Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 11, 2016 Posted November 11, 2016 A message to anarchists who did not support Donald Trump in the 2016 election. 3 2
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 16, 2016 Author Posted November 16, 2016 What? I only pissed off two people with this video? Lame.
dsayers Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 What? I only pissed off two people with this video? Lame. One of the benefits of following logic, reason, and evidence is that there's no need to be emotionally invested. I'm not sure why you'd want to piss people off. Seems kind of sadistic. The only people I can think of that deserve to be pissed off are those trying to rule over others. Which they're not going to be for as long as people continue to beg for a master to save them. I didn't watch the video because the title is disingenuous. Too many people use the word "support" when they mean agree with. It's a way of duping themselves into thinking they're actually doing something by agreeing. 1
Guest Gee Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 What? I only pissed off two people with this video? Lame. Only pissed off one person, I wanted to +1 but hit the wrong button, sorry.
SoCaliGirl Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 Trump stated that Snowden should be executed... That tells me all I need to know about Trump. 1
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 16, 2016 Author Posted November 16, 2016 What was that, dsayers? The connection was really bad and I wasn't quite able to make out what you said. It sounded like you really appreciate the opportunity to continue to be able to have discourse and disagreements with people in a setting which allows free speech, and that you're thankful of the hard work people have put in to make sure that you continue to have that ability. We're happy to help! 1 1
dsayers Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 a setting which allows free speech This position has the luxury of having no null hypothesis and when followed to its logical conclusion, says there's no such thing as immorality. Because it doesn't matter if I'm enslaved, at least they haven't bound my mouth yet. Or it doesn't matter that they've bound your mouth as they continue to allow your heart to pump. Or it doesn't matter that they've caused your heart to stop beating, because they didn't do it to your neighbor also. You don't own me. You don't get to decide what is of value to me or why. You don't get to decide what is helpful to me. I do not consent! Only a slave talks as if their ability to speak is given to them from without. And only a fool refers to the ways in which people are aggressed against every day as free speech. And only a liar pretends to be able to predict the future and on alternate timelines. 1 1
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 16, 2016 Author Posted November 16, 2016 You caught me. Slave and a liar who believes he owns you. 1 2
Chad Mitchell Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 This position has the luxury of having no null hypothesis and when followed to its logical conclusion, says there's no such thing as immorality. Because it doesn't matter if I'm enslaved, at least they haven't bound my mouth yet. Or it doesn't matter that they've bound your mouth as they continue to allow your heart to pump. Or it doesn't matter that they've caused your heart to stop beating, because they didn't do it to your neighbor also. You don't own me. You don't get to decide what is of value to me or why. You don't get to decide what is helpful to me. I do not consent! Only a slave talks as if their ability to speak is given to them from without. And only a fool refers to the ways in which people are aggressed against every day as free speech. And only a liar pretends to be able to predict the future and on alternate timelines. Glad to see Dsayers is keeping the voluntaryist tradition alive and well since this as turned into an Alt-Right forum. 2 1
apples and grapes Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 This position has the luxury of having no null hypothesis and when followed to its logical conclusion, says there's no such thing as immorality. Because it doesn't matter if I'm enslaved, at least they haven't bound my mouth yet. Or it doesn't matter that they've bound your mouth as they continue to allow your heart to pump. Or it doesn't matter that they've caused your heart to stop beating, because they didn't do it to your neighbor also. You don't own me. You don't get to decide what is of value to me or why. You don't get to decide what is helpful to me. I do not consent! Only a slave talks as if their ability to speak is given to them from without. And only a fool refers to the ways in which people are aggressed against every day as free speech. And only a liar pretends to be able to predict the future and on alternate timelines. So for us slaves, fools and liars. What is the alternative?
