Coward debaters

[ironblade87]

333 says (8:12 PM):
http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=941548
look at the cock sucking

 

333 says (8:12 PM):
http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=941548
look at the cock sucking

Expert opinion, I'm sure.

 

[The Fat Controller]

My position is that taxation is theft.

I'm calling out anyone who snickers at or mocks my intellectual positions on any subject. Man up and face me.

This post kind of got out of hand, I stopped it before it turned into an essay. If any of this makes me crazy then point out where

Years back when I first started arguing here, anti-authoritarian ideas like taxation as theft were more or less alien to me. You can bet I hadn't heard about them through school.

People have their own view of the world that they live by, and in mine taxation wasn't malevolent, it was often spent on doing good, nice things. So it was shocking when someone dropped the "taxation is theft" line. I felt like accepting the idea would be an immoral act in itself. In fact, I realize that I found it hard to internalize anything that might have put me in the firing line of authority. It's an irrational fear (or revulsion, maybe) for the most part, or at least at the intensity I felt it. It's something I think school, or discipline in general, gives people.

Now, I only come to Sythe to read your posts on SFA, and just about every time I see you explain another libertarian idea to someone new, they act incredulous. So from observing that I can see that it's a defense mechanism that everyone uses. There are several ways in which I think "society" or "the system" rely on this behavior to maintain the status quo, if you're interested I could discuss them.

Anyway, the point is that some people will snicker, mock and turn away without even trying to understand, because they're disciplined well enough to not even want to know. Or they're too busy, or distracted.

--

I do now agree that taxation is theft. It was actually the Taxation as Slavery article on Wikipedia that brought me round. The one about theft is a mess.

 

I do now agree that taxation is theft. It was actually the Taxation as Slavery article on Wikipedia that brought me round. The one about theft is a mess.

That was a long time coming, but welcome back!

People have their own view of the world that they live by, and in mine taxation wasn't malevolent, it was often spent on doing good, nice things. So it was shocking when someone dropped the "taxation is theft" line. I felt like accepting the idea would be an immoral act in itself. In fact, I realize that I found it hard to internalize anything that might have put me in the firing line of authority. It's an irrational fear (or revulsion, maybe) for the most part, or at least at the intensity I felt it. It's something I think school, or discipline in general, gives people.

Right, they internalize the authority figure(s) and cultural norms through repeated abuse as a child (Stefan Molyneux talks a lot about this) and then, later, any contrary notion or idea rejected via what I think at its root is simple cognitive dissonance, but which is manifested as something almost pathological.

Now, I only come to Sythe to read your posts on SFA, and just about every time I see you explain another libertarian idea to someone new, they act incredulous. So from observing that I can see that it's a defense mechanism that everyone uses. There are several ways in which I think "society" or "the system" rely on this behavior to maintain the status quo, if you're interested I could discuss them.

Sure, would be happy to discuss them.

Looking at it from my perspective, I understand the nature of cognitive dissonance, and that it, and it alone in most cases, is the reason people will accept and apply reason to ideas. So I see my job as trying to activate cognitive dissonance -- to unshelter the opponent from comfortable cognitive surroundings (such as familiar bromides and popular turns of phrase) -- and thereby actually have him apply reason to the subject matter.

Once you get that far you've planted the seeds of doubt. Subconsciously the wheels will turn -- because the mind has no other method of function, it must reason if it is to do anything at all -- and eventually either lead you further down the path you were already pursuing, or correct your path entire, and you come up for air with the rest of us.

Anyway, the point is that some people will snicker, mock and turn away without even trying to understand, because they're disciplined well enough to not even want to know. Or they're too busy, or distracted.

Sure, it's the Randian "blank-out". They have no answer, and it terrifies them. So they laugh at it. I still find it repuslive, so I will fight it wherever I see it.

Blank-out: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/evasion.html

Anyway great to see you back. Look forward to more profitable debates.

 

[SuF]

Maybe that's so. It remains to be seen. I prefer to have the issues brought to the light, because the reality is that I've put the time and effort into integrating my ideas, and I've put the time and energy into analysis and deep thought in these areas. These ideas go on record, along with the challenges thereto, and thus can be recovered at a later stage if so needed.

