The Good Reverend has decided to convert to evangelical Christianity.
There. I said it.
There are many reasons for this decision, and I'd like you all to consider them. First and foremost, the weird sex...Apparently, a requirement for being an evangelical Christian pastor is to have deranged sex with as many members of your congregation as is humanly possible. Best of all, you don't have to have sex in filthy airport bathrooms unless you also happen to be a congressman.
Second, the money. Have you SEEN the long green these guys pull down? They make in about 10 minutes what I make in a year, and it's TAX FREE (within limits...we must remember the fate of Jim Bakker, who laughed at all the wrong jokes until they threw him in prison). As a famous pastor once said, Jesus wore designer clothes. I seek only to emulate him.
Third, and possibly the most important reason, is that I've had it up to HERE with the mamby-pamby prophecies put forth by the wimps and losers who have dared to step up where Robert Tilton fell. With the exception of my personal hero, Pat Robertson, these guys are afraid to call down the anger of an angry God on anyone. Sure, they holler that God is gonna kill us all because we don't execute homosexuals, but when was the last time they actually stood up and invoked the wrath of the almighty? No, no, only Pat Robertson had the GUTS to DEMAND that God kill 4 supreme court justices, the state department, and every feminist, everywhere...and for that, I shall always look up to him as a mentor and role model.
The first Podcasts should go up this week, and if you don't watch them, you're going to hell.
Or kill me.
TGRR,
Mad Profit Prophet
Praise the Lord! Halleluja!
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 04:18:59 AM
Praise the Lord! Halleluja!
Thank you, Brother, and please put your love offering on the plate when it comes by.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 04:37:17 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 04:18:59 AM
Praise the Lord! Halleluja!
Thank you, Brother, and please put your love offering on the plate when it comes by.
:lmnuendo:
Quote from: fomenter on August 31, 2009, 04:56:53 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 04:37:17 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 04:18:59 AM
Praise the Lord! Halleluja!
Thank you, Brother, and please put your love offering on the plate when it comes by.
:lmnuendo:
Just what I would expect from a Godless freak such as yourself, sir.
This should be interesting.
But it makes me think I should have the chance to show The Good Reverend my particular brand of Slack, which may not be profitable but IS relaxing.
Oh hey. That sounded probably dirty. And perhaps my brand of Slack is dirty, but not in an LMNO way. Because my brand of dirty is NOT relaxing.
About time one of us did it. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Richter on August 31, 2009, 05:37:31 PM
About time one of us did it. :horrormirth:
Why the horrormirth? Because I thought of it first?
There's plenty of room for associate ministers at The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus, Richter.
The horrormirth is at the potential for it to work.
Quote from: Richter on August 31, 2009, 06:09:09 PM
The horrormirth is at the potential for it to work.
Of course it's going to work, if I actually do it.
I am contemplating quitting my job and fleecing the stupid for a living. Problem, I don't actually seem to be a total moral vacuum, and I still have this "self respect" thing. I need to work on these before I start.
That's what's hitting me too.
People will LISTEN. They will be swayed, believe, and follow anyone with the right combination of loud, determined, and charismatic. As terrifying as it is, I'd rather they were following me or people I like than some of the other yahoos.
Quote from: Richter on August 31, 2009, 07:39:54 PM
That's what's hitting me too.
People will LISTEN. They will be swayed, believe, and follow anyone with the right combination of loud, determined, and charismatic. As terrifying as it is, I'd rather they were following me or people I like than some of the other yahoos.
It's either us or Bill O'Reilly, eh?
Suppose it comes down to WHAT we do to them, then.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 1973, 06:31:37 PM
Of course it's going to work, if I actually do it.
I am contemplating quitting my job and fleecing the stupid for a living. Problem, I don't actually seem to be a total moral vacuum, and I still have this "self respect" thing. I need to work on these before I start.
We have much to work on. You'll need a good ole-fashioned "face o'Satan" to attack and demonize to your loyal stupids (when you get them) and convince them that they need to donate to put an end to this blasphemy against ZE ALMIGHTY!!!
I volunteer the patrons of the game shop. All of them.
Quote from: Von Melee on August 31, 2009, 10:53:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 1973, 06:31:37 PM
Of course it's going to work, if I actually do it.
I am contemplating quitting my job and fleecing the stupid for a living. Problem, I don't actually seem to be a total moral vacuum, and I still have this "self respect" thing. I need to work on these before I start.
We have much to work on. You'll need a good ole-fashioned "face o'Satan" to attack and demonize to your loyal stupids (when you get them) and convince them that they need to donate to put an end to this blasphemy against ZE ALMIGHTY!!!
I volunteer the patrons of the game shop. All of them.
They have no money. They spent it all on Warhammer 40K. :crankey:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 11:02:27 PM
Quote from: Von Melee on August 31, 2009, 10:53:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 1973, 06:31:37 PM
Of course it's going to work, if I actually do it.
I am contemplating quitting my job and fleecing the stupid for a living. Problem, I don't actually seem to be a total moral vacuum, and I still have this "self respect" thing. I need to work on these before I start.
We have much to work on. You'll need a good ole-fashioned "face o'Satan" to attack and demonize to your loyal stupids (when you get them) and convince them that they need to donate to put an end to this blasphemy against ZE ALMIGHTY!!!
I volunteer the patrons of the game shop. All of them.
They have no money. They spent it all on Warhammer 40K. :crankey:
:wrong:
No, no, no.
The patrons are the face o'Satan I mentioned earlier
You can demonize linoleum tiles if you're doing it right. I got going in Wal - Mart yesterday about the stains underneath the shelves as a metaphor for moral corruption and persistent scum in life. (A few words about cleaning holy fire got in there too.) People were looking at me like I was throwing the moneychangers out.
Quote from: Von Melee on August 31, 2009, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 11:02:27 PM
Quote from: Von Melee on August 31, 2009, 10:53:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 1973, 06:31:37 PM
Of course it's going to work, if I actually do it.
I am contemplating quitting my job and fleecing the stupid for a living. Problem, I don't actually seem to be a total moral vacuum, and I still have this "self respect" thing. I need to work on these before I start.
We have much to work on. You'll need a good ole-fashioned "face o'Satan" to attack and demonize to your loyal stupids (when you get them) and convince them that they need to donate to put an end to this blasphemy against ZE ALMIGHTY!!!
I volunteer the patrons of the game shop. All of them.
They have no money. They spent it all on Warhammer 40K. :crankey:
:wrong:
No, no, no.
The patrons are the face o'Satan I mentioned earlier
Yeah, because fatass Chris is so goddamned scary. :lulz:
Quote from: Richter on August 31, 2009, 11:12:02 PM
You can demonize linoleum tiles if you're doing it right. I got going in Wal - Mart yesterday about the stains underneath the shelves as a metaphor for moral corruption and persistent scum in life. (A few words about cleaning holy fire got in there too.) People were looking at me like I was throwing the moneychangers out.
