NationStates

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:35 am**

Nazi Flower Power wrote:
Margno wrote:One big struggle of the powerful against the disenfranchised, who more often than not are the source of their power, yes, a lot of human history is that.

No, it is not. First of all, there is a lot of negotiation, cooperation, and peaceful development that has nothing to do with struggles of any kind. And even if you look at the part of history that involves conflicts, there are many separate conflicts between a wide variety of groups over a wide variety of issues. The majority of the fighting in the world is between different groups of powerful people and has nothing whatsoever to do with class warfare.

It sort of depends whether you look at the relationships between countries, or the structure of countries. I'm less concerned with the times things changed here, and more concerned with all the times they stayed the same. And the things that stayed the same as other things were changing. For example, hierarchical dynamics, power, the formation and retention of monopolies on coercion, and wealth distribution.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:36 am**

Margno wrote:
Seangoli wrote:
I'm sure if it were your home or life's work getting destroyed, you'd think different. And I'm a bloody radical socialist. Destruction for the sake of destruction is just plain idiotic.

One of the more common criticisms, for some reason. No, I wouldn't, not least of all because I'm aesthetic and own precious little. I don't even own the bed I sleep in, and if that needs to go, it needs to go.

And you would be perfectly fine with other people forcing you to live on the street with absolutely no shelter or bed, destroying your means of providing for yourself, and forcing you to possibly starve in the streets. Amazing how incredibly callous you are. But hey, property damage s the cool thing now, right?

I also find the irony of an ascetic using a computer to post on NSG to be hilarious. Not to mention that you apparently don't even know the right terminology for your supposed viewpoint.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:37 am**

Dyakovo wrote:
Margno wrote:I don't support violence, I support property damage.

Damaging property is violence.

No, it absolutely is not. Things are not people, and they certainly are not an extension of people's personhood. You are a complete human being utterly independently of your property.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:39 am**

Margno wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Damaging property is violence.

No, it absolutely is not. Things are not people, and they certainly are not an extension of people's personhood. You are a complete human being utterly independently of your property.

Property provides a means of shelter, safety, food and comfort. You are advocating the forceful removal of these most basic of needs from people and forcing them to live on the streets.

I can't see how that's not violent. It's downright barbaric.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:40 am**

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Nazi Flower Power wrote:
No, it is not. First of all, there is a lot of negotiation, cooperation, and peaceful development that has nothing to do with struggles of any kind. And even if you look at the part of history that involves conflicts, there are many separate conflicts between a wide variety of groups over a wide variety of issues. The majority of the fighting in the world is between different groups of powerful people and has nothing whatsoever to do with class warfare.

You're breaking his fantasy world where a member of the minority and a member of the majority can't be in mutual agreement and understand each other.

In that spirit, I got two swords waiting for us at these magnificent garden. Let's each take our swords and stab each other until we're both dead, that's clearly the kind of cruel and oppressive world this is.

Disclaimer: No persons will be harmed during this event. Probably me, but other than a probable, no.

Swords? Pff! I'm a Nazi! We use tanks! (And now I'll probably be expelled from the NSDAP because I've given away our secret to how we oppress people so effectively...)

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:40 am**

Seangoli wrote:
Margno wrote:One of the more common criticisms, for some reason. No, I wouldn't, not least of all because I'm aesthetic and own precious little. I don't even own the bed I sleep in, and if that needs to go, it needs to go.

And you would be perfectly fine with other people forcing you to live on the street with absolutely no shelter or bed, destroying your means of providing for yourself, and forcing you to possibly starve in the streets. Amazing how incredibly callous you are. But hey, property damage s the cool thing now, right?

I also find the irony of an ascetic using a computer to post on NSG to be hilarious. Not to mention that you apparently don't even know the right terminology for your supposed viewpoint.

I'm not a primitivist. Are you sure you're not thinking of some other group? I'm a tolstoyan.
I would willingly subject myself to any hardship if it benefitted other people, yes, (or at least, I would try to and it would be right for me to) and I would not coercively resist anyone who subjected me to hardship.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:41 am**

Margno wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Damaging property is violence.

No, it absolutely is not. Things are not people, and they certainly are not an extension of people's personhood. You are a complete human being utterly independently of your property.

Nothing in the definition of violence requires that it be directed against people.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:42 am**

Margno wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Damaging property is violence.

No, it absolutely is not. Things are not people, and they certainly are not an extension of people's personhood. You are a complete human being utterly independently of your property.

