Atheism and Feminism - A Necessary Alliance?

Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Atheism and Feminism - A Necessary Alliance?

As a staunch anti-feminist, I have to wonder whether or not atheists can be trusted quite often.  This is especially when it comes to the geek-feminist movement which insists on the supremacy of teaching children science, technology, engineering, and math in school before language arts.  Atheists support STEM education as an alternative to religiously dogmatic brainwashing.

When I was growing up, I actually supported STEM myself primarily against multiculturalism.  I was sick and tired of being taught nonsense language arts while growing up, and thought that people should understand "how it's made" when it came to consumer goods rather than having the right to mindlessly indulge in pop culture.  Multiculturalism is a failed movement because it tolerates irrational lifestyles just for the sake of "diversity".

As I got older, however, I realized that STEM wasn't all it's cracked up to be.  It leads to what I call the "nerd paradox" where previous generations of engineers will design technology for future generations of pop culture.  In turn, future children who aspire to become engineers will become socially alienated.  They won't be able to focus on their studies because of pop culture surrounding them so much.  That is the pursuit of STEM actually requires a preservation of language arts in society, but STEM fueled pop culture actually inhibits this.

Geek-feminists support this, however, especially since multiculturalist consumerism unweaves the social fabric behind language arts integrity which they believe has lead to feminine oppression.  In turn, males become socially alienated due to feminism's influence in Statist public education which props females up despite how social fabric is unweaved in general against all children...

...so I'm curious how atheists view this.  I'm not familiar with many atheists who are concerned about language arts curriculum in public education.  They seem to share feminist concerns over STEM.

 

 

 


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Also, I'm curious what

Also, I'm curious what atheists have to say about something.

I once asked a feminist, "What's the difference between illegal immigration and rape?"

She responded with, "One hurts people and ruins their lives.  The other doesn't."

I thought this was rather unfair.  Illegal immigration unweaves the social fabric by which children assimilate into society, but children (of all people) can't prove it.  They don't know what they're being alienated from, and they're weak people who aren't born with omniscient evidence gathering abilities.

I actually thought her comment was rather rash against rape victims themselves when they can't prove it in case of careful rapists who clean up.  Feminist radical empiricism seems detrimental to the rule of law.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wow. I don't know where to

Wow. I don't know where to begin. Literally.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
What

Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Wow. I don't

Vastet wrote:
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Literally.

You can begin with the beginning and make your way down.  All of these questions include "Why or why not?"

1) Must atheists and feminists be allies? 

2) Do atheists understand the necessity of language arts for a cohesive society?  That is do atheists understand how communication is the foundation of community?

3) Do atheists understand how overemphasizing STEM deconstructs social cohesion (through technologized pop culture, consumerism, and multiculturalism)?

4) Do atheists understand how feminists support deconstruction in order to falsely overcome feminine oppression?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Argotitan wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Literally.

You can begin with the beginning and make your way down.  All of these questions include "Why or why not?"

1) Must atheists and feminists be allies? 

2) Do atheists understand the necessity of language arts for a cohesive society?  That is do atheists understand how communication is the foundation of community?

3) Do atheists understand how overemphasizing STEM deconstructs social cohesion (through technologized pop culture, consumerism, and multiculturalism)?

4) Do atheists understand how feminists support deconstruction in order to falsely overcome feminine oppression?

 

 

                 1)    No they don't.

 

 

                 2)  Yes.

 

 

                 3)   whatinhell is STEM?

 

 

                 4)   Feminists can be atheist, the rest of the question desn't make sense.

 

      

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
WTF Mate?

Stem Fields according to Wikipedia

Wikipedia wrote:

STEM fields or STEM education is an acronym for the fields of study in the categories of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The acronym has been used regarding access to United States work visas for immigrants who are skilled in these fields. It has also become commonplace in education discussions as a reference to the shortage of skilled workers and inadequate education in these areas.[1] The initiative began to address the perceived lack of qualified candidates for high-tech jobs. It also addresses concern that the subjects are often taught in isolation, instead of as an integrated curriculum.[2] Maintaining a citizenry that is well versed in the STEM fields is a key portion of the public education agenda of the United States.[3]



 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well noone else is. Fuck it.

Well noone else is. Fuck it. See how this goes.

Argotitan wrote:
As a staunch anti-feminist

I generally don't cut people off mid sentence, but clarification is necessary. Define anti-feminist. Specifically what you think of gender equality. I could make assumptions on what you're talking about, but it'd risk increasing the time I'll have to spend on all this.

Argotitan wrote:
I have to wonder whether or not atheists can be trusted quite often.

Bad. If you'd said people I'd have skimmed by this, but you are effectively insinuating that all atheists and only atheists are untrustworthy, when there is nothing to indicate belief or lack of belief in deities has any impact on your trustworthyness.

Argotitan wrote:
This is especially when it comes to the geek-feminist movement

Again, clarification. What is a geek-feminist?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:This is

Argotitan wrote:
This is especially when it comes to the geek-feminist movement which insists on the supremacy of teaching children science, technology, engineering, and math in school before language arts.  Atheists support STEM education as an alternative to religiously dogmatic brainwashing.

Poor characterisation. Atheists must support language arts, else how could we support an education which depends on language to function?

Argotitan wrote:
When I was growing up, I actually supported STEM myself primarily against multiculturalism.

How in the blue hell does multiculturalism have anything to do with the education of math and science, let alone somehow being termed as the opposite or an alternative?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:I was sick

Argotitan wrote:
I was sick and tired of being taught nonsense language arts while growing up, and thought that people should understand "how it's made" when it came to consumer goods rather than having the right to mindlessly indulge in pop culture.  Multiculturalism is a failed movement because it tolerates irrational lifestyles just for the sake of "diversity".

