If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You mean there is a system? No one told me, so I just do what I usually do, which is make something up and run with it. If they had told me I would have made something up and just run with it, like I usually do. What's wrong with that?
Ahh. So sorry for not knowing how you like you arguments for and against morality to be staged. I'll try and book a mind reading class at some point. It really should have occured to you that in any debate with me you are debating with someone who shares *none* of your asumptions.
No worries. You assumed things and were wrong. Learn a lesson.
No I'm not. I didn't. Weren't you reading or something?
Ah well, this is where my unfortunate tendency tolive in the real world comes in. in the real world you can do anything. Morality is just how you feel about what happens. This being the case, can you make up moral rules that will be broken by reality - of course you can.
permissibility by who? Something can be always wrong and go unpunished. The morality of an action isn't in any way connected to your ability to do anything about it, if morality exists at all. it's more than possible to have a universal moral rule that no one follows, ask any christian or other reluigious type. There are plenty.
Not mine mate. I measure everything by external reality, you should have worked that out by now.
yeah, i do that.
And therein lies the problem.
Only if you make a whole raft of assumptions instead of dealing with what's in front of you.
Which is your problem, not mine.
And what assumptions are these?
You assumed I was doing this.
And this.
Annnnnnnnnnnnd this!
You reall do belive what you say. You complete change everyting around and its just not true.
Please quote where I called you and used the term"simple minded"
That is also the most ridculous argument I have heard. Countries exists leaglly on paper. Lgeal documents of existance, of laws orf systems, of rules and regulations of recorded history or border controls, of txation systems etc etc etc.
Your argmenments that you are using are pedantic, they really are.
You might aswell say nothing exists coz its non existance is a possibility because we are living in the matrix.
I used the borders to prove countries exists. You question asking why is a nonsense one.
No I didn't come out ith a lot of crap at all and once again you go down to insulting some1 and their argument. Its base.
You asked the ONE question of when killing is right and I gave you numerous examples and now your changing things round and shifting th e question and not sticking to the deal and once again you insult me and my opinion.
You are not as intellectual as you think you are kilintock, in fact you come accross as arrogant.
I am sure there are plenty of peopel out there both intllectual and not who would not agree with you.
I don't believe it. It just happens to be truth. I don't believe I am sat at my PC right now either. It's just a fact.
"What a simplistic, child like view". Ok I am not word for word. I have a poor memory for insults, what can I say?
Which one?
The factual differences between a "legal" document and anything else written on paper please.
Someone has written down their opinion on a piece of paper. So what? I can write that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Does that make it true?
What's the difference in factual, material reality between a "legal" document and any other written piece of paper? Is it a colour, it's weight? Does the paper make mooing noises as you fold it? What is the factual, measurable difference?
Noooo.......your the one who can see things that aren't there mate.
Some factual, material, real world evidence for the existence of those borders would be great. Answers to my other questions would also be magic.
Only you never did. I rejected your example and gave you reasons why. You never addressed those reasons. Which is kinda the next stage in a debate.
I ain't intellectual in the slightest. Anything but in fact. I am very, very simple. If someone tells me something exists I go check with my senses and if I find nothing conclude they are mad.
Tell me God exists...I want proof. If there is none, you are wrong and insane. Tell me a country exists I want proof. If there is none, you are wrong and insane.
Do I?
I don't think so...
Nope.
Nope.
Course they aren't taxes upon me, they are taxes upon the salesmen. You really believe that shit they shovel, don'tcha? I can't avoid taxes upon other people, which is why they are there.
Nope.
You've kindof lost me. What's your point?
as his basis for argument that countries exist, but yet vociferously denies both the existence of international law (especially as it details the characteristics and conditions of War Crimes and crimes against humanity) and its applicable consequences against those clearly in breach of such precepts, despite the empirical existence of:
Seems cognitive consistency isn't WD's strong point.
Have you had a blow on the head since two posts back and lost your memory? My point is that you have to pay your taxes and carry a passport to go abroad exactly like everybody else, so moaning non-stop about how countries don't really exist and can't be proven just makes you look daft.
The fact that lunatic cult members use violence to make everyone else comply with their delusions does not make those delusions real.
Or did the spanish inquisition pop god into existence?
Hardly.
Countires, laws extist etc, borders exixts.
Buy you can't claim something is a War Crime or a Crime Againstr humanity if it isn't.
International Law is questionable but bears no relation to this argument.
Ok ok. Fair enough.
So, we are saying that I am right or are we saying I am wrong?