Why are you THERE, and not HERE?
These spags do NOT know how to have a good time.
Quote from: Richter on August 31, 2009, 11:12:02 PM
You can demonize linoleum tiles if you're doing it right. I got going in Wal - Mart yesterday about the stains underneath the shelves as a metaphor for moral corruption and persistent scum in life. (A few words about cleaning holy fire got in there too.) People were looking at me like I was throwing the moneychangers out.
:lulz: AMEN BROTHER RICHTER!
I'm all for creepy sex and the wrath of an angry god and all, but the second point confuses me. Is something like having all that tax-free money going to mean anything when the whole economy implodes? Why not invest in something more resourceful. I think the vampires that run the Red Cross had the right idea with all that human blood, the porphyritic people of the apocalypse will be well fed thanks to the 911 blood drive/blitzkrieg.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 08:48:02 PM
I'm all for creepy sex and the wrath of an angry god and all, but the second point confuses me. Is something like having all that tax-free money going to mean anything when the whole economy implodes? Why not invest in something more resourceful. I think the vampires that run the Red Cross had the right idea with all that human blood, the porphyritic people of the apocalypse will be well fed thanks to the 911 blood drive/blitzkrieg.
You seem to lack faith in the basic superiority of the American Way™, Dimo. Even during the depression, 75% of the people still had a job, and thus funds for the collection plate.
And this is nowhere near as bad as the Great Depression.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2009, 09:26:42 PM
And this is nowhere near as bad as the Great Depression.
Yet.
I for one would be much more comfortable if everything from eating food to driving a car didn't revolve around little pieces of paper, green or otherwise.
If the rights defined in the constitution are inalienable and god-given, do I really need a constitution to grant me them? Bah, burn it all.
In addendum, perhaps contributions of guns and ammo would be more beneficial in the long run.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 09:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2009, 09:26:42 PM
And this is nowhere near as bad as the Great Depression.
Yet.
I for one would be much more comfortable if everything from eating food to driving a car didn't revolve around little pieces of paper, green or otherwise.
Okay, I'm open to alternate suggestions. Shoot.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 09:33:30 PM
If the rights defined in the constitution are inalienable and god-given, do I really need a constitution to grant me them? Bah, burn it all.
Har! Either the constitution
allows the oligarchy we have now, or it is powerless to stop it. Either way, it's garbage.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 09:34:50 PM
In addendum, perhaps contributions of guns and ammo would be more beneficial in the long run.
Money buys guns. The trick is knowing when to eliminate your liquidity.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2009, 09:47:40 PM
Okay, I'm open to alternate suggestions. Shoot.
Hrmmm... How about: If I want to do it, I do. If you don't want me to, try and stop me.
QuoteEither the constitution allows the oligarchy we have now, or it is powerless to stop it. Either way, it's garbage.
I've read this somewhere before. Shouldn't it be in quotes?
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 09:55:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2009, 09:47:40 PM
Okay, I'm open to alternate suggestions. Shoot.
Hrmmm... How about: If I want to do it, I do. If you don't want me to, try and stop me.
Oh, you're an anarchist. Sorry, I thought I was having an intelligent conversation.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 09:55:39 PM
QuoteEither the constitution allows the oligarchy we have now, or it is powerless to stop it. Either way, it's garbage.
I've read this somewhere before. Shouldn't it be in quotes?
Quite right, sloppy of me. It was Lysander Spooner, in 1867.
Now fuck off to 23AE, where they still think anarchism is a workable system.
QuoteAnarchy–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder.
Definition three doesn't sound that bad to me. Why should someone I don't know and will never meet decide what's in my best interest?
Ooh! And just
look at definition number four!
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 10:03:44 PM
QuoteAnarchy–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder.
Definition three doesn't sound that bad to me. Why should someone I don't know and will never meet decide what's in my best interest?
Ooh! And just look at definition number four!
Humans, being human, will ALWAYS fuck up that kind of model. Personally, the only way I can see it working at all is in a more primativist society than we have just now.
You
do like your computers and your electric guitars and all that shit don't you?
And, as is usual in these kind of definitions, they kinda fuck up by mixing up "chaos" and "disorder". That's NO definition that I would use to describe any of my beliefs.
Quote from: Payne on September 08, 2009, 10:12:27 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 10:03:44 PM
QuoteAnarchy–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder.
Definition three doesn't sound that bad to me. Why should someone I don't know and will never meet decide what's in my best interest?
Ooh! And just look at definition number four!
Humans, being human, will ALWAYS fuck up that kind of model. Personally, the only way I can see it working at all is in a more primativist society than we have just now.
You do like your computers and your electric guitars and all that shit don't you?
And, as is usual in these kind of definitions, they kinda fuck up by mixing up "chaos" and "disorder". That's NO definition that I would use to describe any of my beliefs.
You are correct in your assertion that human beings will always fuck up the anarchistic model, although you fell short by not including any other form of government in with your statement. Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism; all fall short of their projected expectations when the human factor is involved. At this point (obviously) there is no government model that could go unaffected by human factors such as greed and corruption. All of life is a catch 22. What's a guy to do?
Also, me pointing out definition number four was more for the irony and lulz than anything else.
I'm not an anarchist, anyway. I just have a general distaste for the way things are now, so until things change I'm doing every thing I can to remain outside any system.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 10:23:03 PM
Quote from: Payne on September 08, 2009, 10:12:27 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 10:03:44 PM
QuoteAnarchy–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder.
Definition three doesn't sound that bad to me. Why should someone I don't know and will never meet decide what's in my best interest?
Ooh! And just look at definition number four!
Humans, being human, will ALWAYS fuck up that kind of model. Personally, the only way I can see it working at all is in a more primativist society than we have just now.
You do like your computers and your electric guitars and all that shit don't you?
And, as is usual in these kind of definitions, they kinda fuck up by mixing up "chaos" and "disorder". That's NO definition that I would use to describe any of my beliefs.
You are correct in your assertion that human beings will always fuck up the anarchistic model, although you fell short by not including any other form of government in with your statement. Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism; all fall short of their projected expectations when the human factor is involved. At this point (obviously) there is no government model that could go unaffected by human factors such as greed and corruption. All of life is a catch 22. What's a guy to do?
Also, me pointing out definition number four was more for the irony and lulz than anything else.
So what you're saying is that you could do without your guitars and computers? Why aren't you out there making it happen? WHY NOT START NOW?!
Fuck, I'm going to agree with Roger on this one.
(http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/strawman.jpg)
Please re-read and refrain from trying to put words in my mouth. It's unbecoming.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 10:03:44 PM
QuoteAnarchy–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder.
Definition three doesn't sound that bad to me. Why should someone I don't know and will never meet decide what's in my best interest?
Ooh! And just look at definition number four!