This is nonsensical. I was with you right up until you said pop culture, then it all went South. The last sentence literally makes 0 sense at all. All culture and tradition is irrational, by definition. A multicultural environment simply blends irrational ideas with other irrational ideas. But irrational ideas persist even in a singular culture. So the idea that multiculturalism has failed simply due to irrational ideas is itself irrational.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:As I got

Argotitan wrote:
As I got older, however, I realized that STEM wasn't all it's cracked up to be.  It leads to what I call the "nerd paradox" where previous generations of engineers will design technology for future generations of pop culture.  In turn, future children who aspire to become engineers will become socially alienated.  They won't be able to focus on their studies because of pop culture surrounding them so much.  That is the pursuit of STEM actually requires a preservation of language arts in society, but STEM fueled pop culture actually inhibits this.

Are you still in school? Because outside of school, "nerds" are gods. They aren't bullied, they are prized. In fact, nerds have made huge headway since the coming of the internet. The richest people on Earth are nerds.

The rest of the OP went all over the place and used terminology I'm awaiting clarification on, but I can assure you the average atheist here supports equality between the sexes, with neither in a dominant role.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:I thought

Argotitan wrote:
I thought this was rather unfair.  Illegal immigration unweaves the social fabric by which children assimilate into society, but children (of all people) can't prove it.  They don't know what they're being alienated from, and they're weak people who aren't born with omniscient evidence gathering abilities.

Bullshit. Illegal immigration does not hurt the fabric of society. It greases the wheels. Cheap labour. No lost taxes, income isn't high enough to pay taxes in the first place. And they have kids who are born citizens, in an aging population that desperately needs new young workers to support the programmes which are collapsing in on themselves due to the inherent flaws of capitalism.

But maybe you're in Europe, where the problems are significantly different.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: No. There is in fact a

1: No. There is in fact a spit occuring between atheists and feminazi's (not feminists, those people are just fine; feminazi's).

2: How could we not be? Even asking that question is irrational. If we didn't understand the importance of language, we wouldn't understand the question or be able to provide a response.

3: Do you understand that your assertions are ridiculous and unproven?

4: Do you know what feminism is?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
this whole thread is

this whole thread is ridiculous.  if you want to debate the merits of feminism and/or its impact on society, then just do that.  why bring "atheists" into the mix, as if we were a school of thought?  atheism is nothing more than a philosophical default, i.e., beginning without the assumption that god exists.  until you qualify it with labels like "strong," there is no positive content to atheism, and therefore you cannot ask for the "atheist viewpoint" on anything.  either you have failed to realize that up to now, or else, like many theists, you willfully ignore it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:As a staunch

Argotitan wrote:
As a staunch anti-feminist….

Not sure whether you’re just trolling but there is a real need for feminism for example-

Shia (10-15% of population) Family Law (2009) in Afghanistan states:-

Article 132, “As long as the husband is not travelling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night.  Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.”

Article 133, restricting women’s movement outside the house.

Article 27, endorsing child marriage.

Other sections of the law, allows withholding a woman’s right to inherit her husband’s wealth.  And the custody of children, in case of divorce or death, is decided exclusively by fathers and grandfathers. Times Online.

Article 132 has been interpreted as legalised rape.  In addition children as young as 9yrs are still forced into marriage and if they run away from their abusers they are often shot, stoned to death or mutilated by their in-laws in so called ‘honor’ killings.  Women have no ‘rights’ or only the ones the local despot allows them over property, divorce, inheritance and custody of children.

It’s pointless for women in a country like this to stand up to a man, although several brave ones do and if they do they know they’ll have to be prepared to lose their life or be mutilated (leaving your husband is often punished with having your nose and ears sliced off) and acid attacks are frequent. Sorry to rub it in but the only chance minorities have to gain power is if those who hold all the power are prepared to give some of it away (usually after a long struggle) and that isn’t going to happen any time too soon for Afghan women.

Fighting for women’s rights in the West  (feminism) was a struggle that obviously washed over you.

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Well noone else

Vastet wrote:
Well noone else is. Fuck it. See how this goes.
Argotitan wrote:
As a staunch anti-feminist
I generally don't cut people off mid sentence, but clarification is necessary. Define anti-feminist. Specifically what you think of gender equality. I could make assumptions on what you're talking about, but it'd risk increasing the time I'll have to spend on all this.
Argotitan wrote:
I have to wonder whether or not atheists can be trusted quite often.
Bad. If you'd said people I'd have skimmed by this, but you are effectively insinuating that all atheists and only atheists are untrustworthy, when there is nothing to indicate belief or lack of belief in deities has any impact on your trustworthyness.
Argotitan wrote:
This is especially when it comes to the geek-feminist movement
Again, clarification. What is a geek-feminist?

What does being against an ideology have to do with an actual policy?  You're assuming feminism (is the only ideology that) has to do with gender equality.

In fact, feminists explicitly advocate liberation through empowerment and pragmatic affirmative action policies that come at the expense of unprejudiced innocents that had nothing to do with historical injustices.  Males that weren't approved of by patriarchs are swept under the rug.  Heck, the rugged individualism of feminism reinforces patriarchy such that males are only immune from feminist abuse of process if they're patriarchs or approved by patriarchs.  I have no idea why you believe feminism has to do with gender equality.

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
This is especially when it comes to the geek-feminist movement which insists on the supremacy of teaching children science, technology, engineering, and math in school before language arts.  Atheists support STEM education as an alternative to religiously dogmatic brainwashing.
Poor characterisation. Atheists must support language arts, else how could we support an education which depends on language to function?
Argotitan wrote:
When I was growing up, I actually supported STEM myself primarily against multiculturalism.
How in the blue hell does multiculturalism have anything to do with the education of math and science, let alone somehow being termed as the opposite or an alternative?

I'm not familiar with atheist campaigns on language arts.  Can you show some?

In a multicultural society, people are not necessarily expected to understand how culture is made.  Instead of analyzing how culture's made, people can simply synthesize various forms of culture together.  STEM involves analyzing how it's made. 

