Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
The main problem really is that people look for leaders. They want to be led.
And as long as people want to be led, that will only attract those powermongers who will seek to cheat and exploit them.
I don't want to be led for the same reason I refuse to be a child of the state.
I can do a good enough job on my own leading my existence if all of these fucking babysitters would just get the hell out of my way.
And as long as people want to be led, that will only attract those powermongers who will seek to cheat and exploit them.
I don't want to be led for the same reason I refuse to be a child of the state.
I can do a good enough job on my own leading my existence if all of these fucking babysitters would just get the hell out of my way.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Not only do people want to be led, because the mind is wired that way and has been forever as far as we can trace back; people inevitably want to form power structures (comes down to the human mind desiring structure over disorder, perceiving a state as more fundamental to freedom, progress and liberty than what many people would see as "true freedom").
Dak
mentat
Just not giving a shit is probably the best way to put it, or being scared to look outside their mental box.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
ahha, I see what you're doing
Of course they could/would, but that doesn't mean they have to. Human beings are conceptual beings and Reason being mans basic means to survival/knowledge is essential, therefore delusion becomes easy when you reason to evade and escape reality, but it is also an attribute of the individual. Stupid vs. ignorant vs. delusional or as Mr. Carlin would say, "stupid, full of shit or fucking nuts"
So a person "could" believe anything but that doesn't prove whether they are conscious of it or not.
I feel most people look at their condition and assume that their rights are absolutes; unwilling to recognize the fact that they could be taken away.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
On this one point you are mistaken. Rights can be violated; but they cannot be taken away. Just as no one or nothing gave you your rights because if they did, they could just as whimsically take them away. Your rights are inherent. Man is an end in himself. Your rights descend from your own volitional nature. Your very existence. They also descend from property. When you are born, you already own property; yourself. But then you get a birth certificate, a social security number, a driver's license, a marriage license and thereby handicapped these natural rights. But the bottom line is that you still intrinsically possess them.
If you removed the claws from a lion and sent him back into his biotope, you certainly have violated its rights; but you haven't successfully taken them away. It is a lion's very nature that he needs this stuff. It can be violated, but not taken away. You can pull his claws off, but it does not change the fact that he needs them! This is the answer to the question: Why does violating a man's rights always result in unhappiness? I would add that it results in death as well.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Yes, well, I see your point. Violated compared to taken away contrast. Temporarily taken away might have been a better term, but whatever, you get the point.
Also the rights you are referring to rest in the condition not the system.
Also the rights you are referring to rest in the condition not the system.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
I'm speaking of the human condition, as you are. Our nature (how we respond to our condition) as individuals are not the same therefore can not be confounded. We have separate beliefs, ethics, internal and external conceptualizations etc.
But a social/political system could corrupt and try to define that nature and stunt human potential, strip a person/people of their self evident rights and/or values.
But a social/political system could corrupt and try to define that nature and stunt human potential, strip a person/people of their self evident rights and/or values.
Dak
mentat
The US Federal Government infringes on individual rights left and right. Yet it is almost never the elected officials that do so, but the plethora of unelected agencies that do so.
The FDA, EPA, CIA, NSA, BATF, etc. that do so.
The FDA, EPA, CIA, NSA, BATF, etc. that do so.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
External conceptualizations get in the way of our internal conceptualizations, which are the only ones that matter. Herego, the only true authority is one's own freewill/instinct; everything else is false and an impediment to human progress.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
See you just saying that already supports my case. By saying what you just said you are already agreeing with me; but just don't know it.
How is that possible? Because natural rights MUST BE PRESUPPOSED BY ANYONE WHO WISHES TO REFUTE THEM. The discussion is already rigged in my favor.
See people, the efficacy of making that point is this: when the socialists try and debate you, they are already playing your game! They are already engaging in goal directed use of the mind, they are already nibbling at the fruit of freedom's tree. They are already claiming that they are *free* to hold any view they'd like, that they can prefer this over that and not be punished for it, and that they can engage in reason to ever refine their philosophic and political points of view. You are not free to do this if you don't have rights. (By the way, it is a contradiction to say you PREFER to hold the view that I don't have rights. That's like saying you have a RIGHT to MY stuff).
Again, when I say they are axiomatic, I mean: they must be presupposed in order to be refuted. If you're looking for debate efficacy, you can't get much better than that people! Hey, you've already bought into my point of view if you're arguing with me!
In other words, you've just been punked(by yourself).
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
No, the metaphysical is relevant. gravity is law, you can not will a piece of bread to your mouth.
You're being blindly subjective and your primacy of consciousness does not support human progress but nullifies your attempt.
You sound like a idealist//existentialist.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Oh, okay you were talking about external metaphysics. I thought you were talking about external authorities that people look to(which don't really exist). Your consciousness is your only true authority and is I'd say, chiefly responsible for why we are all not extinct.
No as a bicameral theorist actually. What you've just said there is your bicameral mind at play. I encourage you to read the information I laid out here some weeks back. It goes even beyond Ayn Rand.
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/9341540-post187.html
Once again, the side that resorts to insults is the side who has admitted defeat in an argument. And just as typically for any socialist, who preaches tolerance, you show the most outward disdain for tolerance in human beings.
Congratulations, you've just fucked yourself, again. You couldn't look more like a wet nurse here if you were changing my piss bag.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
I've already pretty fairly and comprehensively laid out how my/your/everyone's rights stem from my/your/their own existence. Please read what I wrote again.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
You mistake indifference for resignation, you smarmy cock.
I'm honestly not even entirely sure what you were trying to say in your convoluted post. Were you trying to say that by me saying that rights don't exist naturally, I'm actually saying "right exist naturally"? Or were you saying that by saying that rights don't exist naturally, I am admitting that rights exist? Because the former is stupid, and the latter, while less so, is also stupid. However, I want to make sure that I wasn't giving the impression that I don't believe rights exist; I just don't believe they are 'natural', at least not in any meaningful sense.
