Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of theCelestrian
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - theCelestrian

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
2
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: February 01, 2010, 12:20:53 AM »
So Gene, didn't even want to try and touch Johnson's post which more formally expounded some of the arguments I was also making, eh?

Your cherry-picking is beginning to lead me to believe that you are, in fact, not discussing in good-faith nor making every attempt to:

  • Be intellectually honest by acknowledging the logical conclusions that some of your arguments bring about.

  • Interpreting a post in the best-possible favor of the person you are discussing the topic with.  (i.e. - "Whenever there is doubt, give them the benefit of yours.")


If you check dictionary.com and see the first meaning of "anarchy" I think you will find that your statement is in error. 

1.    a state of society without government or law.

Ooo ooo... let's see what else the dictionary says about 'anarchy':

Quote from: dictionary.reference.com
2.    political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.

3.    a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

4.    confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

So - You have been found guilty of selective interpretation to suit your argument in bad faith, as I am fairly sure in my readings of your posts throughout this BBS is that you will interpret Anarchy as #3 when it suits your needs ("Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer, et al), but have apparently decided to use interpretation #1 because it doesn't open your argument up for the rebuttal I'm about to make.

Classy.

Two people agreeing that there is no "authority" (or "government") does not create a "government" nor create a "law". 

Fail, Gene:  "The law is there is no law."

Notice:

  • This constitutes an agreement - This *is* a form of governance; the individuals participating in the agreement have, by their acceptance of anarchy, implicitly recognize and adhere to the limitation of: "there is no law," or if we take a more appropriate interpretation of 'Anarchy,' for the liberty-minded, "there is no law over others; the only law is 'natural law'."

    i.e. the NAP, etc...

  • Through the agreement, the recognition of individual authority is created and recognized. - If, for the making your argument the best possible, i.e. a "voluntarist" style of Anarchy, then each person realized that they have authority over themselves (abstract synthesis), and that their authority does not overstep or usurp the authority of another individual (behavioral compliance of the abstract principle).

    governance:  There are rules as a result of abstract synthesis and behavioral compliance - even insofar that the individual/group recognizes that the only rules that are applicable are those that one applies to himself and no other.


I maintain that we are currently in a state of society without "law".

I want you to make note that you said this, because I'm going to step you through how this is going lead undermining some of your points and assertations regarding "authority" in a bit.


If you don't believe me, try to have some of these "politicians" prosecuted for the "violations" of their written (fictitious) laws.  They are quite immune because they are "in" on the secret that there really is no law, no "authority".  Only force by those who want to take against those whom they can violate.  The past criminal in chief "W" was immune and the current criminal in chief "O" are aware of this fact.  They will continue to cooperate with each other in order to keep the charade going.

Fail; strawman. You have been found guilty of intentionally (once again) side-stepping my entire point, attempting to change the context of point and mis-interpreting to suit your purposes as well as playing the game of 'bad analogy.'

Let's look at what I said again:

Oh, and by the way - once you have a community of more than one individual who agrees/believes in a "Lack of government" (Anarchy) - you have in fact created an agreed upon system of governance (i.e. "the rule is there are no rules") and thus making Anarchy once again - an abstract concept as there have now been accepted and agreed upon "limits."

So.

  • Where in my last couple posts did I indicate I was talking about the U.S. (or any State) Government?

    Let's break down the first clause:


    Oh, and by the way - once you have a community of more than one individual who agrees/believes
    in a "Lack of government" (Anarchy) - you have in fact created an agreed upon system of
    governance
    (i.e. "the rule is there are no rules")


    Take a gooooood long read.  Notice something?  "once you have..."  It's interesting because we were talking again about 'anarchy' and 'authority' and even 'emotions' in the philisophical abstract and how they are applicable to the physical world.  My point, which I feel you deliberately overlooked so you could engage in your sophistry-of-the-rhetorical-question, is that even in the absence of any other form of 'government' or [insert ficticious label here], the second 1+ person agrees upon "the truth of Anarchy" - they have in fact agreed upon a form of governance as I outlined above.

    Hence, the conditional clause, "once you have..."

