Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[viewerfromnihil]

You guys...

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

In that your argument is such that morality and practicality are one, the "homosexual debate" is a cornerstone to your argument, and is therefore a perfectly reasonable topic of discussion. You say, essentially, that homosexuality is unnatural and that it is impossible to produce offspring (I assume this is your argument against homosexuality). So is a barren woman who nonetheless marries acting immorally and impractically, since marriage, on a practical and moral level, is to pair a loving man and woman together to produce offspring and raise them? Is a homosexual couple that chooses to adopt a child acting less morally or more morally? On the one hand, it is even more unnatural and thus, in your view, less moral, for two men to raise a child together as a homosexual pair than it is merely to be a homosexual pair. On the other hand, the two are serving the function of marriage while simultaneously adopting a disadvantaged youth. Or is improving the livelihood of one mere individual simply treating a symptom and not a cause and therefore impractical and immoral?

I'm really not one to carry anothers water, but

 

[Dak]

In that your argument is such that morality and practicality are one, the "homosexual debate" is a cornerstone to your argument, and is therefore a perfectly reasonable topic of discussion.

There is a difference between cornerstone and example. I am disappointed in such a weak strawman.

You say, essentially, that homosexuality is unnatural and that it is impossible to produce offspring (I assume this is your argument against homosexuality). So is a barren woman who nonetheless marries acting immorally and impractically, since marriage, on a practical and moral level, is to pair a loving man and woman together to produce offspring and raise them?

It is an arguement, but yes. Barrenness would not be established until years later, so that example is irrelevant.

Is a homosexual couple that chooses to adopt a child acting less morally or more morally? On the one hand, it is even more unnatural and thus, in your view, less moral, for two men to raise a child together as a homosexual pair than it is merely to be a homosexual pair. On the other hand, the two are serving the function of marriage while simultaneously adopting a disadvantaged youth. Or is improving the livelihood of one mere individual simply treating a symptom and not a cause and therefore impractical and immoral?

Less morally, since they are assisting in passing on unnatural/immoral/impractical lifestyles through learned behaviour. This does not, of course, guaruntee that the behaviour will be learned, but the odds are increased. To argue otherwise is to argue from ignorance.

Improving a situation is generally in the eye of a beholder. Western Civilization has raped, pillaged, and burned half the globe, supposedly bringing "civilization to the savages". I doubt the Native Americans, Irish, etc. agree even to this day.


@V5: Bigot may as well fall under Godwin's Law, since it's use is inevitable whenever disagreements on subjects like this arise. I don't hate homosexuals. I disagree with the lifestyle choice, and frankly feel pity for them, just as I do for the self-inflicted homeless, etc. Turn your bigot comments to the KKK and the Black Panthers, or Westboro Baptist.

It's a misconception that the primary goal of the sexual drive is reproduction. People cathect onto certain objects for a plethora of reasons; the sexual orientation of a person is formed over a long period of time. If it's "unnatural" to become a homosexual, it's just as unnatural to become heterosexual. There is no universal teleological aim of sexuality. From birth it's associated with certain pleasurable sensations, and the objects that provide/influence these sensations serve to mold the subject's sexual orientation.

TBH I loled at this whole paragraph. I disagree, and consider any possible evidence you might bring to back these suggestions up as junk science. I'm sorry bro.

The return of the means of production to the people is a very Marxian argument.

Returning means of production? You are over thinking this. I am merely advocating that one guy (or small group) can't monopolize a limited and unreplaceable resource(land) which, by default, enslaves everyone.

 

[Einherjar86]

TBH I loled at this whole paragraph. I disagree, and consider any possible evidence you might bring to back these suggestions up as junk science. I'm sorry bro.

I'm going to let sleeping dogs lie (if I haven't already roused them from their rusty cages). I disagree with you, and consider any argument that sexuality's primary aim is reproduction to be faulty.

Returning means of production? You are over thinking this. I am merely advocating that one guy (or small group) can't monopolize a limited and unreplaceable resource(land) which, by default, enslaves everyone.

The way I read it, it sounded as though you believe that people who work in a factory running presses or on an assembly line are "enslaved" by their managers or business owners. If everyone's freed from having to work for someone else (like you said) and given a plot of land on which to make their own way, that's returning the means of production necessary for survival to the people. Obviously, those who work will survive, and those who don't won't; but it's still equal distribution of property rights.

