Thread Graveyard

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

Physiocrat — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 07:12:20 GMT

Ok this has gone on long enough. Please refrain from discussing in public who should or should not be a member here. Thread graveyarded and locked.

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

John James — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 06:42:39 GMT

Books = civ

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

Aristophanes — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 06:24:15 GMT

While that is an awesome graphic, then you are basically in favor of Agenda 21. Taken to it's logical extreme, the UN is currently implimenting policies that label "irrigation" and "agriculture" as "unsustainable."

To you anything will lead to war. There is nothing that will not inevitably lead to war. Any human action is in furtherance of anticipation of conflict.

What is wrong with the world now as you see it then? There is no escape from your definition. Read Kenneth Waltz "Theory of International Relations." Nation states are in a state of anarchy, etc., etc. You'll love it...

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

Freedom4Me73986 — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:43:40 GMT

"Why are H/Gs far more peaceful? Tech enables aggression."

Not sure that is true and one doesn't follow the other. H/G commonly clash with one another. And tech makes people's lives easier. Less stress probably = less aggression in general. After all, if not for all of the effort and technology put into food production you'd have a much more stressful life and probably be much more inclined to aggress, no?

So what? H/Gs are way more peaceful then civilized man. Ag breeds war.

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

Caley McKibbin — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:10:00 GMT

Men are obsessed with "credibility" in every situation, even on the internet, regardless of how little anyone else cares. Let's not pretend that this is about some grand strategic decision for the LvMI cause. It's about an urge to control things... insignificant things... on the internet where the distribution of odd and normal behaviour is skewed. In every forum it's always the case that more than one person could benefit with an expanded view of options for filling spare time. Some time in the woods, exercise, women... just use your imagination to find things other than trying to win the internet. I've never heard of anyone regretting it. So, the answer is a semi-yes with regard to more individuals than F4M.

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

Bert — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:09:16 GMT

In other words: collectivism

And? I hate to break it to you that even in h/g tribes there's a heirarchy.

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

Aristophanes — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:04:00 GMT

"Civilization breeds aggression"

Have you ever read Hobbes' Leviathan? It has been understood for awhile that individualism is what breeds aggression. That is why so many people clamor for socialism. I thought we were supposed to answer that by saying things like "technology would be far more advanced if it was reserached by private interests." and "The State wastes your money making war machines."

"Why are H/Gs far more peaceful? Tech enables aggression."

Not sure that is true and one doesn't follow the other. H/G commonly clash with one another. And tech makes people's lives easier. Less stress probably = less aggression in general. After all, if not for all of the effort and technology put into food production you'd have a much more stressful life and probably be much more inclined to aggress, no?

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

Freedom4Me73986 — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:52:50 GMT

Civilization:

1) An organized culture encompassing many communities, often on the scale of a nation or a people; a stage or system of social, political or technical development.

2) Human society, particularly civil society.

In other words: collectivism

You are saying that you are against society. JJ is against institutionalized aggression (and I presume aggression in general). These are totally different things.

Civilization breeds aggression and so does technology. Why are H/Gs far more peaceful? Tech enables aggression.

Since you proclaim to follow the NAP, I assume that this means that you would be the one leave, because otherwise you would have to aggress against everyone else in society in order to be away from them.

I plan on leaving. I don't care if others leave.

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

Aristophanes — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:43:56 GMT

"Well color me embarrassed."

It's okay! Many times our own ebully sentiment blocks our ability to have empathy for others.

Oh I get it. So we just call someone whatever we want and then claim "if you deny it, that means it's true." Very clever. I must hear more about this "heads I win, tails you lose" technique.

Well...you're still not getting it. All you need to remember is that you are an ebully. That's it! No clever psychoanalytic reverse psychology. I'm not tricking you and I'm not pretending like F4Me doesn't say some outrageous stuff. You are obsessive and an ebully; venting you perceived inadequecy on, what you think, an easy target. Then 'cleverly' attempting to recruit others in your internet put down campaign to make yourself alpha ebully. Yeah, I'd say about kindergarten.

And...your attack wasn't an attack? Oh wait, that's right. You were trying to be Suzie Psychologist in an effort to help me. I forgot.

Psychiatrist. Suzie psychiatrist. And she is here to help.

Huh?

haha. Just a joke that went over your head. With the ultimate ironic response.

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

John James — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:33:41 GMT

Aristophanes:
You know what I said was true.

Which part?

I tried to get you to look at yourself with my "typical psychoanalysis attack"

Oh I see. You were just trying to help me! Well color me embarrassed.

(what is stage one? denial?).

Oh I get it. So we just call someone whatever we want and then claim "if you deny it, that means it's true." Very clever. I must hear more about this "heads I win, tails you lose" technique.

You think I'm attacking you when I am responding to you attacking someone else.

I attacked Freedom4Me73986?

And...your attack wasn't an attack? Oh wait, that's right. You were trying to be Suzie Psychologist in an effort to help me. I forgot.

You must vote republican.

Huh?

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

gotlucky — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:26:22 GMT

Freedom4Me73986:

And how are you practicing anti-statism while living in a state?

I think this needs to be addressed. These are not the same thing. You are professing anti-civilization. JJ and others, such as myself, are anti-state.

From Wiktionary:

Civilization:

1) An organized culture encompassing many communities, often on the scale of a nation or a people; a stage or system of social, political or technical development.

