The biggest question I have for libertarians is, given the whole ME ME ME thing inherent in libertarianism, is what kind of world do you think you're asking for?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 02:25:17 AM
The biggest question I have for libertarians is, given the whole ME ME ME thing inherent in libertarianism, is what kind of world do you think you're asking for?
>implying I'm a libertarian
Please, isn't it obvious that I'm a fascist uber alle andere ideologies.
Seriously put, though, even my dumb ass can find the flaws with libertarianism -- for example, I'll blaisely admit that it's an ideology that would only work in pre-industrial society, would never work with our current population level, and it totally would suck if libertarianism actually "won the day".
To directly answer your question, though, it would be a world like in the Alien films: Weyland-Utani ruling over the ant-like workers propelling "the investors" to even higher profits...except there would be no space travel, no epic encounters with parasitic aliens, and the earth would dry up of all resources within decades.
As I really see politics:
We live in a world of extremes. You have hard left, hard right, hard center (wait, wut?), etc. NONE of these positions would lead to an ideal society as far as I can see. The libertarians would have us under the materialistic yoke of the corporate overlards, and the socialists would have us under the financial yoke of the government. Neither of these particularly appeals to me, so every 4-8 years, I switch sides entirely in order to ensure that neither of these demons "wins the day" --
In short, although today I play libertarian, when the republican I inevitably vote for finally wins, I'll be reading marx and calling for his blood and citing fallacious arguments about value theory of labour, entitlement and privelege and all sorts of things that today-me finds abhorrant.
tl;dr I'm really a hard-line contrarian....
The key thing to take away is:
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 30, 2013, 03:02:49 AM
In short, although today I play libertarian, when the republican I inevitably vote for finally wins, I'll be reading marx and calling for his blood and citing fallacious arguments about value theory of labour, entitlement and privelege and all sorts of things that today-me finds abhorrant.
tl;dr I'm really a hard-line contrarian....
Which makes you just as brainless as those who mindlessly bow down to whatever letter they think looks best next to politicians' names.
The other thing I must point out that there is a BIG difference between what Libertarianism actually is, and what people who call themselves Libertarians are.
What Libertarianism actually is:
It is where personal liberty is held as the ideal, but differing from anarchy in that personal liberty must also be preserved with a small state existing only to protect the populous from foreign aggression, collective dissent against personal liberty, and people breaking agreed upon contracts. Corporations would not be allowed because a) They are, supposedly, a form of a libertarian offshoot called "Libertarian Socialism" that is a bastardization of the name (to ask a Libertarian), and b) because the ownership of property is shared and collectivized
People who call themselves Libertarians are:
Petty children who want the state to be a cool big brother that will give them roads, an impressive infrastructure, and educated workforce, and protection from foreign and domestic threats, and help them sue another guy for free.
Bonus fun fact: Mussolini referred to Fascism as "Corporatism."
Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior. Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior. I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.
I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 03:52:45 AM
I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.
From the years I've been reading your stuff, I don't know if "moralist" is the word I would use. I agree that, denotatively, you could be considered such, but the connotative meaning of the word could make some folks balk at the idea.
If I had to settle on philosophical term to describe you, it would be a quality somewhere between Consequentialism and Absurdism (in the French tradition, not Kierkegaard). Maybe something closer to Two-Level Utilitarianism.
Am I in the ballpark?
Quote from: I_Kicked_Kennedy on April 30, 2013, 04:05:33 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 03:52:45 AM
I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.
From the years I've been reading your stuff, I don't know if "moralist" is the word I would use. I agree that, denotatively, you could be considered such, but the connotative meaning of the word could make some folks balk at the idea.
Fuck 'em. The word is accurate for what I am, no matter how they misuse it.
QuoteIf I had to settle on philosophical term to describe you, it would be a quality somewhere between Consequentialism and Absurdism (in the French tradition, not Kierkegaard). Maybe something closer to Two-Level Utilitarianism.
Am I in the ballpark?
I prefer "asshat".
Politics make my head hurt when shown in this light...unfortunately, im at work now, and posting from a phone is too rigid for expressing what needs to be said quickly enough.
Ill be back in the east coasts morning...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 03:52:45 AM
Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior. Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior. I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.
I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.
This has taken some time to think about...
Regardless, if the machine is unwavering, then what is the point of concerning yourself with my ideological underpinnings? Although I may switch who's idea-book I take information from depending on the state of the machine, my complete lack of genuine conviction in whatever I'm arguing about reamains constant.
Sure, ill dig in, ill yell, ill try to beat peoples opinions down with full furor--but that's just the game of arguing for the sake of arguing. Its fun, it gives one a reason to commit research, but in the end, its only a game -- assuming the machine is so unchanging as you present.
You describe yourself as being a moralist; that you stick to your predetermined set of ideals and it makes you feel good to do so. I'm much more of a cynic in this regard. I see flaws in almost every ideolgy; this has led me to believe that nothing is "correct" in a meaningful way, thus it helps me to sleep at night knowing that I dont honestly hold fast to anything lest it be rendered incorrect by morning.
QuoteMussolini referred to Fascism as "Corporatism."
Yes, he did, but he didn't mean it in the sense of "corporations holding political power". He meant it in the older sense of the word, which essentially means interest groups who rule through negotiation with and agreements with political authority, as opposed to power resting in the hands of the population at large. Thus under corporatism, while business owners would form part of the ruling class, so would other interest groups, like the military and the church.
It's not so much an ideology as a reactionary method of maintaining the status quo and the privileges of existing power brokers. The role of the state then becomes playing these interests off against each other for the benefit of the core leadership of the ruling party. Hitler was very effective at this, because he promoted social darwinism at every level of the state, and frequently replicated state functions with party ones, meaning you had at least two power brokers for each domain of the state. So, for example, the RHSA and the Gestapo/Abwehr, or the Waffen SS and the Reichswehr.
I think I should be entitled to eat libertarians without the interference of the state.
Quote from: Faust on April 30, 2013, 12:28:40 PM
I think I should be entitled to eat libertarians without the interference of the state.
I'll see if I can find you a dealer of prime long-pig...straight off the freemarket of course! :lulz:
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 30, 2013, 09:03:29 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 03:52:45 AM
Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior. Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior. I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.
I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.
This has taken some time to think about...
Regardless, if the machine is unwavering, then what is the point of concerning yourself with my ideological underpinnings?
Curiousity.
QuoteYou describe yourself as being a moralist; that you stick to your predetermined set of ideals and it makes you feel good to do so.
What ideals? I said principles. Two different things.
I used to roll with the idea of Libertarianism as the least awful form of government, these days I've decided they're all equally crappy in one way or another. A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance. Sadly, I doubt something like thata would ever be implemented usefully in the US.
However, I have found a glimmer of hope. Some Psychologists/Psychiatrist claim that through their studies they find that most people are Good but passive, rather than Evil, Selfish etc. Additionally, through the study of 'social networks' (not Facebook, the actual human social network) an individuals behavior influences the behavior of their friends, their friends friends and their friends friends friends (3 degrees of influence). If we behave in a Good-Active way, it influences 3 degrees of the social network to behave in a more Good-Active way. So while there may never be a government that is actively good, if these theories and observations are correct, humans could influence each other so that society becomes more actively good.
Hell, its better than voting for the psychopaths at the top and hoping they fix something, or ranting about obviously failed political belief systems.
ETA: There an interesting documentary on the topic: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-am-fishead-are-corporate-leaders-psychopaths/ (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-am-fishead-are-corporate-leaders-psychopaths/)
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 30, 2013, 09:03:29 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 03:52:45 AM
Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior. Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior. I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.
I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.
This has taken some time to think about...
Regardless, if the machine is unwavering, then what is the point of concerning yourself with my ideological underpinnings? Although I may switch who's idea-book I take information from depending on the state of the machine, my complete lack of genuine conviction in whatever I'm arguing about reamains constant.
Sure, ill dig in, ill yell, ill try to beat peoples opinions down with full furor--but that's just the game of arguing for the sake of arguing. Its fun, it gives one a reason to commit research, but in the end, its only a game -- assuming the machine is so unchanging as you present.
You describe yourself as being a moralist; that you stick to your predetermined set of ideals and it makes you feel good to do so. I'm much more of a cynic in this regard. I see flaws in almost every ideolgy; this has led me to believe that nothing is "correct" in a meaningful way, thus it helps me to sleep at night knowing that I dont honestly hold fast to anything lest it be rendered incorrect by morning.
It seems like your problem is that you are seeking a single unflawed ideology instead of nasing your convictions on your own principles. As a result, you can find nothing that you feel adequately represents you, and therefore are adrift without convictions. The mistake you seem to be making is thinking that convictions and principles come from external sources, and that to have them you must join someone else's ideology.
Arguing for the sake of arguing without any actual sense of truth seems, to me, to be a waste of energy and an insult to those you are arguing with.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 05:11:57 PM
It seems like your problem is that you are seeking a single unflawed ideology instead of nasing your convictions on your own principles. As a result, you can find nothing that you feel adequately represents you, and therefore are adrift without convictions. The mistake you seem to be making is thinking that convictions and principles come from external sources, and that to have them you must join someone else's ideology.
To be fair, this is trained into people from about age 4.
I think the reason for the disconnect between "social structure" and "maximizing freedom" is the conflation with "property" and "taxes". If someone insists that taxation is theft, then no society will ever meet their standards, outside of Somalia.
If, on the other hand, you equate "taxation" with "paying the bills", then suddenly things become a whole lot easier.
The really absurd part of this is that people who pay almost no taxes have been trained to squawk about taxes as if the government walked into their house, took 70% of everything they own, and then shat on the stove. Add to that the fact that almost nobody understands how "progressive taxation" and "brackets" actually work, and you wind up with a population screaming to be raped with a "Fair Tax" or a "Flat Tax".
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
I used to roll with the idea of Libertarianism as the least awful form of government, these days I've decided they're all equally crappy in one way or another. A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance. Sadly, I doubt something like thata would ever be implemented usefully in the US.
However, I have found a glimmer of hope. Some Psychologists/Psychiatrist claim that through their studies they find that most people are Good but passive, rather than Evil, Selfish etc. Additionally, through the study of 'social networks' (not Facebook, the actual human social network) an individuals behavior influences the behavior of their friends, their friends friends and their friends friends friends (3 degrees of influence). If we behave in a Good-Active way, it influences 3 degrees of the social network to behave in a more Good-Active way. So while there may never be a government that is actively good, if these theories and observations are correct, humans could influence each other so that society becomes more actively good.
Hell, its better than voting for the psychopaths at the top and hoping they fix something, or ranting about obviously failed political belief systems.
ETA: There an interesting documentary on the topic: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-am-fishead-are-corporate-leaders-psychopaths/ (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-am-fishead-are-corporate-leaders-psychopaths/)
Psychologists (psychiatrists don't typically do behavioral research, as they are clinical doctors), and primarily the fellow who has been doing this research for over 40 years is Philip Zimbardo, who gave the TED talk I posted in another thread. He wrote an excellent book called The Lucifer Effect, and is now studying heroism, which he defines simply as resisting the influence of evil. Zimbardo, Milgram, Sapolsky, Cacioppo, and Cialdini are all great people to read up on if you're interested in that sort of thing.
Zimbardo has done a lot of work studying the situation at Abu Ghraib, and his conclusions are pretty chilling; essentially, he is convinced that evil isn't "a few bad apples" or "a bad barrel", but "bad-barrel-makers". Now he's working on understanding how we can influence the whole social-political-military system to mitigate the "bad-barrel-maker" effect.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:19:11 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 05:11:57 PM
It seems like your problem is that you are seeking a single unflawed ideology instead of nasing your convictions on your own principles. As a result, you can find nothing that you feel adequately represents you, and therefore are adrift without convictions. The mistake you seem to be making is thinking that convictions and principles come from external sources, and that to have them you must join someone else's ideology.
To be fair, this is trained into people from about age 4.
This is sad.
In my opinion, a functional set of convictions have internal consistency, and are open to revision in the event of new information. I want to argue with what other people believe on the off chance that they'll present convincing information that will change my perspective, not just for the sake of uselessly flapping my lips and making noise.
