Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Squirtit
You resort to name calling so soon, a sure indication you can't rationalize your stance.
|
I can rationalize my stance, and have in fact done so a fair number of times already. Since your argument basically says rationalization is irrelevant - theory being one of the most important parts of rationality - you shouldn't be one to be talking about rationalization anyway.
Aside from that, someone who is clearly ignorant of one of the more important laws of argumentative logic, namely that the validity of an argument is independent from any and all personal traits or actions of its propopent, should really shut up about rationality altogether.
I said: "Are you seriously trying to say that you can't have valid and true opinions on things you wouldn't die for?
If so, you are an idiot."
If you feel you have been called an idiot by that, you apparently subscribe to the idea that one can't have valid and true opinions on things one wouldn't die for, and have thereby proven yourself to be an idiot.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Squirtit
You fail to realize that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died for their belief in freedom and democracy, yet you label me, and all those who have fought for freedom, and those who have died, fundamentalist?  |
I label you a fundamentalist because you judge arguments not by their merits but by people's willingness to die for them. I label you a fundamentalist because you do not believe in rational debate - which, by definition, is theoretic - but only in the value of fighting to the death.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Squirtit
It's all a game to you, a mind fuck. For you and the very few others here who think this kind of material is theoretically ok to support, none of you have given your money to the red rose defence fund.
|
Do you give money to Unicef? If not, you don't care about children starving. Do you give money to Amnesty International? If not, you don't care about torture and human rights violations. Do you give money to the WWF? If not, you don't care about wildlife welfare. Do you give money to the Red Cross? Etc.
Clearly, that argument doesn't work. It is possible to have strong opinions about things, actually care about things, and still focus your life on other things. By no means does that make arguments less true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Squirtit
Did you even read the forum link someone here provided where she says specifically that she has found out the hard way that what she's done by writing and diseminating this content is illegal... yes... already illegal. She's not talking out of her ass either, it's what her counsil has advised her.
|
You mean the piece where she says: "The ONLY legal sex stories are those that involve a man and a woman, consenting to MISSIONARY POSITION SEX, in a dark room."?
Clearly, she is just talking matter of fact, and is in no way intending the piece as an angry criticism of what happened.
And look at the following: "You CAN NOT write beastiality, water sports, scat, b&d, s&m, slavery, threesomes, orgies, or sex with children. It is considered OBSCENE and is prosecutable. TRUST ME ON THIS. I found out the HARD WAY."
So she is not just "talking out of her ass" or criticising censorship, and it is in fact illegal to write about threesomes and orgies?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Squirtit
You are severely misguided.
Even in the wild dogs piss on trees to mark their teritory, other dogs know where they can, and can't go, without reprocutions. Even with no government, no society, wild animals have rules to follow to survive.
And freedom is not the natural state, anarchy is. If you feel, to live a true life, is to live in anarchy, the "free state of being", then goto the desert and roam free! But don't live in any kind of society because you will always feel like the man is keeping you down.  |
Nevermind the fact that you missed the actual point... How could I have been so stupid as to use a metaphore when discussing something with a person like you.
Here's a tiny little philosophy lesson:
In political philosophy, concepts like "the original position" and "the natural state", used most commonly by social contract philosophers like Hobbes and Rousseau, are not meant to refer to biological or historic facts. They are used as metaphores, intended to emphasize the influence of the state and in which ways it changes and can change the social position of individuals, contrasted with the position they would have if there was no state.
In such a context, the "natural state" being one of freedom means that freedom is the basic position of the individual, which can only be limited by a state. The role of the state is to limit, not to allow.
Compare the following two positions (where x stands for any random act):
1. "You can do x, unless it is explicitly forbidden"
2. "You can't do x, unless it is explicitly allowed"
The position I hold is, quite clearly, #1. Your argument, on the other hand, seems to assume #2. However, #2 makes no sense when you look at it closely. Am I allowed to put peanutbutter between my toes? Under #2, it would be forbidden until explicitly allowed, which would be ridiculous. In fact, common sense makes it clear that #2 is a plainly wrong way to look at things. It would be impossible to put into practice, and it denies the fact that human beings are active agents.
Clearly, then, freedom is not given, it is the very basis of human existence.
But since you won't understand any of this anyway, I may as well stop typing
