Messages

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.

106

The Polling Pit / Re: What is your Myers-Briggs personality type?

« on: May 05, 2007, 10:34:01 PM »

ENTJ
Extraverted   Intuitive   Thinking   Judging
Strength of the preferences %
56   62   25   56


Edit: Guess I'm not a thinker, eh?

107

The Polling Pit / Re: How religious are we?

« on: May 02, 2007, 06:53:13 AM »

I didn't know Greyhawk used the same Planescape as Forgotten Realms...

Reverse that.  Greyhawk is the "default" D&D campaign plane cosmology.  Forgotten Realms and Eberron came later and use the rule "if it's in D&D it's in here."  to maximize the investment of the players who buy all of the other books, which is why they use the Greyhawk pantheon.

108

The Polling Pit / Re: How religious are we?

« on: May 02, 2007, 05:55:10 AM »

Are you talking about the D&D setting?

+1.  Indeed I was.

Edit: if so, why???

Just because.  How do you know there isn't a Nuetral Evil God on the tartaran wastes of Carceri known as Nerull?

109

The Polling Pit / Re: How religious are we?

« on: May 01, 2007, 11:16:44 PM »

I'm interested in how the BBS has been tossing around the religious football in the last month or so, and even though I voted a while back (agnosticism), its amusing how this keeps coming back up.

By the way, where's "Greyhawk" in this list?

(+1 if you get the reference)

110

The Polling Pit / Re: Should Gene (ChristianAnarchist) be Christened as a BBS Shithead?

« on: April 23, 2007, 04:10:22 AM »

I'm gonna stick up for Gene here:

So the man likes his Jesus.  Awesome for him.  So the man thinks his religious valueset is the one true worldview.  Again, I'm glad that he's found himself in a place where he can be sure about the Universe, the ultimate reality of how things work...and that it gives him intellectual and emotional satisfaction.  I only wish I could make such a claim with any level of honesty.

....and so the man sometimes calls people names or makes some implications about those who don't fall in with his morality.  The Anarcho-capitalists on this thread are guilty of exactly the same thing.  The minarchists on this thread are also guilty of this transgression.  Actually when I think about it, I'm sure everyone here has done something along these lines at least once.

If you want to socially ostracize him, that's cool too.  I would still very much be interested in seeing social ostracism actually work in some kind of practical setting, because thus far I have not seen it used in a western culture with a degree of success that I would be happy in.

Now just so I'm clear, don't "shitheads" on the BBS lose certain functionality, mainly in the karma department?  If so, then my vote is "no."  If not, my vote is still "no" because if and when the time comes that he really crosses a line with me.

...then I'll vote with my silence (read: ignore button).


EDIT: Just curious,.... why are we using a democratic process to "punish" Gene?  What happened to the "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner?"

111

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: April 20, 2007, 09:42:55 AM »

Well, I bounce around in other topics, and other forums... I can't really respond to people shouting at each other in words I don't use. There's certainly no point in me getting into a debate of Bible criticism with an atheist because neither of use accept it as infallible

I understand, but I would suggest that this is what "pretending" and "imagination" is for.   I "pretend something is true" for the sake of the discussion all the time, and I know lots of people do on this BBS also.

Look at Markuzick.... total atheist but he often speaks from the assumption god exists when trying to make some points, particularly about man's "proper morality."

112

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: April 20, 2007, 09:37:06 AM »

You are correct. Instead of "religious faith, or dogmatism" I should have simply said "religious dogmatism". "Religious faith" so often takes the form of "religious dogmatism" that in my mind they had become conflated. According to some of the possible definitions of "religion" and of "faith", it would be logically possible to have a rationally based system of beliefs and to label it as a "religious faith". Unfortunately, because "religious faith" is so commonly used to denote "religious dogmatism", using that phrase to describe a rational system of beliefs is almost certain to cause confusion

Hmmmm..... interesting.  Probably doesn't help that "religion" and "dogma" are often used in an almost interchangable manner in our culture.

Good job, Harvey.... and same to you, Mark.  I probably would have missed this had you not pointed it out.

113

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: April 20, 2007, 09:21:44 AM »

I find it interesting that even though, as far as I know, only one person has actually ignored me, no one, in any topic thread, has really engaged me.

Sorry.  There was a couple times at work I saw your posts, particularly about the language barrier, but I didn't have enough time.  I hope that short paragraph gave you a litte "engagement," as I have been reading what you've said and summed up your points as I understood them....but I also noticed you pulled back from this thread a little bit ago.

