Originally posted by dadudemon
Then that isn't lawlessness. There would still be rules people are governed by. Rules governing a specific body of people...LAWS!!!!
No, it would be gangs or communities that found each other because they were afraid or felt the same thing. You assume that in a lawless society there would only be bad gangs that go about killing and stealing and raping, there could just as well be gangs that protect each other and help each other without preying on others.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Cut it up...mix and match it...rationalize anyway you want to...anarchy is anarchy and I was referring to fundamental anarchy such as the lawlessness of Mexico City and the utterly random crimes that go unpunished.
You are attaching a stigma of "bad" and " dangerous to anarchy it doesn't necessarily deserve.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There will always have to be rules/laws to have a functioning society until humans can evolve a higher mind state. (Like the Vulcans from Star Trek 😄.)
Well, there are always some rules as long as two people meet each other. But in the sense of organized government that wouldn't be necessary...though it has advantages.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Utopian society cannot exist. Humans are not capable of it. Buddhist monks are the closest thing to it right now.
Whatever.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And yes...I did not understand what you meant because your post was a very simple, underdeveloped statement. Once I questioned that and then called you out when you belittled me...you then explained yourself.
He said "i don't want to think about it coz it would be the worst country ever." I said "I doubt that", that was sincere if I had wanted to be a dick I would have said something like "You ****ing moron, that's the most stupid thing I ever heard", now, I didn't say that, for one because it wasn't the most idiotic thing I ever heard and also because I wanted to express my doubt at his statement. I would say that is rather easy to understand.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What should I expect from a poster who posts immature crap all the time? How could I possibly know that you were actually making a statement from an intellectual standpoint? Come on dude...you basically said "teh man is teh suxors!!111!!".
No, I didn't.
Originally posted by dadudemon
How was I supposed to know that you were not being legitimate in your claim other than just saying something on the topic? You know, your posts are actually good when you actually try to sound intelligent. (Which you are smart…you just choose douche baggery most of the time.)
Yes, I know that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
In the end...this is ALL opinion though. You would rather "wing it" with gangsters and I would rather “wing it” with "Dystopian oppressive governments" if those were the only two choices. (And here again...we are not on the right page...I was referring to communism...actually pure communism and the mess with the USSR and China...which is closer to an anti-utopia society. I thought I would clear that up before we end up 4 posts later in the same mess as we are now.)
No, not gangsters. I just see that the dangers of a totalitarian government are that is overly restrictive are far superior to the dangers of mob rule (for one for the facilities), but also because his initial statement was to one sided, as a lawless society could actually be a very nice thing and doesn't need to be the "worst country ever".
Why would you bring up the USSR though, it hardly relates to the topic and if at all then to my argument.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it would be gangs or communities that found each other because they were afraid or felt the same thing. You assume that in a lawless society there would only be bad gangs that go about killing and stealing and raping, there could just as well be gangs that protect each other and help each other without preying on others.
I agree that not all gangs are more evil than good. However, you're changing the focus of the debate. I guess that you win this aspect of the debate. *concedes argument*
You are attaching a stigma of "bad" and " dangerous to anarchy it doesn't necessarily deserve.
I understand what your point of view better now. I am ashamed that I did not see this earlier.
My definition is:
"a state of society without government or law. "
Your definition is:
"a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy
The way I am describing anarchy and using it...yes it is every bit as bad as I am making it to be. The way you are using it, it should not necessarily be shunned.
Well, there are always some rules as long as two people meet each other. But in the sense of organized government that wouldn't be necessary...though it has advantages.
You are somewhat an anarchist. No problem. To each his own.
Whatever.
"You win some you lose some", right?
He said "i don't want to think about it coz it would be the worst country ever." I said "I doubt that", that was sincere if I had wanted to be a dick I would have said something like "You ****ing moron, that's the most stupid thing I ever heard", now, I didn't say that, for one because it wasn't the most idiotic thing I ever heard and also because I wanted to express my doubt at his statement. I would say that is rather easy to understand.
The statement was too simple in order for me to derive you stance on anarchy. Everything in the above statement is a redirect of the attention of the discussion to another line though...an excellent debating tactic when you are trying to win a debate. However, it will not work with me. Your statement still remains much too simple to have been able to derive your stance until you divulged more of your stance.
No, I didn't.
Yes, I know that.
great 😎
No, not gangsters. I just see that the dangers of a totalitarian government are that is overly restrictive are far superior to the dangers of mob rule (for one for the facilities), but also because his initial statement was to one sided, as a lawless society could actually be a very nice thing and doesn't need to be the "worst country ever".
I know my posting is not perfect...but dude, try a little better than that.
I agree that his statement was not well thought out, but he meant it as a grain of salt. You insulted him with your statement, which I thought was tacky considering the intention of his post, so I wanted to defend the position.
Why would you bring up the USSR though, it hardly relates to the topic and if at all then to my argument. [/B]
Really simple. Totalitarian government and utopia were being discussed. Do you know the intentions of communism are utopian in origin? In fact, pure communism IS utopia.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree that not all gangs are more evil than good. However, you're changing the focus of the debate. I guess that you win this aspect of the debate. *concedes argument*
I don't think I am. I think it is a big part of the debate. Yes, there might be gangs in a lawless society (relatively certain) but that doesn't have to be bad. It can be, I absolutely agree with you on that, but in my view a totalitarian government has much more power to make your life miserable without the hope for change.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand what your point of view better now. I am ashamed that I did not see this earlier.My definition is:
"a state of society without government or law. "
Your definition is:
"a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society."
I disagree. I feel that my definition of anarchy works with both. The second is just a definition of rational anarchism which still fits the first definition though.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The way I am describing anarchy and using it...yes it is every bit as bad as I am making it to be. The way you are using it, it should not necessarily be shunned.