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
I was sick and tired of being taught nonsense language arts while growing up, and thought that people should understand "how it's made" when it came to consumer goods rather than having the right to mindlessly indulge in pop culture.  Multiculturalism is a failed movement because it tolerates irrational lifestyles just for the sake of "diversity".
This is nonsensical. I was with you right up until you said pop culture, then it all went South. The last sentence literally makes 0 sense at all. All culture and tradition is irrational, by definition. A multicultural environment simply blends irrational ideas with other irrational ideas. But irrational ideas persist even in a singular culture. So the idea that multiculturalism has failed simply due to irrational ideas is itself irrational.

Culture isn't irrational.  It involves creative thinking and problem solving to celebrate our lives and give our lives purpose.  It involves the stories which explain how we succeeded to the level of success we have today.  It involves remembering one another so we know we won't be forgotten when we risk injury in order to succeed.

Pop culture, in contrast, is just an agreeably pleasurable experience, and it's catalyzed through recklessly distributed technology where engineers fail to evaluate their target markets.  In turn, target markets can alienate future generations of engineers through popularity contests where they display pop culture and distract future generations' attention spans.

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
As I got older, however, I realized that STEM wasn't all it's cracked up to be.  It leads to what I call the "nerd paradox" where previous generations of engineers will design technology for future generations of pop culture.  In turn, future children who aspire to become engineers will become socially alienated.  They won't be able to focus on their studies because of pop culture surrounding them so much.  That is the pursuit of STEM actually requires a preservation of language arts in society, but STEM fueled pop culture actually inhibits this.
Are you still in school? Because outside of school, "nerds" are gods. They aren't bullied, they are prized. In fact, nerds have made huge headway since the coming of the internet. The richest people on Earth are nerds. The rest of the OP went all over the place and used terminology I'm awaiting clarification on, but I can assure you the average atheist here supports equality between the sexes, with neither in a dominant role.

You've never encountered office politics, have you?

Once in a while, a nerd becomes a tycoon, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
I thought this was rather unfair.  Illegal immigration unweaves the social fabric by which children assimilate into society, but children (of all people) can't prove it.  They don't know what they're being alienated from, and they're weak people who aren't born with omniscient evidence gathering abilities.
Bullshit. Illegal immigration does not hurt the fabric of society. It greases the wheels. Cheap labour. No lost taxes, income isn't high enough to pay taxes in the first place. And they have kids who are born citizens, in an aging population that desperately needs new young workers to support the programmes which are collapsing in on themselves due to the inherent flaws of capitalism. But maybe you're in Europe, where the problems are significantly different.

Please.  You're saying this at the time that illegal immigrants pick our food and construct our buildings while we have an obesity epidemic and housing crisis?

On top of that, you're seriously ignoring the default deconstruction of due process?  You're ignoring how people who don't communicate our way inhabit our communities, and you're ignoring how people who don't necessarily have our social values interact in our society?

Tolerating illegal immigration is like saying people are expected to drink stagnant, polluted, or unfiltered water.  You're forcing people to assume the risk of growing up in an unreliably, insecure environment.  Stop being such a utilitarian and start being a deontologist.  You're putting the ends, before the means, of production.  Just because something gets the job done doesn't mean getting the job done with something is a sustainable, socially responsible lifestyle.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Please.

Argotitan wrote:

Please.  You're saying this at the time that illegal immigrants pick our food and construct our buildings while we have an obesity epidemic and housing crisis?

Wow, illegal immigrants are responsible for us being fat and buying too many houses? First time I ever heard that. 

 

Argotitan wrote:

On top of that, you're seriously ignoring the default deconstruction of due process?  You're ignoring how people who don't communicate our way inhabit our communities, and you're ignoring how people who don't necessarily have our social values interact in our society?

Oh no! People with different social values, we can't have that. I haven't talked to you very long, but I can tell we have very different social values. Which one of us should leave?

 

Argotitan wrote:

Tolerating illegal immigration is like saying people are expected to drink stagnant, polluted, or unfiltered water.  

Sending people back to Mexico is saying people are expected to drink stagnant, polluted and unfiltered water. That is one of the reasons they try so hard to come here. 

 

Argotitan wrote:

You're forcing people to assume the risk of growing up in an unreliably, insecure environment.  Stop being such a utilitarian and start being a deontologist.  You're putting the ends, before the means, of production.  Just because something gets the job done doesn't mean getting the job done with something is a sustainable, socially responsible lifestyle.

What exactly is unsustainable about an illegal immigrant working?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

Please.  You're saying this at the time that illegal immigrants pick our food and construct our buildings while we have an obesity epidemic and housing crisis?

Wow, illegal immigrants are responsible for us being fat and buying too many houses? First time I ever heard that. 

 

Argotitan wrote:

On top of that, you're seriously ignoring the default deconstruction of due process?  You're ignoring how people who don't communicate our way inhabit our communities, and you're ignoring how people who don't necessarily have our social values interact in our society?

Oh no! People with different social values, we can't have that. I haven't talked to you very long, but I can tell we have very different social values. Which one of us should leave?

 

Argotitan wrote:

Tolerating illegal immigration is like saying people are expected to drink stagnant, polluted, or unfiltered water.  

Sending people back to Mexico is saying people are expected to drink stagnant, polluted and unfiltered water. That is one of the reasons they try so hard to come here. 

 

Argotitan wrote:

You're forcing people to assume the risk of growing up in an unreliably, insecure environment.  Stop being such a utilitarian and start being a deontologist.  You're putting the ends, before the means, of production.  Just because something gets the job done doesn't mean getting the job done with something is a sustainable, socially responsible lifestyle.

What exactly is unsustainable about an illegal immigrant working?

Really?  Are you ignoring how illegal immigration exists due to Statist corruption?  Don't give me the libertarian rundown over self-control when it comes to food and housing, especially in a thread dealing with Statist feminism too. 

Likewise, can you explain how the rule of law ought to be preserved when people have different social values?

Sending people back to living standards where they came from isn't our problem.  If anything, they should deal with their problems instead of running away from them, shoving them onto us.

Lastly, burden of proof is on the affirmative.  What's so sustainable about tolerating illegals disrupting domestic market equilibriums?