114

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: April 20, 2007, 08:52:42 AM »

Wow, this got real nasty real fast.

Aren't we all "pro-liberty" people here, regardless of "faith" or "skepticism?"  

Harvey: You believe in the bible and have faith in the existence of God.  Awesome.  Personally as an agnostic, I simply don't know.  Doesn't mean I haven't tried, and I've become more agnostic the older I've gotten... I simply can't make a conclusion when I observe a lack of evidence that is independently and objectively observable, measurable and verifiable.

God's existence currently cannot (I doubt ever) be categorized as thus.  As you and MuslimNonarchist (For everyone: isn't it interesting it's the muslim in this thread who isn't "flaming" anyone for whatever reason.....certainly does pose an interesting subtext and challenge to the "stereotypes" to this discussion) pointed out, the "evidence" and "nature" of God is extremely personal, subjective and unique.  Doesn't make it any less powerful or "real" to the person experiencing it, it just means that I nor anyone else will truly be able to "understand" what drives your faith, and makes it all the more diffucult when trying to discuss the subject in an arena that accepts the meaning of "truth" to be something that can be observed and measured (that "arena" would be the realms of "debate" "academics" and "science").

To defend Brokor a little, it's not as easy as "quitting" the military.  If it was that simple to "defend the constitution," then what's stopping you or I from "Storming the Capital" right now to do our part to "defend ourselves" from the initiation of force perpetrated against us by the government?  The reality is always a little more grey than the black and white of the principle, something I try to say all the time.  I'm not harping on you or trying to talk down to you, but I'm sure everyone of us has something in our life that wouldn't be the most "principled" of practices.  That's what happens when we have to take part in a system the is founded on violence.

Not excusing it, but I guess I was trying to say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," without inciting a religious angle.....at which I just failed.

Rillion:  I've always found your arguments inciteful, and I certainly see where your coming from, particularly your reticece to equivocate "faith" with "curiosity" or "experimental desire."  I would also assert that skepticism can also drive the need to "experiment." An example.... I don't know if Biodesiel will work on my (non-existant) truck, so I might try it out on something similar but smaller in scope to see if it is indeed possible and plausible.  In this case, there's no "belief in anything".... because of the lack of evidence.  Thus, the experiment is created to generate the evidence needed to form a hypothesis either way.

However, as we've seen, definitions are different things to different people.  This makes the "religious" aspect of this conversation even harder, because everyone has their own notions of what "god" "faith" "conviction" and "belief" are.  As you pointed out, this also makes debate difficult, if not impossible, because we still haven't really gotten past the "defining terms" phase to actually use in the "debate itself."

Other than that, really "whattaya' gonna' do?"  

Markuzick:  Good job so far.  I understand the arguments you're making, like Rillion I think the three of us have similar conclusions arrived from differing roads when it comes to "morality", but it's that road that I find interesting.

MuslimNonarchist:  I think you're my new best friend on this BBS right now.  You've always made disclaimers the few times you've talked about your faith in respect to making a point, and you seem genuinely interested in what everyone has to say.

....although coming from a picture and a bunch of words on a BBS, that's probably not the most "valuable" of compliments.

Brokor: Easy, big guy You like to bust balls, well turnabout is fair play.  I understand you "don't understand the theists," but remember, at the end of the day we're still all "pro-liberty" people and at the very least recognize the scope and size of the State to be a huge problem.





Sorry to have to come in and pretend that I'm Mr. Peacemaker, (EDIT: especially since I'm no "saint" myself sometimes, and will look to "cause a ruckus" every now and again.) but let's look at the last page or two of posts.... really.  I do it mostly out of self-interest:  The disucssion was really getting interesting until the current "derailment."


Maybe reset, try again, guys?


(EDIT: fixed "me" to "I'm")

115

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: April 19, 2007, 08:55:45 AM »

God will never send you to "tell."

When the grammar/typographical police start coming out to score "points" in the discussion, I think it's safe to assume that the constructiveness of said discussion is over.  That is, however, just my opinion (or claim), and can only offer the direction the thread is turning as evidence of my claim.

....since the burden of proof, rests upon me, the claimant.    Let me make sure I structure this properly since I noticed this thread has been focusing on proper logical syntax.  "Since the Grammar/Typo Police have come to score "points" in the discussion, the usefullness of the current track of said disucssion is over."