 

[Dak]

The way I read it, it sounded as though you believe that people who work in a factory running presses or on an assembly line are "enslaved" by their managers or business owners. If everyone's freed from having to work for someone else (like you said) and given a plot of land on which to make their own way, that's returning the means of production necessary for survival to the people. Obviously, those who work will survive, and those who don't won't; but it's still equal distribution of property rights.

It's not slavery if the people had another option, and chose that work for someone. But without land-use occupancy, there isn't much(if any) of an option.

Marx wasn't 100% wrong, in fact he had a lot of good points. The problem usually comes in when he suggests replacing one pile of bs with a different pile of bs.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see any purpose in redistributing land equally to the people with no regulation because that would simply result in capitalism (as it exists now) rising up again over the course of time; it would basically set the clock back and we would watch the same process happen again. It's inevitable.

However, the alternative is to have people work their own land while being regulated by a centralized government, which raises far too many wild cards. A centralized government requires a military superiority over its people, and when it regulates the means of production you will inevitably have tyranny.

Both of these systems are forms of ideal theory, and neither is practically applicable.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Less morally, since they are assisting in passing on unnatural/immoral/impractical lifestyles through learned behaviour. This does not, of course, guaruntee that the behaviour will be learned, but the odds are increased. To argue otherwise is to argue from ignorance.

Yeah, and saying that gay couples perpetuate impractical (there is nothing "impractical" about the homosexual lifestyle, given that 'practicality', in terms of lifestyle choice, is an entirely subjective, baseless, nebulous term; in other words, you do not have the right to deem what is practical and what is impractical in someone else's life*), unnatural (see this for why that is retarded) lifestyles definitely isn't an argue from ignorance.

*I find this stance of yours especially troubling and hypocritical given your utterly fanatical belief in autonomy and self-making one's life. Really man, you're a living, breathing pile of stupid contradictions and I almost wonder how you convince yourself of all of the baseless, disturbingly anti-human/sociopathic shit you believe.

 

[Cythraul]

I think you are overlooking the voluntary vs involuntary issue. Acquiring property (outside of theft/war), requires mutual consent on both sides, or no "original owner". Theft requires involves involuntary transfer of propery, as opposed to a sale or gift.

What if I decide I want to appropriate an unowned thing but non-appropriators do not consent to my appropriation? Should their non-consent be taken seriously? But if not, then what explanatory work does it do to say that somebody who "owns" something does not consent to the involuntary transfer? The only difference here seems to be that we're assuming at the outset that the "owners" actually have a right to what they have.

To directly steal someone's time/effort is basically slavery, which is an aggressive action.

I think that's only convincing if you already accept the libertarian view of property rights. Slavery is involuntary servitude, which requires that something be done to somebody to make them do something they don't agree to in the relevant sense. But I do no such thing when I "steal someone's time/effort." I only manipulate things external to them.

...what? You're way overthinking what he said.

Well, since you're such a clever guy, perhaps you can tell me exactly how I overthought what he said.

 

[Dak]

*I find this stance of yours especially troubling and hypocritical given your utterly fanatical belief in autonomy and self-making one's life. Really man, you're a living, breathing pile of stupid contradictions and I almost wonder how you convince yourself of all of the baseless, disturbingly anti-human/sociopathic shit you believe.

It's contradictory to believe there is a "best way" to do things while not believing people should be forced to do it that way? Really? You need to rethink that accusation.

Your rhetoric is getting out of hand. Antihuman? Sociopathic? Bigoted? These are words and terms that apply to people modern day people like Saddam, Cheney, and Eric Holder (respectivily).

It is not hate to disagree, but it is bigoted to be intolerant of disagreement.

 

[Dak]

I don't see any purpose in redistributing land equally to the people with no regulation because that would simply result in capitalism (as it exists now) rising up again over the course of time; it would basically set the clock back and we would watch the same process happen again. It's inevitable.

However, the alternative is to have people work their own land while being regulated by a centralized government, which raises far too many wild cards. A centralized government requires a military superiority over its people, and when it regulates the means of production you will inevitably have tyranny.

Both of these systems are forms of ideal theory, and neither is practically applicable.

Every time a new form of government has been established, the "clock has been rolled back" before the country inevitabley spirals into tyranny again. This is not really a valid arguement against change or for holdign the status quo.

A centralized government also does not need military superiority unless it is trying to control, as opposed to governing. There is a difference. The purpose of a military is supposed to be to external, not internal threats, and the government and military should be of, not seperate from, the people.

But of course, even as evidenced in America, over time this ceases to be the case, and many people would have it so.