How would you like it if someone forced you to drink dirty water, and said you had to prove from experience that you might get sick?  Is that rational?  Does it make sense to expect you to make an argument over unsustainability after you're infected with a disease or dead?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:What does

Argotitan wrote:
What does being against an ideology have to do with an actual policy?  You're assuming feminism (is the only ideology that) has to do with gender equality.

Ridiculous. I specifically asked you to define your terms so I wouldn't make assumptions, and hadn't yet even made an argument. I'm still waiting too I'll note.

The rest of your pararaph had nothing to do with what I'd said, but you're off your rocker. Feminists seek gender equality. Feminazi's seek domination, and should be marginalised as often and with as much prejudice as is possible. But not all feminists are feminazi's.

feminist (ˈfɛmɪnɪst)
 
—n
1.   a person who advocates equal rights for women
 
—adj
2.   of, relating to, or advocating feminism

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:I'm not

Argotitan wrote:
I'm not familiar with atheist campaigns on language arts.  Can you show some?

I've never been part of a campaign. Does that mean I don't support anything?
I don't know of any, or the relevance whether or not there is. I'm an atheist and I support language arts. Point settled.

Argotitan wrote:
In a multicultural society, people are not necessarily expected to understand how culture is made.  Instead of analyzing how culture's made, people can simply synthesize various forms of culture together.  STEM involves analyzing how it's made. 

What?

Argotitan wrote:
Culture isn't irrational.

Culture is literally nothing more than tradition, and tradition is irrational by definition.

Argotitan wrote:
 It involves creative thinking and problem solving to celebrate our lives and give our lives purpose.

Quite the opposite. It dumbs down society and makes everyone the same.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:It involves

Argotitan wrote:
It involves the stories which explain how we succeeded to the level of success we have today.

History does that. Culture traps you in the past, where further progress is impossible.

Argotitan wrote:
Pop culture, in contrast, is just an agreeably pleasurable experience, and it's catalyzed through recklessly distributed technology where engineers fail to evaluate their target markets.  In turn, target markets can alienate future generations of engineers through popularity contests where they display pop culture and distract future generations' attention spans.

I'm starting to get bored. Show some studies proving your assertions.

Argotitan wrote:
You've never encountered office politics, have you?

Once in a while, a nerd becomes a tycoon, but that's the exception, not the rule.

So you're still in school. Got it.
FYI, I'm a nerd, and I have worked in many offices.

The rest of your post was yet more naked assertions without evidence. That's a wrap.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Really?

Argotitan wrote:

Really?  Are you ignoring how illegal immigration exists due to Statist corruption?  

Really? Statist corruption in which state? 

 

Argotitan wrote:

Don't give me the libertarian rundown over self-control when it comes to food and housing, especially in a thread dealing with Statist feminism too.

So, it is the statists that are making you fat and buy extra houses? I am genuinely confused as to what your point is and how illegal immigration is connected to either problem.

 

Argotitan wrote:
  

Likewise, can you explain how the rule of law ought to be preserved when people have different social values?

Don't have laws that ban different social values. 

 

Argotitan wrote:

Sending people back to living standards where they came from isn't our problem.  If anything, they should deal with their problems instead of running away from them, shoving them onto us.

So when a mass shooter shows up and starts shooting at you are you going to deal with your problem or are you going to run away? Since you don't support carrying a gun, I would say the smart thing to do is run away. You can't deal with a problem when you don't have the resources available to do so. Besides, our entire country is made up of people who got here because they were running away from their problems. 

 

Argotitan wrote:

Lastly, burden of proof is on the affirmative.  What's so sustainable about tolerating illegals disrupting domestic market equilibriums?

Markets are disrupted all the time. It is ridiculous to speak of our markets as if they have an equilibrium, markets gyrate constantly. As we were shown, even when the government pulls out all the stops and does everything it can to keep a market headed in one direction, it will eventually collapse. After it collapses, it will eventually rebuild. Cheap labor is drawn towards markets that are in high demand and have a lot of competition. 

Read some history, this isn't the first time we have had a large influx of immigrants willing to work for really low wages. In fact, our current influx of immigrants is much smaller than it has been at other points in terms of percentage of population and the effect on the markets. It has been sustainable for hundreds of years, there is no reason to believe that it has suddenly become unsustainable. 

 

Argotitan wrote:

How would you like it if someone forced you to drink dirty water, and said you had to prove from experience that you might get sick?  Is that rational? Does it make sense to expect you to make an argument over unsustainability after you're infected with a disease or dead?

There is a significant amount of evidence that drinking dirty water can get you sick. Can you demonstrate that illegal immigration is anything like drinking dirty water? It is irrational to argue that drinking the water will make you sick when you have already drank a lot of the water and have not gotten sick. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Argotitan

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
What does being against an ideology have to do with an actual policy?  You're assuming feminism (is the only ideology that) has to do with gender equality.
Ridiculous. I specifically asked you to define your terms so I wouldn't make assumptions, and hadn't yet even made an argument. I'm still waiting too I'll note. The rest of your pararaph had nothing to do with what I'd said, but you're off your rocker. Feminists seek gender equality. Feminazi's seek domination, and should be marginalised as often and with as much prejudice as is possible. But not all feminists are feminazi's. feminist (ˈfɛmɪnɪst)   —n 1.   a person who advocates equal rights for women   —adj 2.   of, relating to, or advocating feminism

Can you show a form of non-pragmatic feminism that doesn't advocate including affirmative action against unprejudiced males who didn't benefit from patriarchy or have anything to do with historical injustice?

Furthermore, can you show that form of non-pragmatic feminism is predominant among the movement?

The instant you mentioned gender equality was the instant you already made assumptions.  


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Argotitan

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
I'm not familiar with atheist campaigns on language arts.  Can you show some?
I've never been part of a campaign. Does that mean I don't support anything? I don't know of any, or the relevance whether or not there is. I'm an atheist and I support language arts. Point settled.
Argotitan wrote:
In a multicultural society, people are not necessarily expected to understand how culture is made.  Instead of analyzing how culture's made, people can simply synthesize various forms of culture together.  STEM involves analyzing how it's made. 
What?
Argotitan wrote:
Culture isn't irrational.
Culture is literally nothing more than tradition, and tradition is irrational by definition.
Argotitan wrote:
 It involves creative thinking and problem solving to celebrate our lives and give our lives purpose.
Quite the opposite. It dumbs down society and makes everyone the same.

