Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Government Explained

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 2:00:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Raises very interesting points about the idea of government.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 3:37:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The video is funny, but not interesting. It was kind of like watching two 13 year old boys using their vast life experience to talk about how to get a women.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 3:47:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 3:37:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
The video is funny, but not interesting. It was kind of like watching two 13 year old boys using their vast life experience to talk about how to get a women.

Could you expound on that? What particularly do you take issue with?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 4:14:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

And....where are you going with this? If--and that is, IF--the drawn conclusion is "therefore, governments are justified," it's a bit of is-ought/appeal to nature that you have going on there.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 4:23:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:14:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

And....where are you going with this? If--and that is, IF--the drawn conclusion is "therefore, governments are justified," it's a bit of is-ought/appeal to nature that you have going on there.

I wasn't an endorsement of government, is a flaw in the sentiment forwarded from the video...the same sentiment forwarded by many anarchists on the site.

If you don't know what I'm arguing, then let someone else who does respond to it. I'm tired of always explaining things to you, because you act incredibly slow.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 4:32:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:23:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:14:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

And....where are you going with this? If--and that is, IF--the drawn conclusion is "therefore, governments are justified," it's a bit of is-ought/appeal to nature that you have going on there.

I wasn't an endorsement of government, is a flaw in the sentiment forwarded from the video...the same sentiment forwarded by many anarchists on the site.

If you don't know what I'm arguing, then let someone else who does respond to it. I'm tired of always explaining things to you, because you act incredibly slow.

It's a video that's famed in a comedic manner. I think when viewing the subject through a lens, one rarely used here, brings some ideas to light.

In any event, at the bolded part, I guess all bets are off now, if you're going to be that way and come at me like that. Because you clearly are just my intellectual superior and have to explain everything to dullards like me. Must be tiring for you. Whatever.

But, to respond directly to your response, which I DID understand from the get-go: your whole argument is a misinterpretation of the video. The video--and the attitude of most anarchists--is more of a criticism of the government in the status quo. It doesn't make any implications that the state is a result of bullying, or strongarming--really, your whole response is a kind of of irrelevant tangent. The general anarchist sentiment--if such a thing exists--at least with this video, is that the state is contradictory in its aims and how it carries them out, and ultimately functions in the very manner of ways which citizens try to avoid by having a state. In effect, it's not denying hierarchical tendencies. It's criticizing the way they've manifested. It's a call for different, non-state, hierarchies and social structures.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 4:41:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:32:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:23:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:14:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

And....where are you going with this? If--and that is, IF--the drawn conclusion is "therefore, governments are justified," it's a bit of is-ought/appeal to nature that you have going on there.

I wasn't an endorsement of government, is a flaw in the sentiment forwarded from the video...the same sentiment forwarded by many anarchists on the site.

If you don't know what I'm arguing, then let someone else who does respond to it. I'm tired of always explaining things to you, because you act incredibly slow.

It's a video that's famed in a comedic manner. I think when viewing the subject through a lens, one rarely used here, brings some ideas to light.

In any event, at the bolded part, I guess all bets are off now, if you're going to be that way and come at me like that. Because you clearly are just my intellectual superior and have to explain everything to dullards like me. Must be tiring for you. Whatever.

Well I'm just being forthright, and you do act like a dullard sometimes... just like how you said that "all things that are logically possible are bound by logic" was not true and then voted against me for it (which by the way is one of the dumbest votes I've ever read).

But, to respond directly to your response, which I DID understand from the get-go: your whole argument is a misinterpretation of the video. The video--and the attitude of most anarchists--is more of a criticism of the government in the status quo. It doesn't make any implications that the state is a result of bullying, or strongarming--really, your whole response is a kind of of irrelevant tangent. The general anarchist sentiment--if such a thing exists--at least with this video, is that the state is contradictory in its aims and how it carries them out, and ultimately functions in the very manner of ways which citizens try to avoid by having a state. In effect, it's not denying hierarchical tendencies. It's criticizing the way they've manifested. It's a call for different, non-state, hierarchies and social structures.

Perhaps that's your interpretation of the argument, but that certainly isn't universal. Many anarchists do isolate the state, just as the creators of that video did, and they do blame it in a manner that implies that the state created itself.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 4:59:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:41:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:32:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:23:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:14:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

And....where are you going with this? If--and that is, IF--the drawn conclusion is "therefore, governments are justified," it's a bit of is-ought/appeal to nature that you have going on there.

I wasn't an endorsement of government, is a flaw in the sentiment forwarded from the video...the same sentiment forwarded by many anarchists on the site.

If you don't know what I'm arguing, then let someone else who does respond to it. I'm tired of always explaining things to you, because you act incredibly slow.

It's a video that's famed in a comedic manner. I think when viewing the subject through a lens, one rarely used here, brings some ideas to light.

