Demondaze/Kali/matthewchris and Others Debating Nonsense

Libya Superthread

I'll admit it. That one made my eye twitch.

But why discourage external measures and thinking out-side the box?

On the contrary. I'm all for baby steps. So long as we keep a diversity of tactics.

I'm trying to keep it to a minimum.

Are you trying to make an argument in favor of the gold stranded. That one was in retaliation of you "Randroid" comment.

Shit has a habit of reaping itself.

Tuns out he's a senator. Name is Bernie Sanders.

Why do they teach us things like "Two wrongs don't make a right." in kindergarten if everyone just forgets it later on in life?

We should never be looking for conflict.

Describe that 'elsewhere' part to me.

But why can't the people make decisions for themselves?

Because everything is that simple... -Kalalification

Libya Superthread

woah, this thread just got full on in the last few pages, very fascinating.

edit:i thought this was the lybia thread when i said that.

Libya Superthread

He HAS thought outside the box, he just prefers the box for now.

He's not debating about the morality it. He's simply stating that China's foreign policy is worse than ours.

Libya Superthread

Think outside the box all you like, but you don't get to act outside it.

Such as what, exactly?

Still haven't seen an actual substantive issue that you've brought forth. Just a bunch of ideological babble.

Just doesn't seem intelligent for a society to devalue an extremely useful and rare metal because of its prior affiliation with the monetary system.

Not sure which of these you meant, so I'll address them both:

Your actual verbiage seems to be saying something along the lines of "You reap what you sow" which only strengthens my point.

But more than likely you just misspelled "repeating," in which case I'd refer you to the 21st century.

Then yes, that's exactly why he appears as an Independent.

Wrongs have varying degrees of severity. In this case a good analogy would be that the US is responsible for conspiracy to commit murder while China is committing first degree murder. Obviously they're both undesirable, but we don't stoop to their level.

I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say; we don't enter into any situation looking for a fight. We look for a fight when it's been determined that it's advantageous to all other courses of action.

Economic trouble, violations of the law, it can be anything that the people see as a threat to society, really. In a democracy that's the purpose of government.

They can and do in most countries, but one of the major reasons is to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

It's the literal definition. In this case it truly is that simple.

Libya Superthread

Why?

Riots have their purpose. And yes. I am expecting flak for this one.

If I'm not mistaken this whole thing started over US war policy. So I guess that would be the issue at hand.

It's not intelligent. My original point was an attack against the gold standard.

Yes, I misspelled repeating. And this may be the 21st century, but we still have things like the Patriot Act and the DHS. Which do not make me feel safe.

What you're basically saying is that the US is like Charlie Manson.

See, you're still using phrases like "look for a fight". This is confusing the situation.

So by elsewhere you meant domestic?

But what of the tyranny of the minority?

And yet I still disagree with the spread of a system of government through military force.

Libya Superthread

Because there are perfectly legal and civil channels through which you can change anything you want.

See, I ask for you to come up with something an anarchist would propose that actually deals with a real issue and helps people, not something that empowers them. You reply that you're all for small steps. I ask what kind? You say riots... This is why people don't take anarchists (or radicals in general) seriously. By their nature they're opposed to reasonable action.

And quite frankly I find unbelievable that one who supports an anarchistic society, which as you've said must be composed of anarchists, would call for violence on the scale of rioting...

And was dealt with some time ago (with you being idealistic and ideological about it), hence its disappearance in our exchange.

Your attack on the gold standard is an anachronism, and the way you made it basically said that gold is worthless.

Recall back two posts and you'll see that I was explaining that there exist no barriers to your political success other than the political climate. Now you're thinking that the Department of Homeland Security is going to deport you for campaigning?

No, because Manson not only supported the actions of his cult, but ordered them. The US is a much more passively involved in those sorts of affairs. China would be akin to John Wayne Gacy.

When we have determined it necessary to get involved in a military conflict we will find the appropriate justification; that's what I mean.

