Omegahero09

Bingo- I don't really remember the show delving into the philosophy of anarchy at all, the only reason the name was there I think was because it sounded good.

False. The NAP is not useless- because it holds that the initiator of the violence is in error. The NAP doesn't care about people's past unless it is directly relevant to the moral judgment in question.If it were- you might as well trace back human evil- to what? If our parents are at fault- and murderers' and rapists' parents are at fault and so are their parents and ad infinitum to what? That's a really glum way of looking at life my friend. Also merry christmas

So I've watched Sons of Anarchy- most of it. Recently the old lady asked me about the show and if I had any interest in it because the characters in it are anarchists sort of? I dismissed it by reminding her that anarchists are non-violent and abhor violence and we both agree the show is pretty dumb. After that I started to think- are people even thinking about anarchy when they watch some movies and tv? Off the top of my head anarchy has a pretty bad rap. The Joker from the Christopher Nolan Batman movies was an anarchist. Hurray. Anarchy also is a huge unspoken element in The Walking Dead, and watching it again through season three with the Governor and Woodsbury shows a whole new light on the show and the situations in that show which makes the show so great. Anyone see any commentary on anarchy in SoA and TWD? Or in other popular movies and tv?

Then is what we are talking about going outside the NAP? If the kid wanted to go to school and agreed to it (which he would we assume) then that's why he's there. I agree that there could be more at work, but children aren't entirely helpless- small children yes but after about 8 or so their capacity for reason grows exponentially. While there is more at work in the "A bullies B," anyone who initiates force is in error- regardless of process. EDIT I only used "A bullies B" to attempt to illustrate that the parents cannot hold the entirety of the blame for the evil which fall upon their children.

I think perhaps this may be getting a little out of place here.. If you hold the parent responsible for all the harm brought upon the child you detract from the evils which do the harm initially to the child. If you have a kid, and the kid gets assaulted by a bully in school- the bully is in error not you the parent.

Wes that's an awesome plan... I think it's actually better than the company idea simply because if implemented right here and now you avoid nearly all of the legal trouble you'd have to go through to make it work. With community watch and defense you don't even need to call the cops, you handle everything in-neighborhood.

Has anyone done this? Stef says we should apply our philosophy and our ideas out in the real world, I've heard him bounce it off the zeitgeist weirdos and other call-ins and I've recently thought about doing it myself in my own neighborhood. Our property has been burglarized three times, and each time we've made more precautions to prevent further intrusion- of course the authorities could do very little, and in the one case in which we caught the individual who stole our weapons- we got next to nothing in compensation and not all of what was stolen was returned. Since these events, I thought of the neighborhood watch solution that would be used in the event of a WROL situation. A company which lives-in neighborhood which monitors day and night, and in the case of the present times- would dial the police immediately- and could defend properties and lives with force. I am considering putting together a friendly presentation with questions, prices and service plans just to see for myself if the residents of our neighborhood of about 50 or so houses would prefer or would enjoy such a service. Do you have any recommendations for this small study? Has anyone done anything like this? Does anyone have any models already laid out for an in-neighborhood security force?

Actually if the child is willing it isn't technically an initiation of force. I would hold that even if the child were an infant it still wouldn't count as the initiation of force. If you went to the parents and said "I have the ability to make this child well," and they denied your help- they would be in error. I can't imagine though an actual situation in which parents wouldn't want their child to become better... seems to go against what is natural of mothers especially.

They could have a sort of legal title via a DRO. I think we have to remember BorisM that the human race will continue to push it's boundaries to accommodate for itself. I'd imagine that resource gathering in space will eventually be profitable- as the ability to travel and inhabit bodies in space. Also the cardinal law of capitalism: where there is demand- capitalists will supply it. Demand for alternative food production? It'll be supplied. Demand for alternative fuel sources? It'll be supplied. Ad infinitum.

So I've learned quite a bit from you all. Take this as a victory to yourselves.I love talking about this stuff, and if you would like to keep the discussion with me you may pm me. I hope you all are enjoying the fall weather. See you all on the boards.

LovePrevails:I stopped after looking up the context of the two first points. Both passages were taken out of context and were labeled contradictions. I will provide the first to you but I'm not going to sit here and teach you the text- because that'd be exhaustive and boring. God's Everlasting Anger? The book of Micah was written for and to Samaria and Jerusalem- Micah 1:1 "The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem."In the context given in the video Micah 7:18 is talking about God showing mercy to Jerusalem and Samaria. Jeremiah's context (like Micah and many books of the bible) is provided in the first verses: Jer 1:1-2 "The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, to whom the word of the Lord came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign." So- Jeremiah is about the Lord and the kingdom of that time. The passage given in the video has it's own context Jer 17:1 "The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron..." so when God says He is angered against them forever, this is no different from when He was angered against the Jews in the old testament, when they went against His contracts which He made with them. In any case- this all still aligns correctly, but when taken from it's context you can say whatever you want with the bible- to include declaring contradictions. Xelent: The God of the bible- who I understand to be responsible behind I.D. Everything I'm telling you is what I understand to be true of the text, and if not I will state explicitly what is my opinion. I apologize to all who think I am trolling. Again- I opened this thread to run my principles against the gambit of atheism.