...but I'm sure like the Phoenix this thread is, something new and interesting will rise from the ashes.

Who is this Muslim guy posting recently? I have just ignored him permanently, as he is far too radical and just....OUT THERE.

Really?  I know you like to play "devil's advocate," Brokor, and that you and I have a mutual understanding (I think), but is he really that bad?

I don't know, I think he's been pretty even-keeled so far.  It's refreshing to see someone who is a follower of Islam put their two cents in here, as I think the "faith" is drastically under-represented among libertarians, and have communicated such to him.

I think it's pretty admirable that he's clearly said that "preaching is useless," and I haven't seen anything that I can read to be an attempt to convert anyone to Islam, just posts attempting to clarify logical syntax and debating whether or not the existence of God is either a claim, or a premise.... an assertion or an assumption.

...it's been an interesting read thus far.

----------------------------------------

"Two Christians, a Muslim, an agnostic, and a few atheists walk into a bar..."






(edit: capitalized "Muslim" as I believe that is the correct spelling as a noun.  As an agnostic, I don't care about capital "A"... doubt the atheists will either.)

(2nd edit:  Oh yeah..... followers of Islam don't drink.  My bad MuslimNonarchist. )

116

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: April 15, 2007, 09:37:11 AM »

Just trying to lighten up the conversation.  Lighten up will you???

Alright, fair enough.  Let's reset.

117

General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

« on: April 14, 2007, 11:34:53 PM »

Gosh, from my point of view, it's you guys who have the crap behavior...  To each his own, they used to say (but that was in a time of more "tolerance" than what is popular today).

Come on, Gene, that's not intellectually honest and you know it.  Remember this?

Yada Yada...

Jerry Seinfeld...

Antisemite...

You implied I was an antisemite because I said, "Ah. I see.  You and I are speaking different languages and having a conversation 'about nothing', are we?  That's fine.  I won't bother anymore,"  and you have the gall to sit there, figuratively look me in the eye and say I'M the one who's being "intolerant."

:::shakes head::: Jesus fucking christ, Gene.

Never once have I been "intolerant" to you.  Never once have I given you a series of nonsensical answers simply because I no longer wanted to talk about your beliefs, or call you, or throw any kind of prejorative in your general direction.

I'll tell you what, Gene, I better never ever hear you call the show to try to give Ian or any of the FTL crew an "object lesson" in tolerance and civility, or talk about "that sneer you guys get in your voice," because I will call the show immediately and call you and that bullshit right then and there, and then you and I can speak "voice-to-voice" about who has shown who the crap behavior.

Like I said earlier, pretty unimpressive, Gene.  I guess I'm more surprised than anything, because until then I thought you and I were having a pretty respectful and productive discourse.

118

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting

« on: April 14, 2007, 04:13:39 AM »

1) You keep using words to lessen what a vote is.  A vote is not "diluted" unless your candidate wins.  If your candidate wins then he/she will commit aggression....thanks in part to your vote.

My vote is a vote, one of many or one of a few. If my candidate wins, the candidate as an individual will do what that individual decides to do, might uphold his word, might break his word.  Sure I'm responsible for putting this hypothetical person in office, but I would say that's where my responsibility ends, as the candidate is an individual.

I've re-examined your claim that "representatives" have an explicit agreement to act on my behalf.  This is not exactly correct because the representative "acts on behalf" of everyone within his/her constituency.  Voters, Non-voters, Voters who "voted for the other guy", the whole kit and kaboodle.  Does that sound like a "valid" agreement?  I think an argument can me made this "madate" from the "community" is no madate at all from a academic abstract position, which is where we currently are discussiing this.

Again, that's fine.  You can insist that this is morally tantamount to murder.  I disagree.  Responsible for putting someone in office who does aggress?  Sure, but that's where the responsibility ends, as I have no control over this individual.  (The example you used with "bush" and the soldiers being responsible for Iraq is a little different because as the "Commander-in-Chief" he CAN control the actions/decisions of the military, but we don't say Bush is explicitly responsible for the solider who makes the individual troop who decides to disregard standing orders and shoot/rape an innocent civilian)

Since you live in California, you have some extra "voting tools" at your disposal.  You have "initiatives" where you can get measures put on the ballot.  Why haven't libertarians / small goverment people used this to put repeal/dismantle registration on the ballot (for example, a voter referendum demanding that the laws allowing politicians a salary be removed/changed to be $0..... might be interesting.).  You can also use that wonderful "recall" button.

