SleepingSilence

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@catchamber No. Just no. I'm just hoping you have the self awareness necessary that a school of fish is nothing like the word you described, I literally just debunked that. (Your not even human example of your whole point...)

(If I called you full of shit, I have a feeling I'd get a captain obvious south park meme...)

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Can you not strawman me, bro? I explicitly said that I wasn't talking about limitless resources.

@catchamber

Beyond all of this, let's consider a scenario where everyone's survival needs are taken care of via automated systems. What exactly would a bunch of ocean dwellers need to riot about, how would they riot, and why?

@catchamber

Don't start being purposefully obnoxious please. Unlike everyone else on this forum (least often seems that way), I can see sarcasm oozing out the words typed.

Even schools of goddamn fish follow a leader...so you might need to try a little bit harder. <.<

independent.co.uk/news/science/fish-s…

Edit: Yes and birds too.

civilsocietyhowto.org/migrating-birds…

Birds share leadership. When they fly in the v-formation, for instance, the lead bird works the hardest. Many of the birds in the flock take turns flying lead so that no one bird collapses from exhaustion. In flocks of pigeons, even the weakest birds sometimes lead.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@catchamber My point was already made, you just don't read my sources and you keep not answering any questions I ask, for starters. But again, burden of proof fallacy. Learn what that is and please stop using it. (You're entire argument needs evidence. I don't need the evidence to disprove something you have no evidence for.)

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

The link already goes into human psychology of why people want more. Where is your source of an infinite machine ever existing?

Edit: My evidence to people needing and wanting leaders, is nearly every single country, state, sport team, parade, army, animal pack and everything else in the world having them. You need conscious thought to do just about everything and law is order, where does complete lawlessness benefit society?

Now, assuming you have a serious point to make, where's your counter examples of what you provided? (Hopefully more than Commensalism, which is specifically about two organisms, like fish and fungus.) Not a large group of people that needs to function as a society.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@catchamber Okay, at this point all you're doing is repeating yourself while providing absolutely no evidence.

wakeup-world.com/2017/01/04/the-cycle…

All that can be summed up with a burden of proof fallacy and wasting my time by posting memes against my theoretical responses to your non-existent scenario. Are you saying people don't ask for impossible things like becoming a dragon or woman when they aren't in society? Or ask/believe for things that aren't possible? Must I immediately proof you haven't been paying attention? You're asking why would people rationally protest if they got everything they wanted. Well when the helk did you ever consider human beings purely rational creatures? Instead of emotional ones?

Try wuting me out of things that already take place nowadays...at this point we're past being contrarian and instead being completely disingenuous. You wanting an infinite resource machine that already can't happen and doesn't exist, you can't tell more people don't want more when that's what the very beginning proposal is. (creating a machine where literally everything feasible to dispense is given to you.)

debate.org/opinions/is-water-wet

createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_water…

huffingtonpost.com/david-finkle/new-s…

Also, since you're using meme's yet you don't realize the meme of the debate of water being wet. Here's the wut you're looking for.

Let's B!tch. I feel it's a healthy release for our roleplay annoyances 2.0

Who the fuck comes into an anime RP expecting to have the most realistic experience possible? How stupid can people be?

@Raddum

The answer to that question is, quite stupid.

A casual contest thing.

200 words seems almost a little too narrow to create anything particular. But I like the concept of it.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Oh I don't think anarchy would get you the same form of government after the power vacuum is filled, I'm saying it would get you a much worse one (again, because this is what happened in history--the vast majority of states started off as total autocracies and have taken millenia to develop forward to where they are now, and in many parts of the world, they're still unaccountable autocracies today). You are not going to be able to go from anarchy straight to a stable liberal democracy, those norms and institutions take generations to build up and become embedded into society.

Governments did used to be much smaller and if someone is saying they have grown too large, I actually totally agree. But "we need smaller government" is a totally different viewpoint than "we need no government." Governments remain necessary for purposes of national defense, enforcement of property rights, and other basic functions that ensure a free society. Anyone who thinks they aren't simply isn't properly conceptualizing what a government is. Whatever agent you put in place to fulfill those functions will end up being your government, whether you choose to call it one or not.

@Normie

Basically agree with that 100%. (although I wouldn't immediately say anarchic practices like revolution or overthrowing a corrupt government or regime, is inherently going to lead to worse results than you started. Though I'm aware that's has been the case many times before.) But especially how that particular article portrays his arguments, it's almost parallel to socialism arguments.

mises.org/library/trouble-socialist-a… I'd probably use this to point out the problems with the concept of socialist anarchy.

Current Mood in One Gif

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/north-kora-botches-missile-launch/

If I was an eviler man, I'd find the irony hilarious. (Hopefully no one innocent was killed by their dickless fearless leader.)

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@catchamber You can't join a group and be fruitful if you don't contribute though right? There will be a leader(s) in every group of individuals. Humans aren't all the same. Some are bound to be smarter, more athletic and have more leadership qualities. A group can't form without the conscious effort to do so and their can't be order without a solid direction. If you don't follow the group, you will eventually not be apart of that group.

Also the idea of not following or learning from history because there's not enough of it recorded is erroneous in the current age of social media where nearly everything can be easily found if you know where to look. There's plenty of recorded history, it also makes less sense to look that far back when technology has only made more things possible and expanded how the society interacts with one another. Humans have adapted. If we want to proof something could work, that's an older concept like anarchy or non-government societies functioning and thriving as well as Capitalistic economies. We'd likely already have examples of it...

Edit: Also...

Beyond all of this, let's consider a scenario where everyone's survival needs are taken care of via automated systems. What exactly would a bunch of ocean dwellers need to riot about, how would they riot, and why?

@catchamber

Ignoring that this would be impossible, because there's no such thing as a free lunch. But humoring the idea of limitless resources without cost. You also horribly misunderstand humans if you think that there wouldn't be arguments, fights or turmoil. Just because people are afforded what they want. What if one of those boat dwellers, didn't like the black colored boats to be near their sea and tell them to go elsewhere? What if one had a hot woman that was happily married? But it wasn't fair that they couldn't have their turns with her. What if someone just wanted to see the look of their face when they cut a hole into another ocean dwellers neck? And the other fellow ocean dwellers understandably didn't want that guy around. Greed exists as a sin for a reason. The slippery slope fallacy when it comes to social issues is often fleeting, because people do constantly want more. I mean in this theoretical scenario they'd already be self deluded into thinking they could have anything they wanted. Why wouldn't they protest the sea? Because they wanted it to no longer be wet...they should have a device that makes all water not wet! Why doesn't the automated system defy logic and reason? Why can't it make me a real woman or a dragon? (You get my point.)