Advertisement
by Unibot III » Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:18 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Kitzerland » Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:20 pm
Unibot III wrote:Perhaps the rule should be that the GA can't ban what is impossible to ban: beliefs, for example.
by Unibot III » Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:25 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:33 pm
Unibot III wrote:Kitzerland wrote:The GA can't ban what the GA can't ban? I like it.
Well, it's just, it's clear we can ban almost everything involved with Christianity or Socialism or Market Liberalism, we can prevent you comprehensively from practicing these ways of life, but we can't prevent you from thinking about them - that's one limitation that is obvious.
The other intuitive notion that the ideological ban rule is covering is that you can't ban something that is ill-defined!
Authors need to define what it is they are banning before they ban it and it must be physically possible to ban. These two conditions would bar "ban Christianity!" or "ban Socialism!" but would do it in a way that is more consistent than an "ideological ban rule" (because what is and isn't an ideology or a ban is nebulous.)
by Unibot III » Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:44 pm
1. Defines socialism as the state redistribution of wealth - through any direct or indirect form of transfer, tax rebate or social assistance - from those living above the median income to those living below the median income.
2. Bans socialism as a practice.
1. Defines socialism as the belief that the state should redistribute wealth to the poorest.
2. Bans socialism as a practice.
1. Bans socialism as a practice.
1. Defines socialism as the indecent combination of hippie shirts, cheap drugs and the esoteric teachings of weird bearded men.
2. Bans socialism as a practice.
1. Defines socialism as the indecent combination of hippie shirts, cheap drugs and the esoteric teachings of weird bearded men.
2. Tasks the WA Committee of Un-Capitalist Activities with the duty of identifying socialism, its practitioners and their activities.
3. Bans socialism as a practice.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:03 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:You can't ban what goes on between your ears. I mean, you can try, but its as enforceable as me telling you "Don't see the color blue." One can, theoretically, practice a religion between one's ears without ever wearing a cross, being baptized, or preaching salvation. The difference is one of thought and expression, and it's a very important distinction to my mind.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:13 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:You can't ban what goes on between your ears. I mean, you can try, but its as enforceable as me telling you "Don't see the color blue." One can, theoretically, practice a religion between one's ears without ever wearing a cross, being baptized, or preaching salvation. The difference is one of thought and expression, and it's a very important distinction to my mind.
I don't think there is as bug a divide between thought and practice as you would like. Say a person claimed to hold the belief "murder is wrong, and I don't like it" but chose to murder someone every day. Can you really say that believe murder to be a bad thing? Can you really say that they believe that they should not murder?
Now take it in the context of a religious belief. A person believes that they must do X as required by the all powerful spirit being that determines what happens to them in the afterlife. They also believe that they want a good outcome in the afterlife, and unless they do X as required, that will not happen. If the person merely thinks about doing X, but never actually does X, can you really say that they believed they were required to do X? Did they really believe that they needed to do X to end up well off in the afterlife?
I would argue that you cannot truly believe you need to do something and not do it. Either you don't really believe you need to do it, or you do believe you need to do it and make the choice to do so.
So, therefore, when a religion like Christianity asks of its adherents certain actions (like spreading the gospel), how can an individual hold those beliefs without breaking the law?
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:23 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:The obvious IRL historical parallel here is the Mormons. A ban on polygamy is not a ban on the religion itself. You can still believe that certain harmful practices are virtuous; you're just not allowed to actually do them. The religion itself is not banned, just the harmful practices some of its members happen to carry out.
Separatist Peoples wrote:...Plenty of socialists on this site own personal property in the form ofcomputers and currencyreal estate and market investments despite their collectivist beliefs. That doesn't make them not Christians, vegans, or socialists. It makes them, at worst, bad Christians, vegans, and socialists, and far more likely just adherents who need to do some atoning of some sort.
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:37 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:That's still a distinction between belief and action, and an important one. One can believe in the tenets of a religion and ascribe to their moral teachings without acting out the physical requirements. That isn't to say that their god would be happy, but that definitively isn't our concern.
Christianity makes an excellent example here, and if you'll forgive me for using a more generalized point that has probably been dispensed with in some sects, everybody will be happier. IIRC, the old testament bans the wearing of blended fibers and the eating of shellfish. Plenty of Christians violate that and are still Christians.
One can believe veganism and nonviolence are the only moral philosophy to live by, and still ingest meat by accident or defend themselves in an emergency.
