Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you guys think, is this MFA fighter extremely smart, or an asshead?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/mma_experts/post/Jeff-Monson-charged-with-mischief-ESPN-not-an-a?urn=mma,134737

I'm with it

as long as he has the balls to take the punishment

10 years?

What is wrong with your country facepalm

For mischief?
WTF...????



Watch out..!

Everyone from the The Banana Splits, the Gremlins all the way to circus clowns..
ALL will shit themselves where they hear of this new precident.

The guy was a bit stupid if he courted the publicity and was be shocked when they printed the story.

So MENSA can move on and forget all about this clued-up cat.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
For mischief?
WTF...????



Watch out..!

Everyone from the The Banana Splits, the Gremlins all the way to circus clowns..
ALL will shit themselves where they hear of this new precident.

The guy was a bit stupid if he courted the publicity and was be shocked when they printed the story.

So MENSA can move on and forget all about this clued-up cat.

He did it with perfect forethought, as the article may imply.

He may have fully known the ramifications of this and realized that it would stir publicity for him, furthering his deep beliefs.



You see, you don't need to be a religious fanatic to be a moron who yells and screams their believes to all who won't and will hear.

Guy is an idiot, as are the majority of self labeled "anarchist" are.

I love the fact that most anarchists organise their protests...the exact opposite of anarchy...There's even a group called the "anarchist alliance"...hahaha...idiots

lol

boo, label the man an idiot for political disobedience

The article essentially spells out why the guy would have probably know what was up, it appears to be fairly obvious he was looking to make a point. Jeez, hate free expression a little more. Conformists.

Originally posted by jaden101
I love the fact that most anarchists organise their protests...the exact opposite of anarchy...There's even a group called the "anarchist alliance"...hahaha...idiots

actually, I have to agree with that

its because the idiot pinkos arent REAL anarchists,

Originally posted by jaden101
There's even a group called the "anarchist alliance"...hahaha...idiots




I googled it. That is..just...retarded. lol


http://groups.msn.com/AnarchistAlliance

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
What do you guys think, is this MFA fighter extremely smart, or an asshead?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/mma_experts/post/Jeff-Monson-charged-with-mischief-ESPN-not-an-a?urn=mma,134737

When i first read this story i wondered why the writer of the article even bothered to pose his structure around such a ridiculous question. Of course he is a fuking idiot. For one, he is a grown ass man. A grown ass man has no business taking up spirits in juvenile behavior. Secondly, it was a blatant stunt for attention. It isn't as though some nightstalker happened by and photographed buddy in the act. He wasn't caught by a London big brother-esque security camera. He taunted espn with the story. The writer is giving this guy more credit even if he does believe that dude is a brick head. The writer should flammed the dude for the idgit that he is and focused on the severity of the charges. The charges that this lame brain is facing is the only sympathetic aspect to the story. This shit is getting ridiculous. first Plaxico Burress get's ass raped after shooting HIMSELF with a legal but state legal firearm and now this bullshit. This guy kind of deserves everything that will come at him, other than the possibility of a slap on the wrist and a raise in popularity.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

boo, label the man an idiot for political disobedience

The article essentially spells out why the guy would have probably know what was up, it appears to be fairly obvious he was looking to make a point. Jeez, hate free expression a little more. Conformists.

Nah I didnt label him one for that... just his thinking of lack thereof in the instance is what garners him the idiot tag.

Nothing to do witht he the guy's agenda.

Yeah those organised anarchists have no sense of irony, it would seem.

Like those who "believe in Nihilism".

Originally posted by Robtard
Guy is an idiot, as are the majority of self labeled "anarchist" are. Buncha wannabe Tyler Durden's.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

boo, label the man an idiot for political disobedience

The article essentially spells out why the guy would have probably know what was up, it appears to be fairly obvious he was looking to make a point. Jeez, hate free expression a little more. Conformists.

"Political disobedience" my right ass-cheek, all he did was debase property with graffiti, no different than the other idiots who write their "tags" with spray-paint.

He has the right to free expression; I'd support him in that, he doesn't have the right to ruin property that isn't his. He could have easily sprayed his little symbol on his house, car, shirt etc. and rebelled against the system; which of course, he is a part of, since it's likely he works, pays taxes, buys consumer goods etc. Anarchist, my left ass-cheek.

I think that it is a little mundane to assume that because anarchist object to centralised governmental control they should also be against the forming of associations to further their goals. Indeed it is to be expected, people working together for the greater good (as they see it).

The greater good.....

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think that it is a little mundane to assume that because anarchist object to centralised governmental control they should also be against the forming of associations to further their goals. Indeed it is to be expected, people working together for the greater good (as they see it).

Order is essentially the anti-anarchy equation, so they may work together for a common goal, anarchist they are not. Maybe the diet version of anarchist.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The greater good.....

It is a matter of authority. Anarchists do not want faceless corporations and government bodies have authority over he people. However that does not preclude the possibility of people working together which ultimately is the utopian world from an Anarchist perspective.

Think of what association means- associates, a company of equals.

Anarchy is nothing to do with the absense of order. It is about removing superiors and rulers.

And any anarchist who thinks a bit of graffiti on a building will change the world had best go back the drawing board and do some thinking.

The guy seems to be a bit of a self publicist, allowing cameras to be there.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It is a matter of authority. Anarchists do not want faceless corporations and government bodies have authority over he people. However that does not preclude the possibility of people working together which ultimately is the utopian world from an Anarchist perspective.

Think of what association means- associates, a company of equals.

Anarchy is nothing to do with the absense of order. I gotcha.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And any anarchist who thinks a bit of graffiti on a building will change the world had best go back the drawing board and do some thinking.

The guy seems to be a bit of a self publicist, allowing cameras to be there.

It's like the sign in your sig...about getting publicity for the cause.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It is a matter of authority. Anarchists do not want faceless corporations and government bodies have authority over he people. However that does not preclude the possibility of people working together which ultimately is the utopian world from an Anarchist perspective.

Think of what association means- associates, a company of equals.

Anarchy is nothing to do with the absense of order.

Yet the once they have excerted their influence and controlled the people, becoming the new establishment, ineffect, do they then commit suicide out of principles...?

Or grab the great big paychecks with both hands...?

There are millions of bank managers in the world, Im sure who all listened to rock music and hated 'the man' once.


Well Im sure the ten years'll be worth him having defeated his enemy: A clean wall.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It's like the sin in your sig...about getting publicity for the cause.