Mike Fleming: Which situation are you talking about? The hypothetical platform you are talking about? Or our reality? I agree with you on the fact that many evil people have used religion as a tool to achieve their ends: i.e. Hitler, the spanish inquisition, witch burning, etc. LovePrevails: I believe the bible to be true because it was written by 40 different men, over thousands of years and it lines up and is consistent. No I was not forced to go to church as a child. Often we opted out of churches because the doctrines they taught did not align with the bible. The disciplines I received commonly were time outs, the suspension of privileges, and spankings.All disciplines were established by agreements b/w my siblings and my parents. My father was a rational anarchist before we were born- nothing was forced on us as far as I remember it. We were free to challenge/negotiate with the parents about discipline, incentives, privileges, chore-jobs etc at any time. Xelent/Wesley:I've already told you I have not found the doctrinal hell to be true. I agree with you that if that were the case, I wouldn't be worshiping the judeo-christian god either.

MrCapitalism:No I have not. The podcasts I've subscribed to only consist of Bill Burr, technically Stef's work (I predominantly use youtube but will soon be delving into books etc), and the occasional d&d roleplaying podcast- though most of those aren't that great unfortunately.Why pray tell?

Kevin:I only wish to dialogue and grow intellectually- I seek the truth as much as others. It's that search for truth that brought me here, though I know that I am very obtuse here. In any case I would hope that we would all still be friendly neighbors in the forums. xelent:Which question? I do not understand your post.

Soo much taken out of context. Alright so how do you want me to break this down for you- verse by verse? Or by like, writing an essay or something? I can tell you right now most of this is doctrine labeling very contextual scripture. Revelations was written to the seven churches of asia (Rev 1:11) and applied to them only at the time it was written- as the book is rife with phrases like "the time is at hand" and "I am coming soon." The verses of Daniel are talking about very specific people as well, so are Matthew, John and again Revelations... All that above posted is doctrine not what the text is saying. Just as if I were to take passages from a history textbook and compiled them to make instructions for how to make toast.

Kev:Again false lol this- right here- is why I opened the thread. The doctrinal hell is not the same as what I've found to be the textual hell. Doctrinal hell = eternal damnation.Textual hell = place w/o God. You just die according to the text. That's it.

Wes:Well yes, if you speak against the creator, you don't get into his club, you just die with everyone else. This would be the equivalent of bad mouthing the club owner and his bouncers and then pointing out that they won't let you into the disco because you were talking shit- so of course that's the way it is. So yes- you are absolutely 100% correct. Kevin:It would simply just mean that we have differing opinions. Again, what if you were in China and surrounded by buddhists? What would that imply? India and hindus? Afghanistan and muslims? You can't base your argument around the opinions of others around you my friend that's invalid.

Xelent:No that's voluntary you don't have to if you don't want to.

Culain:No- you're wrong you don't know anything about the God I worship. The similarities are nominal for the most part. But you think the similarities would kind of be a clue don't you think? I have a basic understanding of how most things work- when I learned about the intricacies of ecosystems, how complex and unique our atmosphere is compared to the other atmospheres, physiology, biology, chemistry, all these intricate systems that 'coincidentally' and 'miraculously' according to science community just- happened. So what's more simple: a creator? Or extraordinary freak luck that happened only on and of earth so far as we know it? Run this by your dilemma: The God of the bible loves all unconditionally. I'd love to hash this out with you, and dialogue with you good sir. Kevin: That people don't think God exists? What would it mean for you socially, with your friends and family in particular for you to hold the position that in fact the Oakland Raiders is the best team in the NFL? What would be the implication? I don't think the opinions of others and bandwagons should forge your paradigm entirely, or even majorly.

Restoring Guy:What definitions do you want? I do believe that God is present- and I'm not giving you that doctrinal sillyness which says he is "in everything, in you and me!" That doctrine isn't supported by the text as far as I've seen (and I've looked) and neither is omnipresence. . However to describe His presence would require me to use anecdotes both personal and borrowed- as it is in the text that He only really interacts here with those who call Him, and then the occasional exception. Most of the anecdotes fall into the paranormal like things you would hear on Coast to Coast AM, so for the sake of the discussion I will not bring them up- unless you're like me and think that stuff is super rad. I think to dismiss a non present God is as silly as dismissing the idea that your CEO's don't exist because you've never seen them yourself. And thank you regarding the law of evolution thing lol it's just the truth man. Mr Capitalism: Thank you good to be here sir. I was raised under a christian home, though none of what I was taught was forced onto me or my brothers. When I was 19 was when I really started to look more seriously into what I believed and began to study it- as well as what else could debunk it- because I wanted to know the truth. Only recently have I really took the time to read the text cover to cover after I got all the basic "necessary" stuff down, because I wanted to understand the contexts of the book, as well as to see just how perfect everyone says the thing is. So far it's been pretty perfect. My family are the only ones who share identical beliefs with me. I do have christian friends, but only a couple really walk the walk- the others are just christian only in name. The other half of my friends are atheists/agnostics.

