• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Political memes ONLY.. To prove your political points.

DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
View attachment 4561021
Click to expand...
We've had leaders since the paleolithic and alpha monkeys before that, our societies, armies and groups are organized hieachicly for a reason, it's instinctive in behavior in humans. 100,000 years ago the chief laid down the law like a cop does today, fuck up too much and you were ostracised which was a death sentence, since humans can only survive in a social context, especially back then, life was a bitch.

Anarchy is libertarianism by another name and is a completely unworkable form of government or society, anarchy means chaos and you have that with Trump already, how's that working out for you? Any enemy could easily defeat such a state, even from within, dictatorship or democracy would be the end result, most likely dictatorship though since we are naturally hierarchical. Successful societies organise themselves so as to take advantage of the positive aspects of human nature and minimise its negative antisocial side, those who are organised contrary to human nature like communism in Russia, fail.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
We've had leaders since the paleolithic and alpha monkeys before that, our societies, armies and groups are organized hieachicly for a reason, it's instinctive in behavior in humans. 100,000 years ago the chief laid down the law like a cop does today, fuck up too much and you were ostracised which was a death sentence, since humans can only survive in a social context, especially back then, life was a bitch.

Anarchy is libertarianism by another name and is a completely unworkable form of government or society, anarchy means chaos and you have that with Trump already, how's that working out for you? Any enemy could easily defeat such a state, even from within, dictatorship or democracy would be the end result, most likely dictatorship though since we are naturally hierarchical. Successful societies organise themselves so as to take advantage of the positive aspects of human nature and minimise its negative antisocial side, those who are organised contrary to human nature like communism in Russia, fail.
Click to expand...
No offense, but this is a really misleading post with some inaccurate statements and a few accurate statements poorly attached to inaccurate examples.

Yes, there were paleolithic "leaders" and alpha monkeys. They used to burn witches too and force people of the wrong race to serve others against their will. Paleolithic leaders and alpha monkeys hold sway, usually thru applications of force. Bad monkey!

Modeling a modern human society on how cavemen did it and monkeys do it, is, uh "not very progressive". Just because something may have been done a certain way doesn't provide evidence that when another more humane way is "discovered", the old way should be continued and the "new way" rejected. Unless of course you're into burning witches, "because that's they way we've always done it".

Anarchy means without a ruler. It does not mean chaos, unless you accept the redefinition of the word, which came about for nefarious reasons, probably by people who wanted to rule others. My definition is etymologically speaking, accurate.

The word leader is not synonymous with ruler. Using the words interchangeably is a common mistake. A leader has followers, presumably of their own volition. Voluntary. A ruler has subjects, subjects don't get a choice. Involuntary.

Anarchy, doesn't prevent individuals from having leaders, it does, by definition preclude rulers.
Anarchy doesn't prevent people from having rules, it does, by definition preclude rulers.

Anarchy isn't unworkable on a societal level, to say so, is to say that "rulers" (the opposite of anarchy) are a workable circumstance and subjugation is desirable and workable. Anarchy is freedom. Things which include rulers, are not.

I could refute your other misconceptions too, but feel that your present low comprehension would necessitate me having to dismantle your other default erroneous assumptions first. That could be tedious.

In other words, your platitudes do not always make good arguments and we would need to "reeducate you" into a basic grasp of the meanings of words and concepts you presently misuse before we proceed. Perhaps, in another thread, we will pursue this one day.
 
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No offense, but this is a really misleading post with some inaccurate statements and a few accurate statements poorly attached to inaccurate examples.

Yes, there were paleolithic "leaders" and alpha monkeys. They used to burn witches too and force people of the wrong race to serve others against their will. Paleolithic leaders and alpha monkeys hold sway, usually thru applications of force. Bad monkey!

Modeling a modern human society on how cavemen did it and monkeys do it, is, uh "not very progressive". Just because something may have been done a certain way doesn't provide evidence that when another more humane way is "discovered", the old way should be continued and the "new way" rejected. Unless of course you're into burning witches, "because that's they way we've always done it".

Anarchy means without a ruler. It does not mean chaos, unless you accept the redefinition of the word, which came about for nefarious reasons, probably by people who wanted to rule others. My definition is etymologically speaking, accurate.

The word leader is not synonymous with ruler. Using the words interchangeably is a common mistake. A leader has followers, presumably of their own volition. Voluntary. A ruler has subjects, subjects don't get a choice. Involuntary.

Anarchy, doesn't prevent individuals from having leaders, it does, by definition preclude rulers.
Anarchy doesn't prevent people from having rules, it does, by definition preclude rulers.

Anarchy isn't unworkable on a societal level, to say so, is to say that "rulers" (the opposite of anarchy) are a workable circumstance and subjugation is desirable and workable. Anarchy is freedom. Things which include rulers, are not.

I could refute your other misconceptions too, but feel that your present low comprehension would necessitate me having to dismantle your other default erroneous assumptions first. That could be tedious.

In other words, your platitudes do not always make good arguments and we would need to "reeducate you" into a basic grasp of the meanings of words and concepts you presently misuse before we proceed. Perhaps, in another thread, we will pursue this one day.
Click to expand...
Or maybe you've just got "issues" with authority figures, it's quite common among antisocial types and misanthropes. Your feelings of aversion to authority might be causing your intellect to be controlled by your emotions and you're just rationalising a subconscious sense of avoidance. We first have the feeling then we rationalize around that. Feelings of attraction and avoidance and then more complex emotions evolved first in animals, intelligence came later and was layered on top of that. Just like you rationalize your sexual desires and seek to defend the morally and ethically indefensible. Thoughts and emotions are wound together like strands of a rope, one re enforcing the other and both motivated by deeper intentions based on feelings that are felt in the body. That's the short version and much of the process is hidden from conscious view unless one trains.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Oh dear, another post with some accurate statement cobbled onto outright falsehood in a lame attempt to construct a diversionary argument. At least you were smart enough not to tackle my refutation of your "what anarchy is" clusterfuck.

Yes, I have issues with "authority figures", if you mean rulers, for the same reasons I have issues with slave masters. It's wrong. Speaking out against the concept of authority over other people without their explicit consent makes me an abolitionist. Your incongruent arguments make you a kind of slavery apologist.

My sexual desires are quite unremarkable and vanilla. A monogamous type relationship with an "almost" 60 year old woman. Quick, castrate me!!

What I seek to defend, is freedom of choice for those capable of consenting. What other consenting people do amongst themselves, is none of my business regardless of my personal like or dislike of others choices. Anything which deviates from that, is an argument for negating another persons ability to choose, which is what rapists do. Why would you want to be on the same philosophical side as a rapist ? Do you want to be "the authority" even if it requires you to initiate force ? Do you have "authority fantasies" ?



Thoughts and emotions wound in rope? I actually liked that one. Great imagery!
True confession, my thoughts and emotions are wound with hemp rope this evening. :eyesmoke:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top