If you like definition #3, move to Mogadishu. They have no coercive government there. It will be
paradise.
Option #4 is incorrect, from a Discordian point of view. Chaos contains both order and disorder. This is why the chiefs of staff at the Pentagon are automatically knighted upon taking the position.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 10:23:03 PM
You are correct in your assertion that human beings will always fuck up the anarchistic model, although you fell short by not including any other form of government in with your statement. Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism; all fall short of their projected expectations when the human factor is involved. At this point (obviously) there is no government model that could go unaffected by human factors such as greed and corruption. All of life is a catch 22. What's a guy to do?
Also, me pointing out definition number four was more for the irony and lulz than anything else.
I'm not an anarchist, anyway. I just have a general distaste for the way things are now, so until things change I'm doing every thing I can to remain outside any system.
The thing is, those other systems WORK, with the exception of communism, which fails for the same reason anarchy does.
The constitution is powerless to stop the oligarchy. Which is why the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2009, 11:11:44 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 10:23:03 PM
You are correct in your assertion that human beings will always fuck up the anarchistic model, although you fell short by not including any other form of government in with your statement. Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism; all fall short of their projected expectations when the human factor is involved. At this point (obviously) there is no government model that could go unaffected by human factors such as greed and corruption. All of life is a catch 22. What's a guy to do?
Also, me pointing out definition number four was more for the irony and lulz than anything else.
I'm not an anarchist, anyway. I just have a general distaste for the way things are now, so until things change I'm doing every thing I can to remain outside any system.
The thing is, those other systems WORK, with the exception of communism, which fails for the same reason anarchy does.
damn humans.... refusing to behave in accordance with a system built on ideals that don't account for human nature... :argh!:
Quote from: Kai on September 08, 2009, 11:13:06 PM
The constitution is powerless to stop the oligarchy. Which is why the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants.
SORRY, MY SHOW IS ON. MAYBE TOMORROW.
\
:nigel:
Quote from: fomenter on September 08, 2009, 11:16:03 PM
damn humans.... refusing to behave in accordance with a system built on ideals that don't account for human nature... :argh!:
Yeah, they keep Dimo from doing whatever he wants to whomever he wants.
Not that Dimo would last an hour in an anarchist environment, mind you.
its funny how few anarchist would survive the system they want :lulz:
i should get a gov grant to study the phenomena..... is there any acreage available for sale out where the bartertown set was?
Quote from: fomenter on September 08, 2009, 11:27:45 PM
its funny how few anarchist would survive the system they want :lulz:
yeah...but if one understands that and still wants it to happen, it's not hypocrisy.
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 08, 2009, 11:36:45 PM
Quote from: fomenter on September 08, 2009, 11:27:45 PM
its funny how few anarchist would survive the system they want :lulz:
yeah...but if one understands that and still wants it to happen, it's not hypocrisy a violent ass rape fetish .
fixed
QuoteI'm not an anarchist, anyway. I just have a general distaste for the way things are now, so until things change I'm doing every thing I can to remain outside any system.
Please direct all responses to the inconspicuous straw-man.
QuoteThe thing is, those other systems WORK, with the exception of communism, which fails for the same reason anarchy does.
Do they? That explains why we're all in the shit-house here, I guess. If you call that working...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2009, 11:17:54 PM
Quote from: fomenter on September 08, 2009, 11:16:03 PM
damn humans.... refusing to behave in accordance with a system built on ideals that don't account for human nature... :argh!:
Yeah, they keep Dimo from doing whatever he wants to whomever he wants.
Not that Dimo would last an hour in an anarchist environment, mind you.
Also, what leads you to beleive I am sooooo incapable? Strange for someone to have such a developed opinion of someone that you do not know...
You're in a RI hardcore band, for one thing...
Quote from: LMNO on September 08, 2009, 11:53:14 PM
You're in a RI hardcore band, for one thing...
Which has to do with what, exactly?
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 11:52:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2009, 11:17:54 PM
Quote from: fomenter on September 08, 2009, 11:16:03 PM
damn humans.... refusing to behave in accordance with a system built on ideals that don't account for human nature... :argh!:
Yeah, they keep Dimo from doing whatever he wants to whomever he wants.
Not that Dimo would last an hour in an anarchist environment, mind you.
Also, what leads you to beleive I am sooooo incapable? Strange for someone to have such a developed opinion of someone that you do not know...
The fact that you're an anarchist kinda spells it out.
Anarchism: the belief that removing all existing institutionalized pecking orders will somehow make the natural human tendency to form pecking orders go away.
I'm starting to beleive that you people are not that bright. I did not even bring up the term anarchism until it was brought up by someone else. And, if you will kindly re-read my statements, I never said I was an anarchist. Thanks in advance. :)
Dimo, you're not very good at avoiding drama.
OP: TITCM.
Is avoiding drama necessarily a good/commendable thing? :?
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 09, 2009, 01:46:13 AM
I never said I was an anarchist. Thanks in advance. :)
Oh really?
Quote from: Dimo1138 on August 04, 2009, 11:03:00 PM
http://www.laserpointersafety.com/laser-hazards_aircraft/laser-hazards_aircraft.html
Dammit. Why do people keep calling me a commie? I don't have the proper belief system to support communism. I'm a frikkin' ANARCHIST, damnit.
No, thank
YOU.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 09:55:39 PM
Hrmmm... How about: If I want to do it, I do. If you don't want me to, try and stop me.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 10:03:44 PM
QuoteAnarchy–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder.
Definition three doesn't sound that bad to me. Why should someone I don't know and will never meet decide what's in my best interest?
Ooh! And just look at definition number four!
both from this thread and both are anarchy
and way to beat me to it payne
Quote from: VERBtr on September 09, 2009, 01:55:32 AM
Dimo, you're not very good at avoiding drama.
Sshh you, it's like Fight Club, for nerds.
:popcorn:
Quote from: fomenter on September 09, 2009, 02:12:29 AM
and way to beat me to it payne
(http://crazy-jokes.com/pictures/whosyourdaddy.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 09, 2009, 02:12:54 AM
Quote from: VERBtr on September 09, 2009, 01:55:32 AM
Dimo, you're not very good at avoiding drama.
Sshh you, it's like Fight Club, for nerds.
:popcorn:
I've seen pics of both of you.
And I think you both qualify.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 11:49:44 PM
QuoteI'm not an anarchist, anyway. I just have a general distaste for the way things are now, so until things change I'm doing every thing I can to remain outside any system.
Please direct all responses to the inconspicuous straw-man.
QuoteThe thing is, those other systems WORK, with the exception of communism, which fails for the same reason anarchy does.
Do they? That explains why we're all in the shit-house here, I guess. If you call that working...
I didn't say they were benevolent. I said they worked.
Notice the subtle, but very real, difference.