Sin...? What...free thinking?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yet the once they have excerted their influence and controlled the people, becoming the new establishment, ineffect, do they then commit suicide out of principles...?

Or grab the great big paychecks with both hands...?

There are millions of bank managers in the world, Im sure who all listened to rock music and hated 'the man' once.


Well Im sure the ten years'll be worth him having defeated his enemy: A clean wall.

Ad hominem much?

You totally fail to address the principles of anarchy (which it is clear you know very little if anything about) and in doing so fail to put forward a decent argument. Sure, I agree that anarchy seems like a very very unlikely eventuality for any country...because there will always be positions of power and power corrupts as we know.

Think of Animal Farm.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Sin...? What...free thinking?

sorry I meant sign.

god, not to start another thread about anarchy, but anyone who thinks social organization is against anarchist beliefs is woefully ignorant of them.

...the remark about "real" anarchists was a joke...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You totally fail to address the principles of anarchy (which it is clear you know very little if anything about) and in doing so fail to put forward a decent argument.

Nonsense. Any idiot can use google to become versed in the principles of anarchy in 30 minutes or less.

Just for shits and giggles, I'll do it now.

Originally posted by inimalist
god, not to start another thread about anarchy, but anyone who thinks social organization is against anarchist beliefs is woefully ignorant of them.

...the remark about "real" anarchists was a joke...

Thank you!!!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nonsense. Any idiot can use google to become versed in the principles of anarchy in 30 minutes or less.

Just for shits and giggles, I'll do it now.

You only need five, go over the Wikipedia article.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Thank you!!!

oh, you are preaching to the choir on this one

tell people they don't need the government and they think you want to rape babies

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Ad hominem much?

You totally fail to address the principles of anarchy (which it is clear you know very little if anything about) and in doing so fail to put forward a decent argument. Sure, I agree that anarchy seems like a very very unlikely eventuality for any country...because there will always be positions of power and power corrupts as we know.

Think of Animal Farm.

You cant fail in that which you dont attempt.

(Something you might remember when you next thinking of attempting to go on a big personal attack without knowing anything about the person you address.)

Since my being aware of animal farm probably (both Orwellian and porn versions) before you were born is a factor, I'd tighten the lip a little, if were I you.



Now fail on...

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, you are preaching to the choir on this one

tell people they don't need the government and they think you want to rape babies

Preaching...choir...rape...

There is some sort of subliminal message here...

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
You cant fail in that which you dont attempt.

Is that your bail out Clause? "Oh, I never tried to argue about Anarchy".

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
(Something you might remember when you next thinking of attempting to go on a big personal attack without knowing anything about the person you address.)
Introducing the mystery clause now? "Oh, for all you know I am a professor in anarchy.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Since my being aware of animal farm probably (both Orwellian and porn versions) before you were born is a factor, I'd tighten the lip a little, if were I you.



Now fail on...



So you're claiming that because it is possible that you were aware of a book (does that mean you've not read it?) longer than I have existed you therefore know more about it's content and the mysteries of the world? That must be the third and final clause "Older and Wiser". Three simple steps of trying to win an argument which you have already lost...

I said win I should really have said salvage...also, why not address what I said and talk about how anarchy is wrong or admit that you are not that well versed in anarchy and move on? Also, since the Pope is older and therefore wiser than you...no doubt aware of the Bible before you were born (I'd go so far as to say he read it before you were born). Will you be converting to Catholicism?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
sorry I meant sign.

Ah ok.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Preaching...choir...rape...

There is some sort of subliminal message here...

completely freudian, I assure you

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, you are preaching to the choir on this one

tell people they don't need the government and they think you want to rape babies

A needlessly extreme view.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
A needlessly extreme view.

or the use of exaggeration for the sake of humor?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You only need five, go over the Wikipedia article.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Any idiot can use google to become versed in the principles of anarchy in 30 minutes or less.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Hmm you're being interestingly aggressive today...why don't you go off and read that wikipedia page?

It might save you from making another "ooh anarchist alliance, that is totally against what they believe in, I know that because...well I know that...they must be retards." error.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Preaching...choir...rape...

There is some sort of subliminal message here...



Is that your bail out Clause? "Oh, I never tried to argue about Anarchy".


Introducing the mystery clause now? "Oh, for all you know I am a professor in anarchy.



So you're claiming that because it is possible that you were aware of a book (does that mean you've not read it?) longer than I have existed you therefore know more about it's content and the mysteries of the world? That must be the third and final clause "Older and Wiser". Three simple steps of trying to win an argument which you have already lost...

I said win I should really have said salvage...also, why not address what I said and talk about how anarchy is wrong or admit that you are not that well versed in anarchy and move on? Also, since the Pope is older and therefore wiser than you...no doubt aware of the Bible before you were born (I'd go so far as to say he read it before you were born). Will you be converting to Catholicism?

A needless reactionary much?
Yeah continue inaccurately pigeonholing too.

NO bailout was neccesary.

Again, see above.

And again see aboves.

I wasnt debating against anarchy.
I was debating that the protest was very ineffective, when it came balanced against ten years in clink, my argument was that it might have been better executed maybe or in a way that engendered some kind of statement/message that'd get people focused...

I mean....What did that really do in terms of generating any idea/trigger for change..?

That paint'll be gone next week, whereas he has butt sex on tap whether he wants it or not now...

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
A needless reactionary much?

NO bailout was neccesary.

Again, see above.

And again see aboves.

I wasnt debating against anarchy.
I was debating that the protest was very ineffective, when it came balanced against ten years in clink, my argument was that it might have been better executed maybe or in a way that engendered some kind of statement/message that'd get people focused...

I mean....What did that really do in terms of generating any idea/trigger for change..?

That paint'll be gone next week, whereas he has butt sex on tap whether he wants it or not now...

As I said, his methodology was the same as Humanist group who commissioned the sign in your sig.

Indeed. But maybe the guy wouldve reached more if only if he copied it a few hundred times and slapped it where it'd be seen beyond a quick news report....like even on Buses up and down the country. Now that'd almost be worth a few years inside...

And I bet the humanist message was heard of more than this guy's.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Only if he copied it a few hundred times and slapped it where it'd be seen beyond a quick news report. I bet the humanist message was heard of more than this guy's.