  • Secondary point: You are in-fact arguing for The Law of the Jungle as 'reality'; in such a context Christian Anarchy (or even Anarchy) is *not* a sensible asnwer:
    You just made the case that the only reality is that people can use violence to force capitulation insofar as they are successful, are you not?

    Only force by those who want to take against those whom they can violate. [...is the only reality]

    ...and remember this one?

    I maintain that we are currently in a state of society without "law".

    So:
    • All abstract concepts are fiction.
    • Only physical objects and their actions are real
    • Laws are fictions. (pick any one you want)
    -------
    • Morality is also a fiction
    • 'Good' and 'Bad' are fictions
    • The only 'sensible answer' is to be an oppressor and force the capitulation of all before me that I am able
    • It is also 'sensible' to ally myself with others of a common goal to achieve that which grants me the largest physical benefit


"Anarchy" can never be a "government" because those who acknowledge anarchy, by their acknowledgment of it, accept that there can be no "authority" over others...  And then we're back to the fact that fiction "government" and fiction "authority" are symbiotic.

edit:I'll assume my color coding is a result of improper reading - and thus retract my first portion of this section's response to give you be benefit of the doubt.

My points above cover this already.  Circular, Superfluous and therefore irrelevant unless to illustrate that the Law of the Jungle is reality and that one should oppress others as it is the only objectively proven way - through you numerous unsolicited examples of "today's government" - to ensure the maximum benefit of the individual and those he/she cares about.




I respectfully "clap out" of this thread - 2 violations of arguing in Bad Faith are enough for me, and therefore I exercise my right to abstention.

This will be my final post on any matters in this thread dealing with Abstract concepts as fiction.  I will of course read and consider any response you may have, but I will not indulge in a discussion I no longer believe is being conducted in good faith.


この授業はすごく興味深かったです。あなたは私に喋ったありがとうございました。



3
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: January 31, 2010, 05:48:18 PM »
<another very well laid out counter-argument>

Very nice, Johnson - a very well put counter-synopsis.

...I notice you got a new signature, by the way.

4
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: January 31, 2010, 03:00:00 PM »
I attempt to make this point by showing that "government" and it's "authority" are indeed fiction.  Lack of government is anarchy.  Once someone sees this point, they are no longer fooled by the "false cult religion" called statism.

How do you expect to achieve this when your arguments and "illustrations" will be dismissed (correctly) as logically superfluous?

Oh, and by the way - once you have a community of more than one individual who agrees/believes in a "Lack of government" (Anarchy) - you have in fact created an agreed upon system of governance (i.e. "the rule is there are no rules") and thus making Anarchy once again - an abstract concept as there have now been accepted and agreed upon "limits."

Limits that I assume would require authority, thus requiring those subscribing to Anarchy to accept that authority.

Circular.  Superfluous. and therefore, irrelevant for the means of "illustration."


5
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: January 31, 2010, 01:09:28 PM »
<explication of one aspect of the argument>

The only other thing I will add in regards to this particular aspect of the conversation, because I think Johnson has the religious front covered, is that because the "door swings both ways," and the fact this argument can be applied to any and all things non-physical, this is the argument that applies to everything, and therefore nothing.  My point was that while we can all agree on the factual aspect of 'authority,' 'government,' 'compassion,' 'slavery,' ad inifitum being ficticious, particularly when using physicality (observability) as the benchmark - the argument is so universal as outlined in the last couple pages of our discourse that it is rendered completely worthless for the purposes of distinction, differentiation (because 'Anarchy' is also a fiction by our agreed upon standards) and persuasion.

Summation - If one honestly wishes to convince others that Anarchy is a better answer of governance than 'Government,' a fundamentally different argument is required.


...I honestly don't know if I can make this point (which has been avoided repeatedly) any simpler.

6
General / Re: The Question Thread
« on: January 31, 2010, 11:37:15 AM »
How does your online persona differ from your real-life persona?

Tough.  I try to make my online persona in the BBS as close to "me" (that's why I sign w/ my real name, my avatar pic is one of me, etc...)  I think the main difference is going to be that my body language, look on my face and tone of voice is missing here - which because I have no inner monologue, tends to play poorly when people say ignorant things in my general direction.