Well there's pretty much just the domestic and foreign, and foreign was covered by "external," so yes. My syntax was off and I felt weird about that sentence.

The point of democracy is to balance the two. On the one hand you can give all of the power to the people and end up with mob rule, on the other you restrict it to the elite and get your issue. Representative democracy is the most balanced form of government insofar as these issues are concerned, as it will protect the minority and still allow for popular vote to make many decisions.

This coming from the guy who says that "riots have their uses"...

Demondaze/Kali/Lukakiwi and Others Debating Nonsense

can i take the privilage to intude this argument/conversation here and ask why im in the title as debating nonsense, im sure Kala has a good reason and i said some bullshit, id just like to know what that is.

P.S. again, sorry for not reading the whole thread so far thoroughly, i havent got much time on my hands at the moment.

Demondaze/Kali/Lukakiwi and Others Debating Nonsense

I didn't mean it to say that you're talking nonsense. The title is a result of the three primary debaters here, along with others, talking about a very wide array of issues. And this array of issues is so loosely connected that I found "nonsense" an appropriate label. It's not a jab at you or anything, just a convenience of verbiage.

Demondaze/Kali/Lukakiwi and Others Debating Nonsense

i get it, so this is a thread for us to have our debates and not fill up other threads? if so il take it as an honour im in the title, unfortunately im studying for exams so i cant get to involved for about a week and a half, i only come on in between/during breaks. also is 'Kali' short for you or someone else?

also, not meaning to be rude, but i cant seem to remember saying that, and i cant find it in my posts history, could you, if its no trouble tell me which thread i wrote that in so i can have a look at what i was talking about. Seems like something i could have writen, but i dont know.

Demondaze/Kali/Lukakiwi and Others Debating Nonsense

It's a mispronunciation of my username that is also a lot easier to say. Also I totally just realized that I confused you for matthewchris when making this thread. WHOOPS! I'm going to have to edit the title now.

I also confused you for matt in this instance lol. The reason was because I was quoting Demon for the original section and hit the preview key only to see that matt had posted so I had to include his post as well. This meant the auto-name feature got left out and because I saw orange I thought it was you since there are only a few orange-y types very active around the Coffeehouse.

Demondaze/Kali/Lukakiwi and Others Debating Nonsense

yes i thought there was a mistake, im more in the history section anyway, fell free to change the title i hope you dont mind if i still post here now and then if i have something to say.

Libya Superthread

Yes. I support those legal and civil channels. But I do feel direct action has it's purpose.

Something an anarchist would propose the actually deals with a real issue and helps people? Charity work and public organizing. And all action is empowering.

In terms of riots as violent: That's an ongoing debate within the anarchist community. Due to our views on privet property and possession, a lot of us don't consider destruction of privet property violence. And ALL of us don't agree with the states monopoly on violence.
While we're on the subject of property destruction: How do you feel about the Boston Tea-Party?

"Just as worthless as the green paper." The point is that I am not a fan of the price system.

Not exactly. But it scares me that something like the DHS exists.

The CIA can only carry out actions under presidential orders.

The civilian population breaking windows and throwing shit at the police because they are upset over something is wrong, but bombing another country to protect your own interest can be justifiable?

It's my understanding that domestic threats include dissent and civil disobedience. How does the state react to this?

I am about to receive flak.

This man explains the Anarchist (Or as he often calls it: Libertarian Socialist/ Left Libertarian) view on democracy (Participatory Democracy), and I request that you take into consideration what he says before you respond.

[yt:1vlj5pce]g3YLmtQ5roQ[/yt:1vlj5pce]

The reason I am using this video is because I am having a hard time wording my argument, and this man is far smarter than I.

Edit:
[yt:1vlj5pce]z6K7KvbkyGQ[/yt:1vlj5pce]
And this video to.

Riots don't bring about change. They hurt corporations financially.