Government as a Religion

[bennyboy]

Your supposed to fuck off and annoy some other people on some other forum. You are either a troll. Or a 15 year old kid in a posh house who just found out about this wonderfull thing called liberterianism, which he has to talk about all the time whilest living on your parents check.

Either way, you are an annoying and useless twat.

Too much, dude. I think Koolay annoys because he kind of engages people, but not really. It's frustrating to see that someone's response to you doesn't really seem to address your points. However, your kind of comment has two likely outcomes: 1) Koolay is ACTUALLY disabled, or unintelligent, or a child, in which case abusing him is unnecessarily cruel and possibly illegal; 2) Koolay is full-on trolling, in which case, he's going to sit and laugh at you for losing control of your emotions. Your desired outcome, using social pressure to modify Koolay's behavior so that he thinks like you and argues in a way you find enjoyable, is pretty unlikely.

[genkaus]

People don't really understand what this thread is about. This is philosophy, I.e, this is a discussion on principles and logic.

If only that was so. That would have made it so easy, because you are illogical and your principles are wrong.

The fact that the vast majority of people are speaking about government goods and services, political parties, me personally, clearly shows many of you simply do not get philosophy on a fundamental level.

Philosophy, on a fundamental level, does not concern government. Any talk of government relevant to philosophy must come under political philosophy of which government goods and services as well as poli
tical parties are a part.

I don't really care what you think maximises good, or what your opinions are. Is the Government a logically and morally consistent entity? I won't discuss anything other than that.

Only someone with no knowledge of philosophy can make such a foolish statement. There are many different governments and whether they are logically and morally consistent would depend upon the political philosophy they've been founded upon and how closely they follow it.

---

There is only one philosophy. The same way there is only one science, only one math, only one logic.

2+2=4 "Well that's your math. You need to be more open minded to other people's math." That would be a completely ridiculous thing to say, as is saying that philosophy is subjective as you have just now.

That is not how logic works, either something is correct or not, which is what we are discussing here.

No, you ignorant fool. You cannot be more wrong.

There are many philosophies out there. The same way there are many sciences and many mathematics.

Especially with regards to maths, the body of mathematics you develop depends on your choice of axioms, such as Peano's postulates or Euclidean postulates. So yes, given the correct axioms, I can have 2+2=5 in mathematics. That doesn't make it subjective, but it does mean that there is more than one math.

And while we are at it, even logic isn't as singular as you think. Read up on "paraconsistent logic" within which things can be correct and not correct at the same time.

---

Does anyone here besides Kool Aid think the question of whether government is a logically and morally consistent entity is at all interesting?

Nope. Because its a poorly formed statement. Government, as an abstract concept, wouldn't have qualities of being logical or moral. Government, as concrete examples, is not a singular entity that can be judged to be logical or moral by referring only to principles.

---

So you are absolutely telling me that philosophy is subjective?

No.

Doesn't that make philosophy absolute then?

And no.

---

He's either a child, a troll, or mentally challenged...and I'm willing to entertain the notion of combinations of the three.

That would be a combined insult to children, trolls ans the mentally challenged everywhere.

[Whateverist]

Your supposed to fuck off and annoy some other people on some other forum. You are either a troll. Or a 15 year old kid in a posh house who just found out about this wonderfull thing called liberterianism, which he has to talk about all the time whilest living on your parents check.

Either way, you are an annoying and useless twat.

Too much, dude. I think Koolay annoys because he kind of engages people, but not really. It's frustrating to see that someone's response to you doesn't really seem to address your points. However, your kind of comment has two likely outcomes: 1) Koolay is ACTUALLY disabled, or unintelligent, or a child, in which case abusing him is unnecessarily cruel and possibly illegal; 2) Koolay is full-on trolling, in which case, he's going to sit and laugh at you for losing control of your emotions. Your desired outcome, using social pressure to modify Koolay's behavior so that he thinks like you and argues in a way you find enjoyable, is pretty unlikely.

Good point and fair minded of you. But this guy is so confronting in his manner that bitch slapping him just feels like the right approach. However I have little interest in modifying his behavior. I don't think he engages in self reflection.

[bennyboy]

Too much, dude. I think Koolay annoys because he kind of engages people, but not really. It's frustrating to see that someone's response to you doesn't really seem to address your points. However, your kind of comment has two likely outcomes: 1) Koolay is ACTUALLY disabled, or unintelligent, or a child, in which case abusing him is unnecessarily cruel and possibly illegal; 2) Koolay is full-on trolling, in which case, he's going to sit and laugh at you for losing control of your emotions. Your desired outcome, using social pressure to modify Koolay's behavior so that he thinks like you and argues in a way you find enjoyable, is pretty unlikely.

Good point and fair minded of you. But this guy is so confronting in his manner that bitch slapping him just feels like the right approach. However I have little interest in modifying his behavior. I don't think he engages in self reflection.

Well, if debate is his goal, he will have to learn that his style is sabotaging his ability to make his point, and to persuade others to look at it with an open mind. I suspect that he wants a fight, and that the internet is giving him a good outlet to vent. That's fine, but eventually he's going to find that people lead with ad homs right away, and he'll never get more than a page into a thread.

We'll see, I guess.

[thesummerqueen]

It's really not hard to tell the difference between someone who is inexperienced and genuinely curious, and someone who is either entirely bereft of social graces or completely out to be an asshole.

[Bad Writer]

entirely bereft of social graces *and completely out to be an asshole

[thesummerqueen]

Well, maybe it should have been an "and/or". We don't like absolutes, remember?

[Bad Writer]

Oh. Right.

[Whateverist]

We don't like absolutes, remember?

Oh, absolutely!

[Tonus]

Well, maybe it should have been an "and/or". We don't like absolutes, remember?

Kinda.