Unless I'm arguing with Pagans or other control freaks, in which case, I just want to get 'em all riled up and banning people for posting images of houseplants.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 05:29:27 PM
In my opinion, a functional set of convictions have internal consistency, and are open to revision in the event of new information.
This is precisely correct. Hanging onto bad signal isn't principle, it's baboonery.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:24:07 PM
I think the reason for the disconnect between "social structure" and "maximizing freedom" is the conflation with "property" and "taxes". If someone insists that taxation is theft, then no society will ever meet their standards, outside of Somalia.
If, on the other hand, you equate "taxation" with "paying the bills", then suddenly things become a whole lot easier.
The really absurd part of this is that people who pay almost no taxes have been trained to squawk about taxes as if the government walked into their house, took 70% of everything they own, and then shat on the stove. Add to that the fact that almost nobody understands how "progressive taxation" and "brackets" actually work, and you wind up with a population screaming to be raped with a "Fair Tax" or a "Flat Tax".
I believe at least part of it is historical amnesia, with a rose-tinted view of a "libertarian" American past (the link I posted before had to do with a discussion as to whether women had more liberty in the 19th century than today). The belief seems to be that in the past there was minimal taxation, most of it local and thus to the direct benefit of the person paying the taxes, unlike today, where a vast and impersonal state extracts wealth and gives it to layabouts who spend it on steak and beer.
Of course, for most of the world, historically there were taxes. And they were pretty fucking steep. And the arrangement was far closer to a protection racket than anything else, so the benefits were minimal. When states developed a bit more, they offered contracts for "tax farming", which was pretty brutal and horrifying, even by the standards of the time.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Of course, they're not mutually exclusive as soon as we rid ourselves of the absurd notion that personal freedom somehow equals "I GET TO KEEP ALL MY MONEY!!!"
Also, I always kinda thought that the whole point of Discordianism, inasmuch as there is one, is to build your own set of convictions.
I mean, we embrace cognitive dissonance as a tool whereby to learn, which helps us to develop and maintain internal consistency and to critically examine philosophies and convictions which we might hold that don't really fit in with our cohesive whole. The problem with external ideologies is that they may often have portions which are not compatible with a given individual's convictions... for example, the piece of neo-feminist ideology that says that "cishet men can't be feminists". That clashes with my whole set of convictions about taking people as people first, and placing their descriptive details farther down my ladder of priorities in terms of how I view them. As a feminist, I think that being sexist is wrong, regardless of who is being sexist toward whom. I reject that ideology, and as a result, neo-feminists may well reject me.
That is the double-edged sword to owning and adhering to your own convictions; in general, refusing to accept group ideology equals being rejected by the group. But, you gain internal consistency, and I think that's a worthy trade-off.
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 05:39:39 PM
Also, I always kinda thought that the whole point of Discordianism, inasmuch as there is one, is to build your own set of convictions.
I mean, we embrace cognitive dissonance as a tool whereby to learn, which helps us to develop and maintain internal consistency and to critically examine philosophies and convictions which we might hold that don't really fit in with our cohesive whole. The problem with external ideologies is that they may often have portions which are not compatible with a given individual's convictions... for example, the piece of neo-feminist ideology that says that "cishet men can't be feminists". That clashes with my whole set of convictions about taking people as people first, and placing their descriptive details farther down my ladder of priorities in terms of how I view them. As a feminist, I think that being sexist is wrong, regardless of who is being sexist toward whom. I reject that ideology, and as a result, neo-feminists may well reject me.
That is the double-edged sword to owning and adhering to your own convictions; in general, refusing to accept group ideology equals being rejected by the group. But, you gain internal consistency, and I think that's a worthy trade-off.
Yep. It's not the group that's looking back at you in the bathroom mirror in the morning, it's you.
Also, the problem with groups is that they become Causes, and the morals of the Causes inevitably drift towards the most radical elements in the group, and that radicalization becomes
competitive as the pack-mentality of primates exerts itself over time.
And that leads to sitting under a blanket, huffing each other's farts, and rejecting all information that comes from outside of the blanket. You can't tell anyone that, though, because to them, that's defined as "being committed".
So you get folks like Susan Brownmiller, or that ridiculous hipster in Garbo's vid, who insist that their hatred is justified by their fear, and that ALL men are rapists, ALL sex is rape, and/or MY hate is okay because I'm AFRAID.
What's particularly hideous about the fear excuse is that it validates this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense
But it's not just neo-feminism that does this. Ron Paul fans are another good example. So are many religions. In fact, I can't think of a single human behavior that doesn't inspire this sort of shit. The problem isn't the idea, it's the people, and the reason that people are the problem is - AGAIN - that they allow the collective values of the group to replace their personal values. Because we're pack-oriented critters. That's not an excuse for the individual, that's a reason for the behavior of the group we call "the human race".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 05:25:59 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
I used to roll with the idea of Libertarianism as the least awful form of government, these days I've decided they're all equally crappy in one way or another. A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance. Sadly, I doubt something like thata would ever be implemented usefully in the US.
However, I have found a glimmer of hope. Some Psychologists/Psychiatrist claim that through their studies they find that most people are Good but passive, rather than Evil, Selfish etc. Additionally, through the study of 'social networks' (not Facebook, the actual human social network) an individuals behavior influences the behavior of their friends, their friends friends and their friends friends friends (3 degrees of influence). If we behave in a Good-Active way, it influences 3 degrees of the social network to behave in a more Good-Active way. So while there may never be a government that is actively good, if these theories and observations are correct, humans could influence each other so that society becomes more actively good.
Hell, its better than voting for the psychopaths at the top and hoping they fix something, or ranting about obviously failed political belief systems.
ETA: There an interesting documentary on the topic: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-am-fishead-are-corporate-leaders-psychopaths/ (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-am-fishead-are-corporate-leaders-psychopaths/)
Psychologists (psychiatrists don't typically do behavioral research, as they are clinical doctors), and primarily the fellow who has been doing this research for over 40 years is Philip Zimbardo, who gave the TED talk I posted in another thread. He wrote an excellent book called The Lucifer Effect, and is now studying heroism, which he defines simply as resisting the influence of evil. Zimbardo, Milgram, Sapolsky, Cacioppo, and Cialdini are all great people to read up on if you're interested in that sort of thing.
Zimbardo has done a lot of work studying the situation at Abu Ghraib, and his conclusions are pretty chilling; essentially, he is convinced that evil isn't "a few bad apples" or "a bad barrel", but "bad-barrel-makers". Now he's working on understanding how we can influence the whole social-political-military system to mitigate the "bad-barrel-maker" effect.
Thanks for the clarification, I thought a few of the people involved were psychiatrists since they were discussing people they had done assessments of. One interesting thing on the Milgram experiment I had not known was that when people were shown videos of previous testers refusing to continue the electrical shock, the majority of subjects also refused to continue the shock, and that when people were shown videos of previous testers going all the way, they were more likely to go all the way. Says a lot about the examples we set in its effect of the 'social network'.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:51:38 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 05:25:59 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
I used to roll with the idea of Libertarianism as the least awful form of government, these days I've decided they're all equally crappy in one way or another. A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance. Sadly, I doubt something like thata would ever be implemented usefully in the US.
However, I have found a glimmer of hope. Some Psychologists/Psychiatrist claim that through their studies they find that most people are Good but passive, rather than Evil, Selfish etc. Additionally, through the study of 'social networks' (not Facebook, the actual human social network) an individuals behavior influences the behavior of their friends, their friends friends and their friends friends friends (3 degrees of influence). If we behave in a Good-Active way, it influences 3 degrees of the social network to behave in a more Good-Active way. So while there may never be a government that is actively good, if these theories and observations are correct, humans could influence each other so that society becomes more actively good.
Hell, its better than voting for the psychopaths at the top and hoping they fix something, or ranting about obviously failed political belief systems.
ETA: There an interesting documentary on the topic: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-am-fishead-are-corporate-leaders-psychopaths/ (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-am-fishead-are-corporate-leaders-psychopaths/)
Psychologists (psychiatrists don't typically do behavioral research, as they are clinical doctors), and primarily the fellow who has been doing this research for over 40 years is Philip Zimbardo, who gave the TED talk I posted in another thread. He wrote an excellent book called The Lucifer Effect, and is now studying heroism, which he defines simply as resisting the influence of evil. Zimbardo, Milgram, Sapolsky, Cacioppo, and Cialdini are all great people to read up on if you're interested in that sort of thing.
Zimbardo has done a lot of work studying the situation at Abu Ghraib, and his conclusions are pretty chilling; essentially, he is convinced that evil isn't "a few bad apples" or "a bad barrel", but "bad-barrel-makers". Now he's working on understanding how we can influence the whole social-political-military system to mitigate the "bad-barrel-maker" effect.
Thanks for the clarification, I thought a few of the people involved were psychiatrists since they were discussing people they had done assessments of. One interesting thing on the Milgram experiment I had not known was that when people were shown videos of previous testers refusing to continue the electrical shock, the majority of subjects also refused to continue the shock, and that when people were shown videos of previous testers going all the way, they were more likely to go all the way. Says a lot about the examples we set in its effect of the 'social network'.
This is one reason I despise Facebook. It is basically a gigantic funnel for validation of bad signal.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
I can't quite imagine how they would be funded.
That's kind of what I was thinking. People who complain about taxation = theft, have no real-world working model on how a state can exist without taxation.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 06:18:35 PM
That's kind of what I was thinking. People who complain about taxation = theft, have no real-world working model on how a state can exist without taxation.
This is when they start posting stupid things about how a community got together and fixed a bridge, etc...Which SOUNDS great, until you consider:
1. While they were doing that, they weren't doing their own jobs.
2. There's a hell of a lot of road that is absolutely necessary. Which neighborhood is going to fix I-10 between Tucson and Alamagordo? There are no communities there, and that is one of the two main traffic arteries from East to West.
3. Untrained people repairing a load-bearing structure such as a bridge is generally not considered to be best practice.
So now you have all these yahoos in Texas refusing assistance after the fertilizer factory explosion. They want to do it themselves. Well, okay. Enjoy your horrible liver degeneration, dumbasses.
So the answer is this: You can't have a modern society without taxation. And, as Cain points out, taxation is a hell of a lot less onerous today than it was historically.
ETA: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17975192-after-texas-fertilizer-blast-victims-rely-on-each-other?lite
As an aside (it isn't really relevant to the conversation, just personally interesting to me) there is a pretty big difference between psychologists and psychiatrists these days, although 100 years ago there wasn't. Psychiatry is the branch of medical treatment that deals with mental illness; psychiatrists are MDs. There are MDs who do research rather than clinical work but that typically requires research training, thus there are joint MD/PhD programs. Psychologists are research oriented, and although things are changing all the time the breakdown tends to be that psychiatrists treat people, while psychologists study people. A medical doctor who specializes in the brain is a neurologist, while a research doctor who studies the brain is a neuroscientist. There is overlap, though.
Confusing matters, there are also clinical psychologists who treat patients. And, all PhD psychologists are trained and qualified to assess a person's mental state, although not all are trained and qualified to diagnose and treat illness.
Confusing matters even more, neuroscientists are not so much psychologists as molecular biologists or biochemists. There is also the emerging field of neuropsychology, but right now so few schools are offering that as a degree that most budding neuropsychologists kind of have to take a "build-your-own" approach.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 06:30:52 PM
As an aside (it isn't really relevant to the conversation, just personally interesting to me) there is a pretty big difference between psychologists and psychiatrists these days, although 100 years ago there wasn't. Psychiatry is the branch of medical treatment that deals with mental illness; psychiatrists are MDs. There are MDs who do research rather than clinical work but that typically requires research training, thus there are joint MD/PhD programs. Psychologists are research oriented, and although things are changing all the time the breakdown tends to be that psychiatrists treat people, while psychologists study people. A medical doctor who specializes in the brain is a neurologist, while a research doctor who studies the brain is a neuroscientist. There is overlap, though.
Confusing matters, there are also clinical psychologists who treat patients. And, all PhD psychologists are trained and qualified to assess a person's mental state, although not all are trained and qualified to diagnose and treat illness.
Confusing matters even more, neuroscientists are not so much psychologists as molecular biologists or biochemists. There is also the emerging field of neuropsychology, but right now so few schools are offering that as a degree that most budding neuropsychologists kind of have to take a "build-your-own" approach.