Just because you claim you support language arts doesn't make it so.  You need to present a process behind the result.

When you say things like that about culture, it shows you don't either.  People need to be psychologically motivated to be constructive.  Maintaining that motivation is rational, yet you're not recognizing that.

You're also ignoring the nuances and craftsmanship which go into maintaining culture.  It sounds like you're considering pop culture instead which is totally different and is exactly what I'm criticizing.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Argotitan

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
It involves the stories which explain how we succeeded to the level of success we have today.
History does that. Culture traps you in the past, where further progress is impossible.
Argotitan wrote:
Pop culture, in contrast, is just an agreeably pleasurable experience, and it's catalyzed through recklessly distributed technology where engineers fail to evaluate their target markets.  In turn, target markets can alienate future generations of engineers through popularity contests where they display pop culture and distract future generations' attention spans.
I'm starting to get bored. Show some studies proving your assertions.
Argotitan wrote:
You've never encountered office politics, have you? Once in a while, a nerd becomes a tycoon, but that's the exception, not the rule.
So you're still in school. Got it. FYI, I'm a nerd, and I have worked in many offices. The rest of your post was yet more naked assertions without evidence. That's a wrap.

You can't have history without culture.  Again, you don't seem to understand how language is an art, not a science.

I'm also getting bored of your lack of ontological reasoning.  You're a radical empiricist, not a rational thinker.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Really?

Beyond Saving wrote:
Really? Statist corruption in which state?  

Are you really ignoring the existence of borders which define jurisdictions, and how States protect those borders for the security of their citizens?

Beyond Saving wrote:
So, it is the statists that are making you fat and buy extra houses?

Personal attack?  What does this have to do with me?  How about you recognize that multiculturalism is a Statist policy based on recognizing structure before agency, and that structure encourages bad decisions in order to compete in society while having asymmetric information?

Beyond Saving wrote:
I am genuinely confused as to what your point is and how illegal immigration is connected to either problem.

You're genuinely confused about the properness behind property rights?

Beyond Saving wrote:
Don't have laws that ban different social values.

You're saying people are obligated to assume the risk of misunderstandings over the rule of law?

Value pluralism is coercion.  It allows different people to interpret the words which compose the rule of law differently.  When they interact, they won't know until after experience what qualifies as legal.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
So when a mass shooter shows up and starts shooting at you are you going to deal with your problem or are you going to run away? Since you don't support carrying a gun, I would say the smart thing to do is run away. You can't deal with a problem when you don't have the resources available to do so. Besides, our entire country is made up of people who got here because they were running away from their problems.

What does this have to do with illegal immigrants' former living standards?

Past generations immigrated legally by appreciating what our country stood for in order to assimilate.  Don't you dare compare the two groups.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Markets are disrupted all the time. It is ridiculous to speak of our markets as if they have an equilibrium, markets gyrate constantly. As we were shown, even when the government pulls out all the stops and does everything it can to keep a market headed in one direction, it will eventually collapse. After it collapses, it will eventually rebuild. Cheap labor is drawn towards markets that are in high demand and have a lot of competition. 

Read some history, this isn't the first time we have had a large influx of immigrants willing to work for really low wages. In fact, our current influx of immigrants is much smaller than it has been at other points in terms of percentage of population and the effect on the markets. It has been sustainable for hundreds of years, there is no reason to believe that it has suddenly become unsustainable.

No... I'm not talking about a particular result of market equilibrium.  I'm talking about the universal process of agents calculating it.

Beyond Saving wrote:
There is a significant amount of evidence that drinking dirty water can get you sick. Can you demonstrate that illegal immigration is anything like drinking dirty water? It is irrational to argue that drinking the water will make you sick when you have already drank a lot of the water and have not gotten sick.

What right do you have to qualify a "significant amount of evidence" in another's life?  It's not your right to force others to assume the risk of statistical induction or instrumental interpretation.  What you deem an appropriate degree of significance isn't what everyone deems.  Significance is subjective.

Likewise, you're not entitled to force people to continue assuming risks just because past risks haven't counted yet.  Yes, it is irrational.  Past escapes don't justify future endangerment.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Beyond

Argotitan wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Really? Statist corruption in which state?  

Are you really ignoring the existence of borders which define jurisdictions, and how States protect those borders for the security of their citizens?

Which is why I asked you which state you think has statist corruption. The USA, Mexico or both? Generally, in the English language (you know "our way" of speaking) when someone asks a question the appropriate response is with a statement. The exception is when the question is rhetorical, which mine clearly was not. It was an attempt to elicit information from you.  

 

Argotitan wrote:

Personal attack?  What does this have to do with me?  How about you recognize that multiculturalism is a Statist policy based on recognizing structure before agency, and that structure encourages bad decisions in order to compete in society while having asymmetric information?

How about you provide a cohesive argument for your position rather than naked assertions? It is not a personal attack, grow some skin. If I wanted to attack you personally, there would be no mistake. I don't recognize "multiculturalism" as a policy. Exactly what policy is multiculturalism? I agree the structure of our policies is widely to blame for the housing crises and have argued on here extensively in the past about it. Not sure what it has to do with immigration though and not sure what either has to do with obesity.

 

Argotitan wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I am genuinely confused as to what your point is and how illegal immigration is connected to either problem.

You're genuinely confused about the properness behind property rights?

Did I say "property rights"? No. I said I am confused about how illegal immigration is connected to the problems of obesity and the housing market collapse

 

Argotitan wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Don't have laws that ban different social values.

You're saying people are obligated to assume the risk of misunderstandings over the rule of law?