To think people are independent of their property is absurd. People need a home for shelter. People need cars to get around easily. People need jobs to make money for themselves so they can afford basic necessities which they are dependent on! I forget what type of violence it is called in Sociology when applied to property specifically, but this is still very much violence, since something is being harmed or destroyed.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:43 am**

Nazi Flower Power wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote:
You're breaking his fantasy world where a member of the minority and a member of the majority can't be in mutual agreement and understand each other.

In that spirit, I got two swords waiting for us at these magnificent garden. Let's each take our swords and stab each other until we're both dead, that's clearly the kind of cruel and oppressive world this is.

Disclaimer: No persons will be harmed during this event. Probably me, but other than a probable, no.

Swords? Pff! I'm a Nazi! We use tanks! (And now I'll probably be expelled from the NSDAP because I've given away our secret to how we oppress people so effectively...)

Well, I can arrange to have an Abrams and a Panzer delivered then.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:43 am**

Nazi Flower Power wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote:
You're breaking his fantasy world where a member of the minority and a member of the majority can't be in mutual agreement and understand each other.

In that spirit, I got two swords waiting for us at these magnificent garden. Let's each take our swords and stab each other until we're both dead, that's clearly the kind of cruel and oppressive world this is.

Disclaimer: No persons will be harmed during this event. Probably me, but other than a probable, no.

Swords? Pff! I'm a Nazi! We use tanks! (And now I'll probably be expelled from the NSDAP because I've given away our secret to how we oppress people so effectively...)

But you're a Mischling...

Wait---I didn't know that Mischlings could join the NSDAP...

OR is the NSDAP only for Pure Aryan Ubermenschen...? :unsure:

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:43 am**

Margno wrote:No, it absolutely is not. Things are not people, and they certainly are not an extension of people's personhood. You are a complete human being utterly independently of your property.

We're really arguing over your incorrect definition of "violence"? Joy, didn't think I'd need to ever resort to quoting the goddamn dictionary.

Violence:

noun
1.
swift and intense force:
"the violence of a storm."

2.
rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment:
"to die by violence."

3.
an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws:
"to take over a government by violence."

4.
a violent act or proceeding.

5.
rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language:
"the violence of his hatred."

6.
damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration:
"to do editorial violence to a text."

So, hey! Things done to property are still violence, too! Ermagherd, right? Holy fuckballs, taking a sledgehammer to somebody's face is violence... and so is taking a sledgehammer to somebody's car! Who woulda thought?

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:43 am**

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Nazi Flower Power wrote:
Swords? Pff! I'm a Nazi! We use tanks! (And now I'll probably be expelled from the NSDAP because I've given away our secret to how we oppress people so effectively...)

Well, I can arrange to have an Abrams and a Panzer delivered then.

You're on! :lol:

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:44 am**

Dyakovo wrote:
Margno wrote:No, it absolutely is not. Things are not people, and they certainly are not an extension of people's personhood. You are a complete human being utterly independently of your property.

Nothing in the definition of violence requires that it be directed against people.

We're using very different operational definitions of violence.
Any time I have said violence, I have meant physical harm to humans.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:44 am**

The Risen Jaguar Warriors wrote:
Wait---I didn't know that Mischlings could join the NSDAP...

Depends on the specific mix of "races."

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:46 am**

Au Naturel Reina wrote:
Margno wrote:No, it absolutely is not. Things are not people, and they certainly are not an extension of people's personhood. You are a complete human being utterly independently of your property.

To think people are independent of their property is absurd. People need a home for shelter. People need cars to get around easily. People need jobs to make money for themselves so they can afford basic necessities which they are dependent on! I forget what type of violence it is called in Sociology when applied to property specifically, but this is still very much violence, since something is being harmed or destroyed.

There's nothing about the human body or houses that requires that a particular house be attached to a particular human and anyone else be coercively excluded from entering it without the consent of that human.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:47 am**

Margno wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Nothing in the definition of violence requires that it be directed against people.

We're using very different operational definitions of violence.

Yes, I'm using the actual definition rather than one you've made up.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:49 am**

Margno wrote:We're using very different operational definitions of violence.
Any time I have said violence, I have meant physical harm to humans.

Then SAY "violence against people," because you're the one linguistically in the wrong here as long as you keep harping that property damage isn't violence.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:50 am**

Dyakovo wrote:
Margno wrote:We're using very different operational definitions of violence.

Yes, I'm using the actual definition rather than one you've made up.