If I am right (and I am) we are more or less ruled by a fundamentalist cult that takes your children at gunpoint and submits them to 14 years of indoctrination, whcih steals from every man woman and child within it's sphere of influence, has killed nearly a half a billion people in the last century alone, demands your total obedience and is run by the insane and the evil.
Not only that but it has been so successful that most people aren't even aware that they have been dominated by ideas, so imprisoned by ideas they think are "facts" that their ability to think has more or less totally gone.
How exactly would you like me to "deal with it?"?
Either laws, accords and agreements exist, or they don't.
There is such thing as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The US in particular is guilty of the former. Deal with it.
Except there isn't. Some taxman would come knocking at my door, demanding my time and energy to serve his deranged ideas of nation and country.
So am I wrong or am I correct?
Also, it's not a question of escaping "country" or "government" it's a question of minimising contact with those parasites that believe in it. Why? Because empty concepts don't exist in the first place.
Forgive my wording of this and this statment but you must be retarded.
I take it back, sorry.
You are deliberately twsiting my words or really are sooooooo dense that you cannot understand a simple argument.
I KNOW LAWS , COUNTRIES AND AGREEMENTS EXIST, I NEVER SAID THEY DIN'T UNLIKE KLINTOCK.
International law may not exist but only forms as part of treaty law which isn't the same as international law.
Human rights laws do exist, war crimes laws do exist but has America broken them????? No!!!!!!!!!
Deal with it.
You're right in that countries and governments are artifical , intangible things created by humanity - but a three-year-old could figure that out, you’re not exactly breaking fresh and exciting new ground with your beliefs, you’re just reinventing the wheel.
Spending a lot of time on the internet in a forum about politics where people debate the actions of countries and governments is your idea of ‘minimising contact’?
To be fair to Walkin, all he is doing is what those who run these cults do - changing the goalposts, changing the rules, to suit whatever it is they wish to endorse this week.
Let's put it more mildly. I will now say that I don't know either way, and if there is any evidence for your assertions I will happily change my mind.
Best of luck.
http://www.genevaconventions.org
There is nothing vague about the Nuremberg Principles' clearly stipulated conditions for "War Crimes", "Crimes against the peace", et al. Neither is there is there any vagueness in the Vienna Conventions stipulations on the limitations of internal political manipulation of an occupied country by the occupier. Again there is nothing vague about the Geneva Convention, Hague Convention of 1908, etc.
A government which has repeatedly declared itself above the obligations to which it demands other nations comply, whilst arrogantly proclaiming itself the arbiter of global justice, is a dangerous menace no less so than if it had been one of a number of oft-villified nations which had invaded and occupied the country.
Oh ok. interesting view. Sooooo you would agree with me that taxation is theft, soldiers are murderers, those who believe in such things to the exclusion of reality are insane and that the whole thing is merely the violent domination of one set of epople by another, is utterly evil and should go?
You also accept that all laws are optional, you have no rights or entitlements, you cannot trust any authority figure (because the more power you have the more lies you must believe in or at least use) and that you have no nation, no identity in that sphere?
No more cheering footballers when "england" go play, no more last night of the proms, no more of whatever emotional hook they got you to play along with?
Great. Welcome aboard.
Oh dear. This is about the discussion of ideas. Minimising contact with the active agents of the state (police, taxmen etc) is an entirely different matter.
Those are empty concepts, btw. Governments don't kill people, rappers do...on hang on...individuals do. There is no army. There is no navy. There are people who excuse their murders and thefts through such labels, but they are insane and should be treated as such.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or something?
If Human right and war crime laws exist, then how on earth hasn't America broken them?
Are you aware of a certain 'holiday' camp called Guantanamo Bay?
Are you aware of a certain penitentiary establishment called Abu Ghraib?
Are you aware of illegal kidnapping of fighters and subsequent illegal imprisonment and torture by the US intelligent services?
Are you aware of the right to a fair trial?
Are you aware of summary executions of innocent men, women and children in revenge, frenzied attacks (as documented ad nauseam in the press)?
Are you aware of what the Geneva Convention says about POWs?
Seriously... is there something wrong with you?
I'm not patriotic and never have been, nor do I have any trust in or respect for authority - I'm happy to accept having some kind of government as a necessary evil though, without one people would be getting fucked over by capitalist scum even more then they are already.
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm
Time to put away your preferred illusions and happy notions of magnanimous intentions in Washington's use of military force against other nations and face the dirty truth of the criminality of unilateralist aggression as it has been used for decades to advance US foreign policy objectives.