Value pluralism is coercion.  It allows different people to interpret the words which compose the rule of law differently.  When they interact, they won't know until after experience what qualifies as legal.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that social values ought not be the basis of what laws we decide to have. What do social values have to do with legal interpretation? What people may or may not value has nothing to do with what a law says and what is legal.   

 

Argotitan wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
So when a mass shooter shows up and starts shooting at you are you going to deal with your problem or are you going to run away? Since you don't support carrying a gun, I would say the smart thing to do is run away. You can't deal with a problem when you don't have the resources available to do so. Besides, our entire country is made up of people who got here because they were running away from their problems.

What does this have to do with illegal immigrants' former living standards?

Nothing. I was responding directly to what I quoted above that statement "Sending people back to living standards where they came from isn't our problem.  If anything, they should deal with their problems instead of running away from them, shoving them onto us."

That is why I broke the reply into several sections so I could respond to you line by line, because I figured you would try to reply with general naked assertions. Yet, you continue to reply with general naked assertions that are unrelated to each of my points. My hopes that you were something other than a troll are dwindling.

 

Argotitan wrote:

Past generations immigrated legally by appreciating what our country stood for in order to assimilate.  Don't you dare compare the two groups.

Oh my. Yet another American who hasn't read a history book.  For over 100 years there were no illegal immigrants because we had no laws limiting immigration. The only laws we had regarded the conditions it took to become a naturalized citizen. It was in 1882 when the "Chinese Exclusion Act" became the first law limiting immigration. As the title suggests, it solely banned the immigration of Chinese. The act was a complete failure as Chinese continued to find a variety of ways to get around the law. Reading articles of the time, there was virtually the same argument over the Chinese that we have today over the Mexicans. 

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/ncps:@field([email protected](ABQ7578-0166-11))::

The law resulted in the first large scale human smuggling into the US, which continues to this day. We get roughly 50,000 illegal Chinese immigrants every year smuggled into our country. 

Next was the "Gentleman's Agreement" of 1907 with Japan where Japan agreed to deny emigration rights to anyone wanting to come to America. However, they freely allowed visa's to Hawaii, from which it was easy for Japanese to smuggle themselves into the US. 

It wasn't until 1921 that we passed the Emergency Quota Act which put the first limits on immigration, which has led to illegal immigration from a variety of countries. Generally, whichever country is fucked up enough that people are willing to risk the legal consequences to get here.  

At the end of the day, what is more American than someone who wants opportunity so bad they are willing to risk death and the miserable conditions of human smuggling to get here? From our founding fathers (many of whom were involved with piracy and smuggling) to the settlers who pushed into the western frontier, our history is full of people who sought opportunity to improve themselves and when government created a law that got in their way: they fought, protested and broke it. 

Despite what you seem to think, Mexicans do assimilate. Assimilation is more challenging and takes longer when you are forced to live on the outskirts of society or face deportation, but it does happen within a couple generations. Your fears of the Mexicans are as unfounded as the fears of the "Yellow Peril" in the late 1800's. They are at best ignorant and at worst racist.  

 

Argotitan wrote:

No... I'm not talking about a particular result of market equilibrium.  I'm talking about the universal process of agents calculating it.

You believe that agents calculating the market don't take illegal immigration into account? 

 

Argotitan wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
There is a significant amount of evidence that drinking dirty water can get you sick. Can you demonstrate that illegal immigration is anything like drinking dirty water? It is irrational to argue that drinking the water will make you sick when you have already drank a lot of the water and have not gotten sick.

What right do you have to qualify a "significant amount of evidence" in another's life?  It's not your right to force others to assume the risk of statistical induction or instrumental interpretation.  What you deem an appropriate degree of significance isn't what everyone deems.  Significance is subjective.

*sigh* you need to work on your reading comprehension. I said "There is a significant amount of evidence that drinking dirty water can get you sick." It isn't a particularly controversial statement. If you want I can provide you thousands of pages of scientific studies on dirty water and exactly which microbes in the water cause illness, how severe the illness is and how to treat it.  

 

Argotitan wrote:

Likewise, you're not entitled to force people to continue assuming risks just because past risks haven't counted yet.  Yes, it is irrational.  Past escapes don't justify future endangerment.

I am asking you to provide some evidence of the risk you claim exists. So far you have not shown any harm at all except for the absurd claim that illegal immigration is somehow tied to obesity and the housing market collapse. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Can you show

Argotitan wrote:
Can you show a form of non-pragmatic feminism that doesn't advocate including affirmative action against unprejudiced males who didn't benefit from patriarchy or have anything to do with historical injustice?

Furthermore, can you show that form of non-pragmatic feminism is predominant among the movement?

The instant you mentioned gender equality was the instant you already made assumptions.  

Your failure to define your terms requires me to go by the simple definition of feminist, which is a person who seeks equality between the sexes, as I demonstrated.

Even my mentioning of gender equality was phrased as a question. Did you fail English? Is your reading comprehension that of a 6 year old? Are you simply stupid?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Just because

Argotitan wrote:
Just because you claim you support language arts doesn't make it so.  You need to present a process behind the result.

Yes it does, and no I don't.

Argotitan wrote:
When you say things like that about culture, it shows you don't either.

Apparently you don't know what culture is either. You're really making a fool of yourself here.

Argotitan wrote:
People need to be psychologically motivated to be constructive.

Neither culture nor religion is required to provide motivation.

Argotitan wrote:
You're also ignoring the nuances and craftsmanship which go into maintaining culture.  It sounds like you're considering pop culture instead which is totally different and is exactly what I'm criticizing.

All culture is the same.

Argotitan wrote:
You can't have history without culture.

Yes you can. It's called a book.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:I'm also

Argotitan wrote:
I'm also getting bored of your lack of ontological reasoning.  You're a radical empiricist, not a rational thinker.

In other words you can't support your ridiculous claims at all, and are handing me the argument on a silver platter. Thanks.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
there is no ontology.

there is no ontology.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Which

Beyond Saving wrote:
 Which is why I asked you which state you think has statist corruption. The USA, Mexico or both? Generally, in the English language (you know "our way" of speaking) when someone asks a question the appropriate response is with a statement. The exception is when the question is rhetorical, which mine clearly was not. It was an attempt to elicit information from you.