Quote from: Payne on September 09, 2009, 02:04:34 AM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 09, 2009, 01:46:13 AM
I never said I was an anarchist. Thanks in advance. :)
Oh really?
Quote from: Dimo1138 on August 04, 2009, 11:03:00 PM
http://www.laserpointersafety.com/laser-hazards_aircraft/laser-hazards_aircraft.html
Dammit. Why do people keep calling me a commie? I don't have the proper belief system to support communism. I'm a frikkin' ANARCHIST, damnit.
No, thank YOU.
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is how it's done
downtown.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 03:02:04 AM
I didn't say they were benevolent. I said they worked.
Notice the subtle, but very real, difference.
What's your definition of "to work" as applied to these political philosophies?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 03:04:05 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 09, 2009, 02:04:34 AM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 09, 2009, 01:46:13 AM
I never said I was an anarchist. Thanks in advance. :)
Oh really?
Quote from: Dimo1138 on August 04, 2009, 11:03:00 PM
http://www.laserpointersafety.com/laser-hazards_aircraft/laser-hazards_aircraft.html
Dammit. Why do people keep calling me a commie? I don't have the proper belief system to support communism. I'm a frikkin' ANARCHIST, damnit.
No, thank YOU.
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is how it's done
downtown.
WE DO THIS SHIT FOR SCIENCE
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 03:16:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 03:02:04 AM
I didn't say they were benevolent. I said they worked.
Notice the subtle, but very real, difference.
What's your definition of "to work" as applied to these political philosophies?
Does it FUNCTION?
For example, communism does NOT function, as evidenced by the fall of the Soviet Union, the whoring of China, etc.
Capitalism DOES work, but only benefits 2% of the population.
Democracy works, as evidenced by ancient Athens, but served only demagogues.
The republic functions, but serves only the wealthy.
Constitutional monarchies work, but serve only the British tabloids.
Ok...but then what is your definition of "function" as applied to those philosophies?
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 04:00:43 AM
Ok...but then what is your definition of "function" as applied to those philosophies?
Can the government back up its claims/threats/promises?
That is it. That's all there is to it. You'll notice there is very little difference between a functional government and a functional mafia family. That's not a coincidence. Just ask Smedley Butler, the greatest (IMO) of the Discordian saints.
I disagree with you, but I'm having trouble phrasing my disagreement. Like I said, I suck at political debate. :sad:
Are you one for agreeing to disagree? (um, right after I typed this, a guy on the TV said "We'll just have to agree to disagree." :tinfoilhat:)
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 04:25:08 AM
I disagree with you, but I'm having trouble phrasing my disagreement. Like I said, I suck at political debate. :sad:
Are you one for agreeing to disagree? (um, right after I typed this, a guy on the TV said "We'll just have to agree to disagree." :tinfoilhat:)
Fuck no.
State your case, hippie.
Alright, I want to see all the "claims" you think each of those made (most interested in communism and capitalism).
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 04:42:48 AM
Alright, I want to see all the "claims" you think each of those made (most interested in communism and capitalism).
Communism isn't included, as it failed.
Capitalism makes threats, not claims. It was an either/or/and thing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 05:00:52 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 04:42:48 AM
Alright, I want to see all the "claims" you think each of those made (most interested in communism and capitalism).
Communism isn't included, as it failed.
Capitalism makes threats, not claims. It was an either/or/and thing.
The fact that communism failed to function means, according to your definition, that it failed to deliver on its claims/threats/promises. So what were those?
Fine, what are/were capitalism's threats?
Say you're in prison and you want to lead a gang.
You claim the northeast corner of the recreation ground as your turf. If you don't back up that claim, you cease to function as a gang leader.
You threaten the other gangs not to recruit/mess with your members. If they do, and you do nothing, then you cease to function as a gang leader.
You promise Bubba that in return for his body-guarding, he can have his pick of the new inmates -- if you can't deliver on that promise then you cease to function..
At least, that's the way I personally interpreted it.
If you're talking to me, fictionpuss, I understand what "back up its claims" means. :|
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 05:30:14 AM
If you're talking to me, fictionpuss, I understand what "back up its claims" means. :|
Ah, I just don't understand the confusion - you seem to be leading up to something and I'm impatient to see what it is :-)
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 05:08:20 AM
The fact that communism failed to function means, according to your definition, that it failed to deliver on its claims/threats/promises. So what were those?
Fine, what are/were capitalism's threats?
1. Communism promised equality, a moneyless and classless society, etc. They failed. They tried to rely on threats, and they did so for about 70 years. Then the threats stopped working, and the system stopped functioning.
2. Do what you're told, stay in line, or live under a bridge. Also, we plan to use your children to enforce our market share in 3rd world nations. Deal.
Ok, let me explain something to you guys about a couple of things I would like to call "sarcasm" and "Jocularity," as I can see where they may be difficult to detect, by the unskilled eye, in text. I'd
hate to have to point this out to you guys, but alas, it seems I must.
QuoteDammit. Why do people keep calling me a commie? I don't have the proper belief system to support communism. I'm a frikkin' ANARCHIST, damnit.
This, my finicky friends, is what I like to call a "Joke," which contains borderline "Sarcasm" (It is true, however, that there
is truth in jest, but the Joker cannot be strictly defined by the joke). I even beleive that in that same thread I referred to myself as a "Nothingarian," which doesn't even exist (and ironicly enough, it seems that a fictional faction holds closest to my own ideals). Whether or not it was implemented correctly or was successful, that is exactly what it was. I felt that the loose, casual demeanor that it was in the context of would lead you to that conclusion on your own, but that's okay, I can walk you through this, hand in hand.
QuoteI didn't say they were benevolent. I said they worked.
We must clarify the definition, in regards to this discourse (as well as in regards to logic), of the word "Works" in order for either of us to continue to any beneficial end.
And, in closing, to the gentleman that said that I have a tendency for causing drama, I must disagree. You see,
most (I must specify
most) of my posts are on topic (many may be poor attempts at "Jocularity" [see above] but they are on topic, nonetheless). And furthermore, I never purposely attack anyone in a malicious, shit-flinging manner, which is more than could be said about a lot of the people here.
I can't beleive I had to explain this.
TEACH US!
We have lived in ignorance for so very very long, and have prophesied the coming of one who would bring light and knowledge and stregth. In the myths of The People did we raise up the figure of one we called DEE-MOH, and sorely were we opressed by one and all for our belief that we would be saved by Him, and glory from Him and peace came forth from His hand!
And so it came to pass that there would arrive missionaries from foreign lands who would speak unto us, The People, and tell us whence we had erred and to tell us the truth of their people and of their gods. But The People did turn away their face and did close their ears for such missionaries were false, and their words also. And the missionaries were cast to the ground and broken with stones. And The People cried DEE-MOH, see what we do for you? We have rejected the false teachings! We wait only for you!