mgggb Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 A message to anarchists who did not support Donald Trump in the 2016 election. I think Michael said it best when he said "As a principled non-voting anarchist I would gladly crawl through a field of glass to vote for Trump". To all those who don't understand the magnitude of the situation I only have one thing to say: delete your account. 1
dsayers Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 So for us slaves, fools and liars. What is the alternative? I can rationally explain the ways in which you own yourself and you ought to be free. I cannot make you accept it. To all those who don't understand the magnitude of the situation I only have one thing to say: delete your account. "magnitude of the situation" is vague and "delete your account" is not an argument. It's easier to play morally superior than to be morally consistent, eh? The magnitude of the situation is that people in the name of the State steals from ALL OF US EVERY DAY. The State threatens ALL OF US EVERY DAY. This includes our children and our unborn. The State kills some of us EVERY DAY while caging many more EVERY DAY. The State kills other people across the world EVERY DAY in our name. They do all of this under the cloak of perceived legitimacy. THAT is the problem. Not understanding the magnitude of the situation is looking at your own life, barely recognizing the ways in which you are oppressed, and therefore justifying oppressing others to perpetuate your perceived comfort. 1
apples and grapes Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 I can rationally explain the ways in which you own yourself and you ought to be free Have you found this to be an effective process? I mean, let's say for the past year we all tried convincing people of freedom rather then trying to get Trump in (I'll accept for now your false dichotomy). If Hillary had won, there is good reason to assume her war posturing with Russia was legitimate and 100 thousands-10s of million relatively low IQ immigrants would be given citizenship (I just picked 2 things Trump won't do purely by inaction). I don't see how your method would help things. Let's say 100 of us FDRers managed to convert 10 americans to philosophical Ancapism in that one year (practically impossible from my experience). We now have 1000 Ancaps. So we have a couple choices in this hypothetical, 1. We ignore scummy politicking and get an extra 900 Ancaps in a nation of 318.9 million, but go to war with Russia, and have the population swell with relatively low IQ immigrants who have a proven tendency towards statism. 2. We engage in scummy politicking, do not get any extra Ancaps this year, but do not go to war with Russia and keep our current demographics Why should we have preferred 1 to 2? Because even if the hypothetical is wrong, it is the choice many people expected they had. Are the expectations provably wrong? Cos is Hilly and Trump would do the same thing, I would definitely see your point much clearer Also, I remember asking a while ago if you had considered calling into the show and you might not have seen it, or perhaps I didn't see your reply. Would you? Cos I think that would be a very interesting call, especially since you are so sure of your position. I love those criticism shows, and it would be interesting to hear Steffy-poo maybe have to backtrack his pro-Trump position =)
dsayers Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 Have you found this to be an effective process? I mean, let's say for the past year we all tried convincing people of freedom rather then trying to get Trump in (I'll accept for now your false dichotomy). I stopped reading here as I grow weary of your deliberate lack of integrity. I am not responsible for the fact that A) self-ownership and property rights are valid and therefore the State is immoral and B) political voting is making use of the State in an attempt to inflict your will onto others without their consent are in opposition of one another. So while I never said these are the only two options, it is true that with regards to voting, either voting or not voting are the options. But my claim has been the ways in which they are incompatible. 1
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 19, 2016 Author Posted November 19, 2016 I stopped reading here as I grow weary of your deliberate lack of integrity. You showed some serious fuckin' endurance to get to that point.
apples and grapes Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 You showed some serious fuckin' endurance to get to that point. Yep, he's practically Prometheus meets Jesus bearing the cross. Wouldn't want to actually have to explain yourself further then "Convince people of self-ownership", cos ya might find out you don't actually have much of a plan! xD It is interesting though, he says the alternative we should adopt is to convince people of stuff, but he is hostile to, and refuses to engage with people who don't already agree with him 1
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 19, 2016 Author Posted November 19, 2016 Yep, he's practically Prometheus meets Jesus bearing the cross. Wouldn't want to actually have to explain yourself further then "Convince people of self-ownership", cos ya might find out you don't actually have much of a plan! xD It is interesting though, he says the alternative we should adopt is to convince people of stuff, but he is hostile to, and refuses to engage with people who don't already agree with him Time to start making your own media and spending less time posting on boards. Fighting with the problem myself.
apples and grapes Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 Time to start making your own media and spending less time posting on boards. Fighting with the problem myself. I don't know about you but I face that "I don't think I know enough, I'm just some random" procrastinating over books problem =/
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 19, 2016 Author Posted November 19, 2016 I don't know about you but I face that "I don't think I know enough, I'm just some random" procrastinating over books problem =/ So solve the fucking problem. 1
apples and grapes Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 So solve the fucking problem. Dude, clam down 0.o
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 19, 2016 Author Posted November 19, 2016 Dude, clam down 0.o No. I can already see from what you've posted that you have enough knowledge, understanding, and wherewithal to construct sound arguments and generate your own media. You're doing a disservice to everyone around you, including yourself, if you spend your time in the FDR boards arguing with dsayers, or hanging around the FDR boards in general where the people you'll find are generally like-minded*, instead of expanding to where to these topics are unknown. *I've obviously made an assumption here that you're not taking these topics to other platforms. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm working with very little data, but from what I've seen it's pretty telling. It looks like you have a lot of knowledge, however you have a self-confidence problem, right?
Recommended Posts