I am pretty positive there are more of those Anarachy signs in the world than there are "There's probably no God." signs...though maybe that's because it is a better symbol than your sig is a slogan...

If nothing else I'm sure it gave him a sense of worth and satisfaction... that will no doubt have worn off after a week or so in prison.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Hmm you're being interestingly aggressive today

It's called emulation...or rather, I'm mocking you.


Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
...why don't you go off and read that wikipedia page?


Would you shit yourself if you found out that I contributed to the article?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It might save you from making another "ooh anarchist alliance, that is totally against what they believe in, I know that because...well I know that...they must be retards." error.

lol, fail


I recommend you pull your head out of that tight little ass of yours. On the way out, sniff your balls just for fun.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's called emulation...or rather, I'm mocking you.





Would you shit yourself if you found out that I contributed to the article?



lol, fail


I recommend you pull your head out of that tight little ass of yours. On the way out, sniff your balls just for fun.

What's got into you? Upset that you made a stupid "ooh anarchy association, how contradictory" mistake?

I see you're trying to implement Clause No. 2, the mystery clause. "Maybe I did know all about anarchy...maybe I wrote the wikipedia page".

Emulation or Imitation?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I am pretty positive there are more of those Anarachy signs in the world than there are "There's probably no God." signs...though maybe that's because it is a better symbol than your sig is a slogan...

If nothing else I'm sure it gave him a sense of worth and satisfaction... that will no doubt have worn off after a week or so in prison.

I think youre right there on both counts.

But if anarchy hasnt happened, whereas atheism is on the rise, then despite the anarchy symbol's strength, you might be forgiven for questioning that symbol's effectiveness.

How many peace symbols are there in the world...?

If we dropped a bunch of peace symbols on two warring factions, say like Gaza/Israel two weeks ago, would the fighting stop..?

Of course not.

Slogans are more effective because good ones make people think.
Logos dont.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I think youre right there on both counts.

But if anarchy hasnt happened, whereas atheism is on the rise, then despite the anarchy symbol's strength, you might be forgiven for questioning that symbol's effectiveness.

How many peace symbols are there in the world.

If we dropped a bunch of peace symbols on two warring factions, say like Gaza/Israel two weeks ago, would the fighting stop..?

Of course not.

Slogans are more effective because good ones make people think.
Logos dont.

Tell that to Joseph Goebbels.

Bring him forth, and I will.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
What's got into you?

Nothing, Mr. Serious Pants.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Upset that you made a stupid "ooh anarchy association, how contradictory" mistake?

Not at all.


It's still funny to me in an ironic way Mr. "I don't know what humor is because I like to pretend to be enlightened on the internet."

edit-

Nothing you say or do or anyone says or does will ever change how I thought it was funny when I read it.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I see you're trying to implement Clause No. 2, the mystery clause. "Maybe I did know all about anarchy...maybe I wrote the wikipedia page".

Right, because that's EXACTLY what I said or implied. Good job, enlightened one.


Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Emulation or Imitation?

If I emulate one who imitates (but fails) is that indirect imitation via proxy?

I call to the stand the late Dr. Joseph Goebbels.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nothing, Mr. Serious Pants.



Not at all.


It's still funny to my in an ironic way in a "I don't know what humor is because I like to pretend to be enlightened on the internet."



Right, because that's EXACTLY what I said or implied. Good job, enlightened one.




If I emulate one who imitates (but fails) is that indirect imitation via proxy?

I think this comes under clause number one really...your now trying to construe that you don't take this discussion seriously whereas I do take it seriously ergo I am obviously an idiot in real life.

I don't want to continue this banter with you here, if you want to discuss anarchy or the specific thread topic we can do that.

Go on then. If everyone in the world saw that sign.... All at once, what do you think would happen...?

What other information could everyone extrapolate from it, beyond "Oooooohh! Its an anarchy sign......?"

Uh-uh. The old 'clause' clause again



Gonna have to get a 'clause box' going in here...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I call to the stand the late Dr. Joseph Goebbels.

I call to the stand Angalina Jolie, who is naked.


LOL! You're so stupid. You didn't know that in a court of law, you can't have a dead person testify. Wow, you are soooo clueless. Look at your stupid little joke fail horribly. lol. I can't even believe this.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Go on then. If everyone in the world saw that sign.... All at once, what do you think would happen...?

What other information could everyone extrapolate from it, beyond "Oooooohh! Its an anarchy sign......?"

I think because the sign has been embraced by a movement which is largely considered to be made up of teenagers and social misfits who all grow out of the "phase" it's impact has been totally eroded.

Similar to the peace sign you referred to earlier- when people see it they think of hippies, smoking drugs and music festivals.

However, the Swastika is also a sign, you have to admit that still has a pretty powerful impact.

I was never saying he was making a good tactical decision but I think it is true that it does publicise his cause which I assume was his intention...if nothing else it keeps the idea of anarchy in the public eye...though as we can see from dadudemon's posts...they don't usually know what it is.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I call to the stand Angalina Jolie, who is naked.


LOL! You're so stupid. You didn't know that in a court of law, you can't have a dead person testify. Wow, you are soooo clueless. Look at your stupid little joke fail horribly. lol. I can't even believe this.
Monty Python reference, therefore totally valid therefore I win and you continue to be a dick.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think this comes under clause number one really...your now trying to construe that you don't take this discussion seriously whereas I do take it seriously ergo I am obviously an idiot in real life.

You can pretend all you want. Most children grow out of the, "They are not kids because those are adolescent goats!" type of mentality.


I'm sure you would have done fine in the Spanish Inquisition with your predecessors.



Also, no matter how well versed you think you are in the concepts of anarchy, an organization of anarchists is contradictory on such a stupid level that it's humorous. I know I know, I know nothing of anarchy because you fail at logic. Whatever.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I don't want to continue this banter with you here, if you want to discuss anarchy or the specific thread topic we can do that.

We are discussing your fail with anarchy and humor. Discuss on.


Or is this clause #4. The clause that one implements to pretend that they aren't interested in a "discussion" because they can't really continue a ruse of enlightenment?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can pretend all you want. Most children grow out of the, "They are not kids because those are adolescent goats!" type of mentality.


I'm sure you would have done fine in the Spanish Inquisition with your predecessors.



Also, no matter how well versed you think you are in the concepts of anarchy, an organization of anarchists is contradictory on such a stupid level that it's humorous. I know I know, I know nothing of anarchy because you fail at logic. Whatever.