What if I decide I want to appropriate an unowned thing but non-appropriators do not consent to my appropriation? Should their non-consent be taken seriously? But if not, then what explanatory work does it do to say that somebody who "owns" something does not consent to the involuntary transfer? The only difference here seems to be that we're assuming at the outset that the "owners" actually have a right to what they have.

I am not really sure where you are going with this. We could obviously just go the route of "nothing belongs to anyone ever, because it's all on the earth which no one can own." This sounds similar to the way the Native Americans lived.

I think that's only convincing if you already accept the libertarian view of property rights. Slavery is involuntary servitude, which requires that something be done to somebody to make them do something they don't agree to in the relevant sense. But I do no such thing when I "steal someone's time/effort." I only manipulate things external to them.

If you work for something, and then someone else steals it, you have involuntarily worked for them. The result is the same regardless of an established power/labor transfer structure.

 

[Einherjar86]

Every time a new form of government has been established, the "clock has been rolled back" before the country inevitabley spirals into tyranny again. This is not really a valid arguement against change or for holdign the status quo.

I'm not arguing against change or for maintaining the status quo. I'm saying that your idea won't achieve anything in the long run because it establishes circumstances which will inevitably lead down the same path again; the exact same path.

A centralized government also does not need military superiority unless it is trying to control, as opposed to governing. There is a difference. The purpose of a military is supposed to be to external, not internal threats, and the government and military should be of, not seperate from, the people.

But of course, even as evidenced in America, over time this ceases to be the case, and many people would have it so.

Your final line proved the point I want to make. A centralized government needs military superiority, because if it doesn't have it then it doesn't possess any authority to govern. When a people knows it can easily overthrown its government, what incentive does it have to heed its commands? The whole idea of "people should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people" is great, but it doesn't work. What governmental system would leave itself so vulnerable? The answer is none. Governments will always seek to establish military dominance because as a governing agency, it wants to maintain power.

 

[Dak]

It is actually specific types of people that seek power/to maintain it, not "government". Government is merely a vehicle for control. But one person/small group of people can only maintain control as long as they are allowed, as every revolution throughout history has shown.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, but no government wants a revolution. Particularly in our age, governments won't develop without forming strong military establishments. If a government has no means of properly enforcing its rule over its people, then it ceases to function with authority.

 

[JontRevolting]

Fuck me,don't you dudes ever just get drunk and think 'who gives a fuck'? it's not like any of you are ever gonna make a difference anyway or has your college degree programmed you all to just dribble shit flatout?.I can't even be fucked reading any of this shit sober or drunk.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It's contradictory to believe there is a "best way" to do things while not believing people should be forced to do it that way? Really? You need to rethink that accusation.

Your rhetoric is getting out of hand. Antihuman? Sociopathic? Bigoted? These are words and terms that apply to people modern day people like Saddam, Cheney, and Eric Holder (respectivily).

It is not hate to disagree, but it is bigoted to be intolerant of disagreement.

Okay, excuse me. You're full of shit. There, is that a better way to phrase my disgust with your awful opinion?

 

[Einherjar86]

Fuck me,don't you dudes ever just get drunk and think 'who gives a fuck'? it's not like any of you are ever gonna make a difference anyway or has your college degree programmed you all to just dribble shit flatout?.I can't even be fucked reading any of this shit sober or drunk.

There's the possibility that some of us enjoy the argument. Or are we not allowed?

 

[JontRevolting]

Of course,argue away professor!

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It is actually specific types of people that seek power/to maintain it, not "government". Government is merely a vehicle for control. But one person/small group of people can only maintain control as long as they are allowed, as every revolution throughout history has shown.

I actually think I agree with this, at least theoretically. It explains why countries like Switzerland are generally peaceful and people are fine with the government to a seemingly pretty large extent.

Well, since you're such a clever guy, perhaps you can tell me exactly how I overthought what he said.

Probably because you wildly extrapolated the meaning of Dakryn's post and had a discourse with yourself using terms for the argument that you devised under the assumption that he would go along with you if he were to reply. I think we all can accurately distill Dakryn's beliefs in property rights without having to break things down to the level you did. But, since that's what you apparently love to do, I guess I can't really stop you. Just saying, the post was pretty masturbatory sounding in terms of diction and the way you framed the self-discussion.

 

[Dak]

Okay, excuse me. You're full of shit. There, is that a better way to phrase my disgust with your awful opinion?

Out of curiousity, does your disgust with intolerance also extend to the popular opinion and laws against polygamy?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]