582 Forum Posts by "PreacherJ"
At 5/20/03 01:37 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Set decoder rings to setting A22.
Message:
KJHKL9876NLKJHL45789KJLHJK
Please respond or check snooble for more details.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA! That was hilarious! I can't believe that you actually came up with this system! Brilliant! Commander, if only the US military had you during World War II.
Alright, here goes secret catchphrase X-7:
The Swan Flies aT midNigHt, But only if you Enjoy The goVerNment CHEese.
At 5/20/03 01:20 PM, cannibal7878 wrote: Well well well..."el_foka" first off what the fuck does that mean, el_foka? Come up with a real name buddy...second of all, St. Dag is for people like you, people who need to shut the hell up, not for the DAG, for we defend him...people like you who have the intelligence of a fucking rock need to keep their fuckin mouths shut, and their legs closed...it's earth day man! Don't come in here and blast the DAG not expecting to get flamed here...so in keeping with St. DAG...SHUT THE HELL UP!
*Sigh*
I'm sure "Cannibal7878" is a much more realistic name than "El Foka."
St. Dag... The concept is asinine, at best, if you guys want to be associated with "evil" and "demons" and all that other Hot Topic-brand of "cool."
Cannibal, I fail to see how you can attack anybody's intelligence, really. You ramble, you spout blind hatred, and you contradict yourself. If St. Dag is "for people like (el_foka), people who need to shut the hell up," then you just said that you yourself need to shut up, unless St. Dag doesn't support all this ignorance in his/her/it's name, in which case you're just following a cause blindly, against the wishes of your "patron," which shows an even bigger lack of will and a tendency to be manipulated.
Do me a favor. If you ever breed, have the rocks in your front yard raise the litter. They'll turn out better that way.
*Relishes the fact he didn't bump the topic very far, then goes to meet FUNK at the Steak & Titties*
As would most people with a grasp of the English language.
Is there some reason you feel you always need to get in the last "word," or something?
At 5/19/03 01:00 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: hey guys
Very nice, Nirvana, but it's spelled "your." Otherwise it'd say "The first step to exercising you are mind."
At 5/19/03 11:41 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: wait, I have to reply with prose!
So PJ goes to live his life
he takes a journey on that road
he finds himself masterbation rife
because he swallows his own load.
Mmmmm. Protein.
*Vomits*
Oh, FUNK-
It's spelled "Masturbation." Word.
Well, there you go, FUNK. It's nice that you and I can come together in a completely unrelated forum and discuss the finer points of your bisexual friend giving himself head.
That's a true sign of the apocalypse. The PC and the DAG discussing something that doesn't turn into a flame war.
OMG! Wee are talkeing and naht flaymeng! Eye doant liek taht!
Teh DAG are poopy and liek 2 eet caik on teh sun!
There. Now that things have been restored to normal by me insulting you, have a nice day. :-P
Go ahead, Shrike. I thought you might like that one.
Of course. God forbid we post something true. You're right, Mr. Badass. Posting the truth usually is hard when you have all these jackasses who come in and spout off how they wish that they had never posted a topic because it's being argued against too well.
Hold on a moment while I cry you a river.
...
Now build me a fucking bridge and get over it.
At 5/19/03 01:42 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:At 5/18/03 04:13 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Nirvana's Anarchy thread?damn, PJ, you must be really flexible. But the question arises: When one finishes tooting ones own horn, so you spit, or swallow?
*Looks around, shifty-eyed...*
*Toots own horn*
(I know a guy who can and has in front of a witness(his girlfriend). He wont ever give me a straight answer.)
All those Yoga classes, my friend. And by "He won't ever give me a straight answer" do you mean his answer is never a heterosexual one, or that you can never get a clear answer from him? I figured there'd be some question if he happened to be tooting horn in any case.
By the way, if you really care, I'm not going to be going off and blowing a load in my own mouth. Eww.
At 5/17/03 03:55 PM, Judge_VOLT wrote:At 5/17/03 12:58 PM, Ted_Easton wrote:the PC are in our heaven of Snooble, looking down upon the earth that is NG...and the hell that is DAG?
Better not tell cannibal that the DAG=Hell... Otherwise I'm sure that his personal torment would involve a whole lot of homoerotcism with FUNK & Shih at his side (or behind...).
