caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
Because they wish to make a statement.
Can you point out any history of them doing so because they "wish to make a statement"?
Because they wish to make a statement.
Actually I think the thread has evolved quite naturally: It started with condoning vigilantism, and promptly descended into anarchy. I rest my case.
Don't argue with crazy.
You mean imaginary friends like "Nationwide Chauffeured Services" which can be "inside a limo" and "feel upset" and "be anti-trump"?
It's much more deadly when adults do it, as can be seen by them killing hundreds of thousands of people each year to keep up their make-pretend belief systems.
“The methods we’re using are limited,” Dr. Sandro Galea, the lead author, acknowledged. “Any time you try to say that death is attributable to a single cause, there’s a problem — all deaths are attributable to many causes.
Like expropriating the means of production?
You are confusing posters again. I'm the sympathetic-to-honest-anarchists one. Never used any of the above red herrings.
Not exactly a slam-dunk for accuracy. Using the same data, one could probably conclude that none of the deaths were caused by poverty, but by circumstances correlated with living in poverty conditions. All attributable to other causes, as poverty per se doesn't cause anything directly.
Can you answer anything without trying to change the subject?
Using the same data, one could probably conclude that none of the deaths were caused by poverty
The poster you responded to did.
I haven't changed the subject.
So what alleviates poverty more than anything else? Capitalism. Markets. Democracy.
Anarchy? It can't achieve anything except destruction.
You're correct, but this is actually not the most important issue. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that poverty kills directly. Then what? Well, we should try to alleviate poverty, obviously.
So what alleviates poverty more than anything else? Capitalism. Markets. Democracy. These have a proven track record. Anarchy? It can't achieve anything except destruction.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. I can sympathize with anarchy as a means of protest, or expression of extreme frustration with the status quo. But not as an end unto itself....with the occasional exception of a Neo-Nazi taking one across the jaw![]()
What's wrong with anarchy as an end unto itself?
Evidence?
Evidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
Show me something that anarchy produces. Because the only thing I can ever find, and in fact the only thing even YOU talk about anarchy actually achieving, is the destruction of property. You keep using a euphemism, but that's still what it is. So where are the examples of the productive side of anarchy? Does it even have one?
What's wrong with anarchy as an end unto itself?
I suppose nothing, if you're a nihilist.
Spencer got punched in the face and made to look stupid. The end.
Deal.
Nihilist...Schmihilist. Baloney.
Good question. Primarily nihilist with affinity with autonomism and anarchist(-communism). Something like that. You?Curious: where do you place yourself on the political spectrum?
Communist-Anarchist?
The end? You don't seem to understand. The enemy gets a vote.
Blah...Blah...Blah...
Spencer has been punched in the face and made to look stupid. That's the deal.
Spencer got what he deserves. The end.