Would you support an insurrection against your government?

[Mechagodzilla]

Well according to Nat, those people are "pussies" and should be imprisoned.

In the name of freedom.

*cough*

 

[DeusExMachina]

Anarchy and true freedom are impossible to achieve, unfortunately. 98% of man cannot live without a government.

 

[gick]

I actually think that anarchy with no form of government is the perfect human society. However, we have to be pragmatic and realize that people wouldnt be able to handle it, and the whole thing would turn to shit pretty rapidly. Maybe in the future it would work, but certainly not now.

 

[jverne]

meh...anrachy wouldn't bother me "that" much! i consider myself an inventive and (realatively) survivalist person! i always enjojed being dependant on yourself (with the help of a small community->like a family), since i was a kid i remember we used to play survivalist in the nearby woods, building fortresses and planning defence and offense strategies against each other "enemy" group! we used to call it rambo style. that is what you get if you live on a large farm with kids away from the city.

but i agree, living alone and in a not natural enviroment (city) would be close to immposible to survive!

all you need to use is your brain and a little bit of luck!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

ya but the government would control the media ...if the war in iraq has taught us anything it's that comtrolled media reporting can be very effective in getting americans to support the government ..even if the malitia group had admirable goals the government would have a vested interest in portraying them as terrorists

Admirable goals ... beheading westerners and declaring a world wide Jihad that would not end until both Israel and America are eradicated, are considered admirable? I mean, is that what I should consider, 'worth admiring'?

Would you believe that the KKK had admirable goals? Or Al-Qaeda for that matter with its Takfir doctrines?

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=95

The Takfiri doctrine is mostly based on a virulent practice of rejectionism. The idea is that anything having to do with modernity is a threat to Islam. This practice is manifested in the rejection of modern science, modern education, and certain modern technologies if they are contrary to Islamic traditions. Although terrorist groups may in practice use modern weapons, they resent the fact that they were created by infidels and therefore suggest that their use is only to cause the infidel’s demise. The formation of anti-US and anti-Western sentiment is rooted in this principle. The deliberate targeting of anything oriented with the US and/or the West is an expression of this principle and is implemented through a violent practice of jihad.

As mentioned, the Takfiri doctrine is influential in terrorist circles worldwide. Many well-known terrorists known to adhere to the Takfiri tenet, include al-Qaeda second-in-commandr Ayman al-Zawahiri and Jordanian-Iraqi terrorist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.

As for this threads recent discussion on Anarchy, I think MechaGodzilla had the best opinion about it ... or rather, a certain persons Ideal on it.

 

[CptStern]

Admirable goals ... beheading westerners and declaring a world wide Jihad that would not end until both Israel and America are eradicated, are considered admirable? I mean, is that what I should consider, 'worth admiring'?

kerberos you want to actually read what I wrote ffs? or are you just being an ass on purpose?

even if the malitia group had admirable goal

Would you believe that the KKK had admirable goals? Or Al-Qaeda for that matter with its Takfir doctrines?

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=95



As for this threads recent discussion on Anarchy, I think MechaGodzilla had the best opinion about it ... or rather, a certain persons Ideal on it.

blahblahblah keep making an ass of yourself ...seriously it's a freaking joke how some you jump all over me with the slightest (imagined) provocation ..read what I ****ing wrote and stop wasting my time

 

[K e r b e r o s]

kerberos you want to actually read what I wrote ffs? or are you just being an ass on purpose?

Sorry, thats not how you wrote it.

You did'nt bold, nor make 'larger' the text you wanted me to see. If I read it correctly, you were in a passive tense, which suggested that at the time you wrote you honestly believed their goals were admirable.

Don't play at words with me, you'll lose.

blahblahblah keep making an ass of yourself

I don't think you read what Mecha had to say about debating on this forum. If you can't contribute, then please, recede to the darkness from which you came.

 

[CptStern]

Sorry, thats not who you wrote it.

You did'nt bold, nor make 'larger' the text you wanted me to see. If I read it correctly, you were in a passive tense, which suggested that at the time you wrote you honestly believed their goals were admirable.

Don't play at words with me, you'll loose.

you mean "lose" ...

oh and who did I write?

I don't think you read what Mecha had to say about debating on this forum. If you can't contribute, then please, recede to the darkness from which you came.

so it's my fault you're too stupid to read a simple passage? It's my fault you flew off the handle accusing me of wanting a jewish holocaust and sympathizing with the KKK just because you have a problem with reading simple english?

kerberos you're a thorn in the politics forum side ...you contribute NOTHING except spam threads with your poorly worded ideas that no one understands ..your personal vendetta against me is really starting to get annoying, shut up already

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Wow, that was a fatal error on my part.

I will revise that post and make the corrections that are needed.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

It's my fault you flew off the handle accusing me of wanting a jewish holocaust and sympathizing with the KKK just because you have a problem with reading simple english?

Thats not what this was about CptStern. The topic was, "would you support an insurrection against your own government", and then you started in with the Liberal Banter of, 'OMFG BUSH MANIPULATED TEH MEDIA!' when infact its been quite the opposite.

...you contribute NOTHING except spam threads with your poorly worded ideas that no one understands ..your personal vendetta against me is really starting to get annoying, shut up already

...listen, Cpt. Exceeds 15,000 Posts Stern, you contribute nothing else except hate mongering against other countries, and specifically the United States. If you don't want me to be a thorn in your side, then actually respond to me like your a decent human being without being an asshole.

