Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sob Story Activism

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 7:11:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm sure the Right does plenty of this as well, but it seems to be more prevalent among the Left.

Okay. Let's just say (I'm making this up) that statistics show that 1 out of 65 car crashes are caused by drivers crashing into trees.
So, the Democratic Party (it could just as easily be the Republican Party; I'm just using the Dems in this scenario) airs several commercials that go something like this:

"Hi, my name is Andrea. Me and my husband were driving home one night whenever he crashed into a tree and died. I was in the hospital for 6 months. That accident would not have happened had trees been prohibited for 50 yards from roads. Please stand with the Committee for Ending Tree Collisions, a grassroots organization which will lobby congress to remove all trees from 50 yards from roads, so that what happened to me will not happen again."

Obviously, that is an appeal to emotion, and it fails to take into account that such occurrences are quite rare, an occurrence not common enough to warrant chopping down perhaps millions of trees. What is proposed is a response to someone making a mountain out of a molehill, but this kind of thing seems to be common.
Thoughts?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 7:14:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mate, the posts you make a ridiculously delusional ---hurr durr, we, humanity, are top of the food chain, etc.

You're an insect. All you're ever going to have in life is the other to look after you.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 7:20:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That might have been a little bit sharp --I am feeling a little bit sharp. But it's the truth regardless, and the right is a bunch of delusional nutcases.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 7:53:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 7:14:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Mate, the posts you make a ridiculously delusional ---hurr durr, we, humanity, are top of the food chain, etc.

You're an insect. All you're ever going to have in life is the other to look after you.

So you deny that human beings are the dominant species?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 7:54:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 7:53:51 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:14:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Mate, the posts you make a ridiculously delusional ---hurr durr, we, humanity, are top of the food chain, etc.

You're an insect. All you're ever going to have in life is the other to look after you.

So you deny that human beings are the dominant species?

I deny that you're a dominant anything.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 7:57:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 7:54:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:53:51 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:14:32 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Mate, the posts you make a ridiculously delusional ---hurr durr, we, humanity, are top of the food chain, etc.

You're an insect. All you're ever going to have in life is the other to look after you.

So you deny that human beings are the dominant species?

I deny that you're a dominant anything.

I'm sure as heck above dogs. And cats, just barely (cats are awesome).
The only other set of life forms on Earth which have a sliver of a chance of being this planet's dominant species are bacteria, and you can't really call a bacterium superior to anything.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 2:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here's another example:
http://news.yahoo.com...
Somebody's probably going to use this to argue that guns should be prohibited.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 2:07:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't know how to react when I agree with Badger on things.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:29:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 2:07:48 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't know how to react when I agree with Badger on things.

What things are you referring to? That guns should be banned?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:37:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 3:29:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/31/2014 2:07:48 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't know how to react when I agree with Badger on things.

What things are you referring to? That guns should be banned?

Of course they should. It's 'sob story activism' vs. 'nah, I need guns to kill people bro'.

Where is the greater sense in the latter? Please tell me.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:39:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 3:37:11 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/31/2014 3:29:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/31/2014 2:07:48 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't know how to react when I agree with Badger on things.

What things are you referring to? That guns should be banned?

Of course they should. It's 'sob story activism' vs. 'nah, I need guns to kill people bro'.

Where is the greater sense in the latter? Please tell me.

I am perfectly aware that you are a troll, and as such I will not fall into your trap. Have a nice day.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:40:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 3:39:26 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/31/2014 3:37:11 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/31/2014 3:29:48 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/31/2014 2:07:48 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I don't know how to react when I agree with Badger on things.

What things are you referring to? That guns should be banned?

Of course they should. It's 'sob story activism' vs. 'nah, I need guns to kill people bro'.

Where is the greater sense in the latter? Please tell me.

I am perfectly aware that you are a troll, and as such I will not fall into your trap. Have a nice day.

Don't be a dumbass, mate. Answer the question.---even to yourself.

There is perfection.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:43:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
People who finds others dead in their families by some unnatural means often take some sense of purpose in alleviating the cause. I'm one of them, to be honest.---It's just generally all very stupid and disorganised.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 3:55:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 7:11:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm sure the Right does plenty of this as well, but it seems to be more prevalent among the Left.

Okay. Let's just say (I'm making this up) that statistics show that 1 out of 65 car crashes are caused by drivers crashing into trees.
So, the Democratic Party (it could just as easily be the Republican Party; I'm just using the Dems in this scenario) airs several commercials that go something like this:

"Hi, my name is Andrea. Me and my husband were driving home one night whenever he crashed into a tree and died. I was in the hospital for 6 months. That accident would not have happened had trees been prohibited for 50 yards from roads. Please stand with the Committee for Ending Tree Collisions, a grassroots organization which will lobby congress to remove all trees from 50 yards from roads, so that what happened to me will not happen again."