Kevin: God according to my understanding is concerned with the choices of man. Amputees, tornadoes, whether or not the Pats will win the superbowl- he isn't too concerned with. Please, I do not wish to sound preachy, I hate it when people get preachy, so bear with me when I say that He does care, and will give ear to those who call out to Him. He's not a fan of suffering- or of evil. It is my opinion that he isn't basically a superhero (saving the weak from oppressors, stopping disasters, etc) because of two reasons: a) He judges who lives and who dies when they pass away. (there is no textual hell as doctrine describes it in the bible- only death, and living in heaven). and b) He appreciates sacrifice, as He created the world, gave humanity freewill and choice, and in the past when He did intervene personally (Israel in the old testament) people still went against Him and turned away from Him. Thus when evil men do evil things, it is the men who are responsible for evil- not God. Again this is my beliefs, and the truth as I understand it- I do not wish to sound preachy or pushy. Culain: False my friend. Evolution is a very complex process and takes time to complete. We have yet to record a particular species evolve to completion. If evolution were indeed true it would be called the law of evolution. Not the theory of evolution. Until then you cannot call adaptation evolution. That's an injustice to the theory, scientists, and creationists. And again false- I can prove a designer has designed our universe. There is so much evidence of design it's not even funny. The earth is too perfect and makes no sense in the scheme of our solar system, the chemical make-up of humans is insanely complex, there are too many similarities between creatures to be coincidental, the list goes on and on and on. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. However occum's razor tells me that creationism rules out everything science has come up with thus far and I believe will come up with to explain our origins. Also to your theism comment- everything is learned my friend. We learn math, reading, arithmetic, logic and reasoning- we learn everything, whether by being taught or by experience. To invalid belief in a designer because we have to be taught it is silly. One more point: The second law of thermodynamics counters the universe. If this plane were eternal (as it would be in an atheist universe) the laws of physics and thermodynamics would erode everything to completely equally destroyed matter. However a temporarily created plane with dynamic and structured ecosystems could exist for a long time, but not forever. Pardon me, Occam's Razor***

It's interesting because I would argue that to not acknowledge the evidence of design and ignoring the laws of science to be delusional. Evolution is immensely flawed, and there are no other viable theories for the origins of the universe that I am aware of. I would argue that evolution and atheism take just as much faith if not more than most religions to believe as truth. Pardon me for finding this humorous- but I don't think it can be proven that there isn't a god.

Wesley: correction: the truth taught by the bible i.e. the truth as christians understand it.I don't believe in doctrine. I only believe in the bible. Doctrines are basically theories about the texts and our reality which are not based from within the text- only from some form of reasoning, guessing, or assuming. Examples of doctrine are: Trinitarian doctrine, doctrine of original sin, the doctrine of lucifer, the doctrine of hell, etc. Most churches are heinously incorrect in their teachings because their doctrines differ from what the text says. The Westboro Baptist Church for example apparently didn't read all the parts of the bible which tells christians to not be wrathful, or quick to judge, etc etc. I have found the book to be an incredible work, one that could not have possibly been forged, and one w/o error. And before we start looking to the text for errors that we google- keep in mind this is like going back through old newspapers from another country that are centuries old, and if you don't have the correct context in mind you can make those papers say literally anything you want. Hence doctrine. Pepin:I am a christian because I am a moral absolutist, and have realized there is no possible way that the world around us could have just happened- there is overwhelming evidence of a designer. Additionally I've found in my search for the truths of the world- that the bible and it's teachings is the only religion which I've found to be without flaw. Kevin:Literally- it would take the presence of another god to disprove my beliefs. I am not convinced that this world just formed out of nothing. The second law of thermodynamics counters literally all other theories of our origins and our universes origins. Thus it is my opinion that I.D. is the only rational and scientific explanation for the universes origin. This is of course tabling my personal experiences with prayer and anecdotes, which for future reference- I will not bring to this conversation of my own volition.

I am a christian. Allow me to be explicit, I wish to be friendly, open, non-judgemental, rational, and academic in this post. I do not practice ad hominem. I am here to represent the truth as I understand it. I also seek the absolute truths of the universe. Run me through your gambit's philosophers.

Guys you are missing the big picture.Clearly there would be a demand for a "nuke-proof" environment across the board of our anarchistic society."Nuke-proof" could be covered by a variety of organizations, community contributions, churches, universities, companies etc. There are numerous anti-nuclear systems that have been outlawed in the past by our own American gov't in order to prevent war with other countries. With the state dissolved, many peaceful, efficient and cost-effective technologies would be developed to meet the demand for a "nuke-proof" society. Imagine the billboards: "THE GREATER EAST COAST NUKE-FREE, COURTESY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO NUKE WATCH"