My team of developers that I lead often call me, "the jerk/asshole (affectionately - because they realize my personality directly makes their jobs easier)" - with the two terms used interchangeably, and that's because especially at work, I say what I mean, mean what I say and if something is stupid or a person has demonstrated themselves as being incompetant I have zero compunctions with proclaiming as much.

However, I'm still just as verbose in real life.

7
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: January 30, 2010, 10:55:48 PM »
long with the concepts of compassion and government, the concept of authority also exists only in the minds of those being affected by it. Even if you're holding a gun to my head, you still have only the authority over me which I grant to you. Even with a direct threat against my life, I can still choose to ignore any orders given to me and forfeit that life. Therefore a belief in the concept of government, which inherently includes the concept of authority, is as real as authority is ever going to get.
It's the same way with emotions, even though the concepts of those emotions exist solely in the minds of the people who bear those emotions, they still have an external effect on anyone around who bears any sense of empathy, and isn't a complete sociopath.

Johnson, thank you for taking my initial point to it's logical end; all abstract concepts, including authority are fictions when we use physicality and the actions of physical objects that litmus test.

As I said before, I'm completely satisfied with the results of this conversation, as it was most educational. I would be interested to hear, however, how Authority how this then reconciles with all of Gene's previous statements (outlined in previous posts) - and moreover, once again How an argument that applies to everything is useful for anything when seeking to use that argument for the sake of distinction and/or differentiation.

For myself, however, I will quietly find a chair in the back and listen.  Should another (completely unrelated) sub-topic of this thread surface tha's of interest to me, I shall make it known.

8
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: January 30, 2010, 12:48:03 PM »
I'm sorry if I made the assumption that you knew my stance on "authority".  I have had the same point of view since the first post in this thread.  I see "government" and "authority" as being dependent upon each other.  Showing that "government" is a fiction also shows that there is no "authority".  A government without authority is no government.

This is all fine; but it doesn't address the fact that the argument is so over-general that it can be applied to any kind of abstract concept.  This again was not the primary purpose of my original line of questioning, but the fact that you believe it is logically consistent that you make broad sweeping statements of fact solely based upon your personal experience.

I have demonstrated why I feel that's dangerous, and how this kind of thinking is used to rationalize some of Humanities most egregious and atrocious acts of barbarism.  You do not seem to either feel or think this is the case, and therefore we are at an impasse here.

This will be my final comment on this particular matter.

The existence of God has been proven to me and I have stated so in the past (so I do not accept His authority as "fiction").  I've also stated that I cannot PROVE His existence to anyone else.  This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him.  Briefly, I have had personal experiences that I can only attribute to a supernatural being (which is outside the realm of the scientific method).  I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer.  We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective.  In my youth, I believed there was no God and  believed in evolution.  My journey on this ball has change my perspective a great deal.

Arguments that basically boil down to "trust me, x is true," is not an argument that has any functional use when trying to convince, persuade or otherwise reason with individuals other than yourself.

  • "This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him." - Well, all my experiences have neither proved nor disproved God, so this is out the window...

  • "I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer." - I'm amazed you haven't taken these observations and have them published in the Scientific community - because if you can show there's an intelligent designer, then you can show, in fact, that a creator must exist.

    ...but that would then contradict the first bullet item, wouldn't it?

  • "We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective." - What happened to those personal observations that show Intelligent Design?  Wouldn't the observations, which by definition are quantifiable, and repeatable, help determine objective fact (read: perspective) for me?


...again, I think we're at an impasse, if for no other reason that we seem to be using the same words, but have fundamentally different meanings associated with them.  My guess is that you will take issue with my definition of "observation," and broaden it to include that which is emotional and or intangible, but this is of course, just a guess.

Feel free to respond if you like, but I think at this point the constructive potential of our discourse has past the point of diminishing returns.

 
I think the existence of a feeling or emotion (which has no form) but is believed to exist cannot be compared to an imagined authority over others called "government". 