Obviously, that is an appeal to emotion, and it fails to take into account that such occurrences are quite rare, an occurrence not common enough to warrant chopping down perhaps millions of trees. What is proposed is a response to someone making a mountain out of a molehill, but this kind of thing seems to be common.
Thoughts?

Ugh this fits MADD to a T. Anything in the earth can be justified if you bring up a drunk driving accident, even if it does nothing to actually prevent drunk driving accidents on a serious basis. Gun control as well, to a lesser degree. Mostly I think that these issues spring from:

A. A person who is legitimately bereaved, perhaps angry and working through their grief.

B. Someone who sees person A as a poster child for their cause, and either agrees to champion or support them in spite of their obvious emotional instability, or actively pushes their agenda onto the person in their weakened state.

I think person B is exploitive and should be condemned thoroughly, but person A should be pitied more than anything.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 4:10:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 3:55:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:11:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm sure the Right does plenty of this as well, but it seems to be more prevalent among the Left.

Okay. Let's just say (I'm making this up) that statistics show that 1 out of 65 car crashes are caused by drivers crashing into trees.
So, the Democratic Party (it could just as easily be the Republican Party; I'm just using the Dems in this scenario) airs several commercials that go something like this:

"Hi, my name is Andrea. Me and my husband were driving home one night whenever he crashed into a tree and died. I was in the hospital for 6 months. That accident would not have happened had trees been prohibited for 50 yards from roads. Please stand with the Committee for Ending Tree Collisions, a grassroots organization which will lobby congress to remove all trees from 50 yards from roads, so that what happened to me will not happen again."

Obviously, that is an appeal to emotion, and it fails to take into account that such occurrences are quite rare, an occurrence not common enough to warrant chopping down perhaps millions of trees. What is proposed is a response to someone making a mountain out of a molehill, but this kind of thing seems to be common.
Thoughts?

Ugh this fits MADD to a T. Anything in the earth can be justified if you bring up a drunk driving accident, even if it does nothing to actually prevent drunk driving accidents on a serious basis. Gun control as well, to a lesser degree. Mostly I think that these issues spring from:

A. A person who is legitimately bereaved, perhaps angry and working through their grief.

B. Someone who sees person A as a poster child for their cause, and either agrees to champion or support them in spite of their obvious emotional instability, or actively pushes their agenda onto the person in their weakened state.

I think person B is exploitive and should be condemned thoroughly, but person A should be pitied more than anything.

Why look at it like this? Granted, that woman's wants are a bit ridiculous/less pressing than other things; but does she not still chase after perfection? Should we not all, always, seek perfection? To say, "No, I need my guns, because someone else might kill me if I don't have them," is actually to detail an existence in which no guns are necessary. ----But what? No, let's just categorize more efficiently, keep the guns but beat the bad guys? Really?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 4:12:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is very little in the way of practicality when everyone's just arming themselves to the teeth. It's one extreme or the other. Which is most likely to blow everything the f*ck up? Sob story my f*cking arse.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 4:31:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As if roads/transport/etc. shouldn't be made as safe as possible. Nah, we just need to kill things ha-ha!

One thread Vox is asking us: "Why should we save the rain forest guys?" Next thread: "Why should we cut down trees so people might not feel what this lady has felt guys?"

Dude doesn't know whether he's coming or going. But it's all us. :)
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 4:44:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 4:34:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

lmfao
And this is the right. We, but no we. An existence of crying about nothing.

Actually, I was taking up the nihilist viewpoint there.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 4:47:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 4:44:06 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:34:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

lmfao
And this is the right. We, but no we. An existence of crying about nothing.

Actually, I was taking up the nihilist viewpoint there.

And here as well. You should read The Stranger, it'd suit you.

....And then snap out of it.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 5:07:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 4:47:23 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:44:06 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:34:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

lmfao
And this is the right. We, but no we. An existence of crying about nothing.

Actually, I was taking up the nihilist viewpoint there.

And here as well. You should read The Stranger, it'd suit you.

....And then snap out of it.

Solipsism sounds more interesting.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 5:08:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 5:07:31 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:47:23 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:44:06 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:34:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

lmfao
And this is the right. We, but no we. An existence of crying about nothing.

Actually, I was taking up the nihilist viewpoint there.

And here as well. You should read The Stranger, it'd suit you.

....And then snap out of it.

Solipsism sounds more interesting.

I was going to say you were basically a solipsist :P
Very common in conservative Christians. ------Well, I'm a real person dude. Make what you will of that.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 6:37:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 4:10:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/31/2014 3:55:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:11:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm sure the Right does plenty of this as well, but it seems to be more prevalent among the Left.