***Regional differences might vary***
Psychiatrists have the ability to prescribe medication, they are closer to what a Doctor is, but their pharmacological knowledge is oriented towards the brain and chemical unbalances, but they don't have formal training in social/humanities and dont do any talk treatment (therapy, analysis).
Psychologists have different suffixes: labor, clinic, social, institutions, etc. Clinical psychologists treat people thru talk in whichever method they were trained (Gestalt, Psychoanalysis, Cognitive-Conductual); labor focuses on human resources management and recruitment; social is focused on research but has some clinical capabilities; institutions focuses on how organizations function and can do consulting (NGOs, government, corporations).
For example, a patient with schizophrenia can be hypothetically treated by a team consisting of a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist and a social psychologist, each one providing an important part of the treatment.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 09:25:42 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 06:30:52 PM
As an aside (it isn't really relevant to the conversation, just personally interesting to me) there is a pretty big difference between psychologists and psychiatrists these days, although 100 years ago there wasn't. Psychiatry is the branch of medical treatment that deals with mental illness; psychiatrists are MDs. There are MDs who do research rather than clinical work but that typically requires research training, thus there are joint MD/PhD programs. Psychologists are research oriented, and although things are changing all the time the breakdown tends to be that psychiatrists treat people, while psychologists study people. A medical doctor who specializes in the brain is a neurologist, while a research doctor who studies the brain is a neuroscientist. There is overlap, though.
Confusing matters, there are also clinical psychologists who treat patients. And, all PhD psychologists are trained and qualified to assess a person's mental state, although not all are trained and qualified to diagnose and treat illness.
Confusing matters even more, neuroscientists are not so much psychologists as molecular biologists or biochemists. There is also the emerging field of neuropsychology, but right now so few schools are offering that as a degree that most budding neuropsychologists kind of have to take a "build-your-own" approach.
***Regional differences might vary***
Psychiatrists have the ability to prescribe medication, they are closer to what a Doctor is, but their pharmacological knowledge is oriented towards the brain and chemical unbalances, but they don't have formal training in social/humanities and dont do any talk treatment (therapy, analysis).
Psychologists have different suffixes: labor, clinic, social, institutions, etc. Clinical psychologists treat people thru talk in whichever method they were trained (Gestalt, Psychoanalysis, Cognitive-Conductual); labor focuses on human resources management and recruitment; social is focused on research but has some clinical capabilities; institutions focuses on how organizations function and can do consulting (NGOs, government, corporations).
For example, a patient with schizophrenia can be hypothetically treated by a team consisting of a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist and a social psychologist, each one providing an important part of the treatment.
I want to live in your universe.
Because in my universe, public care gives them goofball pills and sends them back out into the street.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 09:27:28 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 09:25:42 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 06:30:52 PM
As an aside (it isn't really relevant to the conversation, just personally interesting to me) there is a pretty big difference between psychologists and psychiatrists these days, although 100 years ago there wasn't. Psychiatry is the branch of medical treatment that deals with mental illness; psychiatrists are MDs. There are MDs who do research rather than clinical work but that typically requires research training, thus there are joint MD/PhD programs. Psychologists are research oriented, and although things are changing all the time the breakdown tends to be that psychiatrists treat people, while psychologists study people. A medical doctor who specializes in the brain is a neurologist, while a research doctor who studies the brain is a neuroscientist. There is overlap, though.
Confusing matters, there are also clinical psychologists who treat patients. And, all PhD psychologists are trained and qualified to assess a person's mental state, although not all are trained and qualified to diagnose and treat illness.
Confusing matters even more, neuroscientists are not so much psychologists as molecular biologists or biochemists. There is also the emerging field of neuropsychology, but right now so few schools are offering that as a degree that most budding neuropsychologists kind of have to take a "build-your-own" approach.
***Regional differences might vary***
Psychiatrists have the ability to prescribe medication, they are closer to what a Doctor is, but their pharmacological knowledge is oriented towards the brain and chemical unbalances, but they don't have formal training in social/humanities and dont do any talk treatment (therapy, analysis).
Psychologists have different suffixes: labor, clinic, social, institutions, etc. Clinical psychologists treat people thru talk in whichever method they were trained (Gestalt, Psychoanalysis, Cognitive-Conductual); labor focuses on human resources management and recruitment; social is focused on research but has some clinical capabilities; institutions focuses on how organizations function and can do consulting (NGOs, government, corporations).
For example, a patient with schizophrenia can be hypothetically treated by a team consisting of a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist and a social psychologist, each one providing an important part of the treatment.
I want to live in your universe.
Because in my universe, public care gives them goofball pills and sends them back out into the street.
Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.
Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 09:41:13 PM
Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.
Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.
Yes, but we're still better. Or so I am told by people who are very sure of this.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 09:41:13 PM
Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.
Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.
Yes, but we're still better. Or so I am told by people who are very sure of this.
:lulz:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 09:41:13 PM
Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.
Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.
Yes, but we're still better. Or so I am told by people who are very sure of this.
:lulz:
Way I see it, I have three neighbors.
On one side, I have Phoenix and Utah. On the other, I have Mexico.
Mexico is that neighbor that squabbles a bit and has really loud parties...But only on the weekend, and they always invite you over for the party.
Phoenix is the neighbor that calls the Home Owner's Association if you have an oil spot the size of a dime in the driveway.
Utah is the neighbor that's really, really concerned about your soul, while they cheat on their taxes and on their spouses.
So guess which neighbor I prefer?
I'm not sure we're better here: the public psychiatric resources available are focused on crisis management post-facto, they dont do prevention, prevention is the patient's burden; in other words, they'd gladly lock you up if you have a suicidal crisis or a manic attack for a couple of days, otherwise its out of pocket.
The manicomial institutions we have only give psychiatric treatment, in the sense that its only pills, but thats only free if you are in it for life; for example, being a homeless person with psychiatric condition.
And the hypothetical treatment by a team of 3 specialists is far off from reality, thats just the ideal that only the high class can afford.
I think mental health treatment is quite grim worldwide, either because of a bad approach or because of lack of resources to apply it; ive heard of a new generation of psychiatrists that have a more well-rounded training, but i think it only happens in France.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:19:29 PM
I'm not sure we're better here: the public psychiatric resources available are focused on crisis management post-facto, they dont do prevention, prevention is the patient's burden; in other words, they'd gladly lock you up if you have a suicidal crisis or a manic attack for a couple of days, otherwise its out of pocket.
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
QuoteI think mental health treatment is quite grim worldwide, either because of a bad approach or because of lack of resources to apply it; ive heard of a new generation of psychiatrists that have a more well-rounded training, but i think it only happens in France.
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:12:51 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 09:41:13 PM
Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.
Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.
Yes, but we're still better. Or so I am told by people who are very sure of this.
:lulz:
Way I see it, I have three neighbors.
On one side, I have Phoenix and Utah. On the other, I have Mexico.
Mexico is that neighbor that squabbles a bit and has really loud parties...But only on the weekend, and they always invite you over for the party.
Phoenix is the neighbor that calls the Home Owner's Association if you have an oil spot the size of a dime in the driveway.
Utah is the neighbor that's really, really concerned about your soul, while they cheat on their taxes and on their spouses.
So guess which neighbor I prefer?
Thats between a rock and a hard place really: zealots, bureucrats or anarchy.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 30, 2013, 09:03:29 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 03:52:45 AM
Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior. Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior. I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.
I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.
This has taken some time to think about...
Regardless, if the machine is unwavering, then what is the point of concerning yourself with my ideological underpinnings? Although I may switch who's idea-book I take information from depending on the state of the machine, my complete lack of genuine conviction in whatever I'm arguing about reamains constant.
Sure, ill dig in, ill yell, ill try to beat peoples opinions down with full furor--but that's just the game of arguing for the sake of arguing. Its fun, it gives one a reason to commit research, but in the end, its only a game -- assuming the machine is so unchanging as you present.
You describe yourself as being a moralist; that you stick to your predetermined set of ideals and it makes you feel good to do so. I'm much more of a cynic in this regard. I see flaws in almost every ideolgy; this has led me to believe that nothing is "correct" in a meaningful way, thus it helps me to sleep at night knowing that I dont honestly hold fast to anything lest it be rendered incorrect by morning.
You know what's worse than a Libpretendian?
A goddamn moral relativist, that's the fuck what.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
That seems impossible. How would the government support its operations with no income?
Quote from: Pergamos on April 30, 2013, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
That seems impossible. How would the government support its operations with no income?
Conquest.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:22:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:12:51 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 09:41:13 PM
Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.
Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.
Yes, but we're still better. Or so I am told by people who are very sure of this.
:lulz:
Way I see it, I have three neighbors.
On one side, I have Phoenix and Utah. On the other, I have Mexico.
Mexico is that neighbor that squabbles a bit and has really loud parties...But only on the weekend, and they always invite you over for the party.
Phoenix is the neighbor that calls the Home Owner's Association if you have an oil spot the size of a dime in the driveway.
Utah is the neighbor that's really, really concerned about your soul, while they cheat on their taxes and on their spouses.
So guess which neighbor I prefer?
Thats between a rock and a hard place really: zealots, bureucrats or anarchy.
Sonora isn't that bad. They have problems, no arguing it...But in terms of being neighbors, not so bad.
This IS Tucson, though. We don't give a shit about drug smuggling, or any of that garbage. It's simply not relevant and besides, the cartels only exist because the USA is a huge local market. Also, it's hardly fair to spend 150 years knocking your neighbor on his ass, only to blame him because he got mud on his pants.
Whenever anyone starts trash-talking Mexico (not common here, most people have family and/or friends on both sides of the border), I ask them what Henry Wilson would say.
They invariably say "who"? Then I stop caring about their opinion.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:19:29 PM
I'm not sure we're better here: the public psychiatric resources available are focused on crisis management post-facto, they dont do prevention, prevention is the patient's burden; in other words, they'd gladly lock you up if you have a suicidal crisis or a manic attack for a couple of days, otherwise its out of pocket.
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
In the northeast, it's possible to get adequate preventive care if you're INSANELY proactive and covered by insurance. Of course, the mentally ill are well known for their level-headedness and excellent planning ability... :horrormirth:
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 30, 2013, 10:27:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:19:29 PM
I'm not sure we're better here: the public psychiatric resources available are focused on crisis management post-facto, they dont do prevention, prevention is the patient's burden; in other words, they'd gladly lock you up if you have a suicidal crisis or a manic attack for a couple of days, otherwise its out of pocket.
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
In the northeast, it's possible to get adequate preventive care if you're INSANELY proactive and covered by insurance. Of course, the mentally ill are well known for their level-headedness and excellent planning ability... :horrormirth:
And financial well-being.
For those of you who have no reason to know who Henry Wilson was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lane_Wilson
Ever wonder why every nation to our South hates our guts? Go to the link, and then realize that he was typical for his time.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Good on ya, Johnny.
I like it when people actually try to make things better.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:27:43 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 30, 2013, 10:27:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:19:29 PM
I'm not sure we're better here: the public psychiatric resources available are focused on crisis management post-facto, they dont do prevention, prevention is the patient's burden; in other words, they'd gladly lock you up if you have a suicidal crisis or a manic attack for a couple of days, otherwise its out of pocket.
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
In the northeast, it's possible to get adequate preventive care if you're INSANELY proactive and covered by insurance. Of course, the mentally ill are well known for their level-headedness and excellent planning ability... :horrormirth:
And financial well-being.
MassHealth covers therapy as long as you have a diagnosis, and all of the practices in the area know how to navigate that shit by now. It's part of why we're all super disappointed in ObamaCare, since we were expecting something awesome like what we did and instead there's this watered down bullshit.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 30, 2013, 10:35:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:27:43 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 30, 2013, 10:27:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:19:29 PM
I'm not sure we're better here: the public psychiatric resources available are focused on crisis management post-facto, they dont do prevention, prevention is the patient's burden; in other words, they'd gladly lock you up if you have a suicidal crisis or a manic attack for a couple of days, otherwise its out of pocket.
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
In the northeast, it's possible to get adequate preventive care if you're INSANELY proactive and covered by insurance. Of course, the mentally ill are well known for their level-headedness and excellent planning ability... :horrormirth:
And financial well-being.