Wrong.  Abstract concepts can very easily be compared to other abstract concepts when discussing the validity of their reality using tangibility as the frame of reference, as you did originally when you thought you had me in a "gotcha."  Let me see if I can jog your memory a bit with a re-purposed truth statement:

Government Compassion is a fiction, only the men and their actions are real.

Remember that? 

These emotions exist in the minds of the person experiencing them. 

Oh!  ....so:

These emotions Government exist in the minds of the person experiencing them. 

See, the English language allows me to do some pretty cool things.  I can take your noun, replace it with another noun, and see if the statement could still be true.  I think it's very interesting that you deny Government as a fiction, but you'll qualify emotions as less a fiction because it exists in the minds of the person experiencing them.

With this one sentence, Gene, you have completely undermined your entire argument.

Because everything can now, "exist in the minds of the person experiencing them."  The validity of Government, according to this, is now just as valid as the validity of emotions.  "Authority" is no longer a requisite, only that the person believes that what they are experiencing in their mind is "Government."

:::claps::: I don't think I could have made a more compelling point in that one single sentence as you did. So as far as this point in your discussion, I'm officially satisfied.  No further definition tweaks or non-universal qualifiers are necessary.  You and I will probably need to part ways on this point as well.

As such, we can only take their word that they have "compassion".  There are some people who don't have compassion, and for them, compassion is truly a fiction. 

So you'll take someone's word about emotions, which can be incredibly nuanced and "beyond understanding," and incapable of being objectively observed/measured except by those experiencing the emotion, but you'll summarily dismiss scientific data because "they [the scientists] can't be trusted" and the data "is overly complicated for common understanding."

:|



edit: fixed personal -> person, and not -> no

9
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: January 29, 2010, 01:54:54 PM »
I think spending enough time in this thread would cause anyone who started out Celestrian-like to morph into being Johnson-like. 

Potentially. :)  Though I have been here before during my last tenure at the BBS. ;)

edit: It was like back on page 100-ish I think.

10
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: January 29, 2010, 01:48:38 PM »
My tactic is really only driven by two main principles; impatience and frustration. Impatience firstly to save time, but secondly my impatience tactic is dependent upon audience.

Agreed. I understand I get a bit...verbose, however I make no apologies for being so. :)

You seem to be communicating with Gene directly and trying to address every little argument Gene makes. I see that as a fairly pointless exercise, since Gene is a liar, and his only purpose in reading what you say at all, will be to pull one or two points from it to manipulate and intentionally misinterpret them.

I would like to hope that is not the case, but I imagine I'll find that out for myself soon enough.

Then he has manipulated you into continuing on a separate branch down this long ridiculous "debate" path.

I'd like to think I've kept my tac fairly focused; the denial of the Fallacy of Personal Experience being primary, and questioning the relevance of the argument that applies to everything, and therefore applies to nothing, and it's implications to "Christian Anarchy" being secondary.

You see, while you or I might actually listen to what Gene has to say about his religion and his viewpoint, Gene is only looking for a way to manipulate and misinterpret what we have to say, so that he can keep this thread going.

I understand your position here.

I think he somehow feels that if this thread continues that he is somehow "winning". As though this thread will somehow be responsible for the spread of Christian anarchy.

Fair enough, though I don't know if I share the sentiment. If all of your aforementioned allegations are true - then I would posit that having individuals read (and apparently see) the behavior would result in a net loss for Gene's particular cause. ::shrugs:: However, again I think most people have pretty much made up their minds in a lot of these regards; the faithful will continue to be thus, the Statists shall continue to attempt to rationalize aggressive, coercive violence.

The other principle behind my tactic is frustration. I have an endless wellspring of frustration that I can direct towards religion without any problem. I think the reasons for that are fairly clearly outlined in this blog. http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

While I am neither an atheist, a liberal, or a gay, I feel like many if not most of the points that Greta makes about atheistic anger are extremely well put together. Of course, that's why I decided to badly read that blog entry on my YouTube channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJG51lqExAY&feature=youtube_gdata

Also completely fair, nor I would I ever try to tell you how you should/should not verbally respond to those you feel have enabled the continuing perpetration of violence against other individuals who do not share the aggressor's moral/religious value set.

