PDA

View Full Version : Dispute with SicN Twisted here



nieh
11-28-2004, 06:18 PM
sorry, someone had to do it sooner or later

Ok, I posted something in two separate topics to you and while you continued to reply to the topics, you failed to reply to my posts. I'd like to think that was because you just didn't see them, but the fact that it happened twice kind of leads me to believe otherwise.

In the abortion topic (the first one that is) you said something along the lines of casual sex = natural. I agreed with this fact but I stated something like "casual sex IS natural, but today's society isn't". Your response was:


of course today's world is natural. If something evolves a certain way, it's natural. The only unnatural acts are ones that cannot occur.

which is, in all honesty, a very good point. However, you've also said:


Cultures define terretories, not tankes. Countries are obviously not human natures, because countries constantly fight wars and destroy themselves.

and


Anarchism a political idealogy that believes all state problems are direct results of the states existence and part of the state's nature, and that people can only be free without rulers. People think it's incredibly unrealistic, but it's the most natural way for humans to live and thrive. At least, in my opinion.

Now, either this means that your saying today's world is natural is incorrect, or it's saying that anarchy is NOT the most natural simply because it's not what evolved. Also, if anarchy is the most natural (i.e. 100% natural) does that mean that today's society is only 99% natural? Also, if countries are not natural, then why are they what evolved? If that's true then that voids the argument that the only thing that's unnatural is what can't occur.

Also, by this logic, the opinion that "casual sex is natural" can technically be cancelled by the fact that someone choosing to remain celibate until marriage is just as natural, simply because the only things that aren't natural are the things that can't occur.

Moose
11-28-2004, 07:02 PM
Basically neih just used argument by retortion...he revealed your self-contradicting propositions...it will be interesting to see your reply.

SicN Twisted
11-29-2004, 12:08 AM
I said unnatural things cannot occur. The way the world is today is obviously natural in terms of the way things can scientifically evolve, which was the definition I was using when arguing about abortion, because god-freaks like to refer to things common to humanity as unnatural. I think states are unnatural because in peoples daily relations situations can only be truly resolved through coexistence, not force. I shouldn't have use the word unnatural when critisizing statism. Scientifically, it is natural, but I think it's unnatural to the flow of human coexistence and that's why it's caused so much chaos in war. I'd have tosay situations are naturally resolved better through agreement, not display of course. I guess I was using the word in two different contexts. I can admit it because I'm not running for president or anything.

Nieh, I was never avoiding your posts. I just have to reply to so much shit I seriously honestly overlooked yours, I hope you believe me.

Moose, you're a fucking moron and I'll never address your comments till I see you post something of substance, you gun toting bastard.

Moose
11-29-2004, 12:43 PM
haha he said gun toting...all i replied to was neihs comments, you need to relax...its fun to see how many people think they are great on this board, and also wiser than anyone...also i like how they compare IQs...its fun! YOURE BETTER THAN ME!!!!!!!! YAY!

wheelchairman
11-29-2004, 01:50 PM
Ah but you do the exam same thing. Remember that stupid-ass post you made about punk?

Moose
11-29-2004, 02:25 PM
correct...we all do it...cant help it...i guess sic would say its natural...

ya it was a dumbass post haha...funny though...whatever happened with that anyway? did anyone make any good points?

SicN Twisted
11-29-2004, 05:52 PM
I don't think I'm better then everyone Moose. I know for a fact that I'm smarter then you, though.

Moose
11-29-2004, 07:04 PM
i know especially since you try so hard to show it in every post...you make quite the effort to show of your typing skills...i think you more just type out a bunch of crap that sounds nice, but really doesnt mean much and doesnt make much sense when you really think about it and look at it in detail...thats all.

SicN Twisted
11-29-2004, 07:11 PM
Everything I say means something, whether or not you agree with it. I've actually made the efforts to decipher your posts, and realized it wasn't even worth the effort. Please stop posting and retain your dignity.