*Laughs because FUNK's almighty DAG thread has become little more than "OMG we are teh r0xxors" fodder, and has apparently become a Spam board, according to the gentleman before*
*Pauses*
*Takes special solace in the fact he wasn't responsible for bumping this topic up*
At 5/16/03 11:24 PM, cannibal7878 wrote: LOL...neo nazi? No, neo Satanist...demon possesed, gay hater...that is my opinion...am I wrong? Are you? Fuck it, if it feels good, do it...It feels good sticking the knife in...
*Wonders what cannibal does in his spare time with all those extra chromosomes*
Nirvana's Anarchy thread?
*Looks around, shifty-eyed...*
*Toots own horn*
I guess the whole "becoming a badass" thing I'd be forced to develop from anarchy would be the only concrete good thing I see coming from the situation. I'd have to go out and take karate also.
Otherwise, though-
No. Bad, bad idea. Entirely too idealistic. I'd rather have a monkey be president. At least then, there'd be all the current laws we have now, and at worst, Mr. Bananas does a silly dance and flings some poo on the 11 O' Clock news.
Ever see "Monkey for President" on Camp Chaos? Feel free to witness its magnificence here.
At 5/16/03 07:17 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: A rimshot or a rimjob, Preacher? :o
What kind of rimjobs have you been giving that go "Ba-dunk crashhhhh"?
Eww, Ted. Goats and drum sets just don't mix.
*Does a rimshot*
:Bah-dunk crashhhhhhh!:
And now, ladies and gentlemen... The moment you've been waiting for...
More of that classic humor from The Shrike!
At 5/16/03 04:38 AM, TheShrike wrote: True... but just because Terry has more books.... ugh.. QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY
Word.
*Walks over to smoldering crater where DAG dignity once stood*
Damn.
*Whistles in disbelief, then roasts a marshmallow on smoldering debris*
At 5/15/03 09:32 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
:We shall feast upon youre blood,
Just a helpful reminder, FUNK-
You're less scary if you spell words like "your" incorrectly.
Just trying to help you in your whole "I have to look cool for the PC by being a devil or whatever" phase.
At 5/14/03 10:48 PM, cannibal7878 wrote: The DAG will blahbitty blah blah...
This was totally off topic. Dumb.
Good job cannibal!
*Flashes incredibly cheesy thumbs-up with japanamation smile*
It takes a true artist to post the Shrike's art!(/sarcasm)
Ted, you had a thread for this, didn't you?
At 5/15/03 08:25 PM, Shih wrote: This is why I like to see anarchy as the means to an end. It prevents the incredible long winded rants like these.
A means to what end? Nothing short of your fist would have prevented that rant in an anarchistic society, so what exactly did you mean by that?
If somebody wants to debate an issue, at length (2 full posts), then I need to quote them to make sure everybody follows along. I understand if reading gives you a headache. Sorry.
Turn on the ceiling fan. I think I smell something burning.
Anarchism is a believable, practical guide to social organization.
No. It isn't. This is an opinion. We may be able to glean a few useful bits from it, but Anarchy, as a whole, is not a guide to social organization. You actually said this yourself, earlier, when you mentioned "anarchistic principles."
You have to have entirely too much faith in the people to advocate bringing down the government. People, at heart, are simple creatures, who want nothing more than to be able to eat, sleep, and fuck. If they see something that means that they're going to be able to eat, sleep or fuck more (especially if it's more than somebody else), then they'll be inclined to follow it. This is why they love power. Yes, anarchy would remove those in power, but they'll only be replaced, because there are more humans who are easily-led than are leaders, and there is more evil in leaders (not to a tremendous degree like Hitler, or anything, necessarily, but evil enough to manipulate the system to their own ends) than there are mostly benevolent ones. But in doing so, imagine all the innocents who would suffer through such a change.
You aren't arguing the point of Anarchy, really. You seem to have more of a Libertarian point of view, but are arguing, in part, for Communism.
Communism-
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Libertarian-
1.One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.<-(Government)
So, in conclusion, Anarchy is fucking ridiculous as a viable governmental form, in my opinion. People are just too mean. I happen to be quite pleased with the government's current set of laws, because I can go out and do just about anything I want to, repurcussion-free. Sure, I have to work a shitty job, but that can change. I could end up end up writing for a living, or making movies, or whatever, because it's what I want to do. I don't have to clean up shit for a living. Sure, every government has it's problems, but that's because people are imperfect.
