Xard

good pics, awesome places, creepy grins

hahaha

Eric Clapton - Layla Let's make the best of the situation Before I finally go insane. Please don't say we'll never find a way And tell me all my love's in vain. Layla, you've got me on my knees. Layla, I'm begging, darling please. Layla, darling won't you ease my worried mind. my goddamn theme song atm

Bob Dylan - Desolation Row (Live)

IS THE GAME ANY GOOD

yeah me too especially when I posted in wrong thread

I'm alive people that is all

Krezack is just trolling good rant

i'm not sure i understand what you're getting at here. rights are those things that are inalienable. rights are immutable, as well. rights of one cannot infringe upon rights of another. if they do, then they are not rights, but privileges granted by someone else. But what are these inmutable rights? wow, you completely missed that point. it has nothing to do with "legality" or "legitimate actions" of a democratic government. go back and read what nick said. he accused me, tongue in cheek of course, of being ironic for attempting you to bend to my view. in other words, he said i was being hypocritical because i expected you to believe my viewpoint, while refusing to believe yours. my viewpoint accepts that you can have whatever viewpoint you want. yours accepts that i can have whatever viewpoint i want, but i have to obey yours regardless. mine is consistent with rights, yours is not. when one is forced to believe a certain way, no matter how you may spin it, he is not free, nor does he have rights. only privileges granted by the state. taks No one forces you to believe something or think something, it is merely forcing certain way of behaviour. Your thoughts and words are as free as ever If situation was upside down and your model was democratically legalized and was the one used I'd have exactly same opportunities as you. Use my citizen rights and seek change or move from country.

in other words "oh, you're right, i did claim you didn't understand." gotcha. at least i admitted when i misstated something in one of these threads, ahem... anyway, that doesn't address the point i made that you don't really have support for these two things simultaneously and globally. as i noted, your concept is at best controversial, at worst not accepted at all. No, because you deny collectivistic side and accept only individualistic side. To make it absolutely clear: I represent Andism and you Either Orism. Andism > Either Orism good for you. never was my way except for my family and friends, but i get something in return for that. i decided probably before you were born there was no god. sorry. Well, I'm still and propably will stay as agnostic (and I fought even against this shift for weeks! Heaven forbid I actually had become believer...) so I don't base my thinking on any religious reasons here. disingenuous again. you can be empathetic (i think empathic would be like that chick on star trek) without favoring collectivism. collectivism is forced. empathy is not. charity is empathetic, but not in anyway collectivist. Yeah, I agree. That's why I put but I really didn't get point you were trying to make not really. capitalism is actually just an observation of free markets, which exist naturally. it's not a system per se, as much as it is an observation of a system (with an expectation of protected rights). Market and trade aren't something that exist naturally, they're still manmade things. i saw the 75% thing mentioned somewhere on wiki... taks Ahh, I just took that from thin air but funny if it was correct

*double post*

so, again, explain to me how one person can have rights that are greater than another's? how are they rights at that point? and, you need to look it up, but your definition of "democratic process," one in which the many can vote away the rights of the few, is also collectivist. Yeah, that is one problem of democracy but that's why minorities rights are constitutionalized. And if these rights were unconstitutionalized by democratic process country already has to be basically under rule of fascist regime with facade of democracy already. As long as common sense functions and there are at least some people with good sense of morals this won't happen. This is what's (I think) called protecting individual's rights in democratic system and it is big force in Finland and other "socialist" countries like us. As for morals, I believe I have time for writing post tomorrow

that is 100% disingenuous. the role of government is to protect rights, and it is a requirement that government exist in order for capitalism to work. that has nothing to do with you advocating, through threat of force, that i believe in your ideology. What rights? That is very important question and from way of your thinking I believe you must mean Night Watchman state system. that's the point, nick, that i explicitly made. must have missed it. he's got a right to his opinion, and i have a right to mine. i want him to believe as i do, but it is not a requirement. he wants me to believe as he does, and he wants the government to back him up and force me to believe as he does. there was no inconsistency, nor irony in my statement at all. i was completely consistent. xard's viewpoint is NOT consistent, though that doesn't mean he can't express it. taks only if paying taxes (aka enforcing you to do something against your will) wasn't legal and legitime action by democratic goverment If it was you don't really have right to whine, sorry. You can try to bring up movement against this or then you can change country.