Moose
11-29-2004, 07:24 PM
haha nice...wheres neih to counter the response you gave him? dignity on a message board....sweet.

nieh
11-29-2004, 08:18 PM
I have a headache and can't afford to think right now. I'll reply tomorrow.

nieh
11-29-2004, 08:28 PM
and stop misspelling my name

SicN Twisted
11-29-2004, 08:35 PM
I'm not insulting nieh. I'm insulting you. Stop acting like I'm on a tyrade against everyone here, cause I'm not. I just think you're a fucking moron, that's all their is to it.

Moose
11-29-2004, 09:46 PM
haha ok...i just like how some people think they are high and mighty know-it-alls...maybe you are not one, but making a post of who has three digit IQs was interesting, plus calling out Betty and all those dumb posts. Dont know exactly what you were trying to prove there.


p.s. sorry nieh. nieh nieh nieh, muscle memory.

Little_Miss_1565
11-29-2004, 11:34 PM
haha ok...i just like how some people think they are high and mighty know-it-alls...maybe you are not one, but making a post of who has three digit IQs was interesting, plus calling out Betty and all those dumb posts. Dont know exactly what you were trying to prove there.

And it's not entirely clear what you're trying to prove here.

Sexy Panda
11-30-2004, 06:30 AM
Dude you can't piggy back Nieh's arguments by going "wow I wonder how you are going to get out of this one sicy boy". It just makes you look like a fuckwit..........and I should know.

nieh
12-01-2004, 08:58 PM
you know, when I started this I was in the mood for a big debate but ever since then I haven't been. I'll see if I can make a decent argument now though because I think Moose will have a heart attack if I don't.

If the current state of government is "unnatural to the flow of human existance" then it's not fair the pull the "it's natural" card in the case of casual sex. The state of the government affects the state of people's day to day lives in that it affects the requirements for survival. So what is natural for our bodies is contradictory to what our society is built for. Until there is a change in the society, the claim "it's natural" isn't the best thing in the world because it sounds like you're living your life in an ideal world that, unfortunately, doesn't currently exist. You're living by how the rules *should* be and not how they actually are, and that can seriously come back and kick you in the ass. It's not unnatural to ignore some hormonal urges for the sake of survival. I'm not trying to convert you to be celibate or anything (hell, even I'm not doing that myself) just pick your fights. Realize that we don't live in the world you want us to and we probably never will (at least not in our lifetimes, unless you're planning on having this revolution sometime soon).

In regards to your stance on anarchy, I've seen you post that people will still pay taxes which probably means you still believe in money...how would this work? In the old days, money was backed by gold (which is not really valuable anymore because it's not really useful). Now it is backed by the power of the government. If anarchy is in place, how will the value of money be determined and kept in place? How will different communities trade with each other? Will people barter for things? (please say yes, I would love to use the word "barter" on a more regular basis). If you take away the rich classes choice in where the tax money goes, what happens when they get upset about losing their rights? Can they 'succeed' from the community? You've preached that communism is like a religion because it's basically hoping for a prophetic change, but your ideas of anarchy seem even moreso. In order for it to work, mankind as a whole has to have a change of heart and everyone has to be working for the benefit of the community and that will never be able to happen for real because people (though not all of them) are greedy and disagree on a lot. If the people that earn money and become wealthy end up losing their rights, what's to stop them from leaving? If they walked out of the community someone would have to take their place (I'm assuming they were able to make that much money because they were doing something neccessary). If they're replaced by someone that genuinely wants the best for the community, then why would their rights to where the taxes go be revoked? How will different communities interact? It could only possibly work if the individual communities were relatively small, but they'd have to rely on each other (some would have to specialize in food because some places aren't able to grow or maintain animals). Would the internet still be up and running? You've said that you don't want borders, but there will always be borders even with anarchy. They will be unofficial, obviously, but there will be communities and people will tend to stay with their community. There will always be groups that will hate each other and there always have been (check out Native Americans. No official boundaries, everyone was working for the community, yet there were warring tribes). I'm not even sure where I'm going with this anymore so I'm going to stop for the time being.