And so it would be that more missionaries would come to The People and tell us that we were incorrect in our lives and that we had mistakenly followed DEE-MOH and that they would strike us, and the people prevailed. And when the missionaries did try to strike us, yet The People did prevail until they were broken upon the ground with stones.
The faith, we have held it for these many years, and await we did the signs and augers portending your arrival. And when the wise men of The People did say DEE-MOH is here! Rejoice in Him, for His love and knowledge shall be ever lasting and shall we The People sit at his right hand hand on his left and sing songs of praise and glory to him. And whence we shall go forth and break all missionaries on the ground with stones for in DEE-MOH is the only truth, the hidden truth we have waited these many years to hear, and have held closed in our hearts and in our souls.
And now, oh DEE-MOH we await only thy pleasure to do as YOU have said is the One Way, and the One Light, and to go hence and hither us, The People, to The Kingdom where we shall live enlightened forever and ever.
....Fuck you Dimo, srsly.
It's like watching a guy walk into a dog pound with a Milk-Bone jockstrap, I swear...
Payne, why do you hate America?
Dimo, Ironically, doing it wrong.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 09, 2009, 05:32:40 PM
Payne, why do you hate America?
For the same reason Jesus hated the Romans, terrorist-kisser.
Quote from: LMNO on September 09, 2009, 05:26:55 PM
It's like watching a guy walk into a dog pound with a Milk-Bone jockstrap, I swear...
Look at it this way...if Dimo and people like him didn't exist, Starbucks would go out of business. It's the breeding ground for Libertarians and most other forms of anarchist.
I personally will not mourn when Starbucks goes out of business.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 09, 2009, 05:04:00 PM
Ok, let me explain something to you guys about a couple of things I would like to call "sarcasm" and "Jocularity," as I can see where they may be difficult to detect, by the unskilled eye, in text. I'd hate to have to point this out to you guys, but alas, it seems I must.
QuoteDammit. Why do people keep calling me a commie? I don't have the proper belief system to support communism. I'm a frikkin' ANARCHIST, damnit.
This, my finicky friends, is what I like to call a "Joke," which contains borderline "Sarcasm" (It is true, however, that there is truth in jest, but the Joker cannot be strictly defined by the joke). I even beleive that in that same thread I referred to myself as a "Nothingarian," which doesn't even exist (and ironicly enough, it seems that a fictional faction holds closest to my own ideals). Whether or not it was implemented correctly or was successful, that is exactly what it was. I felt that the loose, casual demeanor that it was in the context of would lead you to that conclusion on your own, but that's okay, I can walk you through this, hand in hand.
QuoteI didn't say they were benevolent. I said they worked.
We must clarify the definition, in regards to this discourse (as well as in regards to logic), of the word "Works" in order for either of us to continue to any beneficial end.
And, in closing, to the gentleman that said that I have a tendency for causing drama, I must disagree. You see, most (I must specify most) of my posts are on topic (many may be poor attempts at "Jocularity" [see above] but they are on topic, nonetheless). And furthermore, I never purposely attack anyone in a malicious, shit-flinging manner, which is more than could be said about a lot of the people here.
I can't beleive I had to explain this.
um.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 09:55:39 PM
Hrmmm... How about: If I want to do it, I do. If you don't want me to, try and stop me.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 09, 2009, 05:45:12 PM
I personally will not mourn when Starbucks goes out of business.
Then the fuckers will breed in public.
Also, the fact that Dimo derailed my thread is offset by the hours of laughter I've had at Dimo's expense ITT.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 05:55:47 PM
Also, the fact that Dimo derailed my thread is offset by the hours of laughter I've had at Dimo's expense ITT.
:lulz:
I at least tried to bring some religion back into it.
I just shat that out btw, off the hoof as they say.
Dimo, you might have figured this one out by now, so stop me if you've heard it before. There's absolutely no meat to be gotten from chewing this bone. THEY decide what's funny. THEY decide what is true. THEY out-number you.
If THEY decide to "put you in your place", then THEY won't stop until you at least make a pretence of going there.
But remember this - whoever you think THEY are - THEY don't exist. Quit barking at your shadow, eh?
Quote from: Payne on September 09, 2009, 05:59:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 05:55:47 PM
Also, the fact that Dimo derailed my thread is offset by the hours of laughter I've had at Dimo's expense ITT.
:lulz:
I at least tried to bring some religion back into it.
I just shat that out btw, off the hoof as they say.
The glorious thing about our respective political systems is that they generate the necessary hate that allows this sort of rant-puking to take place. Anarchists like Dimo would do away with that, and thus deprive future generations of rage-driven hate-shitting. Along with electric light, dentistry, and the very computer he's babbling from, I might add.
Quote from: LMNO on September 09, 2009, 05:26:55 PM
It's like watching a guy walk into a dog pound with a Milk-Bone jockstrap, I swear...
:lulz:
This is currently my favorite thread on the board.
The thing about being an anarchist, Dimo, is that you may try to cover it up by claiming to be a "Libertarian", but most Libertarians are simply weak Anarchists... they want enough of the trappings of government to protect them, but none to restrict them. The irony is that almost all of them would fail, and badly, under the very system they claim to advocate. For that matter, most of them are failures NOW, under a system that treats them far less harshly than a fully Libertarian system would. It's because they are weak, and they believe that it is the Man who is holding them down... blind to the fact that, actually, it is the Man who is propping them up.
Quote from: Nigel on September 09, 2009, 07:57:59 PM
The thing about being an anarchist, Dimo, is that you may try to cover it up by claiming to be a "Libertarian", but most Libertarians are simply weak Anarchists... they want enough of the trappings of government to protect them, but none to restrict them. The irony is that almost all of them would fail, and badly, under the very system they claim to advocate. For that matter, most of them are failures NOW, under a system that treats them far less harshly than a fully Libertarian system would. It's because they are weak, and they believe that it is the Man who is holding them down... blind to the fact that, actually, it is the Man who is propping them up.
For evidence, I offer the libertarians at MysticWicks: One posts from his mother-in-law's basement, one from university (which his folks pay for), and the other is unemployable because he preaches to all of his coworkers til he gets fired.
Note that two of the three of them are on some form of government assistance.
"keep your GUMMAMENT out of MAH welfare!" :argh!:
:lulz:
Sounds like the angry townhall gems: "keep your GUMMAMENT out of MAH Medicare!" :argh!:
:lulz:
So lailtastic, it drips into a puddle on the floor.
Quote from: Jenne on September 09, 2009, 08:05:50 PM
"keep your GUMMAMENT out of MAH welfare!" :argh!:
:lulz:
Sounds like the angry townhall gems: "keep your GUMMAMENT out of MAH Medicare!" :argh!:
:lulz:
So lailtastic, it drips into a puddle on the floor.