Could you imagine if every politician got recalled?  Again, talking "not-gonna-happen-in-reality" land, but some interesting ideas.  

2) Voting has not made government saller.

Voting has made the government bigger because of the big government education that the majority of our "citizenry" have been fed since kindergarten.  That's a big problem no matter what your opinion on voting is.  These people have have programmed to "vote or shut up" and that they need to the State to take care of them.

Non-compliance and non-voting isn't reaching these guys.  If you know (as you say) that you'll never reach 50% (which by the way, people have been elected with less than 50%...see Senor Clinton in 92'  won with 46% of the vote), then your voting (be it voting for the libertarian candidate or no on issues) isn't going to "stain your hands."  So why not do, say you don't think people should, but use that voting in conjunction with your tangible non-compliance to reach and be able to speak to a wider audience without being summarily dismissed?

One monkey wrencher can do to a state what it would take thousands of voters to do.

 

I can agree to this, but the number of people who vote are far, far, far greater than monkey-wrenchers and non-complyers.  70 million tax evaders and the government's still going.  A Monkey Wrencher does a little too good of a job and you got yourself more crack-down legislation.

Each has a set of consequences, some intended, some not.  Not saying you shouldn't stop monkey wrenching, but the reality is not as simple as your black-and-white principles mandate.  Non-compliance is not stopping (really even slowing) the government any more than voting is. What hasn't been seen yet is if a coordinated combination of both on a wide scale (what if all 70 million people could be turned to vote NO on government issues and vote for libertarian candidates).

...but, if both are "not working" (since that seems to be what we're each independently claiming) then does that mean it's time to storm the capital?  

You know... "live free or die?"

3) I am not providing the state with power,  Why?  Because I don't have to wait until

You trailed off here, but that's okay, I'll address the first part.

Are you providing the state with power?  It's an interesting question, I could say that your refusal to vote gives more "power" to those who do, which by your argument "get their power" from the voters, which they don't, they get it from the legal statutes/legislation that they and their predecessors have passed outlining what they can and cannot do, independent of their "constituency."

So I could see how you not voting is "consolodating the power of the State" by surredering your share of this "power" to fewer and fewer people, including those bureacrats who will continue to vote. That choice is also something you are responsible, since it was, after all... a choice. What happens when "no one" (meaning everyone BUT the direct government employees) votes?  Well, we've pretty much "completed" our police state/dictatorship/fuedal state, since those with a profit incentive to pass their broader sweeping government legislation, complete under the guise of "legality" and "legitimacy."

And at that point I guess they can just "remove" this whole "voting" thing from the system, and you would get exactly what you wanted:  no one voting.

I'm sorry but I don't see this discussion going anywhere.

Yep.  Pretty much.  Shows that this issue of "voting" in general (incluing issue voting) is not as cut and dry in the practice of reality as the black and white of the "principle" dictates.

What can I say once you admit that your attempts to put someone in charge of me is wrong, and yet [would you] still do it unrepentantly?

I don't know, again the realities at play are a little bit more gray than what you're trying to boil it down to.  I guess I could "not vote" and walk around and say, "Hey, don't blame me, I didn't vote!" while others continue to vote and the State continues to appoint other "masters" regardless....but someone would still be in charge of me.  So right now I still will do it.

Unrepentantly?  Well, like I said before, might be an imperfect solution but it's what I consider "I gotta do."  i didn't choose to be born into this system...or on the planet where the world has pretty much become either socialist/communist or fascist (pick a country and take your pick)...but I'm here.

Sure, voting isn't perfect, but I'm not losing sleep over it... and won't be.

(EDIT: fixed word "initiatives")

119

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting

« on: April 13, 2007, 07:09:34 PM »

Now that the fog of sake has cleared a little bit, there's some other points I missed.

Only to people who believe they are principled.

I've never claimed to be a "principled" libertarian.  I have claimed that I would very much like to wish I could jump on the board the "purist bandwagon," but I still have concerns about a New state filling the void upon an uncontrolled collapse of this State, and the problems of having a group of people (us in the U.S.) living in a world where there are a bunch of states around.  Also doesn't stop a group of people "voluntarily" forming their own "private community" and then morphing that private community little by little into another State, complete with involuntary taxes and oppression and the "works."

It's a different discussion, sure, but I would not call myself "principled" by any means yet.