So when the US imposes a bunch of crap on me that I don't support, and only when anarchy is the only viable explanation to oppose tyranny, will I support such an asinine cause. The only problem, is that it's not Anarchy, so much as a revolution, because even if humans resort to the guy with the biggest lead pipe making the rules, that's a government. Eventually they'll form a government to protect the weak, get revenge, and further themselves. Anarchy is short-lived, because humans need to be led. They need someone smarter than them telling them what to do.
Well, I've said a mouthful. I appreciate your research on this topic, so it could be better debated. I respect your opinion, because it was presented in an intelligent manner, unlike most people arguing for anarchy.
Word.
It disturbs me to think that we don’t have complete control over our lives.
Ahh, yes, but it disturbs me to think of what would happen if they didn't have some control over certain apects of my life, such as that wonderful blue line of men and women who risk their lives to protect me. The idea of complete and total freedom is almost as ridiculous as the idea of complete and total anarchy. The point of the government (initially, because I'll agree that the government does abuse power) is to grant you enough freedom to do what you want, without imposing upon the freedoms of others. It protects the weak. Anarchistic principles that exist to bring down the current government in order to bring about chaos (which is what will happen first, regardless of any happy touchy feely crap nitro will spew at you), and then maybe, eventually, after who knows how much destruction, a society in which everybody works for the benefit of the community so that they'll have more time to do what they want, is hopeful, at best, and that denotes blind faith on not only your part, but the thousands of idiots who are much less informed about the topic than you are who say "OMG I am in teh punk band and Eye Liek Anrchy bcuz teh guvernmet sux."
Anarchism does not imply absolute, irresponsible, anti-social individual freedom which violates the rights of others and rejects every form of organization and self-discipline. Absolute individual freedom can be attained only in isolation, if at all.
Anarchism-
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity”
Now, for fun, lets use the Thesaurus, shall we?
Anarchy-agitation, anarchism, anarchy, brawl, bustle, chaos, clamor, commotion, complication, convultion, discombobulation, discord, disorganization, distemper, disturbance, dither, entanglement, fight, flap, fracas, fuss, hubbub, hullabaloo, imbroglio, insurrection, lawlessness, mayhem, misrule, mob rule, quarrel, rebellion, revolution, riot, rioting, ruckus, rumpus, static, strike, terrorism, tizzy, trouble, tumult, turbulence, turmoil, unrest, unruliness, uproar.
Anarchism does in fact, imply those things. Now, calling someone an anarchist doesn't, necessarily. Anarchists aren't necessarily the type to kill and steal, but the lawlessness, or, as you are implying, the dilution of laws, will bring that about. Too many people need fear to keep them compliant. Why do you think religion is such a hit, besides the arrogant notion of humanity that something exists after death?
Many will opposingly debate the thought of an anarchist society because they feel it is impractical yet they choose ignore that fact that man can change and be free at the moment he chooses to be. Anarchists are not so naive as to expect the fitting of the perfect society composed of perfect individuals who would miraculously shed their ingrown prejudices and outworn habits on the "day after the revolution." Anarchists are concerned with the direction of human development.
Ahh. So, what you're saying, then, is that human development will move ahead in the long run if you remove the laws currently stopping many people from rioting and looting? These "True Anarchists" are still painfully ignorant of the evil the human race is capable of if they believe that to create (eventually, after who knows how long) a society in which everybody can work together for the good of the community. It will never happen.
Ever.
Sorry.
Man may be able to be free at the moment he chooses to, but every person is so alarmingly different that it will never happen in one fell swoop. There will always be murderers, rapists, and thieves. Human emotion prevents anything less. They will always covet (and if not material things, then other things, like intelligence or beauty). They will always be greedy. There will always be a primal need beneath the surface to have more than another, and that will lead to violence, eventually. It seems to me to be astonishingly asinine to claim to be for human development, and then to say that the only way to accomplish it would be to remove the traces of civilization stopping us from crumbling into ashes (for however long) so that we can develop a civilization based upon not Anarchy itself, but "anarchist principles," which basically translates to "less laws," judging from the way it was put. You gave examples of rule by the people, as opposed to rule by ones' self, which is really more of a democracy than a "society with anarchistic principles." Have you even considered the difficulty of getting everyone to get together and agree on something? People are lazy. People don't care enough. People are evil. People want more than other people.
