Got a new cat, PIX!

[Agnapostate]

What utter crap. Nature shows us otherwise, how may the ants overcome the Praying Mantis? Death by a thousand cuts. Whenever in doubt, follow nature, it is never wrong.

Yes, and that would be a thousand cuts. Not a single cut. If you can demonstrate to me how individual action would change the consequences one way or the other, do so. You cannot.

Also...you have yet to reply to my thread about your form of communism, am I to expect a reply or is such waiting in vain?

Didn't happen to see it, mainly because you said that you had much to read and never sent me any message that it had been posted. I don't have a crystal ball.

[Noir]

Yes, and that would be a thousand cuts. Not a single cut. If you can demonstrate to me how individual action would change the consequences one way or the other, do so. You cannot.

Indeed, that's the whole point, if there where a thousand ants and every one thought 'my one cut won't make a difference' then they would all be food for the Praying Mantis. But if they all act, then the Mantis will fall.
I am amazed that someone who believes in anarchy, and thus revolutionary politics is so apathetic using the 'what can one person' do excuse to justify their apathy.

Didn't happen to see it, mainly because you said that you had much to read and never sent me any message that it had been posted. I don't have a crystal ball.

Righto, I said it would take a few hours, and did indeed post it that night after a few hours, it's in the international politics forum, the title should be obvious.

[glockmail]

"Strawman" is usually an overused platitude thrown out by people who don't actually know what they're talking about, much like "Correlation is not causation!" That's certainly true in this case, as I never claimed that you were speaking of formation of laws...

Actually, its perhaps the most common logical fallacy, and you implemented it nicely. I just didn't take the bait.

[Agnapostate]

Indeed, that's the whole point, if there where a thousand ants and every one thought 'my one cut won't make a difference' then they would all be food for the Praying Mantis. But if they all act, then the Mantis will fall.

You've confronted the conflict between individual and collective perceptions. The reason that the president cannot look into a television camera and say "You do not have to vote," is because his words will be broadcast to a large number and will have a dramatically different effect from my communication to one individual. The fact remains, however, that individual actions have no effect whatsoever on consequences. One vote will not make a difference, and neither will one case of abstinence from meat consumption make a difference. So I choose to conduct my personal affairs in accordance with that reality.

I am amazed that someone who believes in anarchy, and thus revolutionary politics is so apathetic using the 'what can one person' do excuse to justify their apathy.

That's because you have a misconception of radical leftists as young idealistic utopians. You apparently haven't imagined that a pessimistic cynic who recognizes that capitalism will exist throughout his lifetime and beyond could be among their ranks.

Righto, I said it would take a few hours, and did indeed post it that night after a few hours, it's in the international politics forum, the title should be obvious.

I glanced at the thread a few hours ago and didn't see anything particularly impressive, to be brutally frank. While you're new at these types of exchanges with me, I'm not new to this sort of anti-anarchist cliche. Answers to effectively all of your "objections" can be found in Section I of An Anarchist FAQ, and while I'll respond to you myself, I don't relish tedious exchanges about basic material. I want elevated, complex debate, but can hardly ever find it from anti-socialists. There's only been one thing that's actually stumped me: this. At the time, I wasn't knowledgeable enough to provide a response to it. I am now, but have since been banned. I want to find someone like that again, basically.

Actually, its perhaps the most common logical fallacy, and you implemented it nicely. I just didn't take the bait.

There was no strawman "implemented," as I never claimed that you'd provided a religious justification for the law. I suggested that you not apply it in that direction, so it seems that the strawman is yours.

[Mr. P]

You've confronted the conflict between individual and collective perceptions. The reason that the president cannot look into a television camera and say "You do not have to vote," is because his words will be broadcast to a large number and will have a dramatically different effect from my communication to one individual. The fact remains, however, that individual actions have no effect whatsoever on consequences.

Try NOT eating and check out the "individual" consequences. IDIOT.

[Agnapostate]

Try NOT eating and check out the "individual" consequences. IDIOT.

Listen, I know every husband and wife from Atlanta to Macon are cousins, but do you really have to be so retarded? I spoke of the lack of effect that individual abstinence from meat consumption had in prevention of animal slaughter.