MassHealth covers therapy as long as you have a diagnosis, and all of the practices in the area know how to navigate that shit by now. It's part of why we're all super disappointed in ObamaCare, since we were expecting something awesome like what we did and instead there's this watered down bullshit.
It isn't watered down if you're an insurance company.
KA-CHING!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:33:52 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Good on ya, Johnny.
I like it when people actually try to make things better.
Thanks. Sometimes i get sad by seeing certain discordians, like the guy that lead to the creation of the Spanish subforums, or that Jackalope guy... their rap is basicly "i dont have an illness, i am a discordian", which resonates with a big problem that mental health patients have, which is, accepting they have a condition that needs treatment.
(Sorry if my thread etiquette is bad, running off on tangents and all)
Yeah, with all the "look how CRAZY I am!" idiots who aren't actually crazy it's easy to forget that the flip side of that coin presents itself in here on occasion as well.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Anarcho-Socialism?
Quote from: Balls Wellington on April 30, 2013, 11:19:18 PM
Yeah, with all the "look how CRAZY I am!" idiots who aren't actually crazy it's easy to forget that the flip side of that coin presents itself in here on occasion as well.
as someone who has had a serious brush with crazy, I fucking hate those assbags.
Quote from: Cain on April 30, 2013, 10:25:30 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 30, 2013, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
That seems impossible. How would the government support its operations with no income?
Conquest.
THIS
Quote from: Pixie on April 30, 2013, 11:46:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Anarcho-Socialism?
Nope. Fuck the anarcho part. You pay for government via taxes. Government sets shit up and runs it. Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people. Not difficult.
Quote from: E.O.T. on May 01, 2013, 12:25:37 AM
Quote from: Cain on April 30, 2013, 10:25:30 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 30, 2013, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
That seems impossible. How would the government support its operations with no income?
Conquest.
THIS
Yep, just endless war and plundering.
Forever.
It's ALMOST as nice as Somalia!
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 01, 2013, 12:29:48 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on May 01, 2013, 12:25:37 AM
Quote from: Cain on April 30, 2013, 10:25:30 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 30, 2013, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
That seems impossible. How would the government support its operations with no income?
Conquest.
THIS
Yep, just endless war and plundering.
Forever.
It's ALMOST as nice as Somalia!
I
think that endless war and plundering is already fully under way, however, you and I are somehow financing it rather than being supported by it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 30, 2013, 11:46:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Anarcho-Socialism?
Nope. Fuck the anarcho part. You pay for government via taxes. Government sets shit up and runs it. Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people. Not difficult.
i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.
Fr'instance, Noam Chomsky would be defined as an anarcho-socialist.
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 30, 2013, 11:46:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Anarcho-Socialism?
Nope. Fuck the anarcho part. You pay for government via taxes. Government sets shit up and runs it. Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people. Not difficult.
i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.
Anarchy implies lack of government. Humans cannot behave without government. It's the way we're wired.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 01:17:09 AM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 30, 2013, 11:46:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Anarcho-Socialism?
Nope. Fuck the anarcho part. You pay for government via taxes. Government sets shit up and runs it. Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people. Not difficult.
i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.
Anarchy implies lack of government. Humans cannot behave without government. It's the way we're wired.
yea, the idea works more on a small-scale democracy and commune type thing, so it's got holes and potential for fuck uppery, because humans.
I lean in that direction but I'm critical of it, seeing how commune style existence can suck, but on a larger scale I favour a safety net, representation of workers within their own fields/companies, and generally respecting the rights and privacy of citizens. It's marxism without the gulags and fuckery of communism.
Political Compass thinks I am an Anarcho-Socialist, but it's weighting is so damned American, and i am a filthy euro-socialist, so...
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 01:25:27 AM
I lean in that direction but I'm critical of it, seeing how commune style existence can suck, but on a larger scale I favour a safety net, representation of workers within their own fields/companies, and generally respecting the rights and privacy of citizens. It's marxism without the gulags and fuckery of communism.
So, American domestic policy, circa 1933-1979.
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 30, 2013, 11:46:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Anarcho-Socialism?
Nope. Fuck the anarcho part. You pay for government via taxes. Government sets shit up and runs it. Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people. Not difficult.
i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.
I don't think so. Anarcho means no government. Anarcho-socialist usually means that there's no government and things are controlled by groups on the local level. Unions and so forth. Nobody owns anything privately, things are owned by the people in general and used and taken care of by individuals.
Personally I prefer mutualism, which allows for personal property but not rent seeking, but that also doesn't make room for a government. If you are in favor of a government, including a benign government that makes surepeople are fed and housed and not being raped or stolen from but otherwise stays out of the way, then you are not an Anarchist.
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 01:25:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 01:17:09 AM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 30, 2013, 11:46:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Anarcho-Socialism?
Nope. Fuck the anarcho part. You pay for government via taxes. Government sets shit up and runs it. Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people. Not difficult.
i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.
Anarchy implies lack of government. Humans cannot behave without government. It's the way we're wired.
yea, the idea works more on a small-scale democracy and commune type thing, so it's got holes and potential for fuck uppery, because humans.
I lean in that direction but I'm critical of it, seeing how commune style existence can suck, but on a larger scale I favour a safety net, representation of workers within their own fields/companies, and generally respecting the rights and privacy of citizens. It's marxism without the gulags and fuckery of communism.
Political Compass thinks I am an Anarcho-Socialist, but it's weighting is so damned American, and i am a filthy euro-socialist, so...
Weird you say it's "very american"...alot of americans I know who get results they don't like from that test inevitably blame it on the test being bent towards european ideals...that or loaded questions.
just interesting.
Quote from: E.O.T. on May 01, 2013, 12:41:15 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 01, 2013, 12:29:48 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on May 01, 2013, 12:25:37 AM
Quote from: Cain on April 30, 2013, 10:25:30 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 30, 2013, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
That seems impossible. How would the government support its operations with no income?
Conquest.
THIS
Yep, just endless war and plundering.
Forever.
It's ALMOST as nice as Somalia!
I
think that endless war and plundering is already fully under way, however, you and I are somehow financing it rather than being supported by it.
Good point.
Part of that is because the corporations can no longer plunder enough overseas to satisfy their thirst for endless growth, so as they grow and merge they are looking at the populace... well, the way corporations have always looked at the populace.
In other words, the masses will always be the victims of conquest and plunder, and the "kings" will always benefit.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 01, 2013, 01:40:27 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on May 01, 2013, 12:41:15 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 01, 2013, 12:29:48 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on May 01, 2013, 12:25:37 AM
Quote from: Cain on April 30, 2013, 10:25:30 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 30, 2013, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
That seems impossible. How would the government support its operations with no income?
Conquest.
THIS
Yep, just endless war and plundering.
Forever.
It's ALMOST as nice as Somalia!
I
think that endless war and plundering is already fully under way, however, you and I are somehow financing it rather than being supported by it.
Good point.
Part of that is because the corporations can no longer plunder enough overseas to satisfy their thirst for endless growth, so as they grow and merge they are looking at the populace... well, the way corporations have always looked at the populace.
In other words, the masses will always be the victims of conquest and plunder, and the "kings" will always benefit.
I'd say that most of the plundering is done inside our borders, just like Rome used to do.
Except instead of legions, we use Goldman Sachs and CCA.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on April 30, 2013, 10:24:32 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 30, 2013, 09:03:29 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 03:52:45 AM
Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior. Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior. I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.
I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.
This has taken some time to think about...
Regardless, if the machine is unwavering, then what is the point of concerning yourself with my ideological underpinnings? Although I may switch who's idea-book I take information from depending on the state of the machine, my complete lack of genuine conviction in whatever I'm arguing about reamains constant.
Sure, ill dig in, ill yell, ill try to beat peoples opinions down with full furor--but that's just the game of arguing for the sake of arguing. Its fun, it gives one a reason to commit research, but in the end, its only a game -- assuming the machine is so unchanging as you present.
You describe yourself as being a moralist; that you stick to your predetermined set of ideals and it makes you feel good to do so. I'm much more of a cynic in this regard. I see flaws in almost every ideolgy; this has led me to believe that nothing is "correct" in a meaningful way, thus it helps me to sleep at night knowing that I dont honestly hold fast to anything lest it be rendered incorrect by morning.
You know what's worse than a Libpretendian?
A goddamn moral relativist, that's the fuck what.
(http://i.qkme.me/362wa3.jpg)
And what happened to HIM, smart guy? :lulz:
Another perfectly good conversation ruined by Star Wars.
:argh!:
Quote from: Alty on May 01, 2013, 02:28:33 AM
Another perfectly good conversation ruined by Star Wars.
:argh!:
Whats ruined? Things can continue quite easily: obi-wans statement is itself an absolute, and therefore if his implication is that siths are bad, then his statement is self defeating.
I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! :link:
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 03:39:22 AM
I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! :link:
So how is this gonna work? I mean, do the competitors have to troll each other or do the competitors have to find a forum, infiltrate and troll it and then be judged on the lulz produced? I find the latter to sound more fun...
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 01, 2013, 03:52:49 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 03:39:22 AM
I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! :link:
So how is this gonna work? I mean, do the competitors have to troll each other or do the competitors have to find a forum, infiltrate and troll it and then be judged on the lulz produced? I find the latter to sound more fun...
We used to do the second one, but after the great collective assburger of 2009, we mostly just do the former.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 01, 2013, 03:52:49 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 03:39:22 AM
I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! :link:
So how is this gonna work? I mean, do the competitors have to troll each other or do the competitors have to find a forum, infiltrate and troll it and then be judged on the lulz produced? I find the latter to sound more fun...
Im just seconding Alty's point; also i think that memes and white italics with a black border produce brain-rot.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 04:09:44 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 01, 2013, 03:52:49 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 03:39:22 AM
I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! :link:
So how is this gonna work? I mean, do the competitors have to troll each other or do the competitors have to find a forum, infiltrate and troll it and then be judged on the lulz produced? I find the latter to sound more fun...
Im just seconding Alty's point; also i think that memes and white italics with a black border produce brain-rot.
That is because you are a communist.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 04:31:34 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 04:09:44 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 01, 2013, 03:52:49 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 03:39:22 AM
I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! :link:
So how is this gonna work? I mean, do the competitors have to troll each other or do the competitors have to find a forum, infiltrate and troll it and then be judged on the lulz produced? I find the latter to sound more fun...
Im just seconding Alty's point; also i think that memes and white italics with a black border produce brain-rot.
That is because you are a communist.
A totalitarian communist that hates crappy capitalistic neo-mythology
TM.
Oh, the joys of Disney being in charge of creating Episode VII! As if Jar Jar Binks and Matrix-style fighting wasn't enough for someone to dislike it. Or all that Force-madjick junk. Or Furry Planet for that matter.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 05:07:26 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 04:31:34 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 04:09:44 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 01, 2013, 03:52:49 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 03:39:22 AM
I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! :link:
So how is this gonna work? I mean, do the competitors have to troll each other or do the competitors have to find a forum, infiltrate and troll it and then be judged on the lulz produced? I find the latter to sound more fun...
Im just seconding Alty's point; also i think that memes and white italics with a black border produce brain-rot.
That is because you are a communist.
A totalitarian communist that hates crappy capitalistic neo-mythologyTM.
Oh, the joys of Disney being in charge of creating Episode VII! As if Jar Jar Binks and Matrix-style fighting wasn't enough for someone to dislike it. Or all that Force-madjick junk. Or Furry Planet for that matter.
Also, Star Wars. All of it. Terrible.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 03:56:46 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 01, 2013, 03:52:49 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 03:39:22 AM
I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! :link:
So how is this gonna work? I mean, do the competitors have to troll each other or do the competitors have to find a forum, infiltrate and troll it and then be judged on the lulz produced? I find the latter to sound more fun...
We used to do the second one, but after the great collective assburger of 2009, we mostly just do the former.
What happened in 2009?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 06:17:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
I can't quite imagine how they would be funded.
Jesus handing out golden Ayn Rand dollars.
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 05:34:45 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 30, 2013, 06:17:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
I can't quite imagine how they would be funded.