I don't say, "Well, it's impossible to live a totally principled life, so why bother trying.  Let's just be unprincipled" or "That guy is unprincipled, so who is he to tell me that I am too" or "Nobody lives according to principles so why should I?"

I never said this, and I notice you added this in later.  What I am saying is, "It's impossible to live a 100% principled life all the time, and so while using principles as a guideline is great and admirable, there are times when you might be faced with a 'lose-lose' sitatuation, which is what voting is."

You vote - even on issue voting your using tax payer dollars voluntarily.  Yeah, that sucks, and sure I'm repsonsible for that as far as it goes (I agree with Ladyattis' argument that that's where the line or responsibility ends.)

You don't vote - then government will continue to grow at an even faster clip with guarantee that no one is going to stop them.  There was already a case where a bureacrat was elected with ZERO VOTES because no one voted.  Is the system there collapsing on itself because the population of that town looks and this and goes, "hey, you know what.....this government is illegitimate!"

Nope.  The voting isn't going to stop.  If I don't get in there and "dilute" the power that the other "votes" have, then I'm acquiescing more and more power into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people, who will continue to us it and likely use that power to "legally" continue to grow the state, and provide that State with more and more power to increasingly punish those who "drop out."

-------------------------------------

I'd never say that you should vote, that's ultimately your choice.  I am however, saying that given the reality of the system we live in, it might be prudent to seriously consider how we can bend this avenue of outreach/expression/protest/prevention to suit our purposes....like the FSP.

Speaking of which, if New Hampshire was ever going to secede in a non-violent manner, thus giving it any possibility "moral authority" (for the rest of the US to stand behind NH or get "outraged" when/if the Feds roll tanks into the state) to stand up to the Federal Government, how do you think it's going to happen?


.....by a vote.

120

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting

« on: April 13, 2007, 02:39:03 PM »

Alright, now we're getting somewhere:

Moving to Japan allowed you to do this legally.  I congratulate you on your choice which led to further disempowering the state.

Thanks, but it really was an afterthought, so I can't claim "real" credit for this "accidental brilliance."

I don't understand.  It is not a universal certainty that people have to vote.

I didn't say have to, I said "going to."  The bureacrats if no one else will vote.  Those who have the "fuck your opinion if you don't vote" opinion, are going to vote.

If you can show it to me aI would be glad to repudiate it.

The material, manhours and organization for voting from the local to federal level is paid for by taxes, i.e. "theft."  Voluntarily choosing to vote could be argued to be a willful participation in that theft.

Voting for a guy who isn't going to win is a waste of time.

Not true.  At the very very least, it allows me to talk to other people about the message of liberty without them summarily dismissing my opinions and calling me a crazy because "I didn't vote."  It's happened more often than not, and I can credit no less than 5 people in the last 2 months before I left for Japan who switched from "fiscally conservative, socially liberal and the government is needed to make that happen" to "you know what, you're right.... Fuck that government bullshit."

Who knows, maybe those 5 people have stopped paying their taxes.  I know at least one has....but then again, you can only take what I'm saying at face value, and I recognize that "talk is cheap on the BBS."

Living according to principles IS realism.  Living according to ad hoc positions is ignoring reality.

Not quite, but this is another discussion.  The REALITY is that your principles are an abstract and arbitrary set of statements (which may or may not be logically consistent) that were formed as the result of you having a rational mind.  This has nothing to do with the "reality" of the world.  Marxism is a principle, so is fascism, that doesn't make them any more "real" than Democracy, Liberalism or libertarianism.

The entire system that we live in (the US state) is a result of ad hoc positions.  That's the reality.  The majority of human beings on this planet live by a series of ad hoc positions that might seem consistent to them, but may not be logically consistent.  That's the reality.  When you tell these people about not voting, they're evaluating you based on their ad hoc set of statements (and likely saying, "You don't vote, you don't matter" and dismissing you).

That's the reality.

But is being open minded about it really that horrible?

I'm glad you're open minded, now take a moment and look at what I said with the same openness, just for a second.

Are you going to stop amping now because I made you upset?  No?  Then I didn't turn you off to liberty, so no harm done.

Indeed not.  Might also want to examine your claim about how "really upset" I am.

As I said, I would be more than happy to join you in an y pro-freedom activities you might plan, regardless of how you feel about me.

Well, maybe you're a better human being than I am today.  Had this conversation happened last week or next week, I might have decided to take a different tack on this discussion.  The reality of the situation is I would never know until I was actually asked, but again you're taking what I said at face value, so I understand your sentiments.