Its basically bully psychology. These people who are "trolling" you are essentially just making fun of you. It is fun for all of them, just for different reasons. Some for revenge or anger (people that get banned, unjustly in their opinion) or the rest mainly just for fun. Your reactions are what they find funny, and I do spend time in *********, mainly because it has techy people that you can talk about techy things with. I want everyone to get along, but it can not happen. All the things they target with you are your "flip outs" like this or the "Post and get banned" thread. Banning and deleting them just makes them angry, making the issue worse.

Whats the best solution? Just ignore them. You own the site. You can delete posts and such. Just delete all the bad posts, and make no fuss about it. If someone questions you about this, just tell them simply that you do not want the jokes on the forums and they will be removed. You want to post things as "proof" for people. Whats that going to do? Nothing. You have a very logical nature. You love debating. Very few others do. People are doing these things as jokes, and logic means nothing to them. In general, the less you react and the more you ignore them, the better the outcome.

 

and I do spend time in *********, mainly because it has techy people that you can talk about techy things with. I want everyone to get along, but it can not happen. All the things they target with you are your "flip outs" like this or the "Post and get banned" thread. Banning and deleting them just makes them angry, making the issue worse.

Whats the best solution? Just ignore them. You own the site. You can delete posts and such. Just delete all the bad posts, and make no fuss about it.

Your post is a contradiction.

Firstly if you admit they are bullies (and worse), then why associate with them?
(If you don't boycott them then they'll never go away. It'll always be the case that some fence sitters give them the moral support to harass me.)

Secondly, if banning and deleting their accounts and posts respectively causes their animosity, then why would doing that more cause it any less?

The root of the problem is not simply that they have feeble minds, but that they have untrue conceptions (prejudice) toward myself and the site, and it's members.

 

[Weasel2013]

Firstly, I want to say that im not actually against the idea of Anarchism (some of its aspects, i agree with) but How can you support something that is mainly theory, will most likely never be in place (unless forced by an act of violence), and something that never lasts (as in anarchism eventually leads to democracy.).

Basically, im trying to understand how Anarchism could be held in place over time, because surely.. if you're given the freedom to do whatever you want, you could technically have the right to form your own government, give it power and devolve power to other members of your own government, force the idea onto others (you're allowed to, your a free man), if those people follow this government, then its pretty much anarchism down the grid. and I don't think 'You'd have to trust the people to decide if they want anarchism to last' as answer will suffice.

Sythe is a voluntaryist..i'm 99% certain he wouldn't support or even approve of his ideals taking hold by force..although they do need to take hold in at least one area of the globe.


Anyways, on topic, here's my argument :

Many of you apparently fail at posting basic arguments in this forum and instead post prejudice and opinion.

taken from: http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=937359

This entire thread is neither an argument in itself, a opinion, nor a predudice..why create it? Wouldn't it be more intelligent to take up your quarrels with these cowards via personal methods? I believe this potentially breaks: "Ok for me but not for you": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

If you make an argument for this thread being an argument of their opinions against yours, it's so broad I would need to hear some reasoning. You're instigating some sort of competition of intellectuality, given, but from so many different sources and then you have some members taking it the wrong way and posting ideals and off-topic material.

 

[Trinity19]

Mocking is probably not the word I would use, disagree would probly be a more appropriate term.
Now while this is the case I do enjoy debating with you on topics so I would like to invite you to a debate with a subject of your choosing, if that is you have the time =].

(p.s. Please don't delete this because I'm sure this can be considered partly some of my business >.<)

 

[DanlySteel]

Sythe, I read a quote from you on your article: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Sythe#Sythe_is_a_Supreme_Creature

"Piercings are psychological; almost always a sign of significant child abuse"

I disagree with this position. I find very little evidence supporting this. Piercings are more of a social image. A cry for a bit of acceptance.
I would like you to elaborate on your views so I don't presuppose you to be an ignorant tard and continue with my arguments..

 

[Dr Lauftstein]

Involuntary Euthanasia. Go.

 

[Trinity19]

Involuntary Euthanasia. Go.

Serious or a joke?

Serious rebuttle:

Do we not put animals to sleep because we do not want them going through their life in pain, i find it ironic that we call this "humane" when humans are the only ones we disregard this to.
Personally, i believe it should be administered while in proper course. A brain dead patient? Yes although a simple unplugged cord could do the trick. Someone who is completely immobilized and all bodily functions are shut down? Yes, now while these are extremes I must stress that those are all i can enforce right now with my own morality due to the fact that if I qualified it even more i would be contradicting myself.