Jesus handing out golden Ayn Rand dollars.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:24:07 PM
I think the reason for the disconnect between "social structure" and "maximizing freedom" is the conflation with "property" and "taxes". If someone insists that taxation is theft, then no society will ever meet their standards, outside of Somalia.
If, on the other hand, you equate "taxation" with "paying the bills", then suddenly things become a whole lot easier.
The really absurd part of this is that people who pay almost no taxes have been trained to squawk about taxes as if the government walked into their house, took 70% of everything they own, and then shat on the stove. Add to that the fact that almost nobody understands how "progressive taxation" and "brackets" actually work, and you wind up with a population screaming to be raped with a "Fair Tax" or a "Flat Tax".
This is why I hate Anarchists. They despise the safety nets that keep them alive. I honestly don 't see why anyone should hate public infrastructure.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 02:25:17 AM
The biggest question I have for libertarians is, given the whole ME ME ME thing inherent in libertarianism, is what kind of world do you think you're asking for?
The ME ME ME ME kind where I don't see people dying on the street, and the kind of system that doesn't let the police kick parents in the teeth because little Jimmie was making fart jokes in class.
I honestly don't like the AYN RAND cultists who literally bitch about public infrastructure.
Fucktard: "Why should we have people on welfare hurp derp fiscal responsibility free market themselves out of poverty."
Me: "If you don't have these safety nets that prevents people from eating dirt then you're helping create more and more Dystopian Socialists, and Anarchists."
FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
ATTENTION, LIBERARIANS:
We already have a "Libertarian" society.
Do you know what happens in a Libertarian society? Yes? No you don't. I'll tell you what happens.
First, everything is fun.
THEN, some asshole decides he's bigger and badder than the rest of the assholes, and he starts up something we call A FUCKING GOVERNMENT.
Since there's no pre-existing government to stop him from doing that, well, it is what it is.
Libertarianism is, in fact, just a fleeting thought where you go "Hey, what if these assholes weren't in charge?" but then forget the answer to your not-as-rhetorical-as-you-thought-it-was question, that answer being, "If those assholes weren't in charge, some other assholes would be." So give the fuck up already.
Libertarianism is the ideal political and social order for any planet NOT INHABITED BY GODDAMN HUMANS.
ETA: No I'm not conflating Libertarianism and Anarchy. "Libertarianism" is just "Anarchy without all the parts I don't want to admit make Anarchy completely goddamn stupid."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 01:17:09 AM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 30, 2013, 11:46:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Anarcho-Socialism?
Nope. Fuck the anarcho part. You pay for government via taxes. Government sets shit up and runs it. Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people. Not difficult.
i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.
Anarchy implies lack of government. Humans cannot behave without government. It's the way we're wired.
Strictly speaking, no. Anarchy implies the abolition of the state, and a vastly decentralized and limited/voluntary/non-coercive* government.
*in order of most realistic to idealistic
Quote from: Pergamos on April 30, 2013, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
That seems impossible. How would the government support its operations with no income?
Medieval iceland was such a society.
The function of "the state" was pretty much to rule on lawsuits and codify law. Enforcement of law was up to the citizens (i.e. once the courts rule in your favour and deign that hrothgar owes you 500 pounds of wool to compensate damages, you would be legally cleared of having to pay compensation if hrothgar decided to resist you collecting and you happened to put an axe in his head). There wasnt a death penalty either; many of the crimes we execute for today would be punished with outlawry, which essentially makes the individual in question "open game" for anyone within a juristiction who wants to kill him. Culture at the time made it a great honour to hunt and kill outlaws, much in the same vein that killing a pedophile is something many people can agree with today. Needless to say, aiding an outlaw was punishable by outlawry itself.
A rudimentry social safety net did exist, but like most things in old iceland, was organised at the local level. Essentially, the community would invest a VERY small (its iceland in 900ad...life was hard enough without "taxes") amount of wealth into a sort of community trust fund. If someone fell on hard times, the local community would hold a public court, and vote on whether or not anything should be disbursted and how much...it was principally for widows and orphans.
As for a military; there was none. Being isolated, iceland needed none, and under germanic custom of the times, militaries and warbands were associated with kings, which were a disparaged concept for the icelanders, who prided themselves on their democracy of the people.
Is this a viable model for modern, post/industrial society? No, it relies on a strong adherance to cultural norms/social mores, small, genetically related populations (srsly, i mean literally related, not just "all one race" -- modern icelanders recently released an android app to help people determine whether they are hitting on a distant cousin or not), generally isnt compatable with corporatism or great excesses of wealth, and relies on principals of "might makes right" to some degree.
However, given that it is a pretty good example of the "minnest of minarchies", i think it very well fits the bill for "state that doesnt levy taxes and still functions" (well, at least until the danes came with jesus...jesus breaks every state's will eventually)
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
Quote from: V3X on May 01, 2013, 05:56:38 AM
FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
ATTENTION, LIBERARIANS:
We already have a "Libertarian" society.
Do you know what happens in a Libertarian society? Yes? No you don't. I'll tell you what happens.
First, everything is fun.
THEN, some asshole decides he's bigger and badder than the rest of the assholes, and he starts up something we call A FUCKING GOVERNMENT.
Since there's no pre-existing government to stop him from doing that, well, it is what it is.
Libertarianism is, in fact, just a fleeting thought where you go "Hey, what if these assholes weren't in charge?" but then forget the answer to your not-as-rhetorical-as-you-thought-it-was question, that answer being, "If those assholes weren't in charge, some other assholes would be." So give the fuck up already.
Libertarianism is the ideal political and social order for any planet NOT INHABITED BY GODDAMN HUMANS.
ETA: No I'm not conflating Libertarianism and Anarchy. "Libertarianism" is just "Anarchy without all the parts I don't want to admit make Anarchy completely goddamn stupid."
Funny because that's always been my goto argument against anarchy. :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 01, 2013, 11:51:07 AM
Quote from: V3X on May 01, 2013, 05:56:38 AM
FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
ATTENTION, LIBERARIANS:
We already have a "Libertarian" society.
Do you know what happens in a Libertarian society? Yes? No you don't. I'll tell you what happens.
First, everything is fun.
THEN, some asshole decides he's bigger and badder than the rest of the assholes, and he starts up something we call A FUCKING GOVERNMENT.
Since there's no pre-existing government to stop him from doing that, well, it is what it is.
Libertarianism is, in fact, just a fleeting thought where you go "Hey, what if these assholes weren't in charge?" but then forget the answer to your not-as-rhetorical-as-you-thought-it-was question, that answer being, "If those assholes weren't in charge, some other assholes would be." So give the fuck up already.
Libertarianism is the ideal political and social order for any planet NOT INHABITED BY GODDAMN HUMANS.
ETA: No I'm not conflating Libertarianism and Anarchy. "Libertarianism" is just "Anarchy without all the parts I don't want to admit make Anarchy completely goddamn stupid."
Funny because that's always been my goto argument against anarchy. :lulz:
It's mine too, although there are some things that really make my head hurt which are well embodied within this passage which you've quoted:
Definitions. What are this man's definitions when it comes to things? Anarchy, and "libertarianism" for what they are, have so many weird and contrived definitions, subclasses, subideologies and subsubmarinesubsandwiches that discussing these two (heh, mabey one?) ideologies is kinda difficult.
For instance, when I hear "libertarian", my mind wafts immediately to anarcho-capitalism. When I think of the term "anarchism" I also tend to think immediately of anarcho-capitalism, and in such a line of thinking, I see the argument laid forth: that the biggest, baddest an-capfag (and i do not slight the genderqueer in this terminology -- my primary land of communication is a slew of *chans, and likewise, old linguistic habits stick) decided to lay forth this thing called "government" and thus we have the world as it stands in the state of nature, with the big man doing as he pleases -- even allowing us to vote and such.
But then you have (in anarchy land):
anarcho-syndicalists
anarcho-nationalists
anarcho-primitivists (love these folk dearly)
anarcho-communists
anarcho-socialists
anarcho-choanarists (ok, kinda drunk and being funny -- anyone should see "choanarist" is "anarcho" +ist backwards)
anarcho-authoritarians (wait, wut?)
and anarcho-ad-naseumists, who embody the nature of naming anarchist movements in their entirety.
Regardless, within these many million zany anarchist theories of governance, my mind immediately calls each and every lot of them either "tribalism" or "minarchy" -- that is, organising under natural human instinct, such as any group will, or organising under the smallest amount of human coercion possible.
Likewise, libertarians have a million billion (ok, the anarchists have way more) sub categories:
Right-libertarianism --when I see this, I think "anarcho-capitalism": state of nature or "ayn rand faggotry"
Left-libertarianism -- recently, I understand this as being what RAW liked. However, I can see everyone from Marx (stand up for your freedoms in the form of violent revolution and use your collective force to rob the rich) to the typical label of "Democrat" (stand up for your freedom to have butt-secks, make stupid hipster concept art, and smoke weed, but as soon as you want to make money, let the figureheads handle things) flying this flag.
Minarchists -- people who understand the idea of taxes as "paying the bills", but want to sign up for the cheapest service plan possible
Constitutionalists -- idiots who believe in "natural rights" and think that the constitution of the US allows them to revolt and that a piece of paper secures their rights to the things they want.
Every "anarcho-" movement that doesn't involve anything written by marx or trotsky -- because communism is the devil, amirite?
Republicans-who-are-ok-with-gay-people-drugs-and-other-social-liberalism-ism -- in short, see right-libertarians.
freemarket-libertarians -- minarchists who think that the only thing the goverment should do is maintain a true free market; whatever the hell that means. (hint: anti-trust, anti-monopoly shit)
Again, kinda drunk so sorry for tl;dr, but it seems v3x made the "obvious" argument against anarcho-capitalism/right-libertarianism. Definitions and the whole millieu of their variety leave his argument open to attack from some angle. For example, a minarchist, who conflates his ideals with "libertarianism" (and i guess this is true in a relative sense -- a smaller yet more efficient government could be construed as more "liber") could easily state that having a government that simply maintains the roads, ensures monopoloies don't form, and ensures banking doesnt become a behemoth is what he's pushing for, rather than the somalia faggotry that v3x is conflating libertarianism with.
he claims to have not conflated anarchism with libertarianism -- I personally don't see why he sought to maintain the distance between the two, but regardless, he's effectively conflated libertarianism and anarchism alike with the state of nature, so for anyone well versed in either of these ideologies, he's presented an all-to-often cited, debated and dispelled argument :fap:
MY ANARCHY HAS AN EVERYTHING-PROOF VEST ON. IT'S CALLED LIBERTARIANISM NOW.
\
(http://www.bolgernow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/brat-kid.jpg)
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 01, 2013, 05:14:23 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 03:56:46 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 01, 2013, 03:52:49 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 01, 2013, 03:39:22 AM
I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! :link:
So how is this gonna work? I mean, do the competitors have to troll each other or do the competitors have to find a forum, infiltrate and troll it and then be judged on the lulz produced? I find the latter to sound more fun...
We used to do the second one, but after the great collective assburger of 2009, we mostly just do the former.
What happened in 2009?
A year long trend of organizing a trolling run, and then ONE person (Usually Cain, Nigel, or I) would show up and get left dangling in the breeze. Everyone else (and everyone was guilty, myself included) would have all manner of excuses as to why they couldn't be arsed to attend.
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
I think he was asking a question.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 01, 2013, 08:20:23 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 30, 2013, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
That seems impossible. How would the government support its operations with no income?
Medieval iceland was such a society.
The function of "the state" was pretty much to rule on lawsuits and codify law. Enforcement of law was up to the citizens (i.e. once the courts rule in your favour and deign that hrothgar owes you 500 pounds of wool to compensate damages, you would be legally cleared of having to pay compensation if hrothgar decided to resist you collecting and you happened to put an axe in his head). There wasnt a death penalty either; many of the crimes we execute for today would be punished with outlawry, which essentially makes the individual in question "open game" for anyone within a juristiction who wants to kill him. Culture at the time made it a great honour to hunt and kill outlaws, much in the same vein that killing a pedophile is something many people can agree with today. Needless to say, aiding an outlaw was punishable by outlawry itself.