There's no need to use personal attacks. I'm using the philosophical definition used in Christian nonresistance, as that it is my viewpoint.
I'm aware that you have problems with me, but I'd ask that you either be respectful or refrain from talking to me.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:51 am**

Margno wrote:
Seangoli wrote:
And you would be perfectly fine with other people forcing you to live on the street with absolutely no shelter or bed, destroying your means of providing for yourself, and forcing you to possibly starve in the streets. Amazing how incredibly callous you are. But hey, property damage s the cool thing now, right?

I also find the irony of an ascetic using a computer to post on NSG to be hilarious. Not to mention that you apparently don't even know the right terminology for your supposed viewpoint.

I'm not a primitivist. Are you sure you're not thinking of some other group? I'm a tolstoyan.

Tolstoyans are Christian Ascetics by definition. Asceticism, by definition, is abstention from all forms of indulgence. I can think of few greater indulgences than to be having a discussion that is rather meaningless on the whole with random strangers on a website devoted to humorous political novels, which is a part of the internet which is well above and beyond necessities. Using a computer and the internet for work could be manageable to an ascetic. Using it to waste away your off-time with rather pointless discussions with people you don't know that ultimately won't change anything is almost the biggest waste of time one can do; in other words, a rather massive modern day indulgence.

It's also rather odd you are an advocate of revolution, when one of the central tenants of Tolstoyanism being pacifism and non-resistance

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:53 am**

Margno wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Yes, I'm using the actual definition rather than one you've made up.

There's no need to use personal attacks. I'm using the philosophical definition used in Christian nonresistance, as that it is my viewpoint.
I'm aware that you have problems with me, but I'd ask that you either be respectful or refrain from talking to me.

Saying you're using a made up definition for a word is not a personal attack. At no point has Dyakovo attacked you, the person. The post in question is an attack on your argument, and is in no way a personal attack (and thus, not actionable.)

~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:55 am**

Margno wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Yes, I'm using the actual definition rather than one you've made up.

There's no need to use personal attacks. I'm using the philosophical definition used in Christian nonresistance, as that it is my viewpoint.
I'm aware that you have problems with me, but I'd ask that you either be respectful or refrain from talking to me.

Pointing out that you're using a made-up definition is not a personal attack. Also, don't flatter yourself, I don't recall ever interacting with you before.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:55 am**

Margno wrote:
Au Naturel Reina wrote:To think people are independent of their property is absurd. People need a home for shelter. People need cars to get around easily. People need jobs to make money for themselves so they can afford basic necessities which they are dependent on! I forget what type of violence it is called in Sociology when applied to property specifically, but this is still very much violence, since something is being harmed or destroyed.

There's nothing about the human body or houses that requires that a particular house be attached to a particular human and anyone else be coercively excluded from entering it without the consent of that human.

Margno, houses cannot easily be replaced. They require money, lots of money. Moving to a different place isn't easy either, not when there are memories and friends tied with the place. That may seem childish to you, but it is actually very, very common of humans.

The replacement costs for the damages in Ferguson will prove to be quite heavy, and will equally cost lots of work and time. What does the black community get out of all this? Nothing that will help their plight whatsoever.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:56 am**

Ferguson is a disgusting animalistic place.

It has been destroyed by it's African - American community and it's small White & Hispanic participants. They have looted shops owned by families which have worked for them for years, destroyed their economy and injured innocent people left right and centre.

Not a single tax dollar should be spent on rebuilding the city. It should become a penitentiary enclave enforced by the National Guard with martial law. Everyone else who is innocent, who hasn't participated in the protests, black white hispanic or asian, should be moved away from the city and allowed to start a new life elsewhere.

Disgusting people. And the response of the Police is too soft.

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:56 am**

Reploid Productions wrote:
Margno wrote:There's no need to use personal attacks. I'm using the philosophical definition used in Christian nonresistance, as that it is my viewpoint.
I'm aware that you have problems with me, but I'd ask that you either be respectful or refrain from talking to me.

Saying you're using a made up definition for a word is not a personal attack. At no point has Dyakovo attacked you, the person. The post in question is an attack on your argument, and is in no way a personal attack (and thus, not actionable.)

~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

You're swift Reppy

Posted: **Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:57 am**

Squeeheart wrote:
Margno wrote:There's nothing about the human body or houses that requires that a particular house be attached to a particular human and anyone else be coercively excluded from entering it without the consent of that human.

Margno, houses cannot easily be replaced. They require money, lots of money. Moving to a different place isn't easy either, not when there are memories and friends tied with the place. That may seem childish to you, but it is actually very, very common of humans.

The replacement costs for the damages in Ferguson will prove to be quite heavy, and will equally cost lots of work and time. What does the black community get out of all this? Nothing that will help their plight whatsoever.

He wasn't supposed to know that.

NationStates

Ferguson Megathread