We are discussing your fail with anarchy and humor. Discuss on.


Or is this clause #4. The clause that one implements to pretend that they aren't interested in a "discussion" because they can't really continue a ruse of enlightenment?

So you are saying per the laws of anarchism an organisation of anarchists would be contrary to their belief system?

This is untrue. Social Organisation is the basis of anarchy.

Just because you don't know what anarchy is doesn't mean you have to be such a wanker, please grow up. If I am the one in the wrong and I am the one who has got anarchy wrong doesn't mean you have to be such a wanker, please grow up.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So you are saying per the laws of anarchism an organisation of anarchists would be contrary to their belief system?

No, you're still missing why it's humorous. Don't worry, humor is not for everyone.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
This is untrue. Social Organisation is the basis of anarchy.

No its not, you idiot. Its basis is individualism and self management.

From these stems the many philosophies of anarchy.

Indeed, some outsiders think of anarchy as chaos or fundamentally apolitical. But you also feel it's necessary to lump me in with those because you failed to understand some harmless humor.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Just because you don't know what anarchy is doesn't mean you have to be such a wanker, please grow up. If I am the one in the wrong and I am the one who has got anarchy wrong doesn't mean you have to be such a wanker, please grow up.


lol

You tell me to grow up when you're the one responding like a toddler having a tantrum.

You're turning a blind eye to your own diminutive posts while whining about how "aggressive" and wankish I'm being. These same derisive posts of yours are being parodized by my self and you think its me being aggressive. You're just being an idiot, especially considering I already told you that that is what I was doing.


Second of all, I'll explain to you in adult terms why it's funny that the Anarchy Alliance exists.

Anarchy is commonly used to describe a state of horrid cut-throat lawlessness (Anomie). Obviously, that is not the type of anarchy being discussed. That wasn't really the intention of Jaden's joke either. (I assume.) I think you've erroneously lumped me in with a large number of people who really don't know much more about anarchy other than this definition solely because you didn't get a joke.



Anarchy, in a "political" sense can be used to describe, straight from the wikipedia page, "A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists)." Now, superficially, an organization by the name Anarchy Alliance is contradictory on so many levels that it is humorous. You fail to see that. Your fault. Now, you can whine about the fundamentals of philosophical anarchy and profess it's greatness while bitching about it being misunderstood; but that's really just lame on your part.

In other words....


Great. We're sooooo proud of you for pointing out that social cohesion, both before and after idealistic anarchy is established (regardless of the flavor it comes in), is a necessary device of anarchy fruition. Really awesome of you to point that out for all of us because none of us realized that before your enlightened us.


Oh!




Wait. Never mind. We already knew that kids were young goats. doped





I'm willing to give you a second chance. If you can give me more than one reason of why the Anarchy Alliance is humorous and/or contradictory, I'll look over your humor failure that occurs much too often such as this being spammed too many damn times:

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor. Take him away!


Note: It wasn't funny the one millionth time. Morons and crazy people do that stuff. And conveniently enough, so do toddlers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you're still missing why it's humorous. Don't worry, humor is not for everyone.



No its not, you idiot. Its basis is individualism and self management.

From these stems the many philosophies of anarchy.

Indeed, some outsiders think of anarchy as chaos or fundamentally apolitical. But you also feel it's necessary to lump me in with those because you failed to understand some harmless humor.




lol

You tell me to grow up when you're the one responding like a toddler having a tantrum.

You're turning a blind eye to your own diminutive posts while whining about how "aggressive" and wankish I'm being. These same derisive posts of yours are being parodized by my self and you think its me being aggressive. You're just being an idiot, especially considering I already told you that that is what I was doing.


Second of all, I'll explain to you in adult terms why it's funny that the Anarchy Alliance exists.

Anarchy is commonly used to describe a state of horrid cut-throat lawlessness (Anomie). Obviously, that is not the type of anarchy being discussed. That wasn't really the intention of Jaden's joke either. (I assume.) I think you've erroneously lumped me in with a large number of people who really don't know much more about anarchy other than this definition solely because you didn't get a joke.



Anarchy, in a "political" sense can be used to describe, straight from the wikipedia page, "A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists)." Now, superficially, an organization by the name Anarchy Alliance is contradictory on so many levels that it is humorous. You fail to see that. Your fault. Now, you can whine about the fundamentals of philosophical anarchy and profess it's greatness while bitching about it being misunderstood; but that's really just lame on your part.

In other words....


Great. We're sooooo proud of you for pointing out that social cohesion, both before and after idealistic anarchy is established (regardless of the flavor it comes in), is a necessary device of anarchy fruition. Really awesome of you to point that out for all of us because none of us realized that before your enlightened us.


Oh!




Wait. Never mind. We already knew that kids were young goats. doped





I'm willing to give you a second chance. If you can give me more than one reason of why the Anarchy Alliance is humorous and/or contradictory, I'll look over your humor failure that occurs much too often such as this being spammed too many damn times:




Note: It wasn't funny the one millionth time. Morons and crazy people do that stuff. And conveniently enough, so do toddlers.

Wow thanks, I totally agree with everything you said and retract all my wrongful statements.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Wow thanks, I totally agree with everything you said and retract all my wrongful statements.


*lights a cigarette and slowly smokes it*

Originally posted by dadudemon
*lights a cigarette and slowly smokes it*

That'll be the lion tamed...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
That'll be the lion tamed...


Nah...that's what I do right after sex.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah...that's what I do right after sex.
How stereotypical.

Originally posted by inimalist


tell people they don't need the government and they think you want to rape babies

It's not that, Anarchy fails to address that people aren't able (at least not now) to live in this perfect world it depends on to exist, where greed doesn't exist. Build that utopian world first and fill it with people that won't want more than their neighbor or won't want to lead others, then Anarchy can reign.

So order is needed and governments provide that, unless we all go back to small tribes of 30 or so people. Even then, those small tribes had hierarchy, so in a sense they had a form of government.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah...that's what I do right after sex.

Cry?

Originally posted by Robtard
Cry?

No.

I wipe my shitty dick on your upper lip.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's not that, Anarchy fails to address that people aren't able (at least not now) to live in this perfect world it depends on to exist, where greed doesn't exist. Build that utopian world first and fill it with people that won't want more than their neighbor or won't want to lead others, then Anarchy can reign.

So order is needed and governments provide that, unless we all go back to small tribes of 30 or so people. Even then, those small tribes had hierarchy, so in a sense they had a form of government.