A rudimentry social safety net did exist, but like most things in old iceland, was organised at the local level. Essentially, the community would invest a VERY small (its iceland in 900ad...life was hard enough without "taxes") amount of wealth into a sort of community trust fund. If someone fell on hard times, the local community would hold a public court, and vote on whether or not anything should be disbursted and how much...it was principally for widows and orphans.
As for a military; there was none. Being isolated, iceland needed none, and under germanic custom of the times, militaries and warbands were associated with kings, which were a disparaged concept for the icelanders, who prided themselves on their democracy of the people.
Is this a viable model for modern, post/industrial society? No, it relies on a strong adherance to cultural norms/social mores, small, genetically related populations (srsly, i mean literally related, not just "all one race" -- modern icelanders recently released an android app to help people determine whether they are hitting on a distant cousin or not), generally isnt compatable with corporatism or great excesses of wealth, and relies on principals of "might makes right" to some degree.
However, given that it is a pretty good example of the "minnest of minarchies", i think it very well fits the bill for "state that doesnt levy taxes and still functions" (well, at least until the danes came with jesus...jesus breaks every state's will eventually)
It also ended in a very nasty civil war, where the decentralized power of the goðar allowed some to side with the Norwegian King, and do battle to subjugate Iceland under his control.
Which is the other main flaw of decentralized systems - they're highly vulnerable to compromise by centralized systems in certain historical periods, technology and other factors permitting*. Quasi-anarchist or libertarian societies have a low success rate in wars against centralized state powers.
*Machiavelli described such a system in feudal France, for example, whereby the French nobility were constantly scheming against the throne. However, the nobility were also scheming against each other even more so, and the French had a more capable military than their contemporaries, making them a somewhat unique example of a decentralized system which still contained enough balancing towards potential threats and military capacity to deal with them.
The thing that I find highly amusing about most Libertarians (aside from pretty much everything) is that they holler and howl about deregulation, the free market, and ending social welfare, but seem to have no problem with the magnitudes-larger issue of corporate welfare and a bloated and unnecessary military budget that funds endless unjust invasions which, one would think, would run a little contrary to Libertarian ideology, that is unless what they mean is liberty is only good for Americans.
Speaking as a small business owner, tax breaks and subsidies for corporations don't do fuck-all for the little guy.
Regulate the fuck out of corporations, scale back military spending to no more than a tenth of the total US budget, limit campaign funding and make all funding public, terminate corporate subsidies and bailouts, reduce the burdens on small businesses, and expand the social infrastructure/safety net, including education and health care, and we'll have my Libertarian dream.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 01, 2013, 04:46:13 PM
The thing that I find highly amusing about most Libertarians (aside from pretty much everything) is that they holler and howl about deregulation, the free market, and ending social welfare, but seem to have no problem with the magnitudes-larger issue of corporate welfare and a bloated and unnecessary military budget that funds endless unjust invasions which, one would think, would run a little contrary to Libertarian ideology, that is unless what they mean is liberty is only good for Americans.
Speaking as a small business owner, tax breaks and subsidies for corporations don't do fuck-all for the little guy.
Regulate the fuck out of corporations, scale back military spending to no more than a tenth of the total US budget, limit campaign funding and make all funding public, terminate corporate subsidies and bailouts, reduce the burdens on small businesses, and expand the social infrastructure/safety net, including education and health care, and we'll have my Libertarian dream.
Speaking for my industry, deregulation kills. Not a metaphor.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 01, 2013, 04:46:13 PM
The thing that I find highly amusing about most Libertarians (aside from pretty much everything) is that they holler and howl about deregulation, the free market, and ending social welfare, but seem to have no problem with the magnitudes-larger issue of corporate welfare and a bloated and unnecessary military budget that funds endless unjust invasions which, one would think, would run a little contrary to Libertarian ideology, that is unless what they mean is liberty is only good for Americans.
Speaking as a small business owner, tax breaks and subsidies for corporations don't do fuck-all for the little guy.
Regulate the fuck out of corporations, scale back military spending to no more than a tenth of the total US budget, limit campaign funding and make all funding public, terminate corporate subsidies and bailouts, reduce the burdens on small businesses, and expand the social infrastructure/safety net, including education and health care, and we'll have my Libertarian dream.
Speaking for my industry, deregulation kills. Not a metaphor.
No kidding.
I think it was you who said, roughly, that total deregulation is the fastest track to a completely un-free market. Government regulation is
not the biggest threat to economic freedom (except in the sense of big business stacking the political deck against potential competitors).
Quote from: Cainad on May 01, 2013, 07:05:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 01, 2013, 04:46:13 PM
The thing that I find highly amusing about most Libertarians (aside from pretty much everything) is that they holler and howl about deregulation, the free market, and ending social welfare, but seem to have no problem with the magnitudes-larger issue of corporate welfare and a bloated and unnecessary military budget that funds endless unjust invasions which, one would think, would run a little contrary to Libertarian ideology, that is unless what they mean is liberty is only good for Americans.
Speaking as a small business owner, tax breaks and subsidies for corporations don't do fuck-all for the little guy.
Regulate the fuck out of corporations, scale back military spending to no more than a tenth of the total US budget, limit campaign funding and make all funding public, terminate corporate subsidies and bailouts, reduce the burdens on small businesses, and expand the social infrastructure/safety net, including education and health care, and we'll have my Libertarian dream.
Speaking for my industry, deregulation kills. Not a metaphor.
No kidding.
I think it was you who said, roughly, that total deregulation is the fastest track to a completely un-free market. Government regulation is not the biggest threat to economic freedom (except in the sense of big business stacking the political deck against potential competitors).
Un-free market? They could deregulate THEMSELVES into the ground?
No, they become monopolies. Or oligiopolies, at the very least.
If you're a big company, you can run at a loss long enough to put smaller competition into the ground, for example. As you bankrupt competitors and make arrangements with those too big to ruin, you can hike prices once you've decimated the competition, because, really, what other options do people have?
What I was talking about was this:
I spent 5.4 million dollars over the last 5 years on safety & containment alone, to turn a death trap into a safe place to work and live near.
We had two disasters last month, including a 1500C burn-through on a kiln. No personnel were injured. Nothing was released from the plant. All the backup systems and fire suppression equipment worked, because regulations demand that I MAINTAIN those systems that I had installed, again, due to regulation. The fire department uses my plant for training on CSE rescues, because we invited them in. We ASK Osha and the fire marshall to come in and review us.
Contrast this with the recent explosion in Texas, which was an example of what happens when regulations are not enforced. Improper construction. Failure to sequester chemicals. NO firefighting equipment. No escape plan. No community notification system. And the fire department all got injured or killed because they had no idea what they were heading into.
Implimenting regulations and then following them is expensive...But not as expensive as NOT doing so.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 07:38:17 PM
What I was talking about was this:
I spent 5.4 million dollars over the last 5 years on safety & containment alone, to turn a death trap into a safe place to work and live near.
We had two disasters last month, including a 1500C burn-through on a kiln. No personnel were injured. Nothing was released from the plant. All the backup systems and fire suppression equipment worked, because regulations demand that I MAINTAIN those systems that I had installed, again, due to regulation. The fire department uses my plant for training on CSE rescues, because we invited them in. We ASK Osha and the fire marshall to come in and review us.
Contrast this with the recent explosion in Texas, which was an example of what happens when regulations are not enforced. Improper construction. Failure to sequester chemicals. NO firefighting equipment. No escape plan. No community notification system. And the fire department all got injured or killed because they had no idea what they were heading into.
Implimenting regulations and then following them is expensive...But not as expensive as NOT doing so.
The best part is when Randroids insist that businesses will naturally pursue rational self-interest and implement self-regulatory policies that serve them in the long run.
And we all laugh and laugh and
laugh until we all puke from a poisoned water supply, or something.
Quote from: Cainad on May 01, 2013, 07:55:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 07:38:17 PM
What I was talking about was this:
I spent 5.4 million dollars over the last 5 years on safety & containment alone, to turn a death trap into a safe place to work and live near.
We had two disasters last month, including a 1500C burn-through on a kiln. No personnel were injured. Nothing was released from the plant. All the backup systems and fire suppression equipment worked, because regulations demand that I MAINTAIN those systems that I had installed, again, due to regulation. The fire department uses my plant for training on CSE rescues, because we invited them in. We ASK Osha and the fire marshall to come in and review us.
Contrast this with the recent explosion in Texas, which was an example of what happens when regulations are not enforced. Improper construction. Failure to sequester chemicals. NO firefighting equipment. No escape plan. No community notification system. And the fire department all got injured or killed because they had no idea what they were heading into.
Implimenting regulations and then following them is expensive...But not as expensive as NOT doing so.
The best part is when Randroids insist that businesses will naturally pursue rational self-interest and implement self-regulatory policies that serve them in the long run.
And we all laugh and laugh and laugh until we all puke from a poisoned water supply, or something.
Google "Love Canal". That is what unregulated industry does in "it's own self interest".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 07:58:05 PM
Quote from: Cainad on May 01, 2013, 07:55:48 PM
The best part is when Randroids insist that businesses will naturally pursue rational self-interest and implement self-regulatory policies that serve them in the long run.
And we all laugh and laugh and laugh until we all puke from a poisoned water supply, or something.
Google "Love Canal". That is what unregulated industry does in "it's own self interest".
Ack.
:enough:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 03:16:06 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
I think he was asking a question.
Yea, the mental health stigma shit makes me prickly as fuck. apologies if i went for the jugular too soon.
Quote from: Cain on May 01, 2013, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 01, 2013, 08:20:23 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 30, 2013, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 30, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:
Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?
That seems impossible. How would the government support its operations with no income?
Medieval iceland was such a society.
The function of "the state" was pretty much to rule on lawsuits and codify law. Enforcement of law was up to the citizens (i.e. once the courts rule in your favour and deign that hrothgar owes you 500 pounds of wool to compensate damages, you would be legally cleared of having to pay compensation if hrothgar decided to resist you collecting and you happened to put an axe in his head). There wasnt a death penalty either; many of the crimes we execute for today would be punished with outlawry, which essentially makes the individual in question "open game" for anyone within a juristiction who wants to kill him. Culture at the time made it a great honour to hunt and kill outlaws, much in the same vein that killing a pedophile is something many people can agree with today. Needless to say, aiding an outlaw was punishable by outlawry itself.
A rudimentry social safety net did exist, but like most things in old iceland, was organised at the local level. Essentially, the community would invest a VERY small (its iceland in 900ad...life was hard enough without "taxes") amount of wealth into a sort of community trust fund. If someone fell on hard times, the local community would hold a public court, and vote on whether or not anything should be disbursted and how much...it was principally for widows and orphans.
As for a military; there was none. Being isolated, iceland needed none, and under germanic custom of the times, militaries and warbands were associated with kings, which were a disparaged concept for the icelanders, who prided themselves on their democracy of the people.
Is this a viable model for modern, post/industrial society? No, it relies on a strong adherance to cultural norms/social mores, small, genetically related populations (srsly, i mean literally related, not just "all one race" -- modern icelanders recently released an android app to help people determine whether they are hitting on a distant cousin or not), generally isnt compatable with corporatism or great excesses of wealth, and relies on principals of "might makes right" to some degree.
However, given that it is a pretty good example of the "minnest of minarchies", i think it very well fits the bill for "state that doesnt levy taxes and still functions" (well, at least until the danes came with jesus...jesus breaks every state's will eventually)
It also ended in a very nasty civil war, where the decentralized power of the goðar allowed some to side with the Norwegian King, and do battle to subjugate Iceland under his control.
Which is the other main flaw of decentralized systems - they're highly vulnerable to compromise by centralized systems in certain historical periods, technology and other factors permitting*. Quasi-anarchist or libertarian societies have a low success rate in wars against centralized state powers.
*Machiavelli described such a system in feudal France, for example, whereby the French nobility were constantly scheming against the throne. However, the nobility were also scheming against each other even more so, and the French had a more capable military than their contemporaries, making them a somewhat unique example of a decentralized system which still contained enough balancing towards potential threats and military capacity to deal with them.
Again, I cited Iceland as simply an example of a state which existed, wasn't somalia, and didn't levy taxes as we think of them today. It indeed did fail -- eventually, but all societies have failed at one point or another.