 

[CptStern]

trying to pin anti-jewish sentiment on me was hitting below the belt, you dont deserve my respect

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yea, well if you don't want to get hit below the belt, then don't go around shoving your balls in other people's faces.

If you want to earn my respect or anyone elses for that matter, then you've got to start treating other members of this forum like they're human beings and like you're respecting yourself.

This is an international community. No one here is going to write like you, argue like you, or hold the same opinions as you. It's not right to accuse their differences and point out their diversities in how they write English or understand it.

 

[CptStern]

excuse me? it was you who stupidly jumped all over me with absolutely no provocation. You wont even admit the fact that you completely misread my point and havent stopped harrassing me since


and for the last time I couldnt care less how poor your english is, my parents are immigrants and I used to hearing broken english on a daily basis ...no what irks me is that since you cant effectively debate me, you resort to underhanded tactics like suggesting I'm anti-semetic or that I sympathise with the KKK ..which even the most mundane of research into my posting patterns would reveal to be absurd. You're a loud mouthed ass who doesnt understand the issues he debates


oh and I dont care to earn your respect, I dont need it, or want it

 

[K e r b e r o s]

oh and I dont care to earn your respect, I dont need it, or want it

My respect would promise you much less headache, and a lot more understanding. Its up to you, this is my offer, not yours. Friends, or not?

 

[CptStern]

My respect would promise you much less headache, and a lot more understanding. Its up to you, this is my offer, not yours. Friends, or not?

so I should tailor what I say so that you'll agree with me, because that's the way to earn respect? Sorry but I will not change the tenor of my posts for you or anybody

how about we resign ourselves to not flying off the handle everytime I post something not so positive about the US. You promise to read what I have to say, and I promise not to attack you for misintrepreting it, deal?

 

[Solaris]

ea, well if you don't want to get hit below the belt, then don't go around shoving your balls in other people's faces.

If you want to earn my respect or anyone else for that matter, then you've got to start treating other members of this forum like they're human beings and like you're respecting yourself.

This is an international community. No one here is going to write like you, argue like you, or hold the same opinions as you. It's not right to accuse their differences and point out their diversities in how they write English or understand it.

Tbh Stern has done nothing wrong in the politics forum, he's contributed lots, always forwards a decent argument, backed up with sources and presents them properly. I think he has the utmost respect from most people who post here, not everyone agrees with him, but he doesn't resort to some of the crap a lot of others do/have.

If you think hes being a dick, and being very offensive and malicious, then the problem is with you, not with him. You've often fabricate an argument based on a down right idiotic misinterpretation of what he's saying. If you can't read English, that's fine, go to a non-English forum, I'm not saying that in a mean way, just it's obvious you are crap at understanding any kind of sentence, so you would be better somewhere more on your level.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

so I should tailor what I say so that you'll agree with me, because that's the way to earn respect? Sorry but I will not change the tenor of my posts for you or anybody

This is not about either of us tailoring for each other ... no, this is about us learning to disagree and heck, even debate, without ridiculing each other.

Can we at least do that? Can we at least respect each other enough for that to be an option? Think about it.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

If you think hes being a dick, and being very offensive and malicious, then the problem is with you, not with him.

An old trick, Solaris. The responsibility of someone being an asshole or even morally reprehensible lies on themselves, and not the victims of those crimes or insults.

 

[Mr.Magnetichead]

Would I? Yes.
I would also fire the first round.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I actually think that anarchy with no form of government is the perfect human society. However, we have to be pragmatic and realize that people wouldnt be able to handle it, and the whole thing would turn to shit pretty rapidly. Maybe in the future it would work, but certainly not now.

I could get by in anarchy but it would suck and bring a lot of hard times everywhere. I think almost everyone prefers a government. It's not that people can't handle it- it's that it's safe and doesn't HAVE to infringe on freedoms within reason.

 

[gick]

I could get by in anarchy but it would suck and bring a lot of hard times everywhere. I think almost everyone prefers a government. It's not that people can't handle it- it's that it's safe and doesn't HAVE to infringe on freedoms within reason.

Yeah, thats what I meant. Theoretically its great becasue you can do whatever the heck you like, but in reality all that will happen is people will start exploiting each other, and the only way to stop them is with more violence etc etc.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Thats why I disagree with Anarchy entirely. ^

 

[Ennui]

Thats why I disagree with Anarchy entirely. ^

that's not a justification to disagree with anarchism, sorry to say. it might be a way you could perhaps debate or disprove it but that fact alone would merely make you libertarian rather than anarchist. so i'm curious what causes you to disagree with it entirely, since it cannot be that?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

that's not a justification to disagree with anarchism, sorry to say.

You can't say its not a justified reason because I'm not the one who said it first, Glirk did, and Glirk has a very sound reasoning behind why Anarchy is a poor idea. Also it is indeed a justified reason because look at the Anarchy in Somalia, and the Racial/Civil Wars in Uganda. Thats anarchy, and groups almost always form and almost always come to power to exploit others under them in social status.

Yeah, thats what I meant. Theoretically its great becasue you can do whatever the heck you like, but in reality all that will happen is people will start exploiting each other, and the only way to stop them is with more violence etc etc.

There it is. Do you disagree with it, or agree with it Ennui? I agree with it.