In any event, at the bolded part, I guess all bets are off now, if you're going to be that way and come at me like that. Because you clearly are just my intellectual superior and have to explain everything to dullards like me. Must be tiring for you. Whatever.

Well I'm just being forthright, and you do act like a dullard sometimes... just like how you said that "all things that are logically possible are bound by logic" was not true and then voted against me for it (which by the way is one of the dumbest votes I've ever read).

I never said it wasn't true, Ike. I said that you never adequately explained why P1 was self evident. Even when you did cite classic logic, you refuted it again by agreeing that there are physical things which do not abide by classic logic. And EVEN IF the above was misinterpreted, you still did fail to explain your self-evidence. I believe I already told you this in the PM, my general paradigm in debate, at least when it comes to judging philosophically inclined rounds, is Tabula rasa--it's the concept of entering a debate with next to no pre-premises/biases. You didn't make the idea that P1 was self-evident strong enough; not strong enough to stand on its own, and definitely not strong enough to withstand Con's arguments.

However, this isn't an argument about my judging.

But, to respond directly to your response, which I DID understand from the get-go: your whole argument is a misinterpretation of the video. The video--and the attitude of most anarchists--is more of a criticism of the government in the status quo. It doesn't make any implications that the state is a result of bullying, or strongarming--really, your whole response is a kind of of irrelevant tangent. The general anarchist sentiment--if such a thing exists--at least with this video, is that the state is contradictory in its aims and how it carries them out, and ultimately functions in the very manner of ways which citizens try to avoid by having a state. In effect, it's not denying hierarchical tendencies. It's criticizing the way they've manifested. It's a call for different, non-state, hierarchies and social structures.

Perhaps that's your interpretation of the argument, but that certainly isn't universal. Many anarchists do isolate the state, just as the creators of that video did, and they do blame it in a manner that implies that the state created itself.

The video did no such thing. It implied that the state perpetuates itself.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 5:14:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:59:01 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:41:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:32:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:23:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:14:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

And....where are you going with this? If--and that is, IF--the drawn conclusion is "therefore, governments are justified," it's a bit of is-ought/appeal to nature that you have going on there.

I wasn't an endorsement of government, is a flaw in the sentiment forwarded from the video...the same sentiment forwarded by many anarchists on the site.

If you don't know what I'm arguing, then let someone else who does respond to it. I'm tired of always explaining things to you, because you act incredibly slow.

It's a video that's famed in a comedic manner. I think when viewing the subject through a lens, one rarely used here, brings some ideas to light.

In any event, at the bolded part, I guess all bets are off now, if you're going to be that way and come at me like that. Because you clearly are just my intellectual superior and have to explain everything to dullards like me. Must be tiring for you. Whatever.

Well I'm just being forthright, and you do act like a dullard sometimes... just like how you said that "all things that are logically possible are bound by logic" was not true and then voted against me for it (which by the way is one of the dumbest votes I've ever read).

I never said it wasn't true, Ike. I said that you never adequately explained why P1 was self evident. Even when you did cite classic logic, you refuted it again by agreeing that there are physical things which do not abide by classic logic. And EVEN IF the above was misinterpreted, you still did fail to explain your self-evidence. I believe I already told you this in the PM, my general paradigm in debate, at least when it comes to judging philosophically inclined rounds, is Tabula rasa--it's the concept of entering a debate with next to no pre-premises/biases. You didn't make the idea that P1 was self-evident strong enough; not strong enough to stand on its own, and definitely not strong enough to withstand Con's arguments.

Yeah, no. The first premise was an axiomatic equivalence. Thett did not contest the first premise, and neither did any voter,....except you. It's simply unfeasible to explain every last angle of an argument in a finite space, so when we debate, there is the expectation that the voter too is applying some of his own reasoning where the gap is very fill-able, and the connections are very obvious. "All things that are logically possible are bound by logic" requires only a few moments of thought to confirm and move on, and in actuality, they are equivalent statements. Two ways of saying the same thing, only that the concept needed to be reworded such that the syllogism flowed more clearly.

Your vote really was crap,... and your justification of it was almost even crappier.

However, this isn't an argument about my judging.

But, to respond directly to your response, which I DID understand from the get-go: your whole argument is a misinterpretation of the video. The video--and the attitude of most anarchists--is more of a criticism of the government in the status quo. It doesn't make any implications that the state is a result of bullying, or strongarming--really, your whole response is a kind of of irrelevant tangent. The general anarchist sentiment--if such a thing exists--at least with this video, is that the state is contradictory in its aims and how it carries them out, and ultimately functions in the very manner of ways which citizens try to avoid by having a state. In effect, it's not denying hierarchical tendencies. It's criticizing the way they've manifested. It's a call for different, non-state, hierarchies and social structures.

Perhaps that's your interpretation of the argument, but that certainly isn't universal. Many anarchists do isolate the state, just as the creators of that video did, and they do blame it in a manner that implies that the state created itself.

The video did no such thing. It implied that the state perpetuates itself.

No difference in relation to my point. The state does not perpetuate itself, nor did it create itself. The state was created and is perpetuated by a belief in the necessity of hierarchy and authority for the sake of order - which is why attacking the government in a vacuum as this almost fictitious evil, is not valid.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 5:21:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 5:14:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:59:01 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:41:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:32:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:23:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:14:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

And....where are you going with this? If--and that is, IF--the drawn conclusion is "therefore, governments are justified," it's a bit of is-ought/appeal to nature that you have going on there.

I wasn't an endorsement of government, is a flaw in the sentiment forwarded from the video...the same sentiment forwarded by many anarchists on the site.

If you don't know what I'm arguing, then let someone else who does respond to it. I'm tired of always explaining things to you, because you act incredibly slow.

It's a video that's famed in a comedic manner. I think when viewing the subject through a lens, one rarely used here, brings some ideas to light.

In any event, at the bolded part, I guess all bets are off now, if you're going to be that way and come at me like that. Because you clearly are just my intellectual superior and have to explain everything to dullards like me. Must be tiring for you. Whatever.

Well I'm just being forthright, and you do act like a dullard sometimes... just like how you said that "all things that are logically possible are bound by logic" was not true and then voted against me for it (which by the way is one of the dumbest votes I've ever read).

I never said it wasn't true, Ike. I said that you never adequately explained why P1 was self evident. Even when you did cite classic logic, you refuted it again by agreeing that there are physical things which do not abide by classic logic. And EVEN IF the above was misinterpreted, you still did fail to explain your self-evidence. I believe I already told you this in the PM, my general paradigm in debate, at least when it comes to judging philosophically inclined rounds, is Tabula rasa--it's the concept of entering a debate with next to no pre-premises/biases. You didn't make the idea that P1 was self-evident strong enough; not strong enough to stand on its own, and definitely not strong enough to withstand Con's arguments.

Yeah, no. The first premise was an axiomatic equivalence. Thett did not contest the first premise, and neither did any voter,....except you. It's simply unfeasible to explain every last angle of an argument in a finite space, so when we debate, there is the expectation that the voter too is applying some of his own reasoning where the gap is very fill-able, and the connections are very obvious. "All things that are logically possible are bound by logic" requires only a few moments of thought to confirm and move on, and in actuality, they are equivalent statements. Two ways of saying the same thing, only that the concept needed to be reworded such that the syllogism flowed more clearly.

Your vote really was crap,... and your justification of it was almost even crappier.

Are we talking about the same debate? Because, indeed, he did challenge that first premise, as did other voters. Regardless, let's just move on, okay? I'd rather not have to try and sit here trying to justify a vote more than necessary.

However, this isn't an argument about my judging.

But, to respond directly to your response, which I DID understand from the get-go: your whole argument is a misinterpretation of the video. The video--and the attitude of most anarchists--is more of a criticism of the government in the status quo. It doesn't make any implications that the state is a result of bullying, or strongarming--really, your whole response is a kind of of irrelevant tangent. The general anarchist sentiment--if such a thing exists--at least with this video, is that the state is contradictory in its aims and how it carries them out, and ultimately functions in the very manner of ways which citizens try to avoid by having a state. In effect, it's not denying hierarchical tendencies. It's criticizing the way they've manifested. It's a call for different, non-state, hierarchies and social structures.

Perhaps that's your interpretation of the argument, but that certainly isn't universal. Many anarchists do isolate the state, just as the creators of that video did, and they do blame it in a manner that implies that the state created itself.

The video did no such thing. It implied that the state perpetuates itself.

No difference in relation to my point. The state does not perpetuate itself, nor did it create itself. The state was created and is perpetuated by a belief in the necessity of hierarchy and authority for the sake of order - which is why attacking the government in a vacuum as this almost fictitious evil, is not valid.

So, it ISN'T perpetuated simply by conservative thought? Do you mean to say that it isn't perpetuated largely because it is a part of the squo? If so, then I'm pretty sure that's not true. When one looks at it, it seems to be more likely that the state is never fully challenged BECAUSE it's never fully challenged. It's an issue of the squo.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 5:25:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

Lol. Hierarchy =/= government. Although hierarchy is most likely natural due to the sort of animalistic and tribal nature that humans underwent, it is more definitely not synonymous with government. A "government" is a set institution (usually) authorized by a select group of people to rule over and set the rules for everybody else, all the while having a monopoly on law, violence, and specific institutions (i.e. prisons). It is a form of hierarchy, albeit a very distorted one, but hierarchy is not synonymous with government. I can have somebody above me (tribal leader), who I look up to, but him being above me does not mean that he has a monopoly on violence and force on me.

So yeah.... government=natural is a really bad argument.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 5:29:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 5:21:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 5:14:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:59:01 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:41:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:32:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:23:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:14:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

And....where are you going with this? If--and that is, IF--the drawn conclusion is "therefore, governments are justified," it's a bit of is-ought/appeal to nature that you have going on there.

I wasn't an endorsement of government, is a flaw in the sentiment forwarded from the video...the same sentiment forwarded by many anarchists on the site.

If you don't know what I'm arguing, then let someone else who does respond to it. I'm tired of always explaining things to you, because you act incredibly slow.

It's a video that's famed in a comedic manner. I think when viewing the subject through a lens, one rarely used here, brings some ideas to light.

In any event, at the bolded part, I guess all bets are off now, if you're going to be that way and come at me like that. Because you clearly are just my intellectual superior and have to explain everything to dullards like me. Must be tiring for you. Whatever.

Well I'm just being forthright, and you do act like a dullard sometimes... just like how you said that "all things that are logically possible are bound by logic" was not true and then voted against me for it (which by the way is one of the dumbest votes I've ever read).

I never said it wasn't true, Ike. I said that you never adequately explained why P1 was self evident. Even when you did cite classic logic, you refuted it again by agreeing that there are physical things which do not abide by classic logic. And EVEN IF the above was misinterpreted, you still did fail to explain your self-evidence. I believe I already told you this in the PM, my general paradigm in debate, at least when it comes to judging philosophically inclined rounds, is Tabula rasa--it's the concept of entering a debate with next to no pre-premises/biases. You didn't make the idea that P1 was self-evident strong enough; not strong enough to stand on its own, and definitely not strong enough to withstand Con's arguments.

Yeah, no. The first premise was an axiomatic equivalence. Thett did not contest the first premise, and neither did any voter,....except you. It's simply unfeasible to explain every last angle of an argument in a finite space, so when we debate, there is the expectation that the voter too is applying some of his own reasoning where the gap is very fill-able, and the connections are very obvious. "All things that are logically possible are bound by logic" requires only a few moments of thought to confirm and move on, and in actuality, they are equivalent statements. Two ways of saying the same thing, only that the concept needed to be reworded such that the syllogism flowed more clearly.

Your vote really was crap,... and your justification of it was almost even crappier.

Are we talking about the same debate? Because, indeed, he did challenge that first premise, as did other voters. Regardless, let's just move on, okay? I'd rather not have to try and sit here trying to justify a vote more than necessary.

I think I'd know more about who said what in my own debate, than you. Thett contested the 2nd premise and the conclusion. Nobody contested the 1st, except you, because for some reason you didn't feel like using your brain that day.

However, this isn't an argument about my judging.

But, to respond directly to your response, which I DID understand from the get-go: your whole argument is a misinterpretation of the video. The video--and the attitude of most anarchists--is more of a criticism of the government in the status quo. It doesn't make any implications that the state is a result of bullying, or strongarming--really, your whole response is a kind of of irrelevant tangent. The general anarchist sentiment--if such a thing exists--at least with this video, is that the state is contradictory in its aims and how it carries them out, and ultimately functions in the very manner of ways which citizens try to avoid by having a state. In effect, it's not denying hierarchical tendencies. It's criticizing the way they've manifested. It's a call for different, non-state, hierarchies and social structures.

Perhaps that's your interpretation of the argument, but that certainly isn't universal. Many anarchists do isolate the state, just as the creators of that video did, and they do blame it in a manner that implies that the state created itself.

The video did no such thing. It implied that the state perpetuates itself.

No difference in relation to my point. The state does not perpetuate itself, nor did it create itself. The state was created and is perpetuated by a belief in the necessity of hierarchy and authority for the sake of order - which is why attacking the government in a vacuum as this almost fictitious evil, is not valid.

So, it ISN'T perpetuated simply by conservative thought? Do you mean to say that it isn't perpetuated largely because it is a part of the squo? If so, then I'm pretty sure that's not true. When one looks at it, it seems to be more likely that the state is never fully challenged BECAUSE it's never fully challenged. It's an issue of the squo.

No, there's no acquiescence involved. People do actively believe that government is necessary, it isn't that they just conform because it is the status quo. Maybe you could say that their beliefs are born out of the status quo - but its still their independent beliefs nevertheless, and that wouldn't prove that the state perpetuates itself.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 5:31:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 5:25:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

Lol. Hierarchy =/= government. Although hierarchy is most likely natural due to the sort of animalistic and tribal nature that humans underwent, it is more definitely not synonymous with government. A "government" is a set institution (usually) authorized by a select group of people to rule over and set the rules for everybody else, all the while having a monopoly on law, violence, and specific institutions (i.e. prisons). It is a form of hierarchy, albeit a very distorted one, but hierarchy is not synonymous with government. I can have somebody above me (tribal leader), who I look up to, but him being above me does not mean that he has a monopoly on violence and force on me.

So yeah.... government=natural is a really bad argument.

Please re-read the argument, and come back when you have an accurate and less stupid response.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 5:35:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 5:31:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 5:25:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

Lol. Hierarchy =/= government. Although hierarchy is most likely natural due to the sort of animalistic and tribal nature that humans underwent, it is more definitely not synonymous with government. A "government" is a set institution (usually) authorized by a select group of people to rule over and set the rules for everybody else, all the while having a monopoly on law, violence, and specific institutions (i.e. prisons). It is a form of hierarchy, albeit a very distorted one, but hierarchy is not synonymous with government. I can have somebody above me (tribal leader), who I look up to, but him being above me does not mean that he has a monopoly on violence and force on me.

So yeah.... government=natural is a really bad argument.

Please re-read the argument, and come back when you have an accurate and less stupid response.

To anybody else, I'd tell them how brain-damaged they are and that they are fvcktarded. However, since I heard that those who actually have mental illnesses might get offended from me calling them by their condition, I'm going to refrain from pointing out your medical disorders.

Tisk. Tisk. Get better, Ikey.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 5:57:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well I'm just being forthright, and you do act like a dullard sometimes... just like how you said that "all things that are logically possible are bound by logic" was not true and then voted against me for it (which by the way is one of the dumbest votes I've ever read).

I never said it wasn't true, Ike. I said that you never adequately explained why P1 was self evident. Even when you did cite classic logic, you refuted it again by agreeing that there are physical things which do not abide by classic logic. And EVEN IF the above was misinterpreted, you still did fail to explain your self-evidence. I believe I already told you this in the PM, my general paradigm in debate, at least when it comes to judging philosophically inclined rounds, is Tabula rasa--it's the concept of entering a debate with next to no pre-premises/biases. You didn't make the idea that P1 was self-evident strong enough; not strong enough to stand on its own, and definitely not strong enough to withstand Con's arguments.

Yeah, no. The first premise was an axiomatic equivalence. Thett did not contest the first premise, and neither did any voter,....except you. It's simply unfeasible to explain every last angle of an argument in a finite space, so when we debate, there is the expectation that the voter too is applying some of his own reasoning where the gap is very fill-able, and the connections are very obvious. "All things that are logically possible are bound by logic" requires only a few moments of thought to confirm and move on, and in actuality, they are equivalent statements. Two ways of saying the same thing, only that the concept needed to be reworded such that the syllogism flowed more clearly.

Your vote really was crap,... and your justification of it was almost even crappier.

Are we talking about the same debate? Because, indeed, he did challenge that first premise, as did other voters. Regardless, let's just move on, okay? I'd rather not have to try and sit here trying to justify a vote more than necessary.

I think I'd know more about who said what in my own debate, than you. Thett contested the 2nd premise and the conclusion. Nobody contested the 1st, except you, because for some reason you didn't feel like using your brain that day.

Sure, you THINK you know it more. Here is literally the first heading and sentence of Thett's case: "1. All things logically possible are bound by logic. First, this is not self evident as he claims..." [http://www.debate.org...]. Your first premise was LITERALLY THE FIRST THING HE ARGUED AGAINST.

However, this isn't an argument about my judging.

But, to respond directly to your response, which I DID understand from the get-go: your whole argument is a misinterpretation of the video. The video--and the attitude of most anarchists--is more of a criticism of the government in the status quo. It doesn't make any implications that the state is a result of bullying, or strongarming--really, your whole response is a kind of of irrelevant tangent. The general anarchist sentiment--if such a thing exists--at least with this video, is that the state is contradictory in its aims and how it carries them out, and ultimately functions in the very manner of ways which citizens try to avoid by having a state. In effect, it's not denying hierarchical tendencies. It's criticizing the way they've manifested. It's a call for different, non-state, hierarchies and social structures.

Perhaps that's your interpretation of the argument, but that certainly isn't universal. Many anarchists do isolate the state, just as the creators of that video did, and they do blame it in a manner that implies that the state created itself.

The video did no such thing. It implied that the state perpetuates itself.

No difference in relation to my point. The state does not perpetuate itself, nor did it create itself. The state was created and is perpetuated by a belief in the necessity of hierarchy and authority for the sake of order - which is why attacking the government in a vacuum as this almost fictitious evil, is not valid.

So, it ISN'T perpetuated simply by conservative thought? Do you mean to say that it isn't perpetuated largely because it is a part of the squo? If so, then I'm pretty sure that's not true. When one looks at it, it seems to be more likely that the state is never fully challenged BECAUSE it's never fully challenged. It's an issue of the squo.

No, there's no acquiescence involved. People do actively believe that government is necessary, it isn't that they just conform because it is the status quo. Maybe you could say that their beliefs are born out of the status quo - but its still their independent beliefs nevertheless, and that wouldn't prove that the state perpetuates itself.

How do those statements gel? Like, at all? If a belief is born from something else, how can you make the claim that it is an independent belief. I'm pretty sure that people don't start out thinking the government is unjustified. It's pretty much an indoctrinated belief.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 6:30:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 3:47:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 3:37:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
The video is funny, but not interesting. It was kind of like watching two 13 year old boys using their vast life experience to talk about how to get a women.

Could you expound on that? What particularly do you take issue with?

No way to put it all here, so I'll just point out the basic point about government that the video fails to touch on: human nature. Human beings are a dominant species and crave power. The only way to avoid society ascending into a chaotic battle for power is for that power to be monopolized. That is why every organized society that has ever existed had someone in charge. A democracy is simply a means by which society comes together to form a system which ensures that controlling force will benefit society as a whole, as opposed to the special interest of a small few.

Anarchists always argue the negatives of government as if it leads to the conclusion that having government makes no sense. It is easy to find talking points which feed that narrative. What anarchists don't seem to understand is that those negative aspects they apply to their hate of government are not the result of a flawed system, but rather the flaws in human nature.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 7:00:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 6:30:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/23/2012 3:47:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 3:37:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
The video is funny, but not interesting. It was kind of like watching two 13 year old boys using their vast life experience to talk about how to get a women.

Could you expound on that? What particularly do you take issue with?

No way to put it all here, so I'll just point out the basic point about government that the video fails to touch on: human nature. Human beings are a dominant species and crave power. The only way to avoid society ascending into a chaotic battle for power is for that power to be monopolized. That is why every organized society that has ever existed had someone in charge. A democracy is simply a means by which society comes together to form a system which ensures that controlling force will benefit society as a whole, as opposed to the special interest of a small few.

Anarchists always argue the negatives of government as if it leads to the conclusion that having government makes no sense. It is easy to find talking points which feed that narrative. What anarchists don't seem to understand is that those negative aspects they apply to their hate of government are not the result of a flawed system, but rather the flaws in human nature.

Dat is/ought.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 7:43:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm at work, and I ain't got time fo dat video, but I can try to provide a tentative response to the following.

At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy.

Actually, I'd say modernity reconfigures the relationship between state, government, and society. For the authors of the Enlightenment, e.g., Locke, civil society was political society. Modern and contemporary political philosophy, on the other hand, distinguishes civil society as something both independent of and prior to the emergence of state power (i.e., government). Arendt termed this the "rise of the social", indicating a degree of autonomy (both from government and from the economy) of a certain category (which could manifest in a mulitiplicity of forms) of relations, e.g., the social bond between members of a family, community, or nationality. So, it's not about looking for a state of nature or a condition of disorder productive of a social contract, because society is not now conceived, in either theories or practices of government, as immediately political (though it *is*, in this view, immediately subject to politicization insofar as it's theorized precisely as an object of political power, as, for example, in the form of public health legislation or the attribution of civil rights on the basis of political identity, e.g., status as a national/citizen).

It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such...

Well, the bullies obviously wanted it. I think legitimating narratives are necessary at some point, since you can't coerce everyone all time, but there are plenty of instances in which a majority has been regulated and dominated through fear, brutality, etc. In fact, the conquest theory of the state posits just such an origin (namely, the domination by external powers of relatively peaceful agricultural communities, exemplified in our recent historical memory by the subjugation, exploitation, and barbarism practiced on native inhabitants by the colonial powers).

So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

Well, government's an epiphenomenon, I think--but that doesn't excuse its practices.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

I'd say that mentality (insofar as it can be totalized that easily) and the state are relatively co-constitutive (i.e., there's a positive feedback loop between government and the acquiescence/interests of the governed).
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 9:23:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It oversimplifies it, and the "definitions" are fail.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:18:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 4:41:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:32:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:23:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:14:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

And....where are you going with this? If--and that is, IF--the drawn conclusion is "therefore, governments are justified," it's a bit of is-ought/appeal to nature that you have going on there.

I wasn't an endorsement of government, is a flaw in the sentiment forwarded from the video...the same sentiment forwarded by many anarchists on the site.

If you don't know what I'm arguing, then let someone else who does respond to it. I'm tired of always explaining things to you, because you act incredibly slow.

It's a video that's famed in a comedic manner. I think when viewing the subject through a lens, one rarely used here, brings some ideas to light.

In any event, at the bolded part, I guess all bets are off now, if you're going to be that way and come at me like that. Because you clearly are just my intellectual superior and have to explain everything to dullards like me. Must be tiring for you. Whatever.

Well I'm just being forthright, and you do act like a dullard sometimes... just like how you said that "all things that are logically possible are bound by logic" was not true and then voted against me for it (which by the way is one of the dumbest votes I've ever read).


You're such an @ss....DN and I were pretty good friends for a time and I can assure you he's way more intelligent than you are. Not that anyone else's opinion interests you even slightly of course.

Still up for that monarchy vs democracy debate, ike?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:22:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 5:25:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

Lol. Hierarchy =/= government. Although hierarchy is most likely natural due to the sort of animalistic and tribal nature that humans underwent, it is more definitely not synonymous with government.

Seriously. I dont see how anyone historically literate could look at feudal Europe, one of the most hierarchical societies we have records extensive of and conclude that the state is the natural outgrowth of hierarchy...indeed, for the most part the central state was allied with the adversaries of feudalism.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:23:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 5:29:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 5:21:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 5:14:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:59:01 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:41:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:32:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:23:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:14:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 4:06:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is the establishment of society...and in any case where there is disorder, human beings will indubitably establish some sort of governing hierarchy. It wasn't just some group of strong and intelligent people that bullied their way into power when no one wanted such... So when you isolate the government and make it the object of all evil, not only is your blame misplaced (as it should be on the people that want government and "don't know any better"), but it constructs a false narrative, that makes people want to dismiss the whole argument.

The state is the product of a pervasive mentality that is not perpetuated by the state, and existed before states were even established.

And....where are you going with this? If--and that is, IF--the drawn conclusion is "therefore, governments are justified," it's a bit of is-ought/appeal to nature that you have going on there.

I wasn't an endorsement of government, is a flaw in the sentiment forwarded from the video...the same sentiment forwarded by many anarchists on the site.

If you don't know what I'm arguing, then let someone else who does respond to it. I'm tired of always explaining things to you, because you act incredibly slow.

It's a video that's famed in a comedic manner. I think when viewing the subject through a lens, one rarely used here, brings some ideas to light.

In any event, at the bolded part, I guess all bets are off now, if you're going to be that way and come at me like that. Because you clearly are just my intellectual superior and have to explain everything to dullards like me. Must be tiring for you. Whatever.

Well I'm just being forthright, and you do act like a dullard sometimes... just like how you said that "all things that are logically possible are bound by logic" was not true and then voted against me for it (which by the way is one of the dumbest votes I've ever read).

I never said it wasn't true, Ike. I said that you never adequately explained why P1 was self evident. Even when you did cite classic logic, you refuted it again by agreeing that there are physical things which do not abide by classic logic. And EVEN IF the above was misinterpreted, you still did fail to explain your self-evidence. I believe I already told you this in the PM, my general paradigm in debate, at least when it comes to judging philosophically inclined rounds, is Tabula rasa--it's the concept of entering a debate with next to no pre-premises/biases. You didn't make the idea that P1 was self-evident strong enough; not strong enough to stand on its own, and definitely not strong enough to withstand Con's arguments.

Yeah, no. The first premise was an axiomatic equivalence. Thett did not contest the first premise, and neither did any voter,....except you. It's simply unfeasible to explain every last angle of an argument in a finite space, so when we debate, there is the expectation that the voter too is applying some of his own reasoning where the gap is very fill-able, and the connections are very obvious. "All things that are logically possible are bound by logic" requires only a few moments of thought to confirm and move on, and in actuality, they are equivalent statements. Two ways of saying the same thing, only that the concept needed to be reworded such that the syllogism flowed more clearly.

Your vote really was crap,... and your justification of it was almost even crappier.

Are we talking about the same debate? Because, indeed, he did challenge that first premise, as did other voters. Regardless, let's just move on, okay? I'd rather not have to try and sit here trying to justify a vote more than necessary.

I think I'd know more about who said what in my own debate, than you. Thett contested the 2nd premise and the conclusion. Nobody contested the 1st, except you, because for some reason you didn't feel like using your brain that day.

Evidently not.

"1. All things logically possible are bound by logic

First, this is not self evident as he claims. Indeed, it first begs the question as to what is actually meant by existence. That is, I can imagine illogical situations and the chemicals that created the perception exist, and the situation exists in my head. It's clear that they do not actually exist however, and ike means to say that everything that exists in the universe is bound by universial law. Hence, a better wording for this premise would be "Everything that exists in the physical universe is bound by logic" (questionable given the insane rules of quantum physics), in which case I'll offer the observation that God does not have to physically exist. It's most probable that God exists in another dimension, since he existed prior to the creation of the physical universe. Just as Ike wouldn't exist (or be bound to the rules) in a program he created, he could still affect and govern the program as he wishes while existing outside of it.