Why is a foreign government relevant?  A homeland government secures its citizens regardless of whether foreign governments do their jobs or not.

Beyond Saving wrote:
How about you provide a cohesive argument for your position rather than naked assertions? It is not a personal attack, grow some skin. If I wanted to attack you personally, there would be no mistake. I don't recognize "multiculturalism" as a policy. Exactly what policy is multiculturalism? I agree the structure of our policies is widely to blame for the housing crises and have argued on here extensively in the past about it. Not sure what it has to do with immigration though and not sure what either has to do with obesity.

How about you stop with the personal attacks?

If you don't recognize multiculturalism as a policy, then you should stay out of politics.  

You're also using the wrong definition of "structure" now.  I'm getting the impression you're trolling as if you're deliberately choosing wrong possibilities rather than right necessities for the definition of words.

I won't continue discussing with you until you set this straight.

 

 

 

 


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Argotitan

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
Can you show a form of non-pragmatic feminism that doesn't advocate including affirmative action against unprejudiced males who didn't benefit from patriarchy or have anything to do with historical injustice? Furthermore, can you show that form of non-pragmatic feminism is predominant among the movement? The instant you mentioned gender equality was the instant you already made assumptions.  
Your failure to define your terms requires me to go by the simple definition of feminist, which is a person who seeks equality between the sexes, as I demonstrated. Even my mentioning of gender equality was phrased as a question. Did you fail English? Is your reading comprehension that of a 6 year old? Are you simply stupid?

You didn't demonstrate anything.  All you did was refer to a circular dictionary definition.

When you can show what feminism actually does, then, we can have a real conversation on the matter.  


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Argotitan

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
Just because you claim you support language arts doesn't make it so.  You need to present a process behind the result.
Yes it does, and no I don't.
No.  People can lie.  Without process, listeners are forced to assume the risk of that.

I don't see a reason to believe you're committed towards reliable conversation now.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:there is no

iwbiek wrote:

there is no ontology.

Then how do you write words?  You must have ontology in order to schematically process the semantic, syntactic, and aesthetic results you made.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Argotitan

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
I'm also getting bored of your lack of ontological reasoning.  You're a radical empiricist, not a rational thinker.
In other words you can't support your ridiculous claims at all, and are handing me the argument on a silver platter. Thanks.

In other words, you don't recognize Gettier problems, nor do you recognize how people shouldn't be forced to assume the risk of being victimized by criminals who hide behind plausible deniability.  People aren't born with video cameras out of their eyes, microphones out of their ears, networks of surveillance equipment throughout a jurisdiction, or advance knowledge of potential by foreseeing the future.

You are handing me the argument on a silver platter.  Thanks.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:iwbiek

Argotitan wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

there is no ontology.

Then how do you write words?  You must have ontology in order to schematically process the semantic, syntactic, and aesthetic results you made.

no, i must have consciousness, but consciousness does not necessitate any immutable substrate of being.  nagarjuna shows us that (and did a good job of refuting descarte fourteen centuries before he was born).  so does quantum physics, basically.  anything you can point to as being can be negated.  to put it coloquially, it's turtles all the way down.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:You didn't

Argotitan wrote:
You didn't demonstrate anything.

A blatant and demonstrable lie.

Argotitan wrote:
All you did was refer to a circular dictionary definition.

Rolf. Show the circular nature of the definition then. Just TRY and prove you aren't a complete idiot. I wish you luck, because you are doomed to fail.

Argotitan wrote:
When you can show what feminism actually does, then, we can have a real conversation on the matter

Says the guy who doesn't even know what feminism is, let alone what it does.

Beating a 1st grader wouldn't be this easy.

Argotitan wrote:
No.  People can lie.  

Obviously. You've demonstrated this personally.

Argotitan wrote:
Without process, listeners are forced to assume the risk of that.
I don't see a reason to believe you're committed towards reliable conversation now.

And since you've demonstrated anti-language tendencies and beliefs, I have no reason to try and convince you otherwise. You wouldn't understand anyway.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:In other

Argotitan wrote:
In other words, you don't recognize~snip

Blah blah blah. Still no evidence. Still all bullshit. Thanks for the victory!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Why is a

Argotitan wrote:

Why is a foreign government relevant?  A homeland government secures its citizens regardless of whether foreign governments do their jobs or not.

When you are talking about a problem between two countries, the governments of both countries are relevant. Ok, so you think the US government is statist, at least I got an answer. Yes, illegal immigration exists because of the US governments statist laws limiting immigration. If they didn't have such laws, the immigration would be legal. I'm all for repealing laws. I fail to see how any of my responses to you could be interpreted as ignoring that. 

So can you answer my initial question about how our immigration laws and the resulting illegal immigrants are a significant factor in causing obesity and the housing bubble?

 

Argotitan wrote:

If you don't recognize multiculturalism as a policy, then you should stay out of politics.  

Obviously you are a lot more brilliant than me, so why don't you list a few specific multicultural policies for me? Are we talking about the 60's debate over segregation? Are those the policies you think have failed? 

 

 

Argotitan wrote:

I won't continue discussing with you until you set this straight.

So far we haven't discussed anything. You make a vague assertion, I ask what you mean, you reply with bullshit and change the subject. Rinse, wash, repeat. A discussion involves you making points, me making counterpoints and then you making counterpoints to my counterpoints. In case you didn't notice, your exchanges with everyone else have pretty much the same flavor. You are either failing to communicate your point in a way that people understand, or you don't have a point.    

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Argotitan

iwbiek wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

there is no ontology.

Then how do you write words?  You must have ontology in order to schematically process the semantic, syntactic, and aesthetic results you made.

no, i must have consciousness, but consciousness does not necessitate any immutable substrate of being.  nagarjuna shows us that (and did a good job of refuting descarte fourteen centuries before he was born).  so does quantum physics, basically.  anything you can point to as being can be negated.  to put it coloquially, it's turtles all the way down.