People have an enormous amount of faith in our present government but I consider it blind faith because they are ignoring facts that prove we mean nothing. We don’t have a voice if they choose to take it away from us just as we won’t have “freedom” if they want that too.
Blind faith, eh? Big words from someone standing on a soap box shouting out that the downfall of today's governments will (eventually) "bring about a perfect society composed of perfect individuals who would miraculously shed their ingrown prejudices and outworn habits" even if it's a little longer than the "day after the revolution," because it's what's best for "human development."We don't mean "nothing." We mean less than plenty of people say we mean, sure, but I'd like to see some of these facts you're talking about that show that we mean absolutely nothing to the government.
It is thought that a society without a State would have no defense from attack by foreign states well then it must be said that the current State uses us as to defend our rulers, who, if the truth be untangled, are our real enemies. A classic anarchist answer is to arm the people. An armed population would be difficult to control just as anarchist militias in Spain very nearly won the civil war despite shortages of weapons, treachery by the Communists and intervention by Germany and Italy. Where they made their mistake was in allowing themselves to be integrated into an army run by statists.
I don't care how much time you spend training in the backwoods swamps of Louisiana. A group of U.S. Green Berets will still kick down your door and smoke you faster than a sack of green in nitro's posession. The U.S. Military is developed on the basis of so many laws and rules that it becomes ingrained in the minds of soldiers. Soldiers become machines- tools. They become the property of the U.S. Government, and thus are much, much more effective than Billy-Joe Bob who trains in the Louisiana State Militia because he has a hard-on for guns. Just giving guns to the populace isn't nearly as effective as training them and forcing a chain of command on them (based on law). That's what the military is; a government within itself. Millions of troops given a rank below the thousands of more competent, experienced troops leading them. Ever see "The Patriot?" See what happens when you have discipline? You rout the rebels and they run off into the woods.
The American rulers would probably exterminate us all rather than willingly allow us our freedom.
This is a bit of a conspiracy theory, isn't it? Once again, unless you have any evidence to support this other than the fact that they benefit from being over us, this sentence is only slightly better than me saying "The American rulers would agree and give us all candy and beer if we wanted to become an Anarchist society."
Within anarchism there are many different but related ideas. There are complete systems of anarchist political theory going by names like federalism, mutualism, individualism, syndicalism, anarchist-communism, anarcha-feminism, situationism, and so on Traditionally, anarchists believe that the main problem with the world is that it is divided into masters and `wage slaves'. If we could get rid of the bosses and run industry ourselves, for the benefit of our own needs not theirs, it would clearly make a big improvement and would transform every area of life.
Does anybody ever consider the reason why these people go into business? Money. Power. Fame. Besides, not everybody is familiar with the concepts of business and the politics of the corporate world. Maybe, I don't want the local computer outlet run by the everyman. Maybe I want it run by a bunch of M.I.T. graduates. What are all these benefits you speak of by a corporation being run by the people? Sure, the oppression is down, but how successful would this corporation be if there's nothing keeping people on task? There's no boss, and no rules (in a true anarchistic society), and the only thing you have left is the faith you put in people's self-discipline, which, once again, is ridiculous.
Anarchism is self-government. Self-government means self-discipline. The alternative to self-discipline is enforced obedience imposed by rulers over their subjects. To avoid this, the members of every association freely make the rules of their association and agree to abide by the rules they themselves make. Those who refuse to live up to their responsibility to honor a voluntary agreement shall be deprived of its benefits.
Rules=Government. Everybody Ruling=Democracy. Depravation of Benefits due to Disobeyance of Rules=Law.
Now, as far as self-discipline goes, just look at the crimes and atrocities committed today. Even with the threat of death or life imprisonment, people show an extreme lack of self-discipline. Killers still kill, and there really isn't a difference between "Members freely making rules they agree to abide by, at the risk of losing benefits" and "Losing your rights and going to jail because you broke the law," as far as Anarchy is concerned. I happen to think not being imprisoned is a pretty sweet benefit for me following simple laws such as not killing or stealing. What you're proposing is just approaching a killer and saying "No. Don't do that. It isn't for the good of the community, and if it continues. we'll be forced to remove you from our society," instead of "Don't do it, or you'll go to jail with a bunch of other murderers and rapists, possibly get raped and killed yourself, and maybe even end up in the chair."