Angry Townhall is the best thing to happen since forever. :lulz:
So, Dimo is a libertarian? :lulz:
I have to admit a long-term fascination with Libertarianism.. most systems of thought I can get my head around, even if I don't subscribe to them.. but all I can get from Libertarianism is "I want to do whatever I want, and not pay taxes, screw you"
I keep looking for more, but I can't find it.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 09, 2009, 08:11:38 PM
I have to admit a long-term fascination with Libertarianism.. most systems of thought I can get my head around, even if I don't subscribe to them.. but all I can get from Libertarianism is "I want to do whatever I want, and not pay taxes, screw you"
I keep looking for more, but I can't find it.
You must have missed "We should sell off the highway system and the national parklands".
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 09, 2009, 08:11:38 PM
I have to admit a long-term fascination with Libertarianism.. most systems of thought I can get my head around, even if I don't subscribe to them.. but all I can get from Libertarianism is "I want to do whatever I want, and not pay taxes, screw you"
I keep looking for more, but I can't find it.
It's not there... really. Libertarianism is very childish, and largely composed of wishful thinking.
Quote from: Nigel on September 09, 2009, 08:26:47 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 09, 2009, 08:11:38 PM
I have to admit a long-term fascination with Libertarianism.. most systems of thought I can get my head around, even if I don't subscribe to them.. but all I can get from Libertarianism is "I want to do whatever I want, and not pay taxes, screw you"
I keep looking for more, but I can't find it.
It's not there... really. Libertarianism is very childish, and largely composed of wishful thinking.
Yeah, it's the whole Ron Paul "The bills have to be paid? What?" frame of mind.
Or the "the best interests of the individual = the best interests for society, therefore letting people do whatever they want will lead to a perfect society"
which is PATENTLY FALSE and pretty much the same as believing in fairy tales. First of all, you have to believe that people always act in their own best interest. :|
Quote from: Nigel on September 09, 2009, 08:53:00 PM
Or the "the best interests of the individual = the best interests for society, therefore letting people do whatever they want will lead to a perfect society"
which is PATENTLY FALSE and pretty much the same as believing in fairy tales. First of all, you have to believe that people always act in their own best interest. :|
And those of us that understand Finagle know better.
Quote from: Nigel on September 09, 2009, 07:57:59 PM
The thing about being an anarchist, Dimo, is that you may try to cover it up by claiming to be a "Libertarian",
Didn't we just do this? Now, I know for a
fact I've never claimed to be a libertarian. You guys...
And with all due respect, the topic was derailed
here.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2009, 09:47:40 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 09:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2009, 09:26:42 PM
And this is nowhere near as bad as the Great Depression.
Yet.
I for one would be much more comfortable if everything from eating food to driving a car didn't revolve around little pieces of paper, green or otherwise.
Okay, I'm open to alternate suggestions. Shoot.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 08, 2009, 09:33:30 PM
If the rights defined in the constitution are inalienable and god-given, do I really need a constitution to grant me them? Bah, burn it all.
Har! Either the constitution allows the oligarchy we have now, or it is powerless to stop it. Either way, it's garbage.
Dimebag: You have claimed to be whatever WE have said you have claimed to be now. Hush and let the big kids talk now.
Payne, your name is suitable to the highest degree.
As in: you are a payne in my ass.
Quote from: Nigel on September 09, 2009, 08:53:00 PM
Or the "the best interests of the individual = the best interests for society, therefore letting people do whatever they want will lead to a perfect society"
which is PATENTLY FALSE and pretty much the same as believing in fairy tales. First of all, you have to believe that people always act in their own best interest. :|
Alan Greenspan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122476545437862295.html):
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."
I mean. Really? I mean, if the choice is between racking up a mighty bonus on risky schemes which aren't likely to fail before the payout at which point you can jump ship or otherwise ride it out.. and "doing the right thing" - what do we expect these hyper-charged titans of capitalism to do? Why should they care for the shareholders/dupes? Why should they care about the greater economy?
You breed sharks for aggression and greed and express surprise when they bite off your arm?
See, up until that point I always believed in intelligent hypocrites.. I never for a second thought that they believed their own bullshit.
Hypocrites are waaay less scary.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 09, 2009, 09:09:01 PM
Payne, your name is suitable to the highest degree.
As in: you are a payne in my ass.
hahaha payne, you've been
served.. gonna have to change yo name now, muthafukka. i told u i wuz hardcore
:facepalm:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 04:47:24 PM
1. Communism promised equality, a moneyless and classless society, etc. They failed. They tried to rely on threats, and they did so for about 70 years. Then the threats stopped working, and the system stopped functioning.
Because the Soviets and Chinese Communists failed, communism can not possibly succeed? I want to point out the difference between "did" and "can".
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 09, 2009, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 09, 2009, 07:57:59 PM
The thing about being an anarchist, Dimo, is that you may try to cover it up by claiming to be a "Libertarian",
Didn't we just do this? Now, I know for a fact I've never claimed to be a libertarian. You guys...
Sure you did. Twice.
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 04:47:24 PM
1. Communism promised equality, a moneyless and classless society, etc. They failed. They tried to rely on threats, and they did so for about 70 years. Then the threats stopped working, and the system stopped functioning.
Because the Soviets and Chinese Communists failed, communism can not possibly succeed? I want to point out the difference between "did" and "can".
Communism fails because people are not ants.
That's really all there is to it, unless you want to claim that North Korea is what Marx was talking about.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 09, 2009, 09:10:17 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 09, 2009, 08:53:00 PM
Or the "the best interests of the individual = the best interests for society, therefore letting people do whatever they want will lead to a perfect society"
which is PATENTLY FALSE and pretty much the same as believing in fairy tales. First of all, you have to believe that people always act in their own best interest. :|
Alan Greenspan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122476545437862295.html):
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."
I mean. Really? I mean, if the choice is between racking up a mighty bonus on risky schemes which aren't likely to fail before the payout at which point you can jump ship or otherwise ride it out.. and "doing the right thing" - what do we expect these hyper-charged titans of capitalism to do? Why should they care for the shareholders/dupes? Why should they care about the greater economy?
You breed sharks for aggression and greed and express surprise when they bite off your arm?
See, up until that point I always believed in intelligent hypocrites.. I never for a second thought that they believed their own bullshit.
Hypocrites are waaay less scary funny.
Fixed.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 09:25:11 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 04:47:24 PM
1. Communism promised equality, a moneyless and classless society, etc. They failed. They tried to rely on threats, and they did so for about 70 years. Then the threats stopped working, and the system stopped functioning.
Because the Soviets and Chinese Communists failed, communism can not possibly succeed? I want to point out the difference between "did" and "can".
Communism fails because people are not ants.
That's really all there is to it, unless you want to claim that North Korea is what Marx was talking about.
Are you claiming that people are absolutely incapable of creating a government that follows Marx's plan properly, with the proof of your claim being a couple failed attempts?
name the successful attempts..