 

Why is consciousness necessarily orderly?


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Argotitan

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
In other words, you don't recognize~snip
Blah blah blah. Still no evidence. Still all bullshit. Thanks for the victory!

Blah blah blah. Still no reliability. Still all nonsense. Thanks for the victory!


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

Why is a foreign government relevant?  A homeland government secures its citizens regardless of whether foreign governments do their jobs or not.

When you are talking about a problem between two countries, the governments of both countries are relevant. Ok, so you think the US government is statist, at least I got an answer. Yes, illegal immigration exists because of the US governments statist laws limiting immigration. If they didn't have such laws, the immigration would be legal. I'm all for repealing laws. I fail to see how any of my responses to you could be interpreted as ignoring that. 

So can you answer my initial question about how our immigration laws and the resulting illegal immigrants are a significant factor in causing obesity and the housing bubble?

 

Argotitan wrote:

If you don't recognize multiculturalism as a policy, then you should stay out of politics.  

Obviously you are a lot more brilliant than me, so why don't you list a few specific multicultural policies for me? Are we talking about the 60's debate over segregation? Are those the policies you think have failed? 

 

 

Argotitan wrote:

I won't continue discussing with you until you set this straight.

So far we haven't discussed anything. You make a vague assertion, I ask what you mean, you reply with bullshit and change the subject. Rinse, wash, repeat. A discussion involves you making points, me making counterpoints and then you making counterpoints to my counterpoints. In case you didn't notice, your exchanges with everyone else have pretty much the same flavor. You are either failing to communicate your point in a way that people understand, or you don't have a point.    

 

 

Again, you're getting this backwards.  Statist corruption exists when governments don't uphold the rule of law.  Deregulation is not necessarily the answer.  It can expose people to negligence.

Likewise, you're ignoring affirmative action as previously described as well as utilitarian contextualism in due process. This is actually the same argument you're making over illegal immigration - that illegals are economically productive as if fiscal responsibility is independent from social responsibility.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote: Why is

Argotitan wrote:

 

Why is consciousness necessarily orderly?

i never said that.  consciousness can seem "orderly" or "disorderly" to us--whatever suits our fancy.  after all, what the hell do we have to compare it to?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:I once asked

Argotitan wrote:

I once asked a feminist, "What's the difference between illegal immigration and rape?"

As two entirely different things, I wonder how you can even ask for a comparative answer of this and expect any sort of meaningful response. If you can, would you mind sharing why you think they are similar?

 

Argotitan wrote:

She responded with, "One hurts people and ruins their lives.  The other doesn't."

I thought this was rather unfair.  Illegal immigration unweaves the social fabric by which children assimilate into society, but children (of all people) can't prove it.  They don't know what they're being alienated from, and they're weak people who aren't born with omniscient evidence gathering abilities.

I actually thought her comment was rather rash against rape victims themselves when they can't prove it in case of careful rapists who clean up.  Feminist radical empiricism seems detrimental to the rule of law.

 

Wait.. her comment was rash against rape victims? That rape hurts people and ruins their lives? What's rash about that? What's proof of rape got to do with it?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Vastet

Argotitan wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
In other words, you don't recognize~snip
Blah blah blah. Still no evidence. Still all bullshit. Thanks for the victory!

Blah blah blah. Still no reliability. Still all nonsense. Thanks for the victory!

Always nice to watch a fool implode and lose everything. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Again,

Argotitan wrote:

Again, you're getting this backwards.  Statist corruption exists when governments don't uphold the rule of law.  Deregulation is not necessarily the answer.  It can expose people to negligence.

Likewise, you're ignoring affirmative action as previously described as well as utilitarian contextualism in due process. This is actually the same argument you're making over illegal immigration - that illegals are economically productive as if fiscal responsibility is independent from social responsibility.

I haven't made an argument for anything. I have asked you to defend your claim that illegal immigrants are responsible for our economic problems and our obesity. A topic you have ignored in every post, even though I pose the same question in every post. So how does this "statist corruption" over illegal immigration tie into the housing crises and obesity? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Argotitan

iwbiek wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

 

Why is consciousness necessarily orderly?

i never said that.  consciousness can seem "orderly" or "disorderly" to us--whatever suits our fancy.  after all, what the hell do we have to compare it to?

Why are you comparing or suggesting disorderly ontological schematics?

You're not making any sense now.  It sounds like you're uttering gibberish and expecting answers to spontaneously generate.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Argotitan

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
In other words, you don't recognize~snip
Blah blah blah. Still no evidence. Still all bullshit. Thanks for the victory!

Blah blah blah. Still no reliability. Still all nonsense. Thanks for the victory!

Always nice to watch a fool implode and lose everything. :D

Why are you making fun of yourself?


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

Again, you're getting this backwards.  Statist corruption exists when governments don't uphold the rule of law.  Deregulation is not necessarily the answer.  It can expose people to negligence.

Likewise, you're ignoring affirmative action as previously described as well as utilitarian contextualism in due process. This is actually the same argument you're making over illegal immigration - that illegals are economically productive as if fiscal responsibility is independent from social responsibility.

I haven't made an argument for anything. I have asked you to defend your claim that illegal immigrants are responsible for our economic problems and our obesity. A topic you have ignored in every post, even though I pose the same question in every post. So how does this "statist corruption" over illegal immigration tie into the housing crises and obesity? 

I've asked you to explain how tolerating illegal immigration respects due process.  You've shifted burden of proof onto the negative as if people are obligated to assume the risk of damages.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:I've asked

Argotitan wrote:

I've asked you to explain how tolerating illegal immigration respects due process.  You've shifted burden of proof onto the negative as if people are obligated to assume the risk of damages.

I never made the claim that tolerating illegal immigration respects due process. I haven't even used the phrase due process at all. All I have done is dispute your claim that illegal immigration is responsible for the housing market collapse or for obesity. 

So now that your strawman has been knocked down, will you explain to me exactly how illegal immigrants are responsible for the housing market and obesity?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X