More from the ongoing "Christian" vs video games drama
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
Damn son, that's a whole lot of writing that completely ignores and avoids the key principle of voluntarism being brought up.
Please, do share more about how you wish you could force others to do your bidding so you can achieve your utopia. I'm sure any day you'll bring about true peace and prosperity on earth any day now, so long as they follow your specific brand of statism.
Ah yes, the classic intellectually fallacious and lazy fallback position of "I have no retort, so I'll just criticize the them on anything I can grasp onto". You have no problem with length. You're only criticizing it here because you can't respond or refute, so you try to sling any criticism you can in the hopes that your critic or the audience (which has now left this discussion), will be manipulated into a fallacious argument, away from the pertinent discussion. If you're so monumentally retarded that you view all long form discussion as inherently bad, you've been completely brainrotted by short form dopamine driven social media (engineering), then it casts doubt on all your other positions.
Even though an ad hominem is a logical fallacy, reality shows us that source absolutely matters. It's how people can recognize patterns, determine what's good or bad, and make sweeping judgments upon the groups that are good or bad.
If you think libertarian "volunteerism" is the same as collectivism (grouping up for mutual benefit, goals, and commonality), you're a moron. I explained the differences above, but since you apparently don't like to read, well, that's on you. I won't explain it again. Perhaps if you ever undo the damage that short form content has caused you, you might reconsider your asinine position that anything longer than a 10 second quip is inherently bad.
Government is force. See, this is why I know you're an idiot. You have no clue what government is, how it operates, or why it exists. I attempted to explain above, but again, you can't read. Government operates to enact the will of the governed (or when corrupt, the will of the people in charge). Government comes about precisely because people group up (collectivize), because all groups must (if they wish to survive) enumerate rules for that group, and enforce those rules for the benefit of the group and constituent members. Government, by its very nature, relies upon force (i.e. violence, or the threat of violence). Rules are meaningless if there is no force to back them up. Rules and laws are foundationally and inherently "do this, or else". If rules/laws aren't enforced, there's zero reason to have them in the first place, zero effectuallity of government or the need to keep it around.
If you're arguing that force is inherently bad, it ultimately means you're an anarchist. By this position you've espoused, you've displayed your ignorance to the subject (again), not knowing that what you're advocating for is anarchism, not libertarianism.
Yes, thank you for noticing. My positions and arguments on government are logically sound and consistent, so they work, and my position even allows a wide breadth of possible governmental forms, so long as they follow the basic tenets of what government should be and how it should operate, and remains uncorrupted. When government does become corrupt, it ultimately requires men to retake their own responsibilities, and use their natural right of violence against their oppressors in government, to reform the government, and shape it and man it to enact their will.
It's sad how easy it has been to get you to write paragraphs and paragraphs about how much you really want to engage in violence against people that want to unironically be left alone and engage in voluntary and consensual co-operation. Like it's clear that I'm not reading this because I don't care what you have to say, but you're so hell bent on winning an internet argument that you bite the bait every time. Which funnily enough shows just how poorly you would do at any sort of "governing" since you can't even show enough self control to not respond to obvious bait.
I can type fast. What may take long for you, is quite quick for me. It's a habit I've practiced for many years.
Furthermore, you're signaling your ignorance to why debate is good, even when it's not being conducted properly. Debate (whether good or bad), enables a man to practice his habits in good debate. Debate lets a man practice his arguments and explore his ideas. Debate lets the audience hear different viewpoints. Debate lets a man challenge his ideas against an intractable opponent, to truly determine if he is correct. Ideas, like men, are honed through hardship and challenge. Weak men hold weak ideas, and for the same reasons.
Since you shirk away from any challenge to your views, since you refuse to participate in a thorough examination of your ideas, if you refuse to challenge your own ideas, if you refuse to participate in good debate, you inherently weaken your own position, because all of your ideas are unchallenged, unexplored, unreflected, and weak.
That's not what I've been advocating at all. All groups, regardless of size or context, must be homogeneous. Government should, at whatever level its at, only enforce rules along the lines of agreed homogeneity of the people it rules.
However, this position can only work so long as the government and the people (nation) are healthy and uncorrupted. This isn't the case currently, as the people in power hate us, have been intentionally propagandizing our own people against us, have been importing people who are not like us, and are intentionally diversifying us in philosophy, habits, traditions, language, religion, politics, morality, and race. In every conceivable way, the people in power are taking away our natural homogeneity, and destroying it, to weaken our collective bonds, to weaken us, to make us easier to control. Thus, it becomes necessary for people to enforce their views upon the wider whole, to rebuild the homogeneity that was lost, and fight back against the intentional diversification of their people, and violently fight back against the people doing it (and their supporters). In this, I openly admit and condone the use of violence, because violence isn't inherently wrong. You will, of course, latch onto this as a perceived victory, without acknowledging the reasoning.
I'm sorry you refuse to see this, because you're holding onto one facet of this argument with such a fervent stranglehold that you refuse to see the bigger picture.
You further admit that you're brainrotted, incapable of reading or engaging in any content longer than 15 seconds, and hold inherently weak unchallenged ideas.
Good debate requires all parties be civil, logical, honest, and pursue truth above all else. In this way, even if one side, or both sides, is proven wrong in the debate, in part or whole, they can accept the truth openly and proudly. That's how you "win" a debate, by coming closer to the truth. Only fools think they "win" a debate by the standards you profess. But, to be fair, there are a great many fools in modern society that think that's how debates are won, so at least you're not alone in your foolishness.
And to repeat what I said above, which you will also not read, I intentionally challenge my ideas in long form debate, because I don't want to hold weak ideas, I want to know if I'm right or wrong, I want to explore my ideas, I want to practice my views and arguments. I want my ideas to be strong and practiced. I want to be sure. This takes time and length. It's identical to exercise, which takes a lot of time and dedicated effort. You can't do short form exercise and see massive results. It takes time and effort, which you actively refuse. People's views shape their entire reality, so I must also reason that you're also fat, unfit, unpracticed, and lazy.
On the contrary, my habits would make me worlds better at governing than someone like you, who are an admitted fool. And, weirdly, you tacitly admit that all of your responses have been "bait", meaning that you've been behaving disingenuinously this entire time, thus every word you said must be taken as a lie or manipulation, in one regard or another.
In any case, I don't care if what you said was "bait". All of the above reasons for why debate is needed and meritous, that I outlined above, still work when you engage an opponent in a debate who is "baiting" or being disingenous. Most of the best, long form debates I've ever had have been with people similar to you, practicing bad debate, who prioritize themselves above truth, who cling to their views like an anchor, who would rather die than admit wrong in any form, who are being disingenuous.
Keep it going. You're so close to being the mental god you believe you are. Just one more response and it will prove me wrong, and not only will you change my ways in a deep and profound matter, you'll actually change every single person reading it. You're making a massive difference in this niche corner of the internet through your big brain.