And I'm pointing out that end tends to come sooner for decentralized states. Much sooner. A way of life isn't worth much if you cannot actually, you know, live it. Due to being dead from invading armies and your people being made a plaything of foreign powers.
Somalians can also speak with some authority on that subject, I believe.
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Quote from: Cain on May 01, 2013, 11:13:15 PM
And I'm pointing out that end tends to come sooner for decentralized states. Much sooner. A way of life isn't worth much if you cannot actually, you know, live it. Due to being dead from invading armies and your people being made a plaything of foreign powers.
Somalians can also speak with some authority on that subject, I believe.
The soviets and nazis can speak equal volumes concerning the pangs of centralisation...long lasting states those were.
I speak in jest though...both the icelanders and the "modern monster" states of ussr or nsdap deutschland are extremes on both ends...
In the Tennessee thread you said this around page 4:
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:15:57 PM
Ok, mabey I did make my statement a bit broad. I'll concede that we need roads...
(snip for brevity)
I'll still hold true to the fact that, as it stands, I don't really benefit from government.
I pay for my water and electricity, I drive to work on roads funded by the corporation I work for, at 9.50/hr, I'm "too rich" to take advantage of any of my government's social welfare systems, I don't have kids, so I don't really concern myself with the school system, and I CC, so when it comes down to it, it's not the police protecting me from crime... in short, I don't really see anything but a few under-maintained in-town roads as being something I fund with taxes that I get a return on.
I'll concede, though, that welfare isn't my problem. Perhaps military spending, police spending or corrections spending should be cut as a "less evil" way to make my paycheck bigger...
30 pages happened after that, which I couldn't be bothered to read closely. Did someone explain to your satisfaction why you're wrong? I don't want to duplicate effort if it's already been covered but Im also in the mood for an argument.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on May 02, 2013, 01:22:19 AM
In the Tennessee you said this around page 4:
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:15:57 PM
Ok, mabey I did make my statement a bit broad. I'll concede that we need roads...
(snip for brevity)
I'll still hold true to the fact that, as it stands, I don't really benefit from government.
I pay for my water and electricity, I drive to work on roads funded by the corporation I work for, at 9.50/hr, I'm "too rich" to take advantage of any of my government's social welfare systems, I don't have kids, so I don't really concern myself with the school system, and I CC, so when it comes down to it, it's not the police protecting me from crime... in short, I don't really see anything but a few under-maintained in-town roads as being something I fund with taxes that I get a return on.
I'll concede, though, that welfare isn't my problem. Perhaps military spending, police spending or corrections spending should be cut as a "less evil" way to make my paycheck bigger...
30 pages happened after that, which I couldn't be bothered to read closely. Did someone explain to your satisfaction why you're wrong? I don't want to duplicate effort if it's already been covered but Im also in the mood for an argument.
Yeah, people explained to me the problems with my ideas in that thread, and ive been weighing in on the flaws of libertardianism theresince.
Damn. Bein all reasonable 'n shit.
\
:mccain:
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.
I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.
Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people
We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.
I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.
Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people
We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.
I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.
I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.
Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people
We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.
I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.
Isnt it obvious? The proper terminology for referring to both of these groups of people are respectively:
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #47
And
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #674
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 02, 2013, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.
I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.
Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people
We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.
I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.
Isnt it obvious? The proper terminology for referring to both of these groups of people are respectively:
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #47
And
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #674
Right, fuck appropiate nomenclature, because they are all the same thing: mentally challenged. Might as well call them useless or disabled, right?
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.
I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.
Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people
We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.
I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.
Fair enough, i was reacting more to the "hit on the back of the head" comment.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 02, 2013, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.
I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.
Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people
We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.
I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.
Isnt it obvious? The proper terminology for referring to both of these groups of people are respectively:
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #47
And
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #674
Right, fuck appropiate nomenclature, because they are all the same thing: mentally challenged. Might as well call them useless or disabled, right?
Yes, fuck arguing amongst ourselves over paltry differences in wording. You need to consider mens rea in these sorts of things. Bearman seemed to have been expressing positive interest in whatever cause you were talking about, but the whole fucking thing turned into a shouting match over whether its ok to call retards "mentally challenged" or "super-duper differently abled"...
I mean, the whole spiel seemed like something moronically silly. I could understand if he'd cone in and been all like "hahaha look at the little extra chromosome potatoes as they do the most debased and useless jobs in society hahaha glad I've got a working brain hahaha"...that would have the mens rea of a dickhole trying to insult a group of people...instead, he said something slightly-less-than 100% PC and got yelled at anyway, regardless of expessing interest in something positive.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 02, 2013, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.
I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.
Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people
We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.
I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.
Isnt it obvious? The proper terminology for referring to both of these groups of people are respectively:
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #47
And
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #674
Right, fuck appropiate nomenclature, because they are all the same thing: mentally challenged. Might as well call them useless or disabled, right?
If I can't think right because I have been hit in the head I am definitely mentally challenged. That's not the same as mentally retarded. (and yes, I know that word is offensive, but it is offensive for the same reason that we keep changing the word for black. All retarded means is slow) If I am mentally retarded I am also mentally challenged.
Good old PC - guaranteed to turn every conversation into a clusterfuck or your money back! If George Orwell had thought of Political Correctness he'd have called it "Newspeak" :lulz:
Anyone else fancy trying the novel approach of using your fucking brain to examine context, rather than using your dumbfuck gland to apply a wordfilter? :argh!:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 02, 2013, 12:48:18 PM
Good old PC - guaranteed to turn every conversation into a clusterfuck or your money back! If George Orwell had thought of Political Correctness he'd have called it "Newspeak" :lulz:
Anyone else fancy trying the novel approach of using your fucking brain to examine context, rather than using your dumbfuck gland to apply a wordfilter? :argh!:
heh, the funniest part of this:
thread topic: libertarianism
thread content: "what is the proper word for retard?"
:lulz:
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.
I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.
Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people
We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.
I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.
those who end up with injuries are usually referred to as acquired brain injury. My sister has brain damage from Meningitis and comes under this category, a developmental or learning disability (dyslexia, autism, low mental age and such) is usually from birth, and mental illness is a whole other can of worms, where science isn't sure if it's hard -wired, social. or a predisposition triggered by social factors
Communication has failed in this thread for 3 reasons.
I'd like to see your analysis. :)
And what Pergamos said about changing the words and "all retarded means is slow". At some point people realized it was shitty to use terms like "simple minded" and "idiot child" and started saying "retarded", which DOES mean "slowed down". Whatever word gets used gets picked up as an epithet (you can insult the fuck out of somebody with "special") so they start using a new word, until the words don't make sense at all. People are "mentally challenged" by the NY Times crossword and we're ALL "differently abled". IMHO "retarded" was fine. And the epithet for a willfully ignorant person is "retard", not "retarded". They even seem to be pronounced slightly differently: "ruh-tarded" vs. "RE-tard". Nobody worth a tin shit would walk up to a Down's kid and say "LOL RETARD". Admittedly there's a similarity there and I'd be happy to change if something better comes along, but not "special" or "differently abled". That's weasel wording.
OK, I usually come down on the PC side of whatever the debate is, but in this case it comes off way too much like people looking for an excuse to be offended. Bearman has been here a while and has never shown any signs of being the kind of jackass he's been accused of being here, and was, from my perspective, genuinely asking if the kind of program Johnny works for is one of the type that he's familiar with.
Why not give him the benefit of the doubt and use it as an opportunity to inform, rather than an opportunity to berate?
Also, LOL @ the irony of treating his comment as if it were malicious rather than simple, given the subject matter.
Yeah, Bearman's been nothing but cool. He's not a dick.
I still reckon he's a really good long-troll and his dickishness will become apparent in due course but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt cos I want to see how it plays out
ETA: Incidentally this is how I feel about the fucking lot of you
Naw man, Bearman's the bomb! I like that guy.
Yeah you would say that, you're one of the ringleaders :argh!:
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 01, 2013, 01:38:16 AM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 01:25:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 01:17:09 AM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 30, 2013, 11:46:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Anarcho-Socialism?
Nope. Fuck the anarcho part. You pay for government via taxes. Government sets shit up and runs it. Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people. Not difficult.
i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.
Anarchy implies lack of government. Humans cannot behave without government. It's the way we're wired.
yea, the idea works more on a small-scale democracy and commune type thing, so it's got holes and potential for fuck uppery, because humans.
I lean in that direction but I'm critical of it, seeing how commune style existence can suck, but on a larger scale I favour a safety net, representation of workers within their own fields/companies, and generally respecting the rights and privacy of citizens. It's marxism without the gulags and fuckery of communism.
Political Compass thinks I am an Anarcho-Socialist, but it's weighting is so damned American, and i am a filthy euro-socialist, so...
Weird you say it's "very american"...alot of americans I know who get results they don't like from that test inevitably blame it on the test being bent towards european ideals...that or loaded questions.
just interesting.
Consider the group of Americans in question. Most Americans consider the Democratic Party to be Left, for example, where as Europeans would see them as Right of Center. Then take in your average libertarian yahoo, who considers a Democrat to be the equivalent of Josef Stalin, and of course they're going to get pissy and say it's too European. But the questions did always strike me as geared towards American politics. At any rate, politics is more complex than a simple plot on an x-y graph, but they don't want to hear that either. Americans don't like things to be complex. They like a simple, all encompassing thing. Which is why libertarians exist in the first place. Well, that's not why they exist, that's how they exist. As to why, just look at the laughing carnies.
Yeah, I didn't see anything offensive out of Bearman's question, and if I did I would have given him the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: stelz on May 02, 2013, 03:47:46 PM
I'd like to see your analysis. :)
Well, Bearman came in and used inaccurate language.
1. The reaction to this was anger, which has the effect of changing the subject to "fuck you; no, fuck YOU", even if it was said politely. A more productive response would have been a clarification of terms; Bearman's follow up response clearly stated that he was interested in what was being done, and supported it, but the response was, again, anger.
2. This resulted in the topic changing to that of what is and is not an acceptable description of the people in question, rather than what is being done for said people. The original topic is gone, and therefore all communication about it has ceased, supplanted by an agenda-driven refocus on what is and is not permitted in conversation.
3. Nobody is
interested in communicating about what is being done for people with mental issues, etc.
Here's the thing...If someone shows up yelling "LOL, RETARDS", then do whatever you like. If someone comes in asking a serious question in an expression of interest in the topic, you either A) are interested in talking about it, so you explain the correct terms (ie, COMMUNICATE), and then discuss the topic, or B) You decide that the person is The Other, and you hound them out of the conversation to show to everyone else how ideologically pure you are.
"A" gets people on your side, and increases the pressure exerted toward your goal. "B" drives away the potential "recruit/convert", causing them to never take the subject seriously again...But at least you get to score points with the people under the blankets with you, as you fart your way to a shinier tomorrow.
Anger doesn't gain converts or further your agenda. It's "ME ME ME" attention-seeking.
So the question really is, "What are your goals?"
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 02, 2013, 04:29:36 PM
Yeah you would say that, you're one of the ringleaders :argh!:
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2013, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: stelz on May 02, 2013, 03:47:46 PM
I'd like to see your analysis. :)
Well, Bearman came in and used inaccurate language.
1. The reaction to this was anger, which has the effect of changing the subject to "fuck you; no, fuck YOU", even if it was said politely. A more productive response would have been a clarification of terms; Bearman's follow up response clearly stated that he was interested in what was being done, and supported it, but the response was, again, anger.
2. This resulted in the topic changing to that of what is and is not an acceptable description of the people in question, rather than what is being done for said people. The original topic is gone, and therefore all communication about it has ceased, supplanted by an agenda-driven refocus on what is and is not permitted in conversation.
3. Nobody is interested in communicating about what is being done for people with mental issues, etc.
Here's the thing...If someone shows up yelling "LOL, RETARDS", then do whatever you like. If someone comes in asking a serious question in an expression of interest in the topic, you either A) are interested in talking about it, so you explain the correct terms (ie, COMMUNICATE), and then discuss the topic, or B) You decide that the person is The Other, and you hound them out of the conversation to show to everyone else how ideologically pure you are.
"A" gets people on your side, and increases the pressure exerted toward your goal. "B" drives away the potential "recruit/convert", causing them to never take the subject seriously again...But at least you get to score points with the people under the blankets with you, as you fart your way to a shinier tomorrow.
