-->
@Bones
Fraud checked for? Idc if some Ancap dunces laugh at me. It's mutual. They'd die or severely suffer in their fantasy. Either that or they're degenerate thugs born and bred.
[AMA Thread] Dr. Michael Huemer, Professor of philosophy
Posts
Total:
147
-->
@Best.Korea
The military would be the biggest gang. That's all.
R-man... " The military would be the biggest gang. That's all. "...
Military fits description of a cult.
..." A cult is an organized group whose purpose is to dominate cult members through psychological manipulation and pressure strategies. 1 Cults are usually headed by a powerful leader who isolates members from the rest of society. Some individuals who join cults remain lifelong members. "
Military is opposite of disorderly anarchy.
At age 20 or so I took physical to join the Navy, and at the last thing they presented me with twice, was my signing over my ass --actually is giving away rights to USA constitution over to a military constitution-- to the USA military, and that this was my last chance to step out of line and leave. So I stepped out of line --I seem to recall we were standing in our underwear still, maybe a false memory--- and left building.
@RM
I am not an ancap guy, far from it. But even I can see that it's not that there are holes in your argument, rather, your entire argument is the hole.
Anarchy = no laws
That is kindergarden logic.
-->
@Savant
Is it too late to ask him about the validity of evolutionary ethics?
-->
@Bones
@Savant
-->
@Benjamin
Anarchy does equal no laws.
-->
@ebuc
In anarchy it would certainly be like a cult.
-->
@juniorrationalmadman
I see that you are getting better at trolling.
-->
@Best.Korea
I think you meant to tag @RationalMadman.
-->
@Savant
Well, he blocked me, so I tagged his alt.
-->
@Best.Korea
That's not me.
RM
Sorry, I thought it was one of your many alts.
-->
@Savant
When will we get answers to questions? I really wanna know what his favorite color is.
-->
@JoeBob
He either is a genuine sociopathic/psychopathic intellect and realises as troll-like as my questions seem, I cut to the core flaw and horror of Ancap ethics (total absence of it) or alternatively he is just a parrot of the propaganda and will try to dismiss me based on my questions being unworthy to respond to.
There is no option 3. I doubt he'd be so ridiculous as to bring up Vietnam war as some sidetrack.
-->
@RationalMadman
Was that meant to be to me?
-->
@JoeBob
Yes. He is struggling to handle my questions. He knows he can't answer them honestly.
If he is going to debate someone here, then it should be some good and calm debater that gets to debate him.
So not anyone who is aggressive, self-centered or anyone who gets angry during debates.
The worst part of being an Ancap is the day you realise the only ones who want your utopia are either completely delusional dorks or sociopaths and/or psychopaths ready to make you scream for mercy if you don't give them what they want, when they want it, where they want, how they want. He thinks he's a champion of the cause because he hasn't met proper, true Ancaps. The Mafia are hybrids as they're also too conservative to fully abide by the wild anarchy but they're close to it. He has many thugs that want that reality. He could learn a lot from prison cultures as to how Ancap would operate.
He should visit the Congo and study its history to get a grasp of true, genuine anarchy since now it is slowly moving away from the anarchy.
I have been in prison, its not so bad, just mostly boring.
Hold up I’m confused. Is there somewhere in this thread where he answered our questions?
-->
@JoeBob
No, he is stumped by my questions.
-->
@JoeBob
No, he hasn't responded yet.
No, he is stumped by my questions
Yeah, he probably never heard them before.
-->
@Best.Korea
You're being sarcastic but he probably hasn't. People get all people pleaser around high credentials people. Even I would if I were at his university as a student, I don't want some professor with a grudge to ruin my life especially not one who literally sees sociopathic ethics as valid.
-->
@RationalMadman
Of the four people laughing at you, three are not ancaps.
-->
@Bones
Who are the four? Let's analyse how high intellect they are and worthy of my concern it is that I lightened up their day.
-->
@Bones
Can you write out the issue they find with my logic? Or is laughing at me the depth of it?
-->
@RationalMadman
Who are the four, let's analyse how high intellect and worthy of my concern it is that I lightened up their day.
If you think back on your life, is there any moment where you realised you were wrong and had to concede the fact gracefully?
Can you write out the issue they find with my logic? Or is laughing at me the depth of it?
I've already done this so I'll draw on what has been said.
You make the claim that "ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period", and gave an example that "guys built like Huemer would get tossed like rag dolls within the first week of anarchy, left in rags (pun intended) bleeding". So with these statements, we can take the maxim "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit".
So taking this maxim, we can test it and see if it has been successful in history - is it true that the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit? Well we can use the Vietnam War as a case study. If we look into history, particularly USA occupancy of Vietnam, we can see a power dynamic in which the former can be considered "strong and fit", an the later can be comparatively considered the "weak and unfit". So by your logic, the former must beat the latter - yet, we know that this is not what happened. So the maxim that the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit is simply untrue.
As a counter, you cited how the US had pity for Vietnam, to which I had three responses. First, if they had pity, it doesn't change the fact that your maxim is still faulty - the weak and unfit can illicit pity as a means for winning. Second, it is an ahistorical understanding of the Vietnam War - the USA did not have any pity at all for North Vietnam, because they could be considered an extension of the Soviet Union who I am sure we can agree they hate. Third, the "pity" you site is called "Vietnam syndrome" and came after the loss in the South - it is because of the failure which led to this phenomenon in the 1980's so to use it as an explanation of why the US lost is completely wrong.
You keep asking why I bring up Vietnam - it is an example in history where we can test if your claims are true. If you do not like the Vietnam example, there were several other's which I posed;
- Why didn’t the USA occupy Afghanistan so miserably (they were literally fighting against people living in tents?
- Why doesn’t the USA just take over Mexico and Canada, who are not as “fit” as them?
- Why has Russian failed to occupy Ukraine?
Also as an aside, I it insane that you are bashing on Dr Heumer as unqualified when he is a PHD philosopher with over 80 published articles. Would you mind sharing what qualifications you have?
-->
@Bones
There have been times but it was often due to emotions more than logical error. It depends what you mean.
I think you mean someone suddenly proves me wrong on something instantly and there and then I admit I am wrong. That's happened but rarely and I didn't say it is a strength I have. Humility will never be my forte.
You assume US Vs Vietnam happened under Ancap conditions. That's where you're going wrong. There were non anarchic factors at play for the US pulling out that you call illiterate or whatever else. Idk where you get he idea it proves your case.
I said within Anarcho capitalism the primary and fundamental thing at play is power of any kind. As soon as the system tames itself by collective power it stops being anarchy as laws, government and a police force would form. You seem to not realise the limitations of anarchy and just throw the word around all fancy and shit a bit like Benjamin does when he says there can be genuine legal systems and laws that require them to even exist let alone be enforced, in anarchy.
I think you mean someone suddenly proves me wrong on something instantly and there and then I admit I am wrong. That's happened but rarely and I didn't say it is a strength I have. Humility will never be my forte.
You assume US Vs Vietnam happened under Ancap conditions. That's where you're going wrong. There were non anarchic factors at play for the US pulling out that you call illiterate or whatever else. Idk where you get he idea it proves your case.
I said within Anarcho capitalism the primary and fundamental thing at play is power of any kind. As soon as the system tames itself by collective power it stops being anarchy as laws, government and a police force would form. You seem to not realise the limitations of anarchy and just throw the word around all fancy and shit a bit like Benjamin does when he says there can be genuine legal systems and laws that require them to even exist let alone be enforced, in anarchy.