Second, there are obvious exceptions to this claim, including the very thing we are debating which is logic itself. Indeed the enitre debate presumes that logic itself exists, and since bounds can only be imposed by outside forces, the premise is demonstratively false. Logic and mathematics exist as abstract objects, while they do not physically exist they affect our perceptions and every day lives greatly, and are fundamental component of reality. Concious minds also are not bound to logic since they can imagine illogical situations.

Third, he's presuming the objectivity of logic within all things, not just our univverse. Just as the logic and mathematics of our universe would not govern another dimension with different laws, wherever God "physically" exists (if such a thing could be even concieved) is obviously not our univserse, so our logic would not govern him.

Fourth, God has the power to do illogical things. He used creatio ex nihilo, and yet from nothing, nothing comes logically! This shows clearly that God is not bound by the logic he created.

It's evident that if this premise holds true for anything, it holds only for physical existents."

http://www.debate.org...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 1:37:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 6:30:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/23/2012 3:47:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/23/2012 3:37:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
The video is funny, but not interesting. It was kind of like watching two 13 year old boys using their vast life experience to talk about how to get a women.

Could you expound on that? What particularly do you take issue with?

No way to put it all here, so I'll just point out the basic point about government that the video fails to touch on: human nature. Human beings are a dominant species and crave power. The only way to avoid society ascending into a chaotic battle for power is for that power to be monopolized. That is why every organized society that has ever existed had someone in charge. A democracy is simply a means by which society comes together to form a system which ensures that controlling force will benefit society as a whole, as opposed to the special interest of a small few.

1) Unsupported generalization on "human nature". Also I looked but didn't see any response to the anarchist responses to keeping "human nature" in check i.e., overlapping judiciaries, etc.

2) Didn't explain how the quest for power that is apparently inherent in us is subdued by monopolization of the use of force by a single, largely unaccountable institution.

3) Democracy sort of contradicts monopolization according to your argument. If people are natural power seekers than wouldn't monocentric control of the government itself be preferable since the democracy of power seekers would just institute, on a mass scale, all the terrible things that individuals would? Of course I don't get how giving a single group all the guns really fixes the problem but then again that's just me.

Anarchists always argue the negatives of government as if it leads to the conclusion that having government makes no sense. It is easy to find talking points which feed that narrative. What anarchists don't seem to understand is that those negative aspects they apply to their hate of government are not the result of a flawed system, but rather the flaws in human nature.

Wut. Kind of a strawman. I'm not saying government is bad because people in government kill, rape, etc. (though I probs wouldn't be so keen on that either). The problem is the coercive core of the State which doesn't conceptually exist in other aspects of society. If this mystical "human nature" shows that it does then I'd ask you to be so kind as to point it out.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 1:08:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 3:37:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
The video is funny, but not interesting. It was kind of like watching two 13 year old boys using their vast life experience to talk about how to get a women.

You literally just summed up this site
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 1:32:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 1:08:08 AM, LeafRod wrote:
At 12/23/2012 3:37:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
The video is funny, but not interesting. It was kind of like watching two 13 year old boys using their vast life experience to talk about how to get a women.

You literally just summed up this site

http://knowyourmeme.com...

But seriously, if you hate us all and look down upon us mere mortals, with all your intellectual superiority and greatness.....why the hell are you here?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 3:02:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 1:37:45 AM, socialpinko wrote:
2) Didn't explain how the quest for power that is apparently inherent in us is subdued by monopolization of the use of force by a single, largely unaccountable institution.

I didn't think I needed to. If power is monopolized then very few would oppose it. I find this to be common sense. Perhaps you could tell me what I am missing.

3) Democracy sort of contradicts monopolization according to your argument. If people are natural power seekers than wouldn't monocentric control of the government itself be preferable since the democracy of power seekers would just institute, on a mass scale, all the terrible things that individuals would?

We do have monocentric control, it's called the Supreme Court.

Wut. Kind of a strawman. I'm not saying government is bad because people in government kill, rape, etc. (though I probs wouldn't be so keen on that either). The problem is the coercive core of the State which doesn't conceptually exist in other aspects of society. If this mystical "human nature" shows that it does then I'd ask you to be so kind as to point it out.

You just made my point. By "coercive", you are referring to the fact that the state ultimately makes the rules and enforces them through force whether people want to follow them or not. Yet this coercive force has been a part of every organized society that has ever existed. Regardless of whether you lived in ancient Rome, England, or even in Indian tribes, if you did not follow the rules you were either punished or expelled from society whether you agreed with the rules or not. Yet you seem to attribute this coercive force to the state, as if by eliminating the state you would eliminate the force. No, all that would do is open the door for someone else to control that force without your voice.

Furthermore you claim that this does not exist in other aspect of society. Actually, it exists everywhere in society. We all want power. However since we can't have that force which is monopolized by the state, we settle for the next best thing which is power within the states rules which is achieved by wealth.