11
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: January 29, 2010, 11:34:26 AM »
I think Branden deserves the classy award for always keeping it cool.

Meh.  It's a BBS, and interestingly enough the big 3 (sex, religion, politics) don't tend to grip me emotionally as strongly as most of the people I know.  Perhaps that's because I've been talking/arguing/asking about them since I was a young child.  The FTL is also mainly a recreational place for me - and a chance for me ask some interesting questions, and potentially get some interesting answers.  Nothing more.  This thread is a perfect exemplary; even with the most eloquent, well-reasoned and potentially air-tight argument I could provide about why the Fallacy of Personal Experience is in fact a fallacy, or any of the other points I made in this thread - odds are nil that Gene (or anyone else) is suddenly going have an epiphany and embrace agnostic anarchy.

...and if it appears I never get "hot" - if you knew me in real life, you would find that I am in fact a very simple kind of guy; I say what I mean, mean what I say and generally never have a problem calling a spade as such, and can in fact get very... impassioned, particularly when I am forced to deal with incompetence at the workplace.  Kinda like this guy:



I do, however, in all things make every endeavor to try to treat individuals in a manner that I would wish to be treated.

Johnson just has a different tac - and in all honesty; it seems it is often significantly more effective than my method. 



12
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: January 28, 2010, 09:55:29 PM »
Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for God of course and he hasn't told me just exactly what he wants from me) which "government" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "government" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possible have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 

I think we're at an impasse, and we'll probably have to settle to agree to disagree.  I will however, provide why despite your slight change in your argument - I still disagree.

Irrelevant; your argument (prior to your addendum) had nothing to do with 'authority' - merely the inherent 'reality' of the term.  This position is inconsistent; Abstract terms that denote potentials of authority are fictions, but abstract terms that do not have such an interpretive potential are in fact, less a fiction (or 'real').

You need to explain to me how 'compassion' is more real of a thing than 'government.'  Your previous litmus test for government was, "find me the person who is 'government.'"  I would encourage you to again apply your own test to that list above.


You made the claim 'government' is a fiction because there is no person named 'government;' only physical Men and their physical actions.  As support, you referred to the fact that all the effects people attribute to 'government' is actually a result of the men, not the fiction. 

You also offered Nike as an allegorical; Nike's building's and infrastructure would still be there long after "Nike" the company was gone.  All of these conditions in your previous argument can be applied to that list above, as well as any noun that is used to describe concepts that are inherantly intangible.  The fact that you acknowledge "God" as a hole in this new condition raises an interesting question, particularly given your position on personal experience:

How can someone/thing that is 'not a fiction' but never communicates His/Her desires directly have any real authority over others?  Would the perceived authority simply be an idea, a concept because you have zero methods of personally verifying that any and all claims of authority are in fact, true?

13
General / Re: Pictures of Your Pets!
« on: January 27, 2010, 06:40:16 PM »


Skullhound uses it's at-will ability bite, causing 1d4 damange!

Do you wish to spend a healing surge?



edit: rather than responding below, to save space  - it was a DnD reference (4th Ed.), but I guess that could work for video games too. :)

14
Fair enough. I just thought I would throw out another language that I'm more confident in speaking to see if you were knowledgeable in that as well.

:) I think my experience in Spanish gave me just enough to hack my way through that sentence, but that's probably my limit.

15

もしたくさんの人はロービンさんにいじめをします、多分英語より日本語をしゃべるのほがいいと思います。:|

Arg, Kanji! Use Furigana next time! I only know Hiragana and some Katakana.

I used to be able to transliterate cyrillic too. Maybe I should look into some refreshers.

わかりました。いまどう?
ありがとう。

Cependant, ma langue préférée est français. Je l'ai étudié beaucoup.

I'm not gonna study french simply because it's your preference, pero si habla español, japones o ingles, trabajamos.

edit: ¿Porque problemente hay muchas personas aqui que hablan, español es más mejor que japones quando usar una lingua diferente, verdad?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 31 queries.