Score one for the Anarchists

[Polaris]

More like Hamas firing a mortar shell into Netanyahu's office expecting it will hit Netanyahu but actually hitting his secretary instead.

The bomb still has to go through the postal service, and can go off at any time along its route (while it's only a danger to the bomb-maker being the only acceptable time).

 

[caveman1917]

Hey, caveman1917. I just figured we were due for some scrapping; it's been a while.

OK then.

why not finally tell me what - in outline form - it is you advocate? Or take on my accusation, which does have a weak point or two, that the systems you advocate are unfair to compare to "real life" because they posit only their benefits.

Step 1: articulate and explain the contradiction in that quote. As a hint:

True. You don't even posit the virtues of your hypothetical system.

What hypothetical system?

 

[caveman1917]

I’m don’t know what you’re referring to here. In what way was I “educated”?

You're right, you weren't. You probably simply can't be.

Do you disagree that non-violence is preferable to violence?

Define "violence".

Again the knee-jerk tu quoque argument.

Interesting? How about just wrong?

If you don’t find it “interesting”, then why are you participating in this thread?

A combination of plain boredom and ill-fated attempts to get you to produce something interesting.

Also, were you aware that the book you linked to says the IMF has changed it stance on Austerity vs Stimulus based on research?

I wouldn't exactly call it "based on research" - but yes.

Which, if true, would suggest that these anarchists are both ineffective and wrong.

How so?

Which shows you don’t understand “whataboutism”.

Oh I understand it just fine, it's not even a real fallacy. At least a tu quoque is a real fallacy. Not, of course, that my statements constitute a tu quoque, but at least that one's an actual proper fallacy. My statements would be a tu quoque if they were like "you're a hypocrite on a boring ideological crusade therefor your claim is false" but as you can see it stops at "you're a hypocrite on a boring ideological crusade". It's a set of contextually relevant statements which does not, of itself, constitute an argument with as conclusion the negation of your claim, thereby clearly not a fallacious one, let alone an instance of a tu quoque. You just don't like it being pointed out and are grasping at straws - the same two straws as always (how interesting), one of which isn't even a real straw in the first place. </yet another pointless attempt at educating you>

Whataboutism is a tu quoque argument. Like above where you responded to criticism of anarchist violence by saying the Italian police also used violence in arresting them. Someone else using violence (if you think the police arresting criminals is violence) doesn’t make your violence okay.

My violence? What would that be exactly?

It’s not at all the same as ”What about this evidence that proves you wrong?”

It kind of is. Ex contradictione quodlibet, which proves everything wrong.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

OK then.

Step 1: articulate and explain the contradiction in that quote. As a hint:

What hypothetical system?

So, status quo? No advocacy of change based on some preferred model? Not that all models are bad, of course. Or, what changes to current political and economic systems would you suggest?

I already agreed that most institutions fall short of stated mission. I also think all humans do, too. So I'd like to hear what system might be proposed that best deals with corruption/hypocrisy and small-minded individuals serving self-interest to the detriment of society. Could it be one that best allows such to be exposed, meaning that the best situation would be one in which we are surrounded by palpable hypocrisy and corruption?

Just as a way of starting a conversation.

 

[Mycroft]

What hypothetical system?

Exactly. You're all about struggling against, but have nothing to say about what you're for.

 

[caveman1917]

So, status quo? No advocacy of change based on some preferred model?

Neither of these follow.

Not that all models are bad, of course. Or, what changes to current political and economic systems would you suggest?

Abolishing both?

I already agreed that most institutions fall short of stated mission.

What made you think the stated mission had anything to do with actual activity in the first place?

So I'd like to hear what system might be proposed that best deals with corruption/hypocrisy and small-minded individuals serving self-interest to the detriment of society.

Don't we all...

Could it be one that best allows such to be exposed, meaning that the best situation would be one in which we are surrounded by palpable hypocrisy and corruption?

Could, on the other hand, the best one be the exact negation of that? Seems a priori equally likely to me.

 

[caveman1917]

Exactly. You're all about struggling against, but have nothing to say about what you're for.

Apparently neither have you, other than appeals to tradition for your pet system.

 

[dudalb]

Exactly. You're all about struggling against, but have nothing to say about what you're for.

I think Caveman makes that clear with one that Bakunin quote in his sigestruction itself is a creative act.

 

[Mycroft]

Apparently neither have you, other than appeals to tradition for your pet system.

My pet system is what?

I think Caveman makes that clear with one that Bakunin quote in his sigestruction itself is a creative act.

I don't get the fascination with 19th century philosophers whose ideas have never created a stable working society, much less a happy one. One might as well study phrenology or alchemy.

 

[caveman1917]

My pet system is what?

This:

I choose to stick with the "belief system" that is commonly accepted in our society

 

[Mycroft]

This:

Recognizing the systems that exist make them my "pet system"?