SicN Twisted
12-01-2004, 11:11 PM
You don't seem to really understand anarchism. Anarchism does not mean chaos. There will obviously be currency - most anarchists still believe in upholding the social contract. Anarchism simply means the abscence of the State, and all ideas behind the State, because the State is inherintly anti human as an entity in itself. While we believe in rotating leadership based on merits, we don't believe that any human being has the right to openly rule over another. Society would be structured in somewhat of a traditional manor, even though I'm no advocate of all the tenents of traditional culture (I can show you some anarchists who are). For instance, a trained fisherman would generally be understand as an authority on fishing, and someone with skills on how to fix automobiles will be trusted to do such as he retains such a skill. Different people will be granted natural authority due to merit, but society will, and I stress definately has the capability to, exist without leaders. Those with expertise in upholding the social contract will end up having their voices heard by the community simply do to merit, but everyone will basically have a say in how their lives are structured. People will make laws pertaining to them and they will control every vestige of their existence. Anarchism has in common with Marxism that workers will control their own means of production, not managers, and a classless society will soon form.

If you're looking for an example of a succesful anarchist community, I'll show you Chiapas. The Chiapans have lived for over 50 years without leaders and have existed in reletive harmony as a community. Certain parts of Spain have also maintained anarchist communities that were for a long time regarded as the only safe part of Spain. And I'm sure you're aware of Paris's 1968 student uprising, which was the only case of untrained, disorganized students with no leadership taking control of a city for any amount of time. The military couldn't stop them because the president had to isolate it's divisions out of fear that they'd join the uprising as well. Of course, anarchist communities cannot exist perminantly as long as there's but one powerful state in existence, that's why anarchist revolution in essence has to be world revolution. In regards to your comment that tribes made war as well, I'll tell you that this is perfectly fine. Scuffles between communities have never caused devastation the way massive State conflicts have. Small disputes simply helped society evolve, not destroyed it.

I think I've done a pretty good job at explaining the particulars of my views, but I couldn't possibly explain the philosphy behind it si simply. I'd beckon you towards Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and Henri-Joseph Proudhon, some of the most well known anarchists. I do sincerely hope, although I doubt it's likelyhood, that the revolution happens durring my lifetime. I'm skeptical as to whether or not we're ready for it in the state the world's in right now - the 60s would have been much better. But ancient Mayans have prophesized some sort of large scale, life altering event to happen sometimes soon. I hope it's our revolution, cause I'd hate to think of what else it could be. I won't go into the natural bit again, cause I've already explained I poorly used the word naturel and could have used a better world. But if you wanna continue arguing anarchism, go for it.

Betty
12-01-2004, 11:31 PM
Not my argument, but quick question... do you really believe these "prophecies" or are you just saying that for kicks?

SicN Twisted
12-01-2004, 11:39 PM
I don't believe them, but they'd sure be nice for a nice.

nieh
12-02-2004, 03:40 PM
I know that anarchism doesn't mean chaos. I've seen all your pro-anarchism topics explaining that and I've always known that even beforehand. My question is, what's going to STOP it from being chaos? So far the best thing I've heard is something along the lines of 'it will work because people will want it to'. And I still don't understand what money will be backed by and how it will work in an inter-community situation.

Betty, this is the 'dispute with Sic thread', not the 'watch nieh dispute with sic' thread. You can say whatever you want.

Betty
12-02-2004, 05:28 PM
Nieh: I know! But I didn't really have anything to say, at the time.

Today at lunch, I actually had a long discussion about whether true capitalism could work, and I'm still sketchy about whether it would, but it was very interesting.

Anyway, the point of my story is that capitalism and anarchism are similar in the fact that they require absolutely no government interference in any way.