Evidence?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Evidence?

I call the to the stand "The Real World" as my witness.


Sometimes certain truths are just much too obvious. Why would ANY scientist try to prove that humans are greedy or selfish?


When a scientific study is undertaken, it is to gain new knowledge or a new perspective.

I mean, how lame would it be to pick up National Geographic and on the front of the cover it says, "New Study Shows Humans Are Selfish." My first reaction would be, "NO WAY!"


But here's something that you may or may not be aware of. Not exactly a double blind study that's been peer reviewed, but scientific, none the less. It's a good read. I like this guy.

http://astore.amazon.com/science-books-20/detail/0199291152





Now, I submit to you that if it were not for technology and modern medicine, humans would have continued to evolve into a more altruistic species. I would say that something like pure communism or pure anarchy would be possible. However, humanity is far and away removed from being altruistic enough to execute those systems. We are simple...wait for it...too selfish.

As a budding priest, you probably know better than most that the natural man is an enemy of God. This is simply how God made us.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I call the to the stand "The Real World" as my witness.


Sometimes certain truths are just much too obvious. Why would ANY scientist try to prove that humans are greedy or selfish?


When a scientific study is undertaken, it is to gain new knowledge or a new perspective.

I mean, how lame would it be to pick up National Geographic and on the front of the cover it says, "New Study Shows Humans Are Selfish." My first reaction would be, "NO WAY!"


But here's something that you may or may not be aware of. Not exactly a double blind study that's been peer reviewed, but scientific, none the less. It's a good read. I like this guy.

http://astore.amazon.com/science-books-20/detail/0199291152

Yeah I am aware of the book...never read it though, perhaps I should. Surely to say accurately that anarchy doesn't work you have to test it? I assume communities that exist in anarchy have been set up and tested...it seems like a fairly viable TV programme experiment if nothing else.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now, I submit to you that if it were not for technology and modern medicine, humans would have continued to evolve into a more altruistic species. I would say that something like pure communism or pure anarchy would be possible. However, humanity is far and away removed from being altruistic enough to execute those systems. We are simple...wait for it...too selfish.

As a budding priest, you probably know better than most that the natural man is an enemy of God. This is simply how God made us.

Man is the enemy of man...maybe...

Still, I am unsure if a truely selfish species would be able to come up with and propgate such an ideology...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Yeah I am aware of the book...never read it though, perhaps I should. Surely to say accurately that anarchy doesn't work you have to test it? I assume communities that exist in anarchy have been set up and tested...it seems like a fairly viable TV programme experiment if nothing else.

Wasn't Europe in the dark ages a form of anarchy? It's been years since I studied the history of political science like that...maybe a whole decade. I can't remember if they pegged some of that existence as "anarchy".


You could probably remember for me.


But, yeah, "anarchisms" exist out there to a certain degree, but even in those systems there are very strong social norms and social positions (such as shaman) that don't make it pure anarchy in the sense that you and I would agree on. I could be wrong....because I'm not an anthropologist. There very well could be human systems out there that are excellent examples of anarchy.



Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Man is the enemy of man...maybe...

I could have sworn that the natural man is the enemy of God is in the New Testament?

*researches*


I'm right.

1 Corinthians 2:14

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Still, I am unsure if a truely selfish species would be able to come up with and propgate such an ideology...


I'm not sure how I'm supposed to interpret this because I'm thinking of about 3 or 4 ways to take this. I'll just go with what I like.

Our species is both selfless and selfish. Our species is so very successful because of all the built in "altruisms."

However, greed and the like are so prevelant that we massacre each other on a daily basis.

Those altruisms you speak of again might actually coincide with the 'selfish humans' thang too.

The idea being that those 'do good' instincts were formed as a method of ensuring a better tommorrow for the instinct holder.
(Nature's way of ensuring that you learn the idea of things you do affecting your survival prospects tommorrow.)

Interestingly, people who spend way too much time alone, seem lose this instinct a little, their social skills alter and become very "selfish" or utterly self orientated.... this makes that look like a default mode of existance minus other people/social stimulus...

Just an observation.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Those altruisms you speak of again might actually coincide with the 'selfish humans' thang too.

The idea being that those 'do good' instincts were formed as a method of ensuring a better tommorrow for the instinct holder.
(Nature's way of ensuring that you learn the idea of things you do affecting your survival prospects tommorrow.)

Interestingly, people who spend way too much time alone, seem lose this instinct a little, their social skills alter and become very "selfish" or utterly self orientated.... this makes that look like a default mode of existance minus other people/social stimulus...

Just an observation.

Actually, you're correct. I believe inimalist cited a source for what you're on about in the religion section for a thread about where atheists get their morals.

Cool.

I don't really go in there, not wanting to piss in a pool just cause I have chosen not to swim in it....

Good to hear that its been addressed though.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
What do you guys think, is this MFA fighter extremely smart, or an asshead?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/mma_experts/post/Jeff-Monson-charged-with-mischief-ESPN-not-an-a?urn=mma,134737 Well, it's obviously for publicity. I don't think he's dumb anyways, whether he's really smart, don't know. I would doubt he'd get 10 years for that though, I would assume that the maximum sentence is not applied to some minor vandalism.

Originally posted by jaden101
I love the fact that most anarchists organise their protests...the exact opposite of anarchy...There's even a group called the "anarchist alliance"...hahaha...idiots

Groups or clubs aren't opposites of anarchist thought. They are quite valid and included in anarchist ideas, you are probably thinking of a solely chaos seeking anarchy which would deny all formal structure in anything. Which is really a quite simplistic view of Anarchy in general.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, you're correct. I believe inimalist cited a source for what you're on about in the religion section for a thread about where atheists get their morals.

the study says nothing of introverts being less altruistic, which it appears to me was Sadako's main point...

Originally posted by Robtard
It's not that, Anarchy fails to address that people aren't able (at least not now) to live in this perfect world it depends on to exist, where greed doesn't exist. Build that utopian world first and fill it with people that won't want more than their neighbor or won't want to lead others, then Anarchy can reign.

So order is needed and governments provide that, unless we all go back to small tribes of 30 or so people. Even then, those small tribes had hierarchy, so in a sense they had a form of government.

anarchy is not utopian, nor do I believe it as such. All systems have problems.

many communities of self selected individuals have established societies in places like Costa Rica which are self sufficient and essentially "anarchist" in their forms of government.

