Right Wing Discussion Thread the Third

[Aelex]

That explains why French hate Americans.

Laughingvikings.jpg

Well, given that it's reciprocal, that also mean that we're stuck in a circle of each being inferior and superior to the other at the same time.
Fuck, do we created a Paradox once fucking more?

[Zottistan]

Neither do communists, ancaps, fascists or the vast majority of other political ideologies.

Yes, but at least with those I can see how someone could logically and reasonably conclude that their position and governmental system might be justified.

So your described state isn't the ideal through logic and reason. Only standing on more sound philosophical ground than theocracies.

[The V O I D]

Yes, but at least with those I can see how someone could logically and reasonably conclude that their position and governmental system might be justified.

So your described state isn't the ideal through logic and reason. Only standing on more sound philosophical ground than theocracies.

My point is that any secular humanist state of any kind will not need religion or anything fantastical to justify their system or political related beliefs. All they need is logic and reasoning, as well as a good argument that makes some form of sense. My system fits that for the most part. Theocracies of any kind, however, do not.

[Benuty]

So your described state isn't the ideal through logic and reason. Only standing on more sound philosophical ground than theocracies.

My point is that any secular humanist state of any kind will not need religion or anything fantastical to justify their system or political related beliefs. All they need is logic and reasoning, as well as a good argument that makes some form of sense. My system fits that for the most part. Theocracies of any kind, however, do not.

Logic and reason in a psychotically irrational species?

That is a good one.

[The V O I D]

My point is that any secular humanist state of any kind will not need religion or anything fantastical to justify their system or political related beliefs. All they need is logic and reasoning, as well as a good argument that makes some form of sense. My system fits that for the most part. Theocracies of any kind, however, do not.

Logic and reason in a psychotically irrational species?

That is a good one.

I make all of my decisions and such based on logic and reasoning.

It's worked out so far.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

My point is that any secular humanist state of any kind will not need religion or anything fantastical to justify their system or political related beliefs. All they need is logic and reasoning, as well as a good argument that makes some form of sense. My system fits that for the most part. Theocracies of any kind, however, do not.

Logic and reason in a psychotically irrational species?

That is a good one.

Even Mr. J has logic if you look close. Trust me, its amazing.

[Zottistan]

So your described state isn't the ideal through logic and reason. Only standing on more sound philosophical ground than theocracies.

My point is that any secular humanist state of any kind will not need religion or anything fantastical to justify their system or political related beliefs. All they need is logic and reasoning, as well as a good argument that makes some form of sense. My system fits that for the most part. Theocracies of any kind, however, do not.

...There are many, many more equally important questions involved in the running of a society than whether or not to give state authority to a religious group. If you want to claim logic and reason as the foundation of your political system you've got to address those too.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That explains why French hate Americans.

Laughingvikings.jpg

Well, given that it's reciprocal, that also mean that we're stuck in a circle of each being inferior and superior to the other at the same time.
Fuck, do we created a Paradox once fucking more?

I think it started when we tied in that quasi-war and stole your sandwich.

Heh. Us Americans will forever be able to say we stole your sandwich.

[Dagashi]

I don't feel like being a virgin is something you pin your greatness on. Besides, she's not Mary so you're automatically wrong if you're a Christian.

I didn't say she was great because she was a maiden, I said she was the greatest maiden, for her role in the Hundred Years War.

Cyrus was a greater king than William (So was Victoria if you count queens, which you should), and Genghis Khan was a greater Emperor than Napoleonhonhon (So was Victoria if you count empresses of India, which you should).

Wouldn't Cyrus be an emperor rather than a king? And William's actions played a profound role in shaping Britain which eventually resulted in one of history's greatest colonial empires. Victoria was just a little glass ceremonial doll who did nothing to earn her position, she was a powerless figurehead.

And greatest socialist? Not that much of an achievement.

However much I disagree with them; Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin were all great thinkers. Sorel was the greatest because he recognized voluntarism and psychological factors for their importance in revolution, which were more important than economic forces.

[Zottistan]

Logic and reason in a psychotically irrational species?

That is a good one.

I make all of my decisions and such based on logic and reasoning.

It's worked out so far.

Human beings don't work that way. We like to think we do but realistically most of the time we just do shit and make up excuses later.

See biases and heuristics theory, behavioural economics and experiments with split brain patients. Really interesting and unsettling stuff.

[The V O I D]

My point is that any secular humanist state of any kind will not need religion or anything fantastical to justify their system or political related beliefs. All they need is logic and reasoning, as well as a good argument that makes some form of sense. My system fits that for the most part. Theocracies of any kind, however, do not.