What was interesting was the fact that in capitalism, you take what is bad about human nature (self interest) and turn it into something that is fully functional since everybody obviously wants to be self-interested. (Keep in mind you can be self-interested while taking interest in others because it makes you feel good about yourself) Because in theory in a capitalistic society, you can be the best you can be. And everybody wants to be the best they can be. And everybody is allowed, and encouraged to be the best they can be.

In anarchism, the way you (Sic) explain it at least, people are not doing things in self-interest, they are doing things for the good of the community. And it is just sketchy about whether that would work (I do agree people could function without government) since it is not "natural" (oh boy the natural thing) for people to not be self-interested. And even if some people did, would there not be some bad eggs that would ruin it?

I don't know if I really want to go into specifics about any of this (e.g. do you not care about the poor people? mostly I just don't to reiterate anything I have said before), but I find it somewhat interesting as a point.

SicN Twisted
12-02-2004, 06:13 PM
Anarchism is all about self interest. Isn't it in someone's self interest to not be ruled?

People are capable of working for the good of the community because if people could live peaceful coexistrence, they'd be happier and have more opportunities to live out their dreams. I've given examples of succesful anarchist communities, so you can't say it would never work.

nieh
12-02-2004, 06:42 PM
Anarchism is all about self interest. Isn't it in someone's self interest to not be ruled?

Woo, paper tiger (I like that phrase). That is true, but that alone is not enough. (some) People are greedy and will want to take advantage of the fact that there's no one ruling them. While it might be in an individual's best interest to not have a ruler over them, it might also be in that individual's best interest that there is a ruler over the other people to keep them in line.


People are capable of working for the good of the community because if people could live peaceful coexistrence, they'd be happier and have more opportunities to live out their dreams. I've given examples of succesful anarchist communities, so you can't say it would never work.

You described a small scale community that has not been around long enough to prove the test of time. 50 years means that the community still consists of those that founded it, and probably their children. Of course the ideals will be more easily upheld when the founders of the society are still around. But what happens with their grandchildren, great-grandchildren, or just random people that decide they want to live there start growing up and end up being in charge of the place? Differences in ideas will come about. I tried googling the Chiapans but can't really find anything describing it so I can't go into more depth.

SicN Twisted
12-02-2004, 06:50 PM
A strong community can combat power hungry individuals. Tribes have existed for hundreds years and people were ruled by no more then their customs. History has proven that the State is unneccesary. Have States proven the test of time? No - structured civilizations have been plagued with war throughout history. I don't consider the state of the world suitable to humanity.

Betty
12-02-2004, 07:01 PM
Anarchism is all about self interest. Isn't it in someone's self interest to not be ruled?

People are capable of working for the good of the community because if people could live peaceful coexistrence, they'd be happier and have more opportunities to live out their dreams. I've given examples of succesful anarchist communities, so you can't say it would never work.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but whether it would work for the entire world, or on a larger scale, etc, etc... are important issues.

Also, in a way the idea seems somewhat primitive. Like, would there be motivation for technological progess, research and development, etc... or would it be more of a regression? If you say the latter and you agree with it fine, and if it's the former, where would the motivation come from?

nieh
12-02-2004, 07:12 PM
A strong community can combat power hungry individuals. Tribes have existed for hundreds years and people were ruled by no more then their customs. History has proven that the State is unneccesary. Have States proven the test of time? No - structured civilizations have been plagued with war throughout history. I don't consider the state of the world suitable to humanity.

EVERY FORM OF CIVILIZATION HAS BEEN PLAGUED WITH WAR
There has always been war, there will always be war. It comes from disagreements in religion, it comes from intruding on someone else's land (even when there are no official borders, there is still a genuine acceptance that 'this is your space, this is ours'), it comes from disrespecting tradition/culture, it comes when one group is potentially going to fuck things up for both groups. It does not only come because of the state. Yes, there have been cases of that, but compare that to the infinite amount of wars that have been waged before a government was ever formed, it's such a miniscule amount that the point has no credibility.

sKratch
12-03-2004, 09:10 AM
Gonna have to go with Nieh on this one. Not only does his point make far more sense to me, but he put it in larger letters.