In Spain, Anarchists were able to set up vibrant communities which only fell because of Franco and the fascists.

Kronstadt, in Russia, would from all appearances have been successful were its people not obliterated by the russian army.

Historically, before the establishment of fixed social institutions (and in many cases afterward) tribal and band societies have had very fluid authority systems, largely created for single instances of action or out of necessity. Almost identical to the social organization that anarchists find to be the most beneficial.

Look, there have been more than enough "shit on anarchy" thread, just go revive one of them.

Originally posted by inimalist
Look, there have been more than enough "shit on anarchy" thread, just go revive one of them.

I'm not here to shit on anarchy for the sake of shitting on anarchy, imo, it fails, like true communism. Not that speaking about anarchy is completely off-topic, but okay.

I still think the guy is a fool, he vandalised a building and tried to pass it off as something else. IMO, he'll get slapped with the maximum fine and probably serve a very short jail sentence; it's for him to decide if the publicity he garnished from said stunt is worth the dollars and time lost.

To be fair, he didn't vandalize personal property. He vandalized the Capitol building which is run with the money the state government stole from him and all other citizens. Really, he just painted his own share of the building in an eccentric way.

Originally posted by inimalist
the study says nothing of introverts being less altruistic, which it appears to me was Sadako's main point...
Was the study addressing that dynamic?

No thats just observed in RL with all of the people Id known over the years who are reclusive.. (some intensely reclusive people, not just people who prefer to stay in.)

Also my ex GF was and an NHS OT.... And she agreed with me also, based on her experience with patients..

So until disproved, In going with my theory that there is some relationship there..

Hell. I'll study it. Giss some funds then.....

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not here to shit on anarchy for the sake of shitting on anarchy, imo, it fails, like true communism. Not that speaking about anarchy is completely off-topic, but okay.

I still think the guy is a fool, he vandalised a building and tried to pass it off as something else. IMO, he'll get slapped with the maximum fine and probably serve a very short jail sentence; it's for him to decide if the publicity he garnished from said stunt is worth the dollars and time lost.

you can say it isn't a political statement all you want, I hardly think that is the judge.

He deserves whatever sentence he gets, and any point he tried to make is lost if he doesn't take it.

I think most people would agree it isn't a political statement, but okay. If I were to spray-paint "****" on the side of a police car and claim I did it as a statement against police corruption, would it cease to be vandalism and be a "political statement?"

He'll hire a lawyer and fight it, it'd guess.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Was the study addressing that dynamic?

no, hence my comment

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
No thats just observed in RL with all of the people Id known over the years who are reclusive.. (some intensely reclusive people, not just people who prefer to stay in.)

Also my ex GF was and an NHS OT.... And she agreed with me also, based on her experience with patients..

So until disproved, In going with my theory.

not surprising, most people do that even in light of really good evidence

Originally posted by Bardock42
To be fair, he didn't vandalize personal property. He vandalized the Capitol building which is run with the money the state government stole from him and all other citizens. Really, he just painted his own share of the building in an eccentric way.

His bit was the brass ring on the light fitting that held the lights on the landing of the second floor.

He actually vandalised Robtard's bit, which I personally think was selfish and thoughtless...

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
His bit was the brass ring on the light fitting that held the lights on the landing of the second floor.

He actually vandalised Robtard's bit, which I personally think was selfish and thoughtless...



Na, mine's a square inch on the third step furtherest left. Think I'll paste some chewed gum on mine.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, hence my comment



not surprising, most people do that even in light of really good evidence

Well lucky im not most people then, I guess.


Anybody that knows me knows that show me some convincing evidence and I'll readjust my theory.

Nothing is as convincing to people as something they've experienced first hand. (Whereas some'll just substitute that for whatever they read in a book or on the net.)

And thank f*** Im not one of those people.

Originally posted by Robtard
Na, mine's a square inch on the third step furtherest left. Think I'll paste some chewed gum on mine.

They gave you a bit of the stairway? Holy shit. How much tax were YOU paying....? At least its someplace on the way up, I guess.

It is your prerogative, on your personal designated plot.

Originally posted by inimalist
the study says nothing of introverts being less altruistic, which it appears to me was Sadako's main point...

Ah. Okay. I was referring only to this portion of his post.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Those altruisms you speak of again might actually coincide with the 'selfish humans' thang too.

The idea being that those 'do good' instincts were formed as a method of ensuring a better tommorrow for the instinct holder.
(Nature's way of ensuring that you learn the idea of things you do affecting your survival prospects tommorrow.)



I thought that third part was an aside. I was referring to some altruistic behaviors being selfish behaviors in disguise. I could have sworn you posted a study on that or cited something on that in that atheist morals thread.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well lucky im not most people then, I guess.

most people aren't

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Show me some convincing evidence and I'll readjust my theory.

I don't think I've ever expressed a desire to make you do so

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nothing is as convincing to people as something they've experienced first hand.

almost the specific reason why eye witness testimony is considered much poorer than physical evidence in court and why in the science of psychology, first hand reports of things are the anathema of most research programs.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
(Whereas some'll just substitute this for whatever they read in a book or on the net for this.)

yes, because there are no books that are more informative than the never-failing human brain

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And thank f*** Im not one of those people.

certainly not

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought that third part was an aside. I was referring to some altruistic behaviors being selfish behaviors in disguise. I could have sworn you posted a study on that or cited something on that in that atheist morals thread.

I believe I did

I just didn't want there to be any confusion

I have provided empirical support for the idea that altruism can be selfishly motivated and is not reliant on religious structures, not that introverts are less altruistic.

Originally posted by inimalist
most people aren't



I don't think I've ever expressed a desire to make you do so


yes, because there are no books that are more informative than the never-failing human brain



Yes. Rotten lousy individuality. We really must have that erradicated some day.


Ah. Fair play.

And til computers actually start writing books themselves, all books rely on the human brain to write them.

Originally posted by inimalist


I have provided empirical support for the idea that altruism can be selfishly motivated and is not reliant on religious structures, not that introverts are less altruistic.

Wouldn't it cease to be altruism once the 'selfish' aspect entered the equation?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And til computers actually start writing books themselves, all books rely on the human brain to write them.

some brains are better than others, and computers will rely on the same problem, as they will be built by humans.

Provided someone isn't a chronic liar, it is fairly easy to find information you can be certain is more reliable than your own experiences. You don't have to believe it obviously.