2) Human society, particularly civil society.

You are saying that you are against society. JJ is against institutionalized aggression (and I presume aggression in general). These are totally different things. A state may have drawn borders on a map, but it is not actually an area. It is an area where certain people control the monopoly of "legitimate" violence. Other people do commit aggression in the territory of a state. JJ "leaving" the state is really a nonsensical statement. If JJ is against a mob dominating a neighborhood, why must he be the one that leaves? Why can't the mob be the one that leaves? But if you are against civilization, you are saying that either you must leave or everyone else must go. Since you proclaim to follow the NAP, I assume that this means that you would be the one leave, because otherwise you would have to aggress against everyone else in society in order to be away from them.

To put it more simply, you are against all human interaction, whereas JJ is against aggressive human interaction. I really don't see why it makes sense to ask JJ to leave when it is only the aggressors in society that he is against.

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

Aristophanes — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:14:01 GMT

"in which you have no real argument to make so the focus is simply put on the individual and all your time is put into telling the other person how he himself thinks and/or feels, and following it up with your own arbitrary opinion as to why."

You know what I said was true. Other people have also pointed out the basic psychology of a person continually, some might say obsessively, ranting about some random stranger on the internet. You cannot event vote for F4Me to run other people's lives and you care...so much.

"substance of your post"

It is not that big of a deal. Why should I meticulously sift through the forum like you trying to get other peope to think a specific way about a peer? You're a pathetic ebully. I tried to get you to look at yourself with my "typical psychoanalysis attack" (what is stage one? denial?). You think I'm attacking you when I am responding to you attacking someone else.

You must vote republican.

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

Marko — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 03:49:16 GMT

I don't even think his behavior is bad - I just think it's silly. So I just ignore him and move on. Why can't you do that?

You're asking him why he, unlike you, doesn't adopt a patronizing attitude toward another forum poster. A question like that answers itself. Apparently he is more of an egalitarian than you, ergo takes more issue with unsubstantiated crap being spouted by a dimwitted forum poster and doesn't think him worthy of pity. Subsequentially he does not spare him the treatment he would have in store for a lucid poster. It is an interesting problem, does this situation help show the inhumanity of extreme egalitarianism since it does away with the pitying of and subsequent cushioning of things for the feebleminded? Or is treating with the feebleminded as if with equals inherently dignifying for them and elevates them, in fact, from where they would be otherwise? Does JJ uniquely honor F4M by being a rare person who treats F4M as if he weren't obviously delusional and on some kind of meds (or in the need of thereof)? Or does it make him an asshole? It is an exciting question indeed!

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

John James — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 03:37:17 GMT

Aristophanes:
I encourage people to look at those links.

Me too. That's why I posted them.

Remember when you said when you call out F4Me, then you say he changes the subject to divert the attack to the attacker?

Well, not exactly "call out"...I simply ask him a question. Again, for a reproduction of a typical exchange with Freedom4Me73986 anyone can easily view the OP of this thread.

Nah, you're not doing that.

So let me get this straight.

Someone makes a simple, harmless joke using Freedom4Me73986's ridiculous broken record refrain as the punchline.

Freedom4Me73986 responds as if the person was trying to make some kind of intellectual argument (or something...I have no idea what the purpose of his "And?" was).

I inform Freedom4Me73986 that it was just a joke, and suggest that he stop posting such nonsense and go live in the woods like he claims to want to so badly.

He asks how I know that no one really cares about his posts.

I provide a link for him, he attempts to carry on the conversation in the low content thread.

I create this thread and ask the simple question for anyone to answer: would they prefer Freedom4Me73986 to live in the woods like he says he wants to?

You come in and attempt to psychoanalyze me as some form of attack, and tell me the I have this problem and I need that remedy, blah blah blah.

I point out that that's what you're doing...

And you accuse me of "changing the subject to divert the attack".

All I've ever done with Freedom4Me73986 is ask why he is here and why, if he wants to live in the woods so badly and is actually "anti-tech", does he not leave and quit using the Internet. At most, when he responds to my question with another question (such as "why do you think I'm here?" or something to that effect), I attempt to humor him and offer a guess.

Many times when he refuses answer the simple question, his response is something along the lines of "why don't you leave the state?" This is the sidestepping of the question and attempting to shift the focus back onto the person asking the question that I'm talking about. And as I've told him mulitple times, (a) I never expressed a desire to "leave the state", and (b) it's completely irrelevant, as I have nothing to do with his refusal to live in the woods and stop using the technology he basically says is basically the debil.

This is nothing like what you have done here, which is nothing more than the typical psychoanalysis attack, in which you have no real argument to make so the focus is simply put on the individual and all your time is put into telling the other person how he himself thinks and/or feels, and following it up with your own arbitrary opinion as to why.

As if this weren't asinine enough, when I point out that that's the entire substance of your post, your claim is that I'm trying to change the subject.

But of course, I'm the one in kindergarten.

Re: Should Freedom4Me73986 leave?

Elric — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 03:27:12 GMT

I am reading too and can't help but think that JJ's F4me is somewhat like Sieben's Phil Ridley.

I don't click on F4me's videos anymore and notice his lack of specific's to some of JJ's questions. Like any post I feel I can read around it if needed, I vote no on leaving.