Quote from: fomenter on September 09, 2009, 09:34:08 PM
name the successful attempts..
Doesn't matter. I would accept the statement "Communism has never worked." But I would not accept the statement "Communism cannot possibly work, because it has never worked."
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 09:36:02 PM
Quote from: fomenter on September 09, 2009, 09:34:08 PM
name the successful attempts..
Doesn't matter. I would accept the statement "Communism has never worked." But I would not accept the statement "Communism cannot possibly work, because it has never worked."
I think a form of Communism could be made to work, but that form would look so different from the failed experiments which have carried the label so far, that a new label would be given to it.
To carry your argument forward - you could never say that
any form of governance had failed, because it could potentially be made to work in some unpredictable/unforeseeable future scenario. Is that where you are going?
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 09:28:59 PM
Are you claiming that people are absolutely incapable of creating a government that follows Marx's plan properly, with the proof of your claim being a couple failed attempts?
Yes, I am.
Because people are primates, not ants.
I'm seeing your side, because communists do have the burden of proof. But I don't think "X cannot possibly happen" can be derived from "X has never happened," unless X is literally impossible (which seems to be where we disagree - you believe working human communism is impossible).
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 09:52:06 PM
I'm seeing your side, because communists do have the burden of proof. But I don't think "X cannot possibly happen" can be derived from "X has never happened," unless X is literally impossible (which seems to be where we disagree - you believe working human communism is impossible).
But that isn't what I said.
I said it doesn't work because humans are primates, not ants. Not because "it hasn't worked".
So tell me, Epimetheus, where are you going to find people 'pure" enough to achieve a working communist state?
PROTIP: If your system relies on cooperation and ideological purity, it won't work. Ever.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 09:54:30 PM
PROTIP: If your system relies on cooperation and ideological purity, it won't work. Ever.
Give the man a cigar.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 09, 2009, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 09, 2009, 07:57:59 PM
The thing about being an anarchist, Dimo, is that you may try to cover it up by claiming to be a "Libertarian",
Didn't we just do this? Now, I know for a fact I've never claimed to be a libertarian. You guys...
You don't have to say it outright for it to be easily gleaned from earlier comments. I'm just saying it's an immaturely idealistic ideology, and very naive. It's essentially a weakened Anarchist ideology.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 09, 2009, 09:10:17 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 09, 2009, 08:53:00 PM
Or the "the best interests of the individual = the best interests for society, therefore letting people do whatever they want will lead to a perfect society"
which is PATENTLY FALSE and pretty much the same as believing in fairy tales. First of all, you have to believe that people always act in their own best interest. :|
Alan Greenspan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122476545437862295.html):
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."
I mean. Really? I mean, if the choice is between racking up a mighty bonus on risky schemes which aren't likely to fail before the payout at which point you can jump ship or otherwise ride it out.. and "doing the right thing" - what do we expect these hyper-charged titans of capitalism to do? Why should they care for the shareholders/dupes? Why should they care about the greater economy?
You breed sharks for aggression and greed and express surprise when they bite off your arm?
See, up until that point I always believed in intelligent hypocrites.. I never for a second thought that they believed their own bullshit.
Hypocrites are waaay less scary.
There was a piece in the NYT Magazine about the financial schools and why their economic theories failed.
The subtext, never said outright, was: Economics is not about Numbers. It is not Math. Economics is how Humans
react to numbers. It is psychology.
the subtext was wrong - economics is not about how people react to numbers its about how people react to economists - and that is not psychology its pseudo-religion
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 09:54:30 PM
But that isn't what I said.
I said it doesn't work because humans are primates, not ants. Not because "it hasn't worked".
I misunderstood what you were saying. My bad.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 09:54:30 PM
So tell me, Epimetheus, where are you going to find people 'pure" enough to achieve a working communist state?
PROTIP: If your system relies on cooperation and ideological purity, it won't work. Ever.
I ain't a communist...There is no "my system," nor do I care about whatever the hell that question meant.
Quote from: MMIX on September 10, 2009, 01:21:45 AM
the subtext was wrong - economics is not about how people react to numbers its about how people react to economists - and that is not psychology its pseudo-religion
Nope. Perhaps with the stock market, but not in all of economics. You don't listen to economists when choosing your brand of coffee.
Quote from: LMNO on September 10, 2009, 01:26:52 AM
Quote from: MMIX on September 10, 2009, 01:21:45 AM
the subtext was wrong - economics is not about how people react to numbers its about how people react to economists - and that is not psychology its pseudo-religion
Nope. Perhaps with the stock market, but not in all of economics. You don't listen to economists when choosing your brand of coffee.
I wasn't aware that recommending brands of coffee was a major [or even minor] branch of economics - those fuckers get their sticky little hands into everything don't they?
Quote from: MMIX on September 10, 2009, 01:21:45 AM
the subtext was wrong - economics is not about how people react to numbers its about how people react to economists - and that is not psychology its pseudo-religion
Yes, because religion has *nothing* to do with psychology. :roll:
Quote from: MMIX on September 10, 2009, 01:45:42 AM
Quote from: LMNO on September 10, 2009, 01:26:52 AM
Quote from: MMIX on September 10, 2009, 01:21:45 AM
the subtext was wrong - economics is not about how people react to numbers its about how people react to economists - and that is not psychology its pseudo-religion
Nope. Perhaps with the stock market, but not in all of economics. You don't listen to economists when choosing your brand of coffee.
I wasn't aware that recommending brands of coffee was a major [or even minor] branch of economics - those fuckers get their sticky little hands into everything don't they?
Just to play the irrelevant pedant: coffee is actually one of the most-traded commodities in the world. Like, in the top ten.
Well, better to be the irrelevant pedant than the fuckhead who refuses to get the point.
Quote from: MMIX on September 10, 2009, 01:21:45 AM
the subtext was wrong - economics is not about how people react to numbers its about how people react to economists - and that is not psychology its pseudo-religion
No, LMNO was right, it is about how people react to numbers. Economics, to oversimplify it slightly, essentially hinges on scarcity. When a hurricane threatens oil rigs out in the ocean, what happens? Oil prices shoot up. Why? Because the people are anticipating increased scarcity in oil. That's not reacting to economists, that's reacting to the supply, how much, numbers.
Quote from: LMNO on September 10, 2009, 01:26:52 AM
Quote from: MMIX on September 10, 2009, 01:21:45 AM
the subtext was wrong - economics is not about how people react to numbers its about how people react to economists - and that is not psychology its pseudo-religion
Nope. Perhaps with the stock market, but not in all of economics. You don't listen to economists when choosing your brand of coffee.
But most do buy the brand on sale!
Just sayin....
And when there's a run on the banks, it's not caused by economists, but by the rush of irrationality of the people that the bank may become insolvent, which then becomes a self-fufilling prophecy. Most economists would advise against making a run on the banks.
What I want to know is why you'all are hating so much on LIBRARIANS. What an awesome group of archivists and reference ninjas.
Quote from: Kai on September 10, 2009, 02:29:49 PM
What I want to know is why you'all are hating so much on LIBRARIANS. What an awesome fetish.
Fixed.
Quote from: LMNO on September 10, 2009, 02:31:54 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 10, 2009, 02:29:49 PM
What I want to know is why you'all are hating so much on LIBRARIANS. What an awesome fetish.
Fixed.
I read this wrong and had a Conan the Barbarian mental in fetish gear......
I have a sick mind...
As far as I can tell, what Conan wears is fetish gear.
Quote from: Kai on September 10, 2009, 02:29:49 PM
What I want to know is why you'all are hating so much on LIBRARIANS. What an awesome group of archivists and reference ninjas.
Because we know the Dewey Decimal System is really a secret plot to teach Socialism to our children.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 10, 2009, 02:36:37 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 10, 2009, 02:29:49 PM
What I want to know is why you'all are hating so much on LIBRARIANS. What an awesome group of archivists and reference ninjas.
Because we know the Dewey Decimal System is really a secret plot to teach Socialism to our children.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 04:11:08 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 04:00:43 AM
Ok...but then what is your definition of "function" as applied to those philosophies?
Can the government back up its claims/threats/promises?
That is it. That's all there is to it. You'll notice there is very little difference between a functional government and a functional mafia family. That's not a coincidence. Just ask Smedley Butler, the greatest (IMO) of the Discordian saints.
Incidentally, that book I suggested to you (
Government of the Shadows, the one about parapolitical research in political science) makes exactly the same point. Twice. Using the actual Mafia to show how it happens.
Quote from: LMNO on September 10, 2009, 12:58:31 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 09, 2009, 09:10:17 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 09, 2009, 08:53:00 PM
Or the "the best interests of the individual = the best interests for society, therefore letting people do whatever they want will lead to a perfect society"
which is PATENTLY FALSE and pretty much the same as believing in fairy tales. First of all, you have to believe that people always act in their own best interest. :|
Alan Greenspan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122476545437862295.html):
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."
I mean. Really? I mean, if the choice is between racking up a mighty bonus on risky schemes which aren't likely to fail before the payout at which point you can jump ship or otherwise ride it out.. and "doing the right thing" - what do we expect these hyper-charged titans of capitalism to do? Why should they care for the shareholders/dupes? Why should they care about the greater economy?
You breed sharks for aggression and greed and express surprise when they bite off your arm?
See, up until that point I always believed in intelligent hypocrites.. I never for a second thought that they believed their own bullshit.
Hypocrites are waaay less scary.
There was a piece in the NYT Magazine about the financial schools and why their economic theories failed.
The subtext, never said outright, was: Economics is not about Numbers. It is not Math. Economics is how Humans react to numbers. It is psychology.
Economists, in my experience, tend to suck at the human psychology side of the equation, much in the same way my own dear discipline does. The assumption of a rational, unitary actor (either the individual consumer, or the nation-state) is only conceptually useful within a very narrow range of circumstances, and often doesn't apply at all. And I think a fair few economists get this (in fact, there is a small branch dedicated to modelling human behaviour as it really is), but decide to use those models anyway, because they're getting paid to do x amount of papers and teach x amount of hours and draw up models for x amount of clients and figuring out how to apply all this shit is
hard and takes lots of work and time they don't have.
And also, is it just me, or is there a lot of irony in the political philosophy which espouses spontaneous yet sustainable natural order (ie; Anarchism) being one which a lot of Discordians feel drawn to?
I've been meaning to write about this for a couple of years, but haven't found a way to make it zingy enough, except to note this amusing coincidence.
Quote from: Cain on September 10, 2009, 04:59:42 PM
Economists, in my experience, tend to suck at the human psychology side of the equation, much in the same way my own dear discipline does. The assumption of a rational, unitary actor (either the individual consumer, or the nation-state) is only conceptually useful within a very narrow range of circumstances, and often doesn't apply at all. And I think a fair few economists get this (in fact, there is a small branch dedicated to modelling human behaviour as it really is), but decide to use those models anyway, because they're getting paid to do x amount of papers and teach x amount of hours and draw up models for x amount of clients and figuring out how to apply all this shit is hard and takes lots of work and time they don't have.
Yeah. The fact that both schools of economics (known as freshwater and saltwater, due to the costal/inland geography of the majority of the adherents) thought that the foundation of economics was that
humans make
rational decisions about the market continues to astound me.
This may also be a reason
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html
If you're a young academic and wont drink the Chicago-school kool aid, the Fed will make life hard for you.
Quote from: Cain on September 10, 2009, 05:02:52 PM
And also, is it just me, or is there a lot of irony in the political philosophy which espouses spontaneous yet sustainable natural order (ie; Anarchism) being one which a lot of Discordians feel drawn to?
Hah! It never occurred to me to think of it like that.
"In the future, everyone lives in an Anarchic paradise where people are allowed to function freely and without restraint... except for an upstart group of mischief-makers called Discordians who ruin everything by setting up small proto-governments just for the sake of fucking shit up, and for the lulz."
Quote from: Cainad on September 10, 2009, 09:33:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 10, 2009, 05:02:52 PM
And also, is it just me, or is there a lot of irony in the political philosophy which espouses spontaneous yet sustainable natural order (ie; Anarchism) being one which a lot of Discordians feel drawn to?
Hah! It never occurred to me to think of it like that.
"In the future, everyone lives in an Anarchic paradise where people are allowed to function freely and without restraint... except for an upstart group of mischief-makers called Discordians who ruin everything by setting up small proto-governments just for the sake of fucking shit up, and for the lulz."
WIN
Maybe it's cyclical. Maybe that's how we got here in the first place. F'kin discordians :argh!:
I know I'd do it, in such a situation.
Bump. Gotta get back on this while the teabaggers are riding the wave. :lulz:
:cry:
Those were the days.
Joe, if you're wondering, your responses went here:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=29596.0
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 10:59:09 PM
:cry:
Those were the days.
Yep, trains left the station on that deal. Bridge is out up ahead.
Quote from: Cain on September 10, 2009, 04:54:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2009, 04:11:08 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on September 09, 2009, 04:00:43 AM
Ok...but then what is your definition of "function" as applied to those philosophies?
Can the government back up its claims/threats/promises?
That is it. That's all there is to it. You'll notice there is very little difference between a functional government and a functional mafia family. That's not a coincidence. Just ask Smedley Butler, the greatest (IMO) of the Discordian saints.
Incidentally, that book I suggested to you (Government of the Shadows, the one about parapolitical research in political science) makes exactly the same point. Twice. Using the actual Mafia to show how it happens.
I just bought that book.
I take your advice very seriously, but after a cooling off period of 13 years.