Originally posted by inimalist
I believe I did

I just didn't want there to be any confusion

I have provided empirical support for the idea that altruism can be selfishly motivated and is not reliant on religious structures, not that introverts are less altruistic.
I said nothing of introverts. I mean hardcore recluses with next to no human contact.

Shit if merely being an introvert was what I was talking about, then Id probably be describing half the posters on KMC as they are in RL....

Originally posted by Robtard
Wouldn't it cease to be altruism once the 'selfish' aspect entered the equation?

thats a problem for semantics and not for understanding the motivations of behaviour

my personal opinion, no

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I said nothing of introverts. I mean hardcore recluses with next to no human contact.

Shit if merely being an introvert was what I was talking about, then Id probably be describing half the posters on KMC as they are in RL....

I misinterpreted then

Originally posted by Robtard
Wouldn't it cease to be altruism once the 'selfish' aspect entered the equation?

Indeed there would have to be a radical new understanding of that word.

Originally posted by inimalist
I misinterpreted then

Ah ok... fair enough.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats a problem for semantics and not for understanding the motivations of behaviour

my personal opinion, no

That doesn't make sense, as altruism relies on selflessness, otherwise said actions would be something else, what, not sure the word.

Originally posted by Robtard
That doesn't make sense, as altruism relies on selflessness, otherwise said actions would be something else, what, not sure the word.

thats fine, it is totally outside of the scope of explaining behaviour, which was the point of the study.

"Altruistic behaviour" is normally defined as behaviour that appears to have a cost for the actor that is not related to any particular reward. Historically, this has been a problem for philosophy because of, exactly what you are saying.

In science though, people are less concerned with what the philosophical-linguistic ultimate meaning of the symbol "altruism" is, and more with what motivates those behaviours.

The reason I personally don't think it matters is that the English language wouldn't look remotely similar if all of the words used had to follow strict scientific definitions.

Whether something can ever be done with no sense of self (no) is rather moot, imho, in anything but the most academic philosophical discussions of the term, as we all generally know what "altruism" means when it is said.

Also, if I am not mistaken, altruism is almost always referred to as "pro-social behaviour" in scientific literature.

Originally posted by Robtard
That doesn't make sense, as altruism relies on selflessness, otherwise said actions would be something else, what, not sure the word.

No. It really is word semantics because it really would be half a dozen of one, six of the other.


Case in point, a cro-magnon mother cares greatly for her child to altruistic extreme's...putting her life in danger that she wouldn't have before the child; giving up food, that she normally would have eaten, for the child, etc.


On the surface, this is absurd altruism. However, take a genetic step back and you can see that it could also be classified as genetic selfishness. She is only doing what millions of years of mammalian evolution have her do. She is acting on selfish preservation genes. Instead of preserving herself, though, she is preserving her genes to selfishly keep ahead of the species attrition.



Edit- Oh, inimalist already answered...five minutes ahead of me. lol

And a dolphin helping a creature not of it's own species, what would that be?

I believe altruism relies on something not being instinctual in terms of survival, as child-caring clearly is.

Originally posted by Robtard
And a dolphin helping a creature not of it's own species, what would that be?

pro-social behaviour?

just because there is no reward for the animal in a particular instance does not mean that the behaviour might not have a survival benefit for the genes that create it.

humans have a cultural tradition of separating the world of nature from their own, thus all forms of cruelties are enacted on animals with total moral inertness. Maybe dolphins do not have a formalized culture that forces them to not assist other animals (and that is dumb anyways, people have been caring for animals for thousands of years)

Originally posted by Robtard
And a dolphin helping a creature not of it's own species, what would that be?


Excellent example.

One could argue that the programming causes cross species altruism. The more complex a species social skills, the complex the social interactions.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe altruism relies on something not being instinctual in terms of survival, as child-caring clearly is.

Cool. In this day in age, child-caring could be altruistic for one and not for another....there's some very selfish people out there who "straighten-up"....but we could argue programming again...and it starts over. So it really is word semantics.

Originally posted by Robtard
And a dolphin helping a creature not of it's own species, what would that be?

I believe altruism relies on something not being instinctual in terms of survival, as child-caring clearly is.

It could be a pack mentality thing maybe (just guessing)...?
Fear that if they dont take care of that shark mofo now, that it might be back to eat them or their young tommorrow...?
Stands to reason that genetic memory has maybe instilled a healthy respect/fear of sharks over the course of so many millions of years..

I assert none of this as fact, just it has me thinking as that is a good question. And I admit that I dont know enough about them to comment with any authority behind even an educated guess..

Originally posted by inimalist
pro-social behaviour?

just because there is no reward for the animal in a particular instance does not mean that the behaviour might not have a survival benefit for the genes that create it.

humans have a cultural tradition of separating the world of nature from their own, thus all forms of cruelties are enacted on animals with total moral inertness. Maybe dolphins do not have a formalized culture that forces them to not assist other animals (and that is dumb anyways, people have been caring for animals for thousands of years)

Not 100% certain what pro-social behavior is.

While possible, it could in turn not have a genetic root. Is it possible for true "altruism" to exist, or anything observed as altruistic, must have another underlying cause other than selflessness?

Mind you, I'm no expert and am not stating as fact, just curious.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not 100% certain what pro-social behavior is.

While possible, it could in turn not have a genetic root. Is it possible for true "altruism" to exist, or anything observed as altruistic, must have another underlying cause other than selflessness?

Mind you, I'm no expert and am not stating as fact, just curious.

I'm not really sure what selflessness is?

blah, we are getting to a point where my reductionism in understanding behaviour is going to be confusing.

I don't worry about altruism or things like that because they assume a large degree of volition in action, as if you are deciding to make a sacrifice to help someone as a thinking being, weighing all the available options, then acting.

I don't think we, or any animals, have that. It feels like we do, but imho most behaviour is completed before rationalizing it.

To me, pro-social behaviour (it is ambiguous, but basically behaviour that seems to benefit others and social interaction) is a result of those genes being selected for, and we do it because of those genetic drives. Almost on the surface, this view isn't really tenable with "can someone be selfless" because it assumes that all action is already motivated by the drives created by successfully reproduced genes, thus can be construed as being self driven.

I have no really good way to answer your question other than it being sort of moot to me, which I don't mean in a dismissive way, just that it seems too theoretical, even for me.

