jpahmad

What's holding you back about anarchy?

Matt Dillahunty is a full-time statist as well. He should be called out for his hypocrisy; He picks and chooses when he wants to use the scientific method when it comes to truth claims. If you are a statist, you are still a mystic.

Hey!

awesome

Like Humphrey Bogart! http://gph.is/1cojkOm

Ha, I read that book awhile back! Great book. You bringing it up now makes me want to go back and read it from the new perspective that I have since joining FDR

Yes that makes sense. There certainly is a false assumption that we have been the same biological creature ever since we descended from our nearest ancestor 130,000 years ago. Isn't it now starting to surface that evolution has sped up significantly since the agricultural revolution? So, yeah, there had to be a time when we could use tools better than other species, but not exactly reason that well. However, would you agree that pre-civilized man's society was anarchistic or voluntary? (leaving treatment of children aside)

Yes, this is just like Stef's video "The Story of Your Enslavement." I watched the one above today and it triggered the thought in my mind that "pre-civilized" man was living in a state of anarchy I assumed we always had the capacity to reason since the estimated decent of homo sapien. We certainly did have the capacity to choose. Before agriculture/farming, we chose to be together and cooperate rather than apart. It was completely voluntary. Was it not? Who was going to use resources and energy to hunt you down if you ran away from the tribe?

I think, for the sake of the argument, we should consider mankind, before 10,000 BC, as effectively existing in a state of anarchy. If we can demonstrate this, than we can point to 95% of mankind's existence as living in anarchy. This would destroy the myth that there has always been a state. And we could easily have something historically tangible to reference when making a case for anarchism. My case: There was no monopoly on force in hunter-gatherer communities. There of course was coercion, but it was kept in check by the fact that everyone depended on the cooperation of everyone else to survive and the tribal leader could be discarded if he/she went nuts. There is no historical evidence that points to a community system where one person had complete control. No slavery (impossible to maintain) Staying with the group was voluntary and people could actually leave and form their own tribe if they wanted. (This usually happened when the tribe got pretty big) There was war, lot's of it. But...we're just analyzing the dynamics within the group. War was probably caused and maintained by mystical beliefs. If those members of the tribe really thought they had something in common with other tribes, they probably wouldn't want to put a spear in their skull. (They probably viewed other tribes as we view other species today, so there would have been no lace for empathy) Lack of empathy for people of other tribes was a result of a lack of knowledge for what those other people/animals were. The probably looked different, dressed different, and talked different, and, were hostile to them due to mystical beliefs propagated by the local medicine man. My conclusion is that anarchy is the natural state of man, and one that we have spent most of our ancestral history experiencing. What do you think?

Or psychiatric drugs are very powerful and the industry is a mess with predators who manipulate vulnerable people

Telling a women anything more than what she needs to know, because she is a women = White Knighting

Bootoo, all you have to do is read the first paragraph and you can clearly see that Sam is in favor of using violence to get what he wants.

There is nothing wrong with it. There may not even be a connection. It's just so....ughh..."anti-rock n' roll."

Yeah, but Sam Harris claims that, according to poll data, the majority of Muslims (not only government) support these "bad ideas." This translates to "they have principles, and they're bad." Cenk responds to Harris's argument by saying that the citizens have these principles because of their geo-political disposition. So therefore, the culprit is "geo-political situation" and not the principles of the people. By definition though, principles must be universal and exist apart from geo-political situation. If the people change their principles every time the economic/political wind blows, then they aren't actual principles to begin with. Cenk patronizes these people and doesn't even give them the decency to have their principles whether they are good or bad. He doesn't even think we should take their word for what they say! How dehumanizing is that.

In Sam Harris's defence regarding torture, I have to admit that it doesn't makes sense to be pro-war and therefore "pro-collateral damage" and also vehemently against torture. I am against torture, but I am also against war.

This is basically what Sam Harris says right? With the added point that Islam is an even worse idea.

I disagree with Sam Harris about torture though

No, Wuzzums, couldn't you see the clear distinction between Sam's basic premiss and Cenks? The whole debate could be boiled down to this: Do ideas matter? Cenk, as a typical progressive liberal tries to convey at every turn that people's ideas/philosophies, have no effect on their behavior. He even goes so far as to say that we shouldn't take someone's word for something because they have no conscious control over their principles. On the other hand, Sam gives human beings basic dignity by claiming that one's principles do direct their behavior. Why should we not give the Palestinians this basic dignity? Well, if you make this claim, then you also have to claim that these very same Muslims (the subjects of the ultra-conservative theocratic government) have no principles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHqcwPPROJw&list=UUok6mq_8zvOJDoRLAbU0lww

Hey Nick. Welcome. I'd love to know how FDR effected your life.

Yeah, the two of them, Maher and Harris, should have just condemned all religions first, and then singled Islam later in the discussion. I think they made a tactical error. However, Sam Harris has been making the rounds lately on evening news channels and defending his position quite well.

Let me clarify. I don't see how the left finds anything redeemable about Islam, or any religion for that matter. It's all counter to "liberal ideals." Why are they so horrified by Sam Harris's statement? You would think they would applaud Harris for calling Islam out for what it is; just another deranged mystical cult, except with a little more "hot sauce" on it then other deranged mystical cults.

I don't understand why Ben Affleck and the leftist media are so horrified by that statement. It makes perfect sense to me. Am I missing something?

Statist atheists are still mystics