The one and only aim of anarchism is to propel society in an anarchist direction. Practically speaking, if every fed up being decided to merge to reform our current society the existing authority wouldn’t stand a chance.
Right... So how to you plan to unite the poor, disenfranchised masses? You know, the folks upset about the way things are run? The concept of everyone standing up and challenging authority denotes organization. Organization denotes government. Government is not equal to Anarchy. You become a bunch of hypocrites. Plenty of people are too stupid to lead. They need to follow. Plenty of people are upset, but are too lazy to follow or do anything about it (*looks at nitro*). Then you have the upper echelon on people- Leaders. The ones who sieze the oppurtunity, and thus gain power over the easily-led, and if he or she happens to enjoy the power granted by it, well, they could hold on to that power under the guise of a common cause they all share. People are social creatures, and as such, naturally form governments. Not everybody is a leader. Some need to be led. Even if everybody WAS a leader, then everybody would argue and bicker over what would need to be done, and thus, nothing would get done.
Local people aware of each others' situation would be able to put into operation more appropriate resolutions.
Not to be a dick, but why would I help you? What makes me want to? If I don't need your help, and I don't possess your moral structure (is nitro watching?), what's to stop me (if there's truly no government) from just sitting on my ass all day, not working to improve the community, and then stealing from you when you aren't looking, thus benefitting from your labor, and exploiting the poor governmental system?
Prisons fail to improve or reform, how is locking people up with other anti-socials, so to speak, supposed to develop responsibility and reasonable behavior?
Prisons do dissuade people from braking the law. Why don't I steal more often? Because I don't want to go to jail. Plus, the fact that Johnny Lawbreaker is behind bars stops him (at least temporarily) from doing all those mean things to me. There's a shitload of facts on both sides of the effect prisons have on crime here. As for turning them into more responsible, productive members of socierty, aside from the deterrent prisons have, several prisons do offer job training and rehabilitation programs.
As for the school system, it is foolish to think that education simply consists of spending eleven years or so of our lives in schools especially isolated from the real world. It would be much healthier for our education to be integrated with the everyday work and life of society. In this way everyone's particular skills would be properly recognized by society and used for the education of others. Education should be available throughout our lives, rather than being illogically confined to that part of our lives spent in schools. We are all potential learners and teachers, passing on and acquiring skills and understanding as we go through life.
I agree with this, partially. I just fail to see how you could do this, exactly. You should further explain the "system" these "Anarchists" wish to impose.
People who refuse to work undergo social pressure and in drastic cases they could be expelled from the community. Imagine being compelled to face a meeting of the whole community you live in and publicly discuss a problem. People need to work and we all have a definite need for creative activity.
If there were consequences for my inactiveness, then there'd be laws. If there were laws. there'd be a government to enforce them. If I had to go and feel pressured to work by a town meeting, then that isn't anarchy. It's more of a true democracy, isn't it? Especially if there is consequences (Such as being expelled from a community). There'd be social pressure, sure, but since there is no law, there is nothing that the community could do to MAKE me work. If they run me out of town, then that's the government at work, enforcing laws. "Work or get out of town."
Observe the amount of people who spend their time working on cars, in gardening, making clothes, creating music. They are usually thought of as hobbies rather than work, since we're brought up to think of work as a torment to be endured and it does not mean that we are naturally lazy, it means that we dislike being treated as machines, duty-bound to do mostly meaningless work for someone else's benefit. If we would rid ourselves from the ruling class we would be free of most of the economic pressure to work. Unemployment is only a problem created by capitalism. In a judicious world there would be no unemployment. Everyone would have a shorter working week and only what was needed would be produced.
What you seem to be saying here is that we would only work on what's needed. Now, if there's no economic pressure, who the hell is going to mop for a living? Someone needs to make my hamburgers, pick up my garbage, and clean out my sewers, and if you think I'm going to do it, if I have the option to write, or draw, or sing instead, I'd like to cheerfully extend my middle finger to you. Why do both, (for the benefit of society) when I can make a successful living in a capitalistic society with something I like to do, rather than either being forced (by the pseudo-anarchy's town committee) to mop up shit one day, and write the next, or be excluded from the community, who, by the meaning of anarchy, have no right to own or exclude me from anything?
