Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
Not harshing on you. but you and many others are forced to pay to kill people that you don't even know.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the final "r+d" for nuclear weapons. Careful what you wish for or applaud.
commies
- Thread starter Thread starter Cannavore
- Start date Start date
Not harshing on you. but you and many others are forced to pay to kill people that you don't even know.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the final "r+d" for nuclear weapons. Careful what you wish for or applaud.
Brother Nature
Well-known member
Oh I’m a leftist cause I point out your flawed logic? China is running circles around the US in education and technological advances. It also has a faster growing economy than the US, they may be communist by name but they are not in any way communist by nature.
they are a very nationalistic capitalist society, no? reminds of fascism, imo.
i mean... military usurping tech advances is a t.v. trope as old as technicolor, and yeah it sucks (why can't we have unmanned drones finding safe places for homeless ppl to sleep instead of finding ways of identifying dissidents from l.o.o. and take em out quick with an r.c. death machine...), but the advances on tech still do benefit humanity. internet, for one...
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
I don't like to conflate the overriding political masters with "society".
We can't know what the underlying society is or could be if the overriding "society" (political structure) is one that holds a forcible monopoly and prevents other alternatives. Just like the potentials of slaves can't be realized if the only thing they are "allowed" to do is pick cotton.
The term "dissident" is neither good or bad, until the thing the dissident is challenging is examined. If the thing is internally contradictory, is based in coercion and usurps individual rights, "the dissident" is then a messenger of good and not of evil.
Perspectives can be framed by that which is commonly believed, but common belief is not a guarantee of truth. I sometimes think of myself as a 'Cognizant Dissident" which is a play on words, sort of the anti, "cognitive dissonance" holding person. I sometimes fail upholding that though...ahhh, humans.
In other words, when people are forced to pay for shit that includes some bad things mixed in with some good things, they are being played and the entity / people doing that should be scrutinized and alternatives should be sought. That is what I do, because I want you to be able to run your own life while respecting that in others. I do not want to pay to nuke other people.
and in fact it would be a bandwagon fallacy to imply that it did guarantee truth.
yeah i picked up the kinda double entendre hint, i dig it. cognizant dissident, good stuff.
yeah man, alternatives are good.In other words, when people are forced to pay for shit that includes some bad things mixed in with some good things, they are being played and the entity / people doing that should be scrutinized and alternatives should be sought. That is what I do, because I want you to be able to run your own life while respecting that in others. I do not want to pay to nuke other people.
i just don't want us to miss anything holding out for perfection.
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
Alternatives are good, since individual people have different goals and abilities.
Perfection is beyond me since I am a human being. I accept I am flawed, but I do know one thing I can do to reduce my flaws, respect others and their right to self-determine. While I am flawed, I can still know what is right and wrong and declare those principles as worthy.
There is an "us", but it's the aggregate of individuals, each with the potential to run their own life.
A collective "us" can exist, but it must be by the choice of all those involved. Failing that, any "us" which exists then, is necessarily based in a forcible hierarchy and moves away from perfection. Moving farther away from perfection systemically, is when I become a holdout.
can we hold out for everyone, especially considering psychopaths exist? and you KNOW contrarians exist that will just... ffs, i mean like at brexit and trump and how many ppl went along with that shit cause of the absurdity, the memes bro the memes,
why don't we get on and ask everyone what they want... we'll ask the robber- barons and those convicted of violent crimes last, how bout it?
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
My position is when you are peaceful, your rights should be intact.
Among our rights if/when we are peaceful is the freedom to make choices concerning ourselves. To not have our consent "assumed".
People that violate that right, I owe ZERO allegiance to. If I do that, I am wrong. If you do it, you are wrong. Since that is the case we can't delegate a "right" to be wrong to other people and somehow remain consistent with justice. I just don't make exceptions to the statements above for people claiming to be my masters that call themselves "government". Bad policy for you and I doesn't become good policy by virtue of being long practiced policy or some magical incantations or air of officialness.
Bad actors and robber barons?
Yes, we should be concerned about people that violate others rights.
When you are not peaceful, meaning you are the one breaking the peace, you become subject to the possibility of defensive force or ostracism. That is consistent with justice. Official papers and long practiced customs do not change that.
Also, you are getting closer to being able to discuss Panarchy.
Gotta go feed the chickens now. My slaves won't produce unless I feed them.
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
I like to distinguish between Commies that behave Communistic and gain their participants on a willing individual basis from those who are just run of the mill rights stealing murdering Commie thugs like the kind you suggest should be exterminated.
Truth is. all human organizations (governments) that forcibly insist other people are automatically a subject of the prevailing sect are tainted from the start. Most people don't like to talk about that, the sound of their own cognitive dissonance bell ringing so hard hurts their head.
Any good Commies might do once they assume the consent of unwilling people, is like a back door rapist giving his victim a reach around and crowing about what a good lover he is. Commies never like to talk about how they are no different from rapists, but both rapists and Commies don't care about consent of the individual. Commies aren't very good at making sound arguments and most are just looking for a way to parasite off others because they lack confidence in their own abilities to take care of themselves.
I'm not saying all Commies are necessarily rapists, but most of them use the same means as rapists.
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
Political (or "economic") entities no matter the brand that gain members / serfs / subjects / slaves by assuming their consent even when none is given are ALWAYS either thugs or ignorant, sometimes both.
If you were a Voluntaryist Commie, you'd be way cooler.
Speaking of deranged...you whine about people that use force as an operational means, then you want to emulate them.
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