Anger doesn't gain converts or further your agenda. It's "ME ME ME" attention-seeking.
So the question really is, "What are your goals?"
HAMMER. NAIL. HEAD.
Can I just add that this is a challenge... it's not "YOU'RE WRONG SO YOU MAY NEVER SPEAK HERE AGAIN", but rather, "how well can you go 'Oh, my bad, I'm sorry and let me start over by answering your question'?"
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2013, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: stelz on May 02, 2013, 03:47:46 PM
I'd like to see your analysis. :)
Well, Bearman came in and used inaccurate language.
1. The reaction to this was anger, which has the effect of changing the subject to "fuck you; no, fuck YOU", even if it was said politely. A more productive response would have been a clarification of terms; Bearman's follow up response clearly stated that he was interested in what was being done, and supported it, but the response was, again, anger.
2. This resulted in the topic changing to that of what is and is not an acceptable description of the people in question, rather than what is being done for said people. The original topic is gone, and therefore all communication about it has ceased, supplanted by an agenda-driven refocus on what is and is not permitted in conversation.
3. Nobody is interested in communicating about what is being done for people with mental issues, etc.
Here's the thing...If someone shows up yelling "LOL, RETARDS", then do whatever you like. If someone comes in asking a serious question in an expression of interest in the topic, you either A) are interested in talking about it, so you explain the correct terms (ie, COMMUNICATE), and then discuss the topic, or B) You decide that the person is The Other, and you hound them out of the conversation to show to everyone else how ideologically pure you are.
"A" gets people on your side, and increases the pressure exerted toward your goal. "B" drives away the potential "recruit/convert", causing them to never take the subject seriously again...But at least you get to score points with the people under the blankets with you, as you fart your way to a shinier tomorrow.
Anger doesn't gain converts or further your agenda. It's "ME ME ME" attention-seeking.
So the question really is, "What are your goals?"
The red rag flutters
A herd of bulls charge en masse
Farewell Matador
Would have replied ages ago but got caught up in pretentious haiku bullshit. What were we talking about again? :oops:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 02, 2013, 05:55:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2013, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: stelz on May 02, 2013, 03:47:46 PM
I'd like to see your analysis. :)
Well, Bearman came in and used inaccurate language.
1. The reaction to this was anger, which has the effect of changing the subject to "fuck you; no, fuck YOU", even if it was said politely. A more productive response would have been a clarification of terms; Bearman's follow up response clearly stated that he was interested in what was being done, and supported it, but the response was, again, anger.
2. This resulted in the topic changing to that of what is and is not an acceptable description of the people in question, rather than what is being done for said people. The original topic is gone, and therefore all communication about it has ceased, supplanted by an agenda-driven refocus on what is and is not permitted in conversation.
3. Nobody is interested in communicating about what is being done for people with mental issues, etc.
Here's the thing...If someone shows up yelling "LOL, RETARDS", then do whatever you like. If someone comes in asking a serious question in an expression of interest in the topic, you either A) are interested in talking about it, so you explain the correct terms (ie, COMMUNICATE), and then discuss the topic, or B) You decide that the person is The Other, and you hound them out of the conversation to show to everyone else how ideologically pure you are.
"A" gets people on your side, and increases the pressure exerted toward your goal. "B" drives away the potential "recruit/convert", causing them to never take the subject seriously again...But at least you get to score points with the people under the blankets with you, as you fart your way to a shinier tomorrow.
Anger doesn't gain converts or further your agenda. It's "ME ME ME" attention-seeking.
So the question really is, "What are your goals?"
What were we talking about again? :oops:
the collapse of the icelandic republic in the 13th century? :lulz:
What happened? Was it climate change? Did it just melt :?
I think Somalian pirates out-competed the Vikings with their free market values? :?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2013, 05:11:25 PM
So the question really is, "What are your goals?"
This. So very much this.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 02, 2013, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 02, 2013, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.
I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.
Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people
We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.
I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.
Isnt it obvious? The proper terminology for referring to both of these groups of people are respectively:
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #47
And
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #674
Right, fuck appropiate nomenclature, because they are all the same thing: mentally challenged. Might as well call them useless or disabled, right?
Yes, fuck arguing amongst ourselves over paltry differences in wording. You need to consider mens rea in these sorts of things. Bearman seemed to have been expressing positive interest in whatever cause you were talking about, but the whole fucking thing turned into a shouting match over whether its ok to call retards "mentally challenged" or "super-duper differently abled"...
I mean, the whole spiel seemed like something moronically silly. I could understand if he'd cone in and been all like "hahaha look at the little extra chromosome potatoes as they do the most debased and useless jobs in society hahaha glad I've got a working brain hahaha"...that would have the mens rea of a dickhole trying to insult a group of people...instead, he said something slightly-less-than 100% PC and got yelled at anyway, regardless of expessing interest in something positive.
I think my comment towards Bearman was decent enough, you then come in, making a reduction of all that was informed to euphemisms, and calling it a "shouting match" and me supposedly walking all over him and dragging him thru the mud.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 10:49:57 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.
I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.
Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people
We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.
I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.
Fair enough, i was reacting more to the "hit on the back of the head" comment.
And I even offered an explanation to him on why i reacted and the reasoning behind it. If you notice, my "fuck nomenclature" comment wasnt towards Bear, it was towards you, for overstating things and also making reductions of arguments.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 02, 2013, 09:23:09 PM
What happened? Was it climate change? Did it just melt :?
What actually happened:
The regional lords/mayors/judges/chieftains called the Godhar formed relationships with their constituents based on whether or not a given free man decided to support them based on the services offered. In the beginning, this made out for a situation where one Godhi's supporter could live next door to another Godhi's supporter, and this meant that no single Godhi controlled any given geographic region, and thus power was evenly distributed and was difficult to seize in its entirety.
Eventually, this broke down in the 1200s as several godhar began to consolidate power over geographic regions -- this led to warfare between geographically organised factions headed by various godhar. The losing godhar decided to appeal to king haakon of norway and pledge their fealty to him in return for defeating their rivals and ending the civil war.
Haakon did this, and in the late 1200's, the icelandic althing (parliament, kinda), consisting of the remaining godhar, signed a contract with haakon which essentially made iceland a norwegian puppet state -- it remained such through the kalmar union, transferred to danish hands and didn't see independance again until the 20th century.
What a libertarian/norse heathen will say happened:
pretty much everything I mentioned above, except that this group will blame the catholic church for introducing graduated income taxes in the form of tithes. To these people, the godhar who owned the lands upon which churches were built were able to consolidate regional power because they were receiving money without providing competitive services, as it was before christendom.
The asatruar will focus on how jesus caused the problem -- the libertarian will focus on the taxes jesus brought with him.
What a non-libertarian will tell you:
again, same as section 1, but the blame will rest on the inherent flaws of decentralisation, the tendancy for monopolies to form in the wild, etc.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 11:02:05 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 02, 2013, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 02, 2013, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison. Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich. We don't even have proper crisis management. Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.
Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty horrible.
There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.
Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?
Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?
Seriously.
It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.
Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.
I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.
Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people
We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.
I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.
Isnt it obvious? The proper terminology for referring to both of these groups of people are respectively:
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #47
And
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #674
Right, fuck appropiate nomenclature, because they are all the same thing: mentally challenged. Might as well call them useless or disabled, right?
Yes, fuck arguing amongst ourselves over paltry differences in wording. You need to consider mens rea in these sorts of things. Bearman seemed to have been expressing positive interest in whatever cause you were talking about, but the whole fucking thing turned into a shouting match over whether its ok to call retards "mentally challenged" or "super-duper differently abled"...
I mean, the whole spiel seemed like something moronically silly. I could understand if he'd cone in and been all like "hahaha look at the little extra chromosome potatoes as they do the most debased and useless jobs in society hahaha glad I've got a working brain hahaha"...that would have the mens rea of a dickhole trying to insult a group of people...instead, he said something slightly-less-than 100% PC and got yelled at anyway, regardless of expessing interest in something positive.
I think my comment towards Bearman was decent enough, you then come in, making a reduction of all that was informed to euphemisms, and calling it a "shouting match" and me supposedly walking all over him and dragging him thru the mud.
Sorry, I somewhat over reacted. Seeing a huge quote box where most of the replies aren't about "the topic at hand" but are moreso geared towards PC woo kinda tipped me over...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2013, 05:11:25 PM
1. The reaction to this was anger, which has the effect of changing the subject to "fuck you; no, fuck YOU", even if it was said politely. A more productive response would have been a clarification of terms; Bearman's follow up response clearly stated that he was interested in what was being done, and supported it, but the response was, again, anger.
2. This resulted in the topic changing to that of what is and is not an acceptable description of the people in question, rather than what is being done for said people. The original topic is gone, and therefore all communication about it has ceased, supplanted by an agenda-driven refocus on what is and is not permitted in conversation.
3. Nobody is interested in communicating about what is being done for people with mental issues, etc.
1. I'll admit that my response was made partly in anger, but i did try to clarify terms, and i did tell him about us trying to work for social reintegration.
So i dont think im fully responsible for the shift in the conversation, unfortunate as it is.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 11:16:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2013, 05:11:25 PM
1. The reaction to this was anger, which has the effect of changing the subject to "fuck you; no, fuck YOU", even if it was said politely. A more productive response would have been a clarification of terms; Bearman's follow up response clearly stated that he was interested in what was being done, and supported it, but the response was, again, anger.
2. This resulted in the topic changing to that of what is and is not an acceptable description of the people in question, rather than what is being done for said people. The original topic is gone, and therefore all communication about it has ceased, supplanted by an agenda-driven refocus on what is and is not permitted in conversation.
3. Nobody is interested in communicating about what is being done for people with mental issues, etc.
1. I'll admit that my response was made partly in anger, but i did try to clarify terms, and i did tell him about us trying to work for social reintegration.
So i dont think im fully responsible for the shift in the conversation, unfortunate as it is.
Of course you're not fully responsible for the conversation...conversations are two way things. You just happened to be the last post in a string of posts that I happened to aim my argument-cannon at and blast away.
I think things worked out quite well -- everyone now has a bigger vocabulary in terms of how to address those with mental difficulties, and the subject is coming to a well rounded fruitition. Everybody argued, and now everybody wins!
Now then, I wasn't particularly vested in the conversation you guys were having about programs for social integration of the mentally afflicted, so i'll allow the lot of you to continue there and keep up my fanciful rants about viking politics :p
Quote from: Pergamos on May 01, 2013, 01:31:07 AM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 30, 2013, 11:46:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.
The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.
Anarcho-Socialism?
Nope. Fuck the anarcho part. You pay for government via taxes. Government sets shit up and runs it. Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people. Not difficult.
i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.
I don't think so. Anarcho means no government. Anarcho-socialist usually means that there's no government and things are controlled by groups on the local level. Unions and so forth. Nobody owns anything privately, things are owned by the people in general and used and taken care of by individuals.
Personally I prefer mutualism, which allows for personal property but not rent seeking, but that also doesn't make room for a government. If you are in favor of a government, including a benign government that makes surepeople are fed and housed and not being raped or stolen from but otherwise stays out of the way, then you are not an Anarchist.
Not to be pendantic, but Anarchist means no Archons (the leaders of old Greek city-states). The initial concept behind anarchism is not "No government" but rather "No centralized government". If you look at the writings of guys like Lysander Spooner and Joseph Proudhon, they weren't pushing for no law or no government, but rather systems where the individual members/citizens voluntarily agreed to a local system of law. IN modern "Anarchist" terms, well its a mess of libertarian/socialism/No Government/Let's Be Wild and a dash of 8-year old "You Can't tell me what to do" thinking.
In "No Treason" Spooner said this:
Quote...two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.
The initial focus of Anarchism was that any form of government must rest on full voluntary consent of the governed. Spooner was an abolitionist, yet he was horrified by the Civil War, because it enforced the position that the US was no longer a nation of consent, but rather a nation where force ruled. He saw the right of States to secede as analogues to the right of a slave to be free of his master.
It's the Master bit that Anarchism was originally designed to eschew, not all forms of governance and law.
LOL GOD DAMN IT!
Tosk is totally right, and totally aware that the word has been co-opted.