That makes no sense.

I'm sure over time, assuming the survival of the human species, we will have many different systems, just like we have in the past. Hopefully, as time goes on, these systems will become better, more perfected, granting greater comfort, rights and opportunities to everyone.

Wanting to destroy a system without having a plan on what you're going to replace it with, how you're going to replace it, and without getting the consent of the people who would be affected by the changes is, in my opinion, colossally stupid and selfish.

In keeping an open mind, I would very much like to have you (or someone else) explain what they see in anarchism that makes it seem good to them and not stupid and selfish as it seems to me. Towards this end I often try to engage you (and others) in dialog, often asking questions to better understand your view. Like many other anarchists, you have been extraordinarily reluctant to participate in any way that shows your ideals in a positive way.

The very idea that not liking your ideas means I'm attached to the status quo is unfounded, but typical of the fallacious reasoning common among anarchists. So common that I sometimes wonder if anarchists are fallacious on purpose, if they've been trained to think fallaciously, or even if they're deliberately trying not to be understood.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[caveman1917]

Recognizing the systems that exist make them my "pet system"?

You choosing a specific system to stick with constitutes you having a pet system. Then, being the one with the positive claim over the set of possible systems, feel free to argue for it at some point.

 

[Mycroft]

You choosing a specific system to stick with constitutes you having a pet system.

What exactly was this choice and when did I make it?

Then, being the one with the positive claim over the set of possible systems, feel free to argue for it at some point.

What is the positive claim?

 

[caveman1917]

What exactly was this choice and when did I make it?



What is the positive claim?

while (latest_mycroft_post.semantic_equals(#53))
{
GOTO #50
}

 

[Jules Galen]

What is an anarchist? Always wondered that.

I f you asked me, what was a Fascist, then I could point you at Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism" which pretty-well explains types of governments we have seen from the Ancient Roman Empire to Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/reading/germany/mussolini.htm

But Anarchy? Just haven't seen a great definition.

 

[caveman1917]

But Anarchy? Just haven't seen a great definition.

How come? Seems some anarchists even wrote a definition of anarchy on that limo which got burned at the time of Trump's inauguration. Liberals have been whining about that one more than enough, including on this forum, how have you missed it?

 

[Jules Galen]

How come? Seems some anarchists even wrote a definition of anarchy on that limo which got burned at the time of Trump's inauguration. Liberals have been whining about that one more than enough, including on this forum, how have you missed it?

This is nonsense.

If you want to discuss the topic, then fine,

Otherwise....spare us all.

Really...I'd like to know the definition of an Anarchist as well as Mussolini defines a fascist.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/reading/germany/mussolini.htm

I think that is fair.

 

[caveman1917]

This is nonsense.

What is nonsense? That they wrote a definition of anarchy on the limo (they have: anarchy is order, in graffiti on the limo) or that liberals have been whining about the limo (they have: check the thread on it)?

 

[caveman1917]

Really...I'd like to know the definition of an Anarchist as well as Mussolini defines a fascist.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/reading/germany/mussolini.htm

I think that is fair.

I don't think you'll find that.

 

[Thermal]

Recognizing the systems that exist make them my "pet system"?

That makes no sense.

I'm sure over time, assuming the survival of the human species, we will have many different systems, just like we have in the past. Hopefully, as time goes on, these systems will become better, more perfected, granting greater comfort, rights and opportunities to everyone.

Wanting to destroy a system without having a plan on what you're going to replace it with, how you're going to replace it, and without getting the consent of the people who would be affected by the changes is, in my opinion, colossally stupid and selfish. In keeping an open mind, I would very much like to have you (or someone else) explain what they see in anarchism that makes it seem good to them and not stupid and selfish as it seems to me. Towards this end I often try to engage you (and others) in dialog, often asking questions to better understand your view. Like many other anarchists, you have been extraordinarily reluctant to participate in any way that shows your ideals in a positive way.

The very idea that not liking your ideas means I'm attached to the status quo is unfounded, but typical of the fallacious reasoning common among anarchists. So common that I sometimes wonder if anarchists are fallacious on purpose, if they've been trained to think fallaciously, or even if they're deliberately trying not to be understood. Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Very reasonable points and questions. 'Anarchy/anarchist' are pretty wide umbrella terms, which encompass anachro-capitalist to anachro-communist to anachro-'all y'all'. If we take it as fundamentally meaning 'against Rulers', maybe it is easier to pin down. I see anarchy as a means rather than an end, a means of political expression against a system that is beyond repairing from within or discussing change with. Kind of like suggesting to Stalin to relinquish some power for the common good? I think there is no intent to destroy a given system, but to deliver the opening volley and normalize extreme dissent, in the sense of letting people know that others have reached the breaking point, too.