...There are many, many more equally important questions involved in the running of a society than whether or not to give state authority to a religious group. If you want to claim logic and reason as the foundation of your political system you've got to address those too.

My logic and reasoning is that a State can run more efficiently if it is not intervened upon in any manner by the people, and if it can focus on its protection of the people as well as getting rid of criminal elements; as well as being able to more effectively focus on protection of its territory and defense of the people as a whole. However, policing every little aspect of a person's life is impossible; besides, if the people are happy and satisfied with the government, they won't have reason to question it. Therefor, the State must ensure the people are happy - that means, on a social level, letting them do whatever they wish with each other (aside from murder, rape, and crime in general) and whatever they wish with their own bodies (tattoos, piercings, transitions, do whatever is 'you'). The State should also protect citizen's property and privacy; in the home and in the bedroom especially, what happens is one's own business. However, once you are in public or on public property, or in the presence of State buildings and State areas, you forfeit privacy because it is a public place; not your own home.

That is my logic and reasoning for my ideology.

[The V O I D]

I make all of my decisions and such based on logic and reasoning.

It's worked out so far.

Human beings don't work that way. We like to think we do but realistically most of the time we just do shit and make up excuses later.

See biases and heuristics theory, behavioural economics and experiments with split brain patients. Really interesting and unsettling stuff.

The difference between me and other people is I tend to just shut off my emotions most of the time, and I keep empathy and sympathy shut off as well. I can control my emotions to such degree where they are rendered... irrelevant in the decision-making process.

[Zottistan]

Human beings don't work that way. We like to think we do but realistically most of the time we just do shit and make up excuses later.

See biases and heuristics theory, behavioural economics and experiments with split brain patients. Really interesting and unsettling stuff.

The difference between me and other people is I tend to just shut off my emotions most of the time, and I keep empathy and sympathy shut off as well. I can control my emotions to such degree where they are rendered... irrelevant in the decision-making process.

I wasn't referring to emotional reasoning. I was referring to the fact that by in large human beings make judgements unconsciously by integrating information into an internalized worldview before logical reasoning has a chance to occur. The reasoning we present to ourselves afterwards is usually just rationalization.

That's not to say logical reasoning is impossible, or that we shouldn't try, but claiming to be an exclusively logical decision maker is either very uneducated or very arrogant.

[Diopolis]

Who gives a crap? If they're the same faith it shouldn't matter.
If the question is actually important, somehow(let's just assume Kauth is asking the internets for advice about his personal life), then it depends on all sorts of complicated things like the countries in question and whatnot.

it was a general question based off of recent events in my personal life, I'll keep it at that

Well, if your concern is the purity of the white race, then the same skin color is all you need.
Anyways, you're too young to be worrying about that.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I don't feel like being a virgin is something you pin your greatness on. Besides, she's not Mary so you're automatically wrong if you're a Christian.

I didn't say she was great because she was a maiden, I said she was the greatest maiden, for her role in the Hundred Years War.

Pretty sure she was actually a pleasure woman.

fite me Frenchies

Cyrus was a greater king than William (So was Victoria if you count queens, which you should), and Genghis Khan was a greater Emperor than Napoleonhonhon (So was Victoria if you count empresses of India, which you should).

Wouldn't Cyrus be an emperor rather than a king? [/url]
According to Wikipedia

His regal titles in full were The Great King, King of Persia, King of Anshan, King of Media, King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad, and King of the Four Corners of the World.

Also called King of King's.

And William's actions played a profound role in shaping Britain which eventually resulted in one of history's greatest colonial empires. Victoria was just a little glass ceremonial doll who did nothing to earn her position, she was a powerless figurehead.

William was also a Norman, who owed their existence to the Vikings, so I could say Cnut was a greater king. I could say some bloke from the Greek Era was a greater king for his influence on the world thousands of years later. He also wasn't the king of the greatest Empire on Earth. Never mind Victoria was a figurehead, she was still queen, goddammit!

[The V O I D]

The difference between me and other people is I tend to just shut off my emotions most of the time, and I keep empathy and sympathy shut off as well. I can control my emotions to such degree where they are rendered... irrelevant in the decision-making process.

I wasn't referring to emotional reasoning. I was referring to the fact that by in large human beings make judgements unconsciously by integrating information into an internalized worldview before logical reasoning has a chance to occur. The reasoning we present to ourselves afterwards is usually just rationalization.

That's not to say logical reasoning is impossible, or that we shouldn't try, but claiming to be an exclusively logical decision maker is either very uneducated or very arrogant.

What I am saying is I do not require emotion in my decision making. In fact, I tend to avoid emotional decisions. Emotion is chaotic. Messy. I don't like that; I like things to be orderly, nice, and neat. Thus, I eliminated emotion from the equation.