[Noir]

You've confronted the conflict between individual and collective perceptions. The reason that the president cannot look into a television camera and say "You do not have to vote," is because his words will be broadcast to a large number and will have a dramatically different effect from my communication to one individual. The fact remains, however, that individual actions have no effect whatsoever on consequences. One vote will not make a difference, and neither will one case of abstinence from meat consumption make a difference. So I choose to conduct my personal affairs in accordance with that reality.

But only through the actions of an individual can you have tge actions of a collective. If every individual in the collective decides they will not be able to make a difference by themselves then there will be no difference.

Now I'm not saying that my not eating meat is going to bring down this massive slaughtering industry. But even if it doesn't make a bean of difference I know i've done what I believe to be right, and nit surrorped the murder of these animals. To be so blunt as to say ypu may aswell support the murder and eat their flesh because you won't be able to stop it is quite a vile view to take IMO.

That's because you have a misconception of radical leftists as young idealistic utopians. You apparently haven't imagined that a pessimistic cynic who recognizes that capitalism will exist throughout his lifetime and beyond could be among their ranks.

LOL, what a horrid way to trod through life. Yet surly you must be greatful to capitalism. Afterall, without it you would not be where you are today.

I glanced at the thread a few hours ago and didn't see anything particularly impressive, to be brutally frank. While you're new at these types of exchanges with me, I'm not new to this sort of anti-anarchist cliche. Answers to effectively all of your "objections" can be found in Section I of An Anarchist FAQ, and while I'll respond to you myself, I don't relish tedious exchanges about basic material. I want elevated, complex debate, but can hardly ever find it from anti-socialists. There's only been one thing that's actually stumped me: this. At the time, I wasn't knowledgeable enough to provide a response to it. I am now, but have since been banned. I want to find someone like that again, basically.

Well what you may consider tedious are bread a butter issues. I don't know how you came to know so much on this subject, I assume through personal learning, but given I first came across it two nights ago you could hardly expect much in the way of complexity. As I acknowledged in my opening post of that thread. However, tge simple arguments are always the most important, areas like schooling and the lack of currency can not be over looked just because you may consider them too basic.

[Abbey Marie]

Noir, very cute! You are up yet another notch for taking in a rescue cat.

I apologize that your simple and positive post about adopting a new cat turned into a 4 page challenge to you for your beliefs. If you'd like, I can split the rest into a separate thread.

[Trigg]

Listen, I know every husband and wife from Atlanta to Macon are cousins, but do you really have to be so retarded?

Now that's just rude! It's kind of like saying every beaner in Cali is a TB carrying illegal.

[Nukeman]

Now that's just rude! It's kind of like saying every beaner in Cali, NM, AZ, TX, and Mexico is a TB carrying illegal.

What you mean they aren't??????????????

fixed ot for you too!!!!

[Agnapostate]

But only through the actions of an individual can you have tge actions of a collective. If every individual in the collective decides they will not be able to make a difference by themselves then there will be no difference.

Thank you for repeating what I just said.

Now I'm not saying that my not eating meat is going to bring down this massive slaughtering industry. But even if it doesn't make a bean of difference I know i've done what I believe to be right, and nit surrorped the murder of these animals. To be so blunt as to say ypu may aswell support the murder and eat their flesh because you won't be able to stop it is quite a vile view to take IMO.

An assertion without sound or logical arguments behind it. Moral rightness is determined by the consequences of actions; that's the basis (even if a distant one) behind the development of moral codes, after all.

LOL, what a horrid way to trod through life. Yet surly you must be greatful to capitalism. Afterall, without it you would not be where you are today.

It's a matter of realistic expectations; I think you'll find when whatever utopian little fantasies you have are shattered that it's ultimately a happier outlook to have. Capitalism has placed most of us behind where we could have been...I don't even know what your comment is supposed to mean. An authoritarian state might place someone "further" than nothing, but not further than a democratic state. That you can't see such a basic fallacy is troubling.

Well what you may consider tedious are bread a butter issues. I don't know how you came to know so much on this subject, I assume through personal learning, but given I first came across it two nights ago you could hardly expect much in the way of complexity. As I acknowledged in my opening post of that thread. However, tge simple arguments are always the most important, areas like schooling and the lack of currency can not be over looked just because you may consider them too basic.