Hell, the First Commandment is Thou Shalt Not Kill, yet there are plenty of Catholic soldiers.
Plenty of socialists on this site own personal property in the form of computers and currency despite their collectivist beliefs.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:49 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:That's still a distinction between belief and action, and an important one. One can believe in the tenets of a religion and ascribe to their moral teachings without acting out the physical requirements. That isn't to say that their god would be happy, but that definitively isn't our concern.
But that isn't belief in the tenets of that religion. You can't believe you support women's suffrage and actively campaign against women's suffrage. You can't uphold Jim Crow and believe that you are a civil rights activist with the best interests of African Americans at heart. You can't believe that you are complying with World Assembly resolutions in good faith and blatantly violate them.
That's because those Christians do not believe that they need to do that. I challenge you to find a Christian who honestly, truly believes that God has commanded them not to eat shellfish, and who still eats shellfish all the time.
Those are accidents and emergencies, not a continuous lifestyle. If a person claimed to be vegan but chose to eat nothing but meat and animal products, would you say that they really believed in veganism?
Hell, the First Commandment is Thou Shalt Not Kill, yet there are plenty of Catholic soldiers.
Thou Shalt Not Murder, not kill (Young's Literal Translation, considered one of the most faithful translations from the original text, reads "Thou dost not murder"). As a law student, you should know the difference between murder and killing. It would be kinda silly if God told the Israelites not to kill anyone and then immediately followed it up with commands to execute people for various offenses, would it not?
They either don't believe that owning those things is wrong, or don't believe that they own those things. If they really believed that it was wrong for them to own a personal computer they wouldn't own one. Ask a socialist on this site if they really believe that they are doing something wrong by owning a computer. Ask them if they should not own the computer.
by Tinfect » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:00 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:They either don't believe that owning those things is wrong, or don't believe that they own those things. If they really believed that it was wrong for them to own a personal computer they wouldn't own one. Ask a socialist on this site if they really believe that they are doing something wrong by owning a computer. Ask them if they should not own the computer.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:25 pm
Tinfect wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:They either don't believe that owning those things is wrong, or don't believe that they own those things. If they really believed that it was wrong for them to own a personal computer they wouldn't own one. Ask a socialist on this site if they really believe that they are doing something wrong by owning a computer. Ask them if they should not own the computer.
I'll spare you the effort to put an end to this absurdity; I have explicitly stated in the past that a distinction is made between personal and private property, and that the former is entirely acceptable under Socialism.
Separatist Peoples wrote:You can, however, believe something and still work against it for practical reasons. Anecdotally, I've reported people for crimes I believe are unjust because they are nonetheless crimes.
One can work against women's sufferage or enforce Jim Crow laws if it's that or something worse happens, like losing your job, being jailed (during the US women's suffrage movement, WW1 broke out, and many protestors were jailed for various seditious claims), or being attacked as a political enemy (which, for Jim Crow laws, was a genuine risk for white opponents of the laws in the South).
Gotchya on that one, actually. I have a friend in school who is an honest to god Yankee adherent to the Pentecostal church and follows the old testament laws (though, I always thought that Pentecostals didn't have to). He wears a blended fiber suit because he can't afford a pure wool one, and it's that or starve. He believes that his god will forgive him, knows he's breaking a rule, but believes it is necessary to better serve his god.
Now take it in the context of a religious belief. A person believes that they must do X as required by the all powerful spirit being that determines what happens to them in the afterlife. They also believe that they want a good outcome in the afterlife, and unless they do X as required, that will not happen. If the person merely thinks about doing X, but never actually does can you really say that they believed they were required to do X? Did they really believe that they needed to do X to end up well off in the afterlife?
Its still an example of a breach of action and not belief. Honestly, who am I to say what they really believe? I'm not between their ears.
I'm aware of the distinction. Nonetheless, not everybody follows the literal translation.
That's still a disparity between belief and action. Actions can, and often are, contrary to beliefs, and it's damn hard to say "then you don't really believe that" successfully, because you really can't say that they don't believe something. Its inherently subjective, especially when cognitive dissidence is in play out of necessity. For example, the various christian sects in China that live in strict oppression.
You can restrict actions, but until mind control is a genuine thing, you can't control beliefs. Merely expressions of the belief (action). There's a pretty serious difference between the two.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:35 pm
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:01 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:None of this breaks down the difference between a belief, an internal mental process, and an action, an external manifestation.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:33 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:None of this breaks down the difference between a belief, an internal mental process, and an action, an external manifestation.