um, no. i know people like to make that connection, but it just ain't true. in the former, you have a choice, no matter how you want to label it, the choice is an individual choice. in the latter, you are forced to the will of the tyranny. you have no choice, and you are required to comply through threat of violence (imprisonment, etc.). that's the standard socialist argument, btw, and a pretty weak one at that. taks dunno about weak... but whatever, I need to get sleep

uh... your words: k? at best your ideas of humans being collectivist by nature are controversial in any one of these areas. Collectivistic and individualistic which makes up to...uuuhh... humane? being "social" and being "collectivist" are a bit different. we like to associate with each other (well, most do, my wife doesn't), but we need to deal with each other, and we have no built-in need to help each other except in that it benefits us individually. don't get me wrong, i don't fully prescribe to ayn rand's beliefs in this area completely. selfless acts are quite common, and almost a given throughout society, but not at a societal level. we care for our friends and family (certainly some extend it to the societal level, and they also participate heavily in charitable activities, which is something that has not even been mentioned...) Well, this ultimate selflissness was my view for a long while, but I've abandonded it. It would be way off-topic why and is tied to many other worldview changes happening to me (biggest being shift from atheist to theistically/deistically inclined agnostic) Suffice to say empathy cannot be reduced to merely behaviorism and narrow thinking darwinian theories enable here. then again, are you saying empathic = collectivistic? Then again, capitalism too is something that must be learned okie... i don't really think it's an example of the flimsy nature of individual thinking, just fear of the unknown maybe. it is hard for me to say because i do not follow authority figures at all (though i do follow my friends... very odd). taks well, me neither and I learned about this in class or from mag, not from wikipedia

no, i don't think they should be able to. note that free education already exists in all states, though it is mostly funded at the state/local level (which is at least primarily based on sales taxes, which are voluntary). one of the problems with the "majority rules" viewpoint is that it results in collectivism as well. once the majority realizes it can vote itself the keys to the kingdom, it will, under the guise of the "benefit for all," which in the end, benefits none. taks so basically free market --> democracy aka will of people who this free market concerns? Isn't that tyranny of markets and money as opposed to tyranny of ideological party? Only clear difference is that latter one is at least somewhat personal, first one simply amoral force of "nature"

indeed, should he actually read up on the very things we are accused of not understanding, he might see the light. socialism, too, must be taught. yeah, nash got a nobel for work in this area. taks What have I accused you of not understanding? Anyway, random n00b's (while overall making intelligent post as usual) point on empathy isn't right (and isn't exactly on topic here). It was kind of behaviourist argument which were descimated back in 50's quite totally. Empathy can be enhanced and molded by upbringing, but rendering it to equivalent of training dog to fetch sticks is false and reeks of same mistakes as any other simple darwinian behaviouristic theories that get thrown around every once in a while. Kind of like meme theory Anyway, I suppose this thread isn't about pondering on origins of morals so: As for the first part my very simple example of man in his perfect solitude works why groups doesn't exist just for survival. Human mind is (and this is one of the core fact of facts) such it won't survive without touch with others. Man is social animal by nature, not by simply need while i have read that as well, probably in the same location you derive your information from (wiki's great, eh), that's not collectivism. not even close. taks Yeah you're right, it was bad example and not really fitting otherwise than showcasing flimsy nature of individual thinking

Because of internet videos. He did not have criminal register or anything like that

there's where you fail to understand the distinction: i think everyone should believe as i do, but i do not profess to have the right to make them do it by force. i believe people should think as i do because it is rational and logical to do so. xard advocates forcefully making us think as he does. there is no irony, there is no inconsistency. xard's position is internally inconsistent. tsk, tsk. that's a simple one to see. taks if following this line of thinking you might as well get rid of goverment too and wish best for well working liberal anarchism. Human freedom is automatically limited in society. In democracy how and in how vast scale this happens is determined by the very people who will be "victims" or "benefactors" from these limitations

ah, yes, now we finally get to the truth. it's not about morality... that was just a ruse. it's about you (and at least, those that think like you) asserting, BY FORCE, your will over others. yeah, hypocrites as i said. you don't believe in rights, you only believe in making sure people think the way you do. btw, look it up, you've just defined tyranny. good job, xard. taks Like I've had any time yet to write about morality in other threat! Geez, give me some time Uhh, human and civilian rights are top importance to me, pretty much second to none. However, society must by its very nature limit freedom of its inhabitants - most obvious example being punishment systems. And societies also contain duties. In Finland there's only one really big constitutionalized duty; that of defending the country (military service or civilian service). It concerns only men though, and if driving the equality point to no ends one could say it should be annihilated from constitution or women should have it too. However, being democratic country and majority of people being clearly happy and content with current system there's no reason to change it. Yeah, it limits your freedoms somewhat. Tough luck Same with taxing which you can't view as stealing as it is legal (and in most people's view) and legimite action by goverment. If you don't like taxes tough luck, you still have freedom to move to some tax haven like Monaco if you want to. Hey, you have free will and all, you can use it in this way too hypocrisy much? srsly Nope as I still put greatest value on rights and democratic process

"It's worth it"? If you don't mind, I'd rather make that decision by myself. Moral superiority stops being so when you step over free will. I was being provocative Free Will is automatically compromised when one enters society, or heck, even when meeting other humans (Sartre's "hell is other people" for example). It isn't destroyed (well duh) but it is constrained to varying degrees. I don't remember who it was but some philosopher said that "man can be completely free only when he is alone in middle of desert" taks advocates that it's every man for himself out there. Society isn't only about rights, it's about duties as well