Okay. Let's just say (I'm making this up) that statistics show that 1 out of 65 car crashes are caused by drivers crashing into trees.
So, the Democratic Party (it could just as easily be the Republican Party; I'm just using the Dems in this scenario) airs several commercials that go something like this:

"Hi, my name is Andrea. Me and my husband were driving home one night whenever he crashed into a tree and died. I was in the hospital for 6 months. That accident would not have happened had trees been prohibited for 50 yards from roads. Please stand with the Committee for Ending Tree Collisions, a grassroots organization which will lobby congress to remove all trees from 50 yards from roads, so that what happened to me will not happen again."

Obviously, that is an appeal to emotion, and it fails to take into account that such occurrences are quite rare, an occurrence not common enough to warrant chopping down perhaps millions of trees. What is proposed is a response to someone making a mountain out of a molehill, but this kind of thing seems to be common.
Thoughts?

Ugh this fits MADD to a T. Anything in the earth can be justified if you bring up a drunk driving accident, even if it does nothing to actually prevent drunk driving accidents on a serious basis. Gun control as well, to a lesser degree. Mostly I think that these issues spring from:

A. A person who is legitimately bereaved, perhaps angry and working through their grief.

B. Someone who sees person A as a poster child for their cause, and either agrees to champion or support them in spite of their obvious emotional instability, or actively pushes their agenda onto the person in their weakened state.

I think person B is exploitive and should be condemned thoroughly, but person A should be pitied more than anything.

Why look at it like this? Granted, that woman's wants are a bit ridiculous/less pressing than other things; but does she not still chase after perfection?

I think that decisions should be made based after careful rational consideration of everyone's viewpoint. I think that allowing one emotionally charged account to dominate the decision making process may result in a solution which makes the problem feel better, but which causes many smaller issues for other people later down the road which go unaddressed.

Should we not all, always, seek perfection?

Well, that's relative. What is being perfected, and how is perfection defined? I think that impact is much more important than intent.

To say, "No, I need my guns, because someone else might kill me if I don't have them," is actually to detail an existence in which no guns are necessary. ----But what? No, let's just categorize more efficiently, keep the guns but beat the bad guys? Really?

I could write an essay on gun control in America, but suffice to say that I think that both sides oversimplify the issue to an absurd degree, and that we'll maintain the lacklustre status quo due to their inability to reconcile what has become two equally ridiculous, almost religious convictions. Histrionics on either side hardly help matters.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 6:55:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 6:37:16 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:10:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/31/2014 3:55:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:11:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm sure the Right does plenty of this as well, but it seems to be more prevalent among the Left.

Okay. Let's just say (I'm making this up) that statistics show that 1 out of 65 car crashes are caused by drivers crashing into trees.
So, the Democratic Party (it could just as easily be the Republican Party; I'm just using the Dems in this scenario) airs several commercials that go something like this:

"Hi, my name is Andrea. Me and my husband were driving home one night whenever he crashed into a tree and died. I was in the hospital for 6 months. That accident would not have happened had trees been prohibited for 50 yards from roads. Please stand with the Committee for Ending Tree Collisions, a grassroots organization which will lobby congress to remove all trees from 50 yards from roads, so that what happened to me will not happen again."

Obviously, that is an appeal to emotion, and it fails to take into account that such occurrences are quite rare, an occurrence not common enough to warrant chopping down perhaps millions of trees. What is proposed is a response to someone making a mountain out of a molehill, but this kind of thing seems to be common.
Thoughts?

Ugh this fits MADD to a T. Anything in the earth can be justified if you bring up a drunk driving accident, even if it does nothing to actually prevent drunk driving accidents on a serious basis. Gun control as well, to a lesser degree. Mostly I think that these issues spring from:

A. A person who is legitimately bereaved, perhaps angry and working through their grief.

B. Someone who sees person A as a poster child for their cause, and either agrees to champion or support them in spite of their obvious emotional instability, or actively pushes their agenda onto the person in their weakened state.

I think person B is exploitive and should be condemned thoroughly, but person A should be pitied more than anything.

Why look at it like this? Granted, that woman's wants are a bit ridiculous/less pressing than other things; but does she not still chase after perfection?

I think that decisions should be made based after careful rational consideration of everyone's viewpoint. I think that allowing one emotionally charged account to dominate the decision making process may result in a solution which makes the problem feel better, but which causes many smaller issues for other people later down the road which go unaddressed.

Fair enough --obviously.

Should we not all, always, seek perfection?

Well, that's relative. What is being perfected, and how is perfection defined? I think that impact is much more important than intent.

Actually, it's not that relative. There are just some absolutely insane things that need to be worked through. We are all children of love and death, as Oscar Wilde put it.