Joke Rebuttle:

Depends....do they or do they not like mudkipz?

 

[SuF]

Your post is a contradiction.

Firstly if you admit they are bullies (and worse), then why associate with them?
(If you don't boycott them then they'll never go away. It'll always be the case that some fence sitters give them the moral support to harass me.)

Secondly, if banning and deleting their accounts and posts respectively causes their animosity, then why would doing that more cause it any less?

The root of the problem is not simply that they have feeble minds, but that they have untrue conceptions (prejudice) toward myself and the site, and it's members.

If you strip away the shit they pull, there are quite interesting conversations that go on. Plus theres almost always someone to talk to.

Now that you have gone and banned and worse many of these people, there really isn't much way to make them not have hard feelings for you. Being nice to them isn't something they deserve and something that won't help meaning that undoing what you did would be foolish. However, now that the unbanning of these people is out of the question, any attempts for them to post on the site are obvious attacks. Removing the offensive content is different was actively purging them from the site. Before they were users, now they are "attackers", which causes a different feelings. Being banned from the site as a user makes you feel crappy. Being banned when you vade just to troll just makes you think, now I need another account. If you get mad, then they get to say YES THIS WORKED! If you just ignore them, they do not get that pleasure.

Their conceptions of the site are feeble. The way in which they target you is much like the way one would go about making fun of the stereotypical Jew essentially. Find something that defines the person or group and blow it out of proportion. Obviously they find what they do fun, or they would not do it. And based on their Wiki about the site, its obvious that the more annoyed you get, the funnier it is for them.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Do you believe that everything that exists can be proved/explained by pure logic? Or do you believe that logic can only explain things in this bubble of existance that we are plugged into, and that there is a thing called spirituality that we can use to assure us that this physical reality is merely an illusion.

 

Do you believe that everything that exists can be proved/explained by pure logic?

Can you explain what you mean by "pure logic"? Do you mean to imply a second, "impure" logic? If so, can you explain about that also?

Or do you believe that logic can only explain things in this bubble of existance that we are plugged into, and that there is a thing called spirituality that we can use to assure us that this physical reality is merely an illusion.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Logic is not arbitrary or made up. It comes from the order of nature. Even if you hypothesize a 'nature outside of nature', and somehow found that to be the case, then that larger spehere of existence would simply become the concept we call nature.

Existence exists, and we can learn it's attributes. We infer logic from reality, we don't just make it up. If reality had different rules then we'd just call those logic instead.

 

[Ricky]

Trying to break this down.
The middle class has the highest number of voters.
The lower class is mostly liberals who voted for 0bama and is the second biggest voting block.
The wealthy are in the minority but increased under Bush have the least voters.

I would say that 100% of the lower class would not go for this deal since they pay zero or little taxes.
The middle class would be in conflict over this asking themselves whether it would be worth it.
The rich might also opt to have zero representation because they pay huge taxes.

It might be fun to call the governments bluff it they proposed such a thing.
Interesting question

 

[TDD]

You appear to be under the presumption that your opinion is always the truth, I'm curious as to whether you realize this.

 

You appear to be under the presumption that your opinion is always the truth, I'm curious as to whether you realize this.

Why would I ask people to present their counterarguments if I thought I was infallible?

 

[TDD]

Why would I ask people to present their counterarguments if I thought I was infallible?

Asking does not mean you have to even entertain the possibility they could be correct; it's likely to keep appearances and attempt to not seem condescending to the general community. I've never seen you accept being wrong, correct me if I am too presumptuous.

 

[cheater2010]

i only disagree with you about taxation. mainly because im shore tax pays for police,fire brigade,ses,roads,footpaths and many other things id rather not live without. if there is anyway of getting around is and not paying tax but still having these services then ill be all for it.

 

Asking does not mean you have to even entertain the possibility they could be correct; it's likely to keep appearances and attempt to not seem condescending to the general community. I've never seen you accept being wrong, correct me if I am too presumptuous.

You are.

I was wrong about global warming, among many other things.

Now let me ask you a question.

You come here and presume to insult me by calling me dishonest in the realm of ideas. What is it that you have contributed to the realm of ideas? Upon what authority, by what argument, do you presume to attack my epistemology?