Alright. Let me rephrase:
1) Actions can be banned.
2) All human actions are carried out by voluntary or involuntary mental processes.
3) These mental processes are thoughts.
4) These thought processes necessarily result in the banned action taking place.
Therefore
5) An individual may not have certain thought processes without violating the law.
Therefore
6) Banning of actions bans certain thoughts.
Therefore
7) Thoughts can be banned.
8 ) Beliefs are thoughts.
So if
7) Thoughts can be banned.
Then
9) Beliefs can be banned.
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:11 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Your premises 4-7 don't follow from their antecedents and therefore don't support 8 & 9.
I can think about murdering someone without actually doing it. Laws against murder do not affect my internal thought processes except insofar as I use them as one of several reasons not to commit murder.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:55 am
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:36 pm
by Araraukar » Thu Mar 02, 2017 3:57 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Tinfect wrote:I'll spare you the effort to put an end to this absurdity; I have explicitly stated in the past that a distinction is made between personal and private property, and that the former is entirely acceptable under Socialism.
Thank you Tinfect. See, Tinfect doesn't believe that owning a computer is wrong, exactly as I predicted.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Tinfect » Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:42 pm
Araraukar wrote:I'm not entirely sure if you understand the difference between socialism and communism? I emphasized the keyword in Tinfect's answer. Socialism =/= communism, just like socialism =/= capitalism.
Araraukar wrote:As for your question in the other thread about things banning anarchism, I'm going to leave that to be answered by someone who knows a lot about anarchism.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:09 pm
Tinfect wrote:Anarchism is divided on a yet larger number of arbitrary ideological lines than Socialism, to the point that many varieties have goals so wildly different from other anarchist groups that it would be effectively impossible to create a non-sectarian movement. Such as; Anarcho-Communism, AKA Communists with no real plan for what to do after smashing the state. Anarcho-Primitivism, AKA people who literally want to abolish any and all forms of civilization, up to and including language, as they believe it to be a form of socialized oppression, and the only group of Anarchists hated by damn near all the others universally. Anarcho-Capitalism, AKA Anarchists who disregard all forms of traditional Anarchist thought in an attempt to return to a semi-feudalistic society, and the other only group of anarchists hated near universally.
by Tinfect » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:30 pm
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:00 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Your "if" doesn't hold up there. You're less talking about banning thoughts, then, than you are about banning certain sequences of motor neuron firings.
In which case what on earth does it matter? What is banned isn't the thought or contemplation of an action, it's the action itself.
Nobody cares about what your nerves are doing when you swing the knife around, they're concerned with the knife!
Now, it does matter that you think you're killing someone. If you're in The Matrix, know it, and "kill" an empty subroutine/avatar (not a real person, basically), there's no reason to prosecute even though your motor neurons were doing exactly the same thing as when you kill someone in the real world! So sure, certain states of mind matter, but only in the context of physical actions.
The difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter is in your mental state, basically. But again, what's being banned isn't your state of mind per se, it's the actions you carry out while in that mind state.
All of this by way of saying, this entire line of discussion is a huge digression. Nobody is talking about banning thoughts, only actions. The two are not synonymous; and in the places where you can make a neurologically sophisticated argument that they are, it doesn't have any legal effect because what the law means by banning an action is different from what it could possibly mean by banning a thought.
Araraukar wrote:I'm not entirely sure if you understand the difference between socialism and communism? I emphasized the keyword in Tinfect's answer. Socialism =/= communism, just like socialism =/= capitalism.
Separatist Peoples wrote:It is impossible to ban neurons from firing, and so it's a moot point.
You can ban the action, but you sure can't ban the thought.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Tinfect » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:32 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:Why are you talking about Communism? Nobody mentioned Communism. We were talking about Socialists.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Araraukar » Fri Mar 03, 2017 5:00 am
Tinfect wrote:OOC: Please do not use my statement as an attempt to misdirect and mislead. The distinction between Communists and Socialists is often one of simple semantics; within Socialist/Communist groups, 'Communist' often refers to Anarcho-Communists*, whereas 'Socialist' refers to people preferring Vanguardist ideologies or systems of thought.
Tinfect wrote:In terms of practical application, however, it is both accurate and acceptable to describe a Communist or Socialist as either, with few exceptions, notably that Democratic Socialists, originating more closely to Social Democracy, often eschew the term Communist.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement