Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 10:22 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Social Approval or Principles?
#11
RE: Social Approval or Principles?
(August 5, 2013 at 8:42 am)Koolay Wrote: ...I don't think many people on this forum care about the principle of atheism, which is rationality, if they can't apply that rationality to other areas. It shows they don't get something fundamental, and/or don't want to.

Statetheists is a better word.

This just got to another level of crazy. First of all, who ever said anything about atheism having any kind of principles? Not a single one of us except for you, Koolaid. Every atheist is defined by one all-encompassing fact; we don't believe in deities. Whether or not this disbelief is based in rationale is up to the individual.

For instance, you could take a look at how I eat my food, and you could come up with a number of ways why I'm not doing so in a logical, consistent manner. The way I interact with my family may be derived from emotions, not just rationality. Yet I'm still an atheist.

The difference between believing in gods and believing in government is that only one of these things is real and needs to be addressed. As we've said before, if you're unhappy with government, then all you need to do is go live in woods away from it all, or rise up against it for a reform or revolution. Government is worth talking about and fixing: not god. If you think we don't speak out against injustices doled out by the government to its citizens, then think again.
[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]
Reply
#12
RE: Social Approval or Principles?
(August 4, 2013 at 2:16 pm)Koolay Wrote: I was thinking about how during the peak of slavery in America, it was completely disapproved by society to be against slavery and racism. You would have virtually no friends, people would attack you verbally or physically if you questioned slavery and racism.

Today, being an anti-racist, doesn't require much courage at all. You get big kudos in the western world from society if you speak out against racism.

But... I wonder how many of these anti-racists awashed in modern culture would still stand for their principles, even when the chips are down, and you are completely outnumbered and ostracised for your principles?

How many of you would still be anti-racist if you were completely outnumbered by racists?

Every single society in history has pretty much said the same thing "We are normal, healthy and rational people - but we have a few outliers". If you would take anyone from the middle ages, and put them in modern society, they would be carted off to an insane asylum almost instantly.

How do we know, what we are doing right now in society is valid and ethical, when in a few hundred years, our Joe Shmo might be considered completely irrational and weird.

I guess the question is... Do you care more about social approval or principles?

I think this is one topic you're likely to get a lot of dishonest answers about, also I think it's a question that depends a lot on the circumstances anyway you look at it.
If I was in a situation where I was part of a huge rich family who made money from having slaves who were black I doubt I'd give up my vast fortune, large house, secure family and farm and whatever else just because I feel sorry for a few black people, and I am a person with a lot of empathy in comparison with people I know, but I imagine in a world full of unfairness, poverty and death a few slaves wouldn't weigh heavy on my guilt, since round the time of slaves there were child chimney sweeps and mill workers, people dying of all sorts, and it was a harsh dog eat dog world.

But if it's just a case of me talking about something I believe in even if it will result in social disapproval then I wouldn't really care.


Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.

Impersonation is treason.





Reply
#13
RE: Social Approval or Principles?
I'm a pretty outspoken person. I've never given a shit about social approval, it's the way I was raised. I'll always stand by my principles, whatever the consequences. Especially when it comes to people who are being treated unfairly by society for things they have no control over; like race, sexuality, gender, or disability.

I'm not a UAF member for nothing. Big Grin
Reply
#14
RE: Social Approval or Principles?
I'm from Alabama, the majority is racist. When people act racist, I just stop talking to them and go somewhere else. It's not like a rational discussion or a "That's not cool," is going to change their behavior. I know, because I used to try that. People who are racists are stuck in their ways. You can't open their eyes, they are just blind.
Reply
#15
RE: Social Approval or Principles?
(August 5, 2013 at 9:23 am)genkaus Wrote:
(August 5, 2013 at 8:42 am)Koolay Wrote: I can give you a better example, of people that believe in the non aggression principle vs. statists, who believe the government initiating force is right. We are vastly outnumbered, and whenever I bring up the logical arguments for the non aggression principle, I just get attacked, insulted, and ostracised for questioning the ethics of a centrally coercive entity. So I don't think many people on this forum care about the principle of atheism, which is rationality, if they can't apply that rationality to other areas. It shows they don't get something fundamental, and/or don't want to.

Statetheists is a better word.

The reason you get "attacked, insulted and ostracized" is because your arguments are not logical or rational. The flaws of your argument and their utter ridiculousness has been pointed out over and over again. The false premises (e.g. government initiates force), flawed reasoning and abysmally poor understanding of the concepts involved have been shown repeatedly - but instead of trying to correct them, you dogmatically stick to your byline and keep on repeating the same crap over and over and over again. You are the one who has traded in logic and reasoning for nonsensical anarchist dogma and your failure to understand this fundamental fact about yourself has made you the laughing stock of the forum.

That is not true. It is logically impossible to refute private property.

The state initiates force, while says it is wrong for other people outside the government to initiate force. This fails Socratic reasoning.

Hardly anyone has come up with any actual arguments,

The majority of what you consider arguments go something like this: 'We think it is okay for an entity to initiate force because we like it, and if you don't like it you can go move to a forest'. That's nothing.

The initiation of force is rationally, morally and logically incorrect. Since you can't have exceptions to a principle, if people in the government think it's wrong to steal, great, then they can't steal themselves and call it 'tax'. They are violating their own test of morality, by the state's own definition they are evil.
The only freedom, is freedom from illusion.
Reply
#16
RE: Social Approval or Principles?
(August 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Koolay Wrote: Hardly anyone has come up with any actual arguments,

[Image: jesus-says-meme-generator-no-really-get-....jpg?w=640]
[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]
Reply
#17
RE: Social Approval or Principles?
(August 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Koolay Wrote: That is not true. It is logically impossible to refute private property.

Actually, it is pretty easy. Present you so-called 'logical' argument and see me refute it.

(August 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Koolay Wrote: The state initiates force, while says it is wrong for other people outside the government to initiate force. This fails Socratic reasoning.

Except, the state does not initiate force. Initiating force is wrong for people outside the government as well as inside the government.

(August 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Koolay Wrote: Hardly anyone has come up with any actual arguments,

The majority of what you consider arguments go something like this: 'We think it is okay for an entity to initiate force because we like it, and if you don't like it you can go move to a forest'. That's nothing.

Wrong. The actual argument provided is: "The state does not initiate force. The taxes it collects from you is the money you owe in exchange for basic services and security. If you don't pay your taxes then you are the one initiating force by physically withholding what rightfully belongs to the state and then the state is rightfully retaliating against the your initiation of force. If you don't want to pay the taxes, then move to a forest."

(August 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Koolay Wrote: The initiation of force is rationally, morally and logically incorrect.

Prove it.

(August 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Koolay Wrote: Since you can't have exceptions to a principle, if people in the government think it's wrong to steal, great, then they can't steal themselves and call it 'tax'. They are violating their own test of morality, by the state's own definition they are evil.

Which is why they don't steal. Taxes are what you owe them in return for the police, military, roads and so on.
Reply
#18
RE: Social Approval or Principles?
(August 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Koolay Wrote: The initiation of force is rationally, morally and logically incorrect. Since you can't have exceptions to a principle, if people in the government think it's wrong to steal, great, then they can't steal themselves and call it 'tax'. They are violating their own test of morality, by the state's own definition they are evil.
You are stating a bunch of assertions as brute fact. You have not shown that force IS rationally, morally or logically incorrect.

You are falsely saying that you can't have exceptions to a principle. Of course you can. In principle, people can't go around sticking needles into each other. Doctors are an exception. In principle, people are not allowed to take money from each other. The government is an exception.

There's an important fact that you are persistently ignoring. The money that we pay in tax is made by and for the government. Its value comes from the government-- they guarantee its value, and control its creation and destruction to keep inflation at a steady rate. Go ahead and print some Koolay Kash of your own design. I guarantee that it will be 100% tax free, and equally free of any bartering value. That's because the value of money is DUE TO the way the government so jealously controls it.
Reply
#19
RE: Social Approval or Principles?
(August 5, 2013 at 1:53 pm)genkaus Wrote: Actually, it is pretty easy. Present you so-called 'logical' argument and see me refute it.

We all own private property because we own our bodies and the actions of our body- by definition we own our body. So if someone kidnaps you, that is violating human property. You also own the actions of your body, I.e, if I build a house, and someone decides to take and destroy that house, that is a violation of my private property.

If someone says 'private property is invalid' they are using private property to communicate that message, they own their lips, and they own the sound waves their mouth produces. So it becomes logically invalid immediately as the person arguing against private property uses private property to communicate that message.

(August 5, 2013 at 1:53 pm)genkaus Wrote: Except, the state does not initiate force.

[Image: north-korea-prison-camp.jpg]

[Image: Kandahar3.jpg]

[Image: a-soldier-at-work.jpg?w=473&h=314]

[Image: electric-chair.jpg]

[Image: Police-Brutality.jpg]

(August 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You are stating a bunch of assertions as brute fact.  You have not shown that force IS rationally, morally or logically incorrect.

No, you are not correct in what you are saying.

I said the initiation of force is invalid.

(August 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You are falsely saying that you can't have exceptions to a principle.  Of course you can.  In principle, people can't go around sticking needles into each other.  Doctors are an exception.  In principle, people are not allowed to take money from each other.  The government is an exception.

Again, you don't quite get it. It is wrong to stick needles into people without their consent, because that is violating NAP. When it is voluntary it is fine. Pretty simple, nobodies rights gets violated and we adhere to principle.

Give consent in paper or word form to get an injection? Perfectly right.

A group of people sticking needles into people involuntarily: Wrong

The government is not voluntary, everything it does is backed by the threat of the initiation of violence.


(August 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote: There's an important fact that you are persistently ignoring.  The money that we pay in tax is made by and for the government.  Its value comes from the government-- they guarantee its value, and control its creation and destruction to keep inflation at a steady rate.  Go ahead and print some Koolay Kash of your own design.  I guarantee that it will be 100% tax free, and equally free of any bartering value.  That's because the value of money is DUE TO the way the government so jealously controls it.

Well, that happened with Bitcoin, many of the brokers of crypto currencies have had property seized by the U.S Government. Mt.Gox being the largest.

Businesses using Bitcoin, have had money extorted from them by governments and arrests made.

So your theory doesn't hold much ground.
The only freedom, is freedom from illusion.
Reply
#20
RE: Social Approval or Principles?
[Image: frabz-So-youre-telling-me-If-I-be-my-own...e2b0a1.jpg]
[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ugliness as a Tool of Social Control Leonardo17 20 1574 April 1, 2023 at 5:33 am
Last Post: Goosebump
  Social construct. paulpablo 64 4654 January 1, 2023 at 10:19 am
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Is developing a strong habit of philosophizing bad for your social skills? Edwardo Piet 31 4018 May 25, 2016 at 8:22 am
Last Post: Gemini
  Necessary First Principles, Self-Evident Truths Mudhammam 4 1816 July 10, 2015 at 9:48 pm
Last Post: Pyrrho
  THE SELF-REINFORCING NATURE OF SOCIAL HIERARCHY: ORIGINS AND CONSEQUENCES OF POWER .. nihilistcat 9 3818 June 29, 2015 at 7:06 pm
Last Post: nihilistcat
  Moral Principles: 10 Myths Rahul 8 3316 February 14, 2014 at 12:20 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Social Problems Loading Please Wait 10 2786 September 3, 2011 at 12:20 am
Last Post: MilesTailsPrower



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)