To say, "No, I need my guns, because someone else might kill me if I don't have them," is actually to detail an existence in which no guns are necessary. ----But what? No, let's just categorize more efficiently, keep the guns but beat the bad guys? Really?

I could write an essay on gun control in America, but suffice to say that I think that both sides oversimplify the issue to an absurd degree, and that we'll maintain the lacklustre status quo due to their inability to reconcile what has become two equally ridiculous, almost religious convictions. Histrionics on either side hardly help matters.

Do you not have some dream of utopia? I mean, I understand pragmatism, but to draw the line around your nation state for the supposedly foreseeable future is the real absurdity to me.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 7:02:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 6:55:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/31/2014 6:37:16 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/31/2014 4:10:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/31/2014 3:55:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:11:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm sure the Right does plenty of this as well, but it seems to be more prevalent among the Left.

Okay. Let's just say (I'm making this up) that statistics show that 1 out of 65 car crashes are caused by drivers crashing into trees.
So, the Democratic Party (it could just as easily be the Republican Party; I'm just using the Dems in this scenario) airs several commercials that go something like this:

"Hi, my name is Andrea. Me and my husband were driving home one night whenever he crashed into a tree and died. I was in the hospital for 6 months. That accident would not have happened had trees been prohibited for 50 yards from roads. Please stand with the Committee for Ending Tree Collisions, a grassroots organization which will lobby congress to remove all trees from 50 yards from roads, so that what happened to me will not happen again."

Obviously, that is an appeal to emotion, and it fails to take into account that such occurrences are quite rare, an occurrence not common enough to warrant chopping down perhaps millions of trees. What is proposed is a response to someone making a mountain out of a molehill, but this kind of thing seems to be common.
Thoughts?

Ugh this fits MADD to a T. Anything in the earth can be justified if you bring up a drunk driving accident, even if it does nothing to actually prevent drunk driving accidents on a serious basis. Gun control as well, to a lesser degree. Mostly I think that these issues spring from:

A. A person who is legitimately bereaved, perhaps angry and working through their grief.

B. Someone who sees person A as a poster child for their cause, and either agrees to champion or support them in spite of their obvious emotional instability, or actively pushes their agenda onto the person in their weakened state.

I think person B is exploitive and should be condemned thoroughly, but person A should be pitied more than anything.

Why look at it like this? Granted, that woman's wants are a bit ridiculous/less pressing than other things; but does she not still chase after perfection?

I think that decisions should be made based after careful rational consideration of everyone's viewpoint. I think that allowing one emotionally charged account to dominate the decision making process may result in a solution which makes the problem feel better, but which causes many smaller issues for other people later down the road which go unaddressed.

Fair enough --obviously.

Should we not all, always, seek perfection?

Well, that's relative. What is being perfected, and how is perfection defined? I think that impact is much more important than intent.

Actually, it's not that relative. There are just some absolutely insane things that need to be worked through. We are all children of love and death, as Oscar Wilde put it.

To say, "No, I need my guns, because someone else might kill me if I don't have them," is actually to detail an existence in which no guns are necessary. ----But what? No, let's just categorize more efficiently, keep the guns but beat the bad guys? Really?

I could write an essay on gun control in America, but suffice to say that I think that both sides oversimplify the issue to an absurd degree, and that we'll maintain the lacklustre status quo due to their inability to reconcile what has become two equally ridiculous, almost religious convictions. Histrionics on either side hardly help matters.

Do you not have some dream of utopia? I mean, I understand pragmatism, but to draw the line around your nation state for the supposedly foreseeable future is the real absurdity to me.

No. To be honest I see my goals in life as a more passive perspective, probably influenced by Buddhism. The goal is the shedding of delusion, to strip the prejudices and irrationalities one by one until the 'problems' of the world, once so frightening and unintelligible that it seemed to require a fervent correction, become simply comprehensible. I think that the lust for utopia has spilled more blood than all of the cynicism and pragmatism of this world combined.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 7:02:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I mean, do you not understand that this Vox-dude is pretty much crying out to the world for the emptiness he finds in it? And that's what so much politics is. How can you look at that and just walk on by?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 7:06:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/31/2014 7:02:14 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
No. To be honest I see my goals in life as a more passive perspective, probably influenced by Buddhism. The goal is the shedding of delusion, to strip the prejudices and irrationalities one by one until the 'problems' of the world, once so frightening and unintelligible that it seemed to require a fervent correction, become simply comprehensible. I think that the lust for utopia has spilled more blood than all of the cynicism and pragmatism of this world combined.

Buddhism has always annoyed me too. It's people just hardening themselves to emptiness. But it's not empty! lol...

I dunno. I see The Stranger among your favourite books. Funny you'd chime in here with Vox. :P