[Diopolis]

Logic and reason in a psychotically irrational species?

That is a good one.

I make all of my decisions and such based on logic and reasoning.

It's worked out so far.

Or so you claim.
Most people who claim to be supremely rational are just edgy.

[Diopolis]

I wasn't referring to emotional reasoning. I was referring to the fact that by in large human beings make judgements unconsciously by integrating information into an internalized worldview before logical reasoning has a chance to occur. The reasoning we present to ourselves afterwards is usually just rationalization.

That's not to say logical reasoning is impossible, or that we shouldn't try, but claiming to be an exclusively logical decision maker is either very uneducated or very arrogant.

What I am saying is I do not require emotion in my decision making. In fact, I tend to avoid emotional decisions. Emotion is chaotic. Messy. I don't like that; I like things to be orderly, nice, and neat. Thus, I eliminated emotion from the equation.

You're not a vulcan, and that doesn't necessarily make you any more logical anyways.

[The V O I D]

I make all of my decisions and such based on logic and reasoning.

It's worked out so far.

Or so you claim.
Most people who claim to be supremely rational are just edgy.

I am not claiming to be supremely rational. Sometimes, I do make an emotional decision. But it is rare. I try to keep emotions out of it; try to keep them under control and out of the way.

Emotions are far too chaotic and messy for my taste. I don't like them at all. If it were a choice, and I could survive the procedure, I'd have the part of my brain designed to process emotion(s) removed so that I wouldn't ever have to deal with them again.

[Zottistan]

I wasn't referring to emotional reasoning. I was referring to the fact that by in large human beings make judgements unconsciously by integrating information into an internalized worldview before logical reasoning has a chance to occur. The reasoning we present to ourselves afterwards is usually just rationalization.

That's not to say logical reasoning is impossible, or that we shouldn't try, but claiming to be an exclusively logical decision maker is either very uneducated or very arrogant.

What I am saying is I do not require emotion in my decision making. In fact, I tend to avoid emotional decisions. Emotion is chaotic. Messy. I don't like that; I like things to be orderly, nice, and neat. Thus, I eliminated emotion from the equation.

I don't think you read what I said.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

What I am saying is I do not require emotion in my decision making. In fact, I tend to avoid emotional decisions. Emotion is chaotic. Messy. I don't like that; I like things to be orderly, nice, and neat. Thus, I eliminated emotion from the equation.

You're not a vulcan, and that doesn't necessarily make you any more logical anyways.

You take your marching orders from an unprovable fantasy man. I wouldn't be attacking logic.

[The V O I D]

What I am saying is I do not require emotion in my decision making. In fact, I tend to avoid emotional decisions. Emotion is chaotic. Messy. I don't like that; I like things to be orderly, nice, and neat. Thus, I eliminated emotion from the equation.

You're not a vulcan, and that doesn't necessarily make you any more logical anyways.

Both true statements, I suppose. Doesn't mean I won't try to avoid emotion as much as possible and keep to my logical decision making I've been doing thus far.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I wasn't referring to emotional reasoning. I was referring to the fact that by in large human beings make judgements unconsciously by integrating information into an internalized worldview before logical reasoning has a chance to occur. The reasoning we present to ourselves afterwards is usually just rationalization.

That's not to say logical reasoning is impossible, or that we shouldn't try, but claiming to be an exclusively logical decision maker is either very uneducated or very arrogant.

What I am saying is I do not require emotion in my decision making. In fact, I tend to avoid emotional decisions. Emotion is chaotic. Messy. I don't like that; I like things to be orderly, nice, and neat. Thus, I eliminated emotion from the equation.

As we all know, VOID is a cold and calculating puppetmaster who doesn't let personal belief influence his personal belief.

[Dagashi]

The Japanese Emperor should be removed from office and made into a purely religious figure, perhaps similar to the pope (just without a city-state of his own) and Japan made into a republic. The institution has lost any value it once had, and considering it's previous head was an unpunished war criminal, I doubt that it has any moral leg to stand on. It's a shame that the Communist Party is so flimsy on this issue.

[The V O I D]

What I am saying is I do not require emotion in my decision making. In fact, I tend to avoid emotional decisions. Emotion is chaotic. Messy. I don't like that; I like things to be orderly, nice, and neat. Thus, I eliminated emotion from the equation.

As we all know, VOID is a cold and calculating puppetmaster who doesn't let personal belief influence his personal belief.

I am having trouble deciphering your meaning; do you mean to say personal belief is both emotional and logical, and that I block my emotional beliefs in favor of logical ones?