They're the most important, as well as the ones that could have been well-understood and answered without consulting me. I'd like a challenge, not an encounter with the sort of repetitive cliches I've faced too many times before.

Now that's just rude! It's kind of like saying every beaner in Cali is a TB carrying illegal.

Yeah, but you don't even know what beaners are. They're Mexican nationals, and since Mexicans are by definition nationals rather than a race or ethnicity, these people are beaners:



The mestizos surrounding me aren't, but thanks for attempting to make a racist/ethnicist remark in response to a regionalist one.

[Nukeman]

Thank you for repeating what I just said.



An assertion without sound or logical arguments behind it. Moral rightness is determined by the consequences of actions; that's the basis (even if a distant one) behind the development of moral codes, after all.



It's a matter of realistic expectations; I think you'll find when whatever utopian little fantasies you have are shattered that it's ultimately a happier outlook to have. Capitalism has placed most of us behind where we could have been...I don't even know what your comment is supposed to mean. An authoritarian state might place someone "further" than nothing, but not further than a democratic state. That you can't see such a basic fallacy is troubling.



They're the most important, as well as the ones that could have been well-understood and answered without consulting me. I'd like a challenge, not an encounter with the sort of repetitive cliches I've faced too many times before.



Yeah, but you don't even know what beaners are. They're Mexican nationals, and since Mexicans are by definition nationals rather than a race or ethnicity, these people are beaners:



The mestizos surrounding me aren't, but thanks for attempting to make a racist/ethnicist remark in response to a regionalist one.

Hey we aren't talking about the classy "white mexicans" we are talking about the "beaner wet backs" and you know exactly who those are dont you!!! I seem to recall seeing a pic of you somewhere!!!!!!!!!!! hmmmm!!!!!!!

You bring the same stupid pic out all the time give it a rest... I am quite sure she fully understands what she posted and who she was referencing, you on the other hand seem to get off on playing ignorance at one turn and superiority at another!!!!!!!! Idiot!!!!

YOUR "INBRED HILLBILLY DIRT FAMRER"REMARKS AREN'T MEANT TO BE RACIST OR ETHNICIST????????

[Agnapostate]

Hey we aren't talking about the classy "white mexicans" we are talking about the "beaner wet backs" and you know exactly who those are dont you!!! I seem to recall seeing a pic of you somewhere!!!!!!!!!!! hmmmm!!!!!!!

I'm a Southwest Indian and I was born in Los Angeles. How would you be able to discern my country of origin from my apperance? Sounds like a failure on your part to realize that the dark-skinned people you fallaciously assume are representative of "Hispanics" or "Mexicans" are actually Indians, native to America.

Exactly how am I a "beaner wet back," you idiot? If anyone's a wetback, it's you; your entire race migrated from across the body of water known as the Atlantic, and your Spanish cousins imported smallpox and a spic mentality.

[Trigg]

Yeah, but you don't even know what beaners are. They're Mexican nationals, and since Mexicans are by definition nationals rather than a race or ethnicity, these people are beaners:

The mestizos surrounding me aren't, but thanks for attempting to make a racist/ethnicist remark in response to a regionalist one.

Racist???

I know exactly what a beaner is, their the little brown bastards that sneak across the Rio Grand.

I was not referancing the white Mexicans in your picture.

[Trigg]

I'm a Southwest Indian and I was born in Los Angeles. How would you be able to discern my country of origin from my appearance? Sounds like a failure on your part to realize that the dark-skinned people you fallaciously assume are representative of "Hispanics" or "Mexicans" are actually Indians, native to America.

Exactly how am I a "beaner wet back," you idiot? If anyone's a wetback, it's you; your entire race migrated from across the body of water known as the Atlantic, and your Spanish cousins imported smallpox and a spic mentality.

American Indians look different from South American and Central American Indians. They are in general taller with longer faces.

You can tell the difference in the same way that Japanese look different from Chinese or Koreans. All Asians, but they look different just like the Indians in the Americas.

I'll post my family pictures if you have questions about what American Indians look like, idiot.