Angurse: Dondoolee:I think so, when Mary Sue refused to go with me to Prom I was crushed She oppressed you! And those of us, who stood idly by and remained neutral while she oppressed you, are clearly enablers. We should have shunned her.
Dondoolee:I think so, when Mary Sue refused to go with me to Prom I was crushed
She oppressed you! And those of us, who stood idly by and remained neutral while she oppressed you, are clearly enablers. We should have shunned her.
<Freud>FYI, precisely this 'entitlement to receive' and psychological compulsion towards egalitarianism of results is transference of childhood psychology. immature with respect to both reality, and morality.</Freud>
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK:<Freud>FYI, precisely this 'entitlement to receive' and psychological compulsion towards egalitarianism of results is transference of childhood psychology. immature with respect to both reality, and morality.</Freud>
Which is the point I brought up earlier. If we just assume that the left-handers will resort to violence, we're in essense calling them children who throw tantrums when they don't get their way.
By the way, Angurse, did Mary Sue's refusal increase the chance of you becoming violence?
Angurse: Dondoolee:I think so, when Mary Sue refused to go with me to Prom I was crushed She oppressed you! And those of us, who stood idly by and remained neutral while she oppressed you, are clearly enablers. We should have shunned her. Dondoolee:In short: this is not a legal theory, most people care about motive, and stupid actions cause a probability increase in negatively dramatic consequences And we're (perhaps not all, but most) aware of that. However, motive just doesn't matter. If Mary Sue refused you because you were a different race, shes an oppressor, what if she already had a date, or was a lesbian, or hated proms? The results are all the same, why shes an "oppressor" or cause of woe, for some non-action yet not another non-action, seems like arbitrary line drawing. Perhaps I should be more thick and try and educate more people so they don't look put much emphasis on motives.
Dondoolee:In short: this is not a legal theory, most people care about motive, and stupid actions cause a probability increase in negatively dramatic consequences
And we're (perhaps not all, but most) aware of that. However, motive just doesn't matter. If Mary Sue refused you because you were a different race, shes an oppressor, what if she already had a date, or was a lesbian, or hated proms? The results are all the same, why shes an "oppressor" or cause of woe, for some non-action yet not another non-action, seems like arbitrary line drawing.
Perhaps I should be more thick and try and educate more people so they don't look put much emphasis on motives.
The Mary Sue comment was a joke, I didn't really expect anyone to take too seriously. And even in context, I was just stating that I was harmed by some one's refusal of association. No more, no less.
Other than that, I don't think I can say anything more. I think people are approaching things from completley different angles. I also think the longer these conversations go on the more entropy occurs and the focus on the main points tend to dissolve, or people tend to dig into their position too strongly to be productive.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
you are using a rather frivolous definition of harm. which is not suitable for topics of discussion such as politics and morality etc.
Well, the real issue here is that maybe Mary Sue doesn't want to have a relationship with a white guy (assume Dondoolee is white in this argument). So she is discriminating against him based on race. Or maybe it is just a coincidence that she rejected Dondoolee and he is white.
Juan, help us sort this out. Is Mary Sue a racist? If not, how did you determine that?
Also, doesn't it seem incredibly sexist that Mary Sue rejects 50% of the population (women) by being a heterosexual? This broad is a real bigot!
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Dondoolee:The Mary Sue comment was a joke, I didn't really expect anyone to take too seriously. And even in context, I was just stating that I was harmed by some one's refusal of association. No more, no less.
It was a good joke, but seriously why can't it have been "oppression"? The line is just arbitrary now, same thing for harm.
Dondoolee:Other than that, I don't think I can say anything more. I think people are approaching things from completley different angles. I also think the longer these conversations go on the more entropy occurs and the focus on the main points tend to dissolve, or people tend to dig into their position too strongly to be productive.
I've reiterated my original points multiple times now.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
I'll bet she was left handed, too! That's why you started up a posse to go after all those poor lefties! Was it provocation enough to become violent? Did you cut off her left hand, or at least break it? Man you're a nazi!
Brainpolice:Yes, and I keep bumping up against a semantic wall in which only rights violations and/or statism can been seen as "oppression" or a "social problem".
Brainpolice:Well, at least that's one person that hasn't joined in on the red-baiting crusade and seems to understand what I'm getting at.
liberty student: No, the issue is that the thin libertarian doesn't think his preferences are so virtuous that they must be universal preferences. He can imagine living in a world with people who are multi-cultural, and people who are mono-cultural and everyone getting along through mutual respect for boundaries.
No, the issue is that the thin libertarian doesn't think his preferences are so virtuous that they must be universal preferences. He can imagine living in a world with people who are multi-cultural, and people who are mono-cultural and everyone getting along through mutual respect for boundaries.
What if you define "mono-culturalists" as people who are inherently uncapable of respecting boundaries? To me a social conservative means a busy-body who wants to stop me from doing the promiscuous things I like to do.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester:What if you define "mono-culturalists" as people who are inherently uncapable of respecting boundaries?
But that view I think, is more consistent with multi-culturalists. Either way, I don't think it is important for me to come out as pro or con a particular outlook. I say, if no one is hurting anyone else, property is respected and consent is the standard for participation, then we're doing pretty darn good, whether it is a nations of the world food fair, or a KKK meeting.
Wilmot of Rochester:To me a social conservative means a busy-body who wants to stop me from doing the promiscuous things I like to do.
That's not what comes to mind when I think socon. Busy bodies are annoying, and they are left and right. Busy bodies who want to impose stuff are statists.
I don't think one can be (genuinely) socially conservative and politically aggressive. I don't think it is possible. The people who do that, are usually faking like Bush, or all out statists and panderers.
I consider myself socially conservative. That has to do with the fact I live a quiet modest life and enjoy it. It has nothing to do with wanting to bomb abortion clinics or forcing everyone to say the Lord's prayer.
JackCuyler: Dondoolee:I think so, when Mary Sue refused to go with me to Prom I was crushed I'll bet she was left handed, too! That's why you started up a posse to go after all those poor lefties! Was it provocation enough to become violent? Did you cut off her left hand, or at least break it? Man you're a nazi!
I hope your happy, I was unfortunatly reading this while drinking a scotch and it made me do a very real spit-take on my laptop.
Brainpolice: Caley McKibbin: I take his lack of response as confirmation to my questions. It seems that his anarcho-communist definition of "oppression" is any refusal to give anything to anyone. I'm not an anarcho-communist, or a communist of any sort. My definition of "oppression" as fairly casual and intuitive to most people.
Caley McKibbin: I take his lack of response as confirmation to my questions. It seems that his anarcho-communist definition of "oppression" is any refusal to give anything to anyone.
I take his lack of response as confirmation to my questions. It seems that his anarcho-communist definition of "oppression" is any refusal to give anything to anyone.
I'm not an anarcho-communist, or a communist of any sort. My definition of "oppression" as fairly casual and intuitive to most people.
You should take that up with Rothbard because he is the one who gave a history of communism using practical examples of that belief.
To me a social conservative means a busy-body who wants to stop me from doing the promiscuous things I like to do.
Intriguing.
To darkness I condemn you...
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap