MAGIC SOOUULLLSSSS Libertarian

LargePrime · Post by **LargePrime** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:33 pm

Dear Denzians;

um...

I can't find a great set of posts on the 'MAGIC SOOUULLLSSSS' take down of libertarian thought. I have a set of bookmarks I thought was in it is missing it. Goggle Foo failed me.

If anyone can post a link to it, that would be awesome.

Or any other critiques of libertarian thoughts you may wish to link would be great too...

I thank you.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:45 pm

The souls bit starts on Page 2.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:38 pm

Magic Souls is a game you have to play with libertarians/anarchists.

On the one hand, you have very good atheistic arguments for why souls don't exist. On the other hand you have a libertarian/anarchist.

Now, if that person believes Jesus is his personal savior (Or Muhammad, or that some God exists) then it actually doesn't matter, because they won't be at all embarrassed to base their political ideology on the premise that Jesus loves them.

But if they are athiests, and you just ask them if the believe in souls, they will say no. So what you have to do is the thing we basically did to ISP before he intellectually dishonestly pussied out, where you force them to justify where they think their right to property comes from if not the government.

And that is just turtles all the way until you get to the souls.

infected slut princess · Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:59 pm

I don't know why some fucktards went off on their "SOULS" thing. And I don't think anyone explained what they meant about the "SOULS" that caused their meltdown, which is interesting because I don't think I ever brought up souls or SOULS at all. I certainly don't consider the anarchist position is depending on souls or SOULS in any way. Maybe I missed where someone explained what the hell they were talking about. I think the main problem here is that everyone resorted to their hilarious SOULS strawman because they spend so much time together fapping to Stalin and jerking each other off over the state's massive scale warfare and welfare, that they actually fail to realize there are theories about rights that aren't just positivism or SOULS or nihilism or some other shallow TGD hivemind viewpoint.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:28 am

infected slut princess wrote:that they actually fail to realize there are theories about rights that aren't just positivism or SOULS or nihilism or some other shallow TGD hivemind viewpoint.

So explain which one you use to ground your absurd belief that you own things without intervention from the government, and we will explain how we knew about it ahead of time, and that it ultimately boils down to Souls (which is just shorthand for any completely non-existent arbitrary claim which has no effect on reality), or doesn't justify you owning property without government intervention.

But this thing where you say, "But there are totally all these different ethical theories, and sure most of them boil down to souls, but I subscribe to the one special one that doesn't, and I'm not going to tell you what it is" is really just proof that you believe in stupid soul shit, and the reason you refuse to say what you actually believe and keep resorting to "There are tons of (mutually contradictory) ethical theories doe!" is because if you did tell us, we would point out that it is really about Souls, and you know that.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:42 am

infected slut princess wrote:I don't know why some fucktards went off on their "SOULS" thing. And I don't think anyone explained what they meant about the "SOULS" that caused their meltdown, which is interesting because I don't think I ever brought up souls or SOULS at all. I certainly don't consider the anarchist position is depending on souls or SOULS in any way. Maybe I missed where someone explained what the hell they were talking about. I think the main problem here is that everyone resorted to their hilarious SOULS strawman because they spend so much time together fapping to Stalin and jerking each other off over the state's massive scale warfare and welfare, that they actually fail to realize there are theories about rights that aren't just positivism or SOULS or nihilism or some other shallow TGD hivemind viewpoint.

Or maybe you are too thick to understand sarcasm and mockery.

See, some people assert the existence of specific metaphysical objects known as "souls" which are invisible, intangible, wholly unverifiable, and have no influence upon the world in which we live. And they base certain beliefs about what is and what ought to be on the existence of these invisible, intangible, and wholly unverifiable metaphysical objects that have no influence upon the world in which we live.

And you assert the existence of specific metaphysical objects known as "natural rights" which are invisible, intangible, wholly unverifiable, and have no influence upon the world in which we live. And you base certain beliefs about what is and what ought to be on the existence of these invisible, intangible, and wholly unverifiable metaphysical objects that have no influence upon the world in which we live.

Meanwhile, a great deal many people understand that the universe will never ever have their back on their claims to own large quantities of dirt and the stuff on that dirt, because they are not morons and have long since realized the universe does not actually give a fuck because it's just a bunch of physical laws governing how particles and shit interact. The only rights anyone on this planet has ever enjoyed are artifacts of man made in the pursuance of some framework that those same men arbitrary valued. And you know what? The world keeps turning after that realization, because the things most people arbitrary value are shit like "not getting murdered" and "not having someone take my x-box," so those are the sorts of rights frameworks that people make. Surprise: a creature evolved to survive through safe and reliable cooperation prefers a society in which it can safely and reliably cooperate with others.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:27 am

infected slut princess wrote:they spend so much time together fapping to Stalin and jerking each other off over the state's massive scale warfare and welfare, that they actually fail to realize there are theories about rights that aren't just positivism or SOULS or nihilism or some other shallow TGD hivemind viewpoint.

I know you intended this as a vicious takedown of narrow-mindedness, but it's actually hilariously illustrative of how lost up your own asshole you get on the subject of morality. See, I remember the Frank post and thread of which you speak, and the message wasn't that Joseph fucking Stalin or Mao Zedong were good people. The message was that people judge things based on their circumstances and perceived alternatives, which can result in literally millions of people believing shit that you or I find irrevocably fucked up. Which, you know, kind of puts a kink in the idea that the universe does a particularly good job of defining morality. At best it seems that people can gin up standards that are similar but not quite equivalent, and even then many of us will quickly break our own moral code if that's what it takes to jump the queue on Black Friday.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:58 am

Whipstitch wrote:and even then many of us will quickly break our own moral code if that's what it takes to jump the queue on Black Friday.

What is Black Friday, anyway?

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:01 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote:What is Black Friday, anyway?

Here.

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:31 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:What is Black Friday, anyway?
Here.

LMFTUFY

let me fuck that up for you

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:35 am

It's the biggest shopping day in America, to celebrate the national religion of Capitalism, where enough people cram themselves into shopping centres that you can lose a corpse*. Sales are so immense that you release your console just prior to it, even if it needs an extra few weeks of fine-tuning so that it fucking works.

*Possibly that only happened on Life.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:29 am

My family is full of procrastinators, so I've never experienced this religious ritual.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:43 am

Also, it starts on Thursday now. America, fuck yeah.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:22 am

I dub this (and that) thread Lamentations of the Slut Princess

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:32 pm

infected slut princess wrote:I don't know why some fucktards went off on their "SOULS" thing. And I don't think anyone explained what they meant about the "SOULS" that caused their meltdown, which is interesting because I don't think I ever brought up souls or SOULS at all. I certainly don't consider the anarchist position is depending on souls or SOULS in any way. Maybe I missed where someone explained what the hell they were talking about. I think the main problem here is that everyone resorted to their hilarious SOULS strawman because they spend so much time together fapping to Stalin and jerking each other off over the state's massive scale warfare and welfare, that they actually fail to realize there are theories about rights that aren't just positivism or SOULS or nihilism or some other shallow TGD hivemind viewpoint.

Slut, explain to me, in detail (because I'm not used to how anarchists think), what are the mechanisms anarchism proposes to deal with the following situations:
1) land grabs by neighbours that still aren't anarchist.
2) land grabs by anarchist neighbours that have a different idea of how the land you live on should be used.
3) domestic violence and child abuse.
4) companies getting powerful enough to set trusts or monopolies

infected slut princess · Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:36 pm

Why don't you guys just ask your cult leader about it.

FrankTrollman wrote:People have a fundamental human right to ask other people for casual sex. [emphasis in original.]

OMG SOULS LOL

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:49 pm

So you still have absolutely no justification for your claim to ownership at all and you are just going to continue trying to change the subject to anything else at all.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:33 am

infected slut princess wrote:Why don't you guys just ask your cult leader about it.

FrankTrollman wrote:People have a fundamental human right to ask other people for casual sex. [emphasis in original.]
OMG SOULS LOL

Firstly, the fact that you have completely failed to answer or respond to any of the points raised or challenges issued is noted. If there's one thing the two of us apparently agree on, it's that you are intellectually incapable of defending your own beliefs. At least we see eye to eye on you being shitty.

Secondly, your desperate and obvious grasping at straws is both desperate and obvious. Thank you, at least, for the laugh. At least, that's what I would say if you weren't just repeating old material.

ISP wrote:Governments are not the source of rights. We presuppose this when we criticize governments for violating the rights of their citizens, like in Qatar where the state will murder you for being gay.

DSM wrote:Saying that rights objectively exist because people criticize states for murdering gays on the basis of human rights violations is like arguing that the rules for football objectively exist because people criticize players for taking steroids in violation of those rules. It turns out that people can violate arbitrary, artificial frameworks, and you can complain about that. You can even argue about what the rules of football should be compared to what they are, all while it being completely and totally obvious that they are arbitrary and artificial.

Your actual argument is that I can't tell you field goals are worth 3 points without also pretending that the universe told me so. That's a pretty stupid fucking argument. I suspect there's also a dab of your usual "LOL WELL IF IT'S ALL ARBITRARY HOW CAN YOU SAY ANYTHING" bullshit, which is probably why you have such a hard time understanding anything that isn't natural rights theory (you are very stupid).

infected slut princess · Sat Mar 29, 2014 5:53 pm

DSMatticus, you need to get over yourself. I am not being shitty, I am being smart. Believe me, it's very tempting to have an epic discussion, but I'm discouraged by the waste-of-time factor. You see, the main purpose of arguing isn't really to convince your opponent, but rather uncommitted observers. Everyone here seems really crazy though. Your side believes things like:

> Killing more people is better than killing fewer peopl
> The argument in favor of the state is that if there is a state, it won't be possible for a dude to be murdered in his sleep.
> Stalin was pretty cool
> Law of contradiction is a convention
> Crude version of verificationist theory of meaning (hilarious really)
> Government secrets kick ass

So how the fuck does a person deal with all that?

Realistically, I think I win automatically. Because you are guys are fucked up.

And yet...
It is clear I am somewhat misunderstood, so I must give maybe SOME explanation.

Because while it is reasonable that to think that I would be SOMEWHAT SYMPATHETIC to the theory of natural rights, I am ultimately compelled to reject it because of some powerful arguments against it! So... I'm sort of on YOUR side when it comes to the whole "natural rights" = SOULS thing. AMAZING ISN"T IT!!

Instead, my own viewpoint comes more from a mixture of utilitarianism, Abel-Habermas, and the, umm, general political ideas of the absolute idealist camp, the basic concept of which is represented fairly nicely in TH Green's Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation. Interestingly, others have of course used these ideas to derive PRO-statist conclusions, but I think that is their critical error. Instead, if we really understand how human cooperation works, we must see institutions like the state as bad for the process of civilization. Certainly not a handy tool to advance the best interests of all people!

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:54 pm

You realize you're basically saying that you were wrong outside of the times where you were vigorously attacking straw men, right?

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:07 pm

Did someone other than ISP mention Stalin in either of the two threads? I don't think I've seen it brought up once, but he just keeps talking about it...

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:51 pm

Quit using all-caps like they're italics.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:04 pm

That entire list is basically a bunch of strawmen mixed with the implicit assumption that the state is the source of all evils and a willingness to deceive by refusing to remember context. So when ISP says:

1) Killing more people is better than killing fewer peopl -> the state kills people/people die under the state, therefore less people would die without the state. This is very obviously a fallacy.

2) The argument in favor of the state is that if there is a state, it won't be possible for a dude to be murdered in his sleep -> people get murdered in their sleep now, therefore the state has prevented or stopped zero such murders. Again, very obviously a fallacy.

3) Stalin was pretty cool -> The Soviet Union was a state, you dirty statists. Stop worshipping Stalin, you pinkos. Again, very obviously a fallacy.

4) Law of contradiction is a convention -> I actually have no idea.

5) Crude version of verificationist theory of meaning (hilarious really) -> This is ISP trying to attack the validity of disregarding the empirically unverifiable by pointing to a particular philosophical movement that was big on empiricism and is now defunct. Again, very obviously a fallacy. I honestly can't tell if ISP actually knows anything about philosophy (and is just a deceitful little douchebag) or if he only knows enough to drop the occasional name without any fucking idea what he's talking about.

6) Government secrets kick ass -> what do you mean you don't want to disclose the name, address, and schedule of mafia informants to the mafia? The discussion of government secrecy had a context which ISP was very much on the wrong side of with his ridiculously extremist position, but by pretending that everyone is as extremist as he is just in the opposite direction he can make a decent soundbite. Surprise: our local anarchist argues less like a philosopher and more like a politician. The fucking irony.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:35 pm

...You Lost Me wrote:Did someone other than ISP mention Stalin in either of the two threads? I don't think I've seen it brought up once, but he just keeps talking about it...

My memory may be betraying me here so people should feel free to jump in.

Once upon a time people were talking about the phenomenon where Stalin and Mao sometimes poll well despite being vicious shitbirds with no scruples when it came to carrying out their agendas. From a western perspective, yes, it's baffling but it becomes easier to understand when you remember that their hit-and-unnecessarily-miss industrialization efforts eventually benefited millions of people who would go on to have children while the people who suffered the most from collectivization or forced labor camps are fucking dead because again, Mao and Stalin were -that- ruthless. Talking about this at all though gets ISP to froth at the mouth about communist apologetics because apparently he doesn't like the idea that life sometimes gets as complicated as the Simpsons' frogurt sketch.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:54 pm

DSM wrote:4) Law of contradiction is a convention -> I actually have no idea.

The Law of Contradiction is another name for the Law of Non-Contradiction, which is a logical axiom that something cannot be both true and false. That you must have A or ~A and cannot have both. It is a key plank of really terrible sophist arguments the world over.

The basic idea is that you shout at anyone who discusses nuance or caveats that they are violating the Law of Non-Contradiction. So you start with something simplistic and non-controversial sounding, then you slippery slope it to whatever the fuck you're arguing for, and then when people call you on your bullshit you shout about logical axioms. It's a really sophomoric argument style, and ISP isn't even doing it right because you're supposed to start with vague positive statements that you can get other people to agree to rather than just jumping in headfirst with the extraordinary claims.

Of course, quantum mechanics being what it is, I'm pretty sure we live in a universe where the Law of Non-Contradiction actually isn't true. But it's still useful for logical discussions to pretend that it is. Still, if anyone attempts to use a formal axiom in an ethical argument, that's a big red flag. Like trying to use an accounting identity as evidence in a discussion of economics.

-Username17