacking it with a stolen dick!
You are so busted. I'm calling INTERPOL.
Nein said:
But wait, you're in the conversation. So that means... you're whacking it with a stolen dick!
You are so busted. I'm calling INTERPOL.
MyPieRogative said: I'm imagining everyone in this conversation with dick in one hand beating their meat so fucking hard as they type with the other.
But wait, you're in the conversation. So that means... you're whacking it with a stolen dick!
You are so busted. I'm calling INTERPOL.
In all fairness I've been attempting to redirect to that sweet little squirrel for a while. I saw shit was getting ugly... and yes I even contributed.
Oh!!!! And as far as people believing in "Muslim no go zones"... I'll take this opportunity to voice that I love everyone and will enter and be pied in "so called" no go zones. Holla at ya girl my Muslim brothas from otha mothas!
"Sweet and nutty." Nom nom nom nom
https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/we-should-think-about-eating-squirrel
https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/we-should-think-about-eating-squirrel