Not discussing anything you guys said, but you know that Dolphins are naturally psychopathic serial rape-murderers, right?


http://www.cracked.com/article_15853_6-cutest-animals-that-can-still-destroy-you.html

Look who made the first spot

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not really sure what selflessness is?

blah, we are getting to a point where my reductionism in understanding behaviour is going to be confusing.

I don't worry about altruism or things like that because they assume a large degree of volition in action, as if you are deciding to make a sacrifice to help someone as a thinking being, weighing all the available options, then acting.

I don't think we, or any animals, have that. It feels like we do, but imho most behaviour is completed before rationalizing it.


I think that it depends how consciously contemplative/self aware you are as an individual.



Also I think an individual's emotion is a variable that can get overlooked as a variable in this "where does good come from" debate.

And what you do subconsciously also.

I mean, no matter if you were consciously debating it in your own mind or not, certain logic will uphold..

For example. My natural position might be to hold the door open for a person after me as a leave a shop.

But if that person has just revealed themselves to be abusive passively or aggressively, due to the due amount of emotion that might cause in me, it will bring the reasoning process it to the conscious mind. And it will have baring affect my decision on the door opening.

This wouldnt take away from my default mode of my original pro social behavior.

Genetics definitely do play a big part of how we function socially, as evidenced by the existance of people with Autism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not discussing anything you guys said, but you know that Dolphins are naturally psychopathic serial rape-murderers, right?


http://www.cracked.com/article_15853_6-cutest-animals-that-can-still-destroy-you.html

Look who made the first spot

That was a great article. I'm serious. That was ****ing brilliant.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I think that it depends how consciously contemplative/self aware you are as an individual.



Also I think an individual's emotion is a variable that can get overlooked as a variable in this "where does good come from" debate.

And what you do subconsciously also.

I mean, no matter if you were consciously debating it in your own mind or not, certain logic will uphold..

For example. My natural position might be to hold the door open for a person after me as a leave a shop.

But if that person has just revealed themselves to be abusive passively or aggressively, due to the due amount of emotion that might cause in me, it will bring the reasoning process it to the conscious mind. And it will have baring affect my decision on the door opening.

This wouldnt take away from my default mode of my original pro social behavior.

Genetics definitely do play a big part of how we function socially, as evidenced by the existance of people with Autism.

indeed

but like the point I was trying to make, this is still not very reductionist. The more we reduce human consciousness (I'm talking about neuro pathways and stuff) the less important ideas like the self or will become.

my only point was that, in the way I understand human behaviour, we are currently talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Nowt wrong with a bit of that.

Thats what I assumed you meant... 'In the more Jungian sense'.

Seemed ironic that you were forced to use the phrase "The way I understand human behavior" while decrying the need for a view of the individual or 'self'.

And it fits oddly with the earlier statement that some have better brains than others.


Ourselves is all we are and I predict we'll never not be conscious of that as a part of all those millions of years of evolution.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
That was a great article. I'm serious. That was ****ing brilliant.

Cracked tends to be.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nowt wrong with a bit of that.

Thats what I assumed you meant... 'In the more Jungian sense'.

shudder, lol, I hope not the Jungian sense

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Seemed ironic that you were forced to use the phrase "The way I understand human behavior" while decrying the need for a view of the individual or 'self'.

ya, it is a little lame. I could talk about the pathway between the Pons in my Basal Ganglia and the reciprocal pathway between it and the frontal cortex, but I'm already confused.

I'm not really decrying the "need" for an individual self, just that there is no "self" at the neuro level. That feeling is built up based on the underlying actions of locations within the brain. Behaviour, as it pertains to being described by the action of neurons, really doesn't have room for a self, or put better, does not show evidence of having a "self" component

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And it fits oddly with the earlier statement that some have better brains than others.

lol

I'm also not trying to say anything about personal awareness or anything like that. Like, I'm aware of the early workings of human vision, yet there is little to nothing I can do with that information. Someone with a better brain wouldn't be more able to become aware of their orientation detectors in the LGN than I, simply because the parts of the brain that are responsible for compiling our subjective experience of reality are dependent on those, and not the other way around.

I never know if this stuff makes sense when I say it....

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Ourselves is all we are and I predict we'll never not be conscious of that as a part of all those millions of years of evolution.

yes, indeed, whatever "consciousness" is, we likely evolved it for a good reason and it probably isn't going anywhere. When you look at the activation of neurons and muscles in a paradigm trying to isolate the intention of movement however, the "conscious self" is nowhere to be seen.

man, what a crazy thread... how 'bout this, less neuroscience more shit on anarchy?

Yes its an ironic anarchy in it's own right..

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not discussing anything you guys said, but you know that Dolphins are naturally psychopathic serial rape-murderers, right?


http://www.cracked.com/article_15853_6-cutest-animals-that-can-still-destroy-you.html

Look who made the first spot

Not all of them are, this made me giggle though: "the man was drunk, and was actively trying to shove a stick into the dolphin's blowhole at the time", serves that drunk fool right.

Need to made a sig out of this, too hilarious.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7048/hippocute5ps9.jpg

I wonder on the subject of things like self/or the soul etc being absent from biomechanics, what they'd say about morphic resonance/knowledge...?

'Cause that seems like something that is bloody hard to explain in just "what we can see" physical terms and I do wonder if it plays a part of learning this altruism lark..

A smart dude but i think the fact that he was so outrageously sentenced works in his favor. He may get put away but for nothing longer than 18 months.
This just proves the double standards that American law is built on, furthermore.
For a country supposedly "the land of the free", why is there even a "mischief" charge in the law books, and why is penalty so great.

No arguing there.

The sentence was way heavy handed.

Originally posted by bogen

For a country supposedly "the land of the free", why is there even a "mischief" charge in the law books, and why is penalty so great.

Free doesn't include "free to commit crimes", for obvious reasons. Mischief can/does mean "to cause harm", not just a slight annoyance.

America has illogical penalties for different crimes, it reallty makes no sense, you're right about that. It's unlikely he'll get the maximum sentence though.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I wonder on the subject of things like self/or the soul etc being absent from biomechanics, what they'd say about morphic resonance/knowledge...?

likely, it would look something akin to: http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
'Cause that seems like something that is bloody hard to explain in just "what we can see" physical terms and I do wonder if it plays a part of learning this altruism lark..

all I can say is that what you experience is not an accurate representation of reality.