How so?
Originally posted by dadudemon
You are somewhat an anarchist. No problem. To each his own.
Sure.
Originally posted by dadudemon
"You win some you lose some", right?
I suppose, except in cases where you win all or lose all.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The statement was too simple in order for me to derive you stance on anarchy. Everything in the above statement is a redirect of the attention of the discussion to another line though...an excellent debating tactic when you are trying to win a debate. However, it will not work with me. Your statement still remains much too simple to have been able to derive your stance until you divulged more of your stance.
Of course. It was not a philosophical manifesto to make my stance popular in the world. It was just a simple disagreement with the person that said it. Now, I elaborated it for you, because you wanted to know better, but the initial statement was as I wanted it to be and in that way understandable.
Originally posted by dadudemon
My statement was an exaggeration. (You know, hyperbole.)
Yes. But it did not relate to the reality of the matter at all.
Originally posted by dadudemon
great 😎
Originally posted by dadudemon
I know my posting is not perfect...but dude, try a little better than that.I agree that his statement was not well thought out, but he meant it as a grain of salt. You insulted him with your statement, which I thought was tacky considering the intention of his post, so I wanted to defend the position.
It wasn't my intention to insult. Not him, I hold no grudge against him. In fact I have no idea who he is. I just wanted to make my disagreement publicly available so all the "sheep" don't just say "Oh, there's one dude that anarchist societies are the worst one can think of, no one replied, it must be true".
Originally posted by dadudemon
Really simple. Totalitarian government and utopia were being discussed. Do you know the intentions of communism are utopian in origin? In fact, pure communism IS utopia.
Yeah. Just don't see how it relates to the topic really. Also it is not an utopia to me.
China and the USSR is not really the most restrictive or totalitarian governments there are and they are certainly not anarchist. I just don't know how they fit in our discussion.
Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]I don't think I am. I think it is a big part of the debate. Yes, there might be gangs in a lawless society (relatively certain) but that doesn't have to be bad. It can be, I absolutely agree with you on that, but in my view a totalitarian government has much more power to make your life miserable without the hope for change.
I have already conceded this aspect of the debate. It’s yours.
I disagree. I feel that my definition of anarchy works with both. The second is just a definition of rational anarchism which still fits the first definition though.
Our main difference is the contextual use of the word "law". It really is law vs. no law that I was trying to get at with the definition.
How so?
I could go back through all of our posts and quote everything that supports my side of that statement you are referring to and also gather all posts which supports your side of the statement I was referring to...but it really isn't necessary...you can read and understand for yourself.
Of course. It was not a philosophical manifesto to make my stance popular in the world. It was just a simple disagreement with the person that said it.
I will not and cannot logically disagree with you on that.
Yes. But it did not relate to the reality of the matter at all.
Yes it did. I showed, clearly, that your statement could have been interpreted that way...because it was so simple, thereby supporting my argument that the statement was too simple for me to have understood what you intended with your statement..Do not anarchists oppose "the man"? Do you see where that hyperbole was coming from now?
It wasn't my intention to insult. Not him, I hold no grudge against him. In fact I have no idea who he is.
Come on; don't try to act so naive. Seriously dude. You are way too smart for me to try to actually believe that. (Maybe your counting on me giving up the point? It is also possible that you live in a world so oblivious to those around you that your insults flow freely while you are totally oblivious to their repercussions...?)
[I just wanted to make my disagreement publicly available so all the "sheep" don't just say "Oh, there's one dude that anarchist societies are the worst one can think of, no one replied, it must be true".
Funny you should say that. That's the same reason I did it to your post. What you and I chose not realize is everybody really doesn't care.
Yeah. Just don't see how it relates to the topic really. Also it is not an utopia to me.
I cannot spell it out anymore clear than I already have. Let's just leave it be then.
China and the USSR is not really the most restrictive or totalitarian governments there are and they are certainly not anarchist. I just don't know how they fit in our discussion.
No, but I used them as examples because everyone is familiar with them. Should I assume that you know of Sri Lanka's situation and use that? It is an excellent example of anarchy mixed with totalitarianism. Obviously the answer is “No”. That would be stupid...you may not even be aware of the situation.
Do you agree?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I guess I can say I agree with most if not all your points, so really no reason to argue.
True. I went back and re-read my post and I kind of "un-debated" the debate with most of my statements...they were really "close ending".
Answer "one" question from all of my post...I want clarification on this...
"Come on; don't try to act so naive. Seriously dude. You are way too smart for me to try to actually believe that. (Maybe your counting on me giving up the point? It is also possible that you live in a world so oblivious to those around you that your insults flow freely while you are totally oblivious to their repercussions...?)"
Originally posted by dadudemon
True. I went back and re-read my post and I kind of "un-debated" the debate with most of my statements...they were really "close ending".Answer "one" question from all of my post...I want clarification on this...
"Come on; don't try to act so naive. Seriously dude. You are way too smart for me to try to actually believe that. (Maybe your counting on me giving up the point? It is also possible that you live in a world so oblivious to those around you that your insults flow freely while you are totally oblivious to their repercussions...?)"
Well, as a rational person I must of course admit the posibility that I am oblivious to some insults I throw out. Yet, I suppose you are asking whether I think that is the case, and I must say no, I really don't think so.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If I am wrong...then I am wrong.
"Waste" your time and if you are right, I will admit it.And yes, I agree, there is not such thing as true anarchy because humans want rules...We crave rules and even in a crime stricken city, the ciminals have rules with each other.
i agree,rules are part of our lives..we sometimes create rules without even noticing it.