|
Post by Anti Pharisaism on Jun 30, 2004 11:37:28 GMT -5
The Holy Empire of Anti Pharisaism is an Empire against hypocritical, self-righteous, or obsessive behavior.
The Empire deplores those who state principles, and then act against them, citing the actions of others as justification (doublethink). Such people derive strength from their ignorance, and treat stupidity as though it were a virtue.
The Empire abhors the tenants of socialism and communism. Humans do not act, look, or think exactly the same. People are neither created, nor deserve to be treated equally.
Humans are now to be considered a biological force of nature, those incapable of adaptation to this shall perish. Human interrelationships with the environment are capitalistic in nature, and thus are explained best in economic terms. Economics is the new Ecology.
War is a condition of our species. It is not only inevitable it is necessary. Predators are the catalyst for evolution and survival. Humans have no natural predators; therefore predation among ourselves is the only substitute. War provides a forum for competition, and human advancement. War ensures Survival of the Fittest.
In the absence of a God, humans have no fundamental rights. A person only has those rights that are granted by its system of government. Thus humans are slaves to a social construct. Freedom is the device of social constructs. Freedom is Slavery.
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 2, 2004 12:05:07 GMT -5
Ummm.... was this anything beyond a rant? I notice no one's responded, so I thought I might ask. Any point, lol?
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Jul 2, 2004 19:02:08 GMT -5
Actually he posted this tirade in two places.
|
|
|
Post by Doppelganger on Jul 2, 2004 21:34:55 GMT -5
I have to say it is an interesting rant though.....
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 3, 2004 1:23:24 GMT -5
Oh, well... good job Ap? Thought provoking, if not well presented
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 3, 2004 3:39:27 GMT -5
Several key words and references point to a 1984 inspired train of thought. I just hope he doesn't want me to support an Anti Sex league.
|
|
|
Post by Anti Pharisaism on Jul 6, 2004 8:28:21 GMT -5
Thank you.
Good analysis: the Empire has been accurately described as a cross between George Orwell and Ayn Rand.
AP does not support an Anti Sex League. In fact AP does not support any type of red sash-whether it be worn by clergy or waved by tyrannical dictators. Similar posts will follow. Some aimed at debating issues, others to enrage the readers (without the use of profane language and blatant name-calling), thus stimulating debate.
Good day,
Anti Pharisaism
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 6, 2004 8:38:50 GMT -5
Sounds like fun, lol
|
|
|
Post by InterstellarPlanet on Jul 6, 2004 9:04:25 GMT -5
The Federation representative would just like to say that although an interesting rant, we profoundly disagree with pretty much all of it ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Anti Pharisaism on Jul 6, 2004 9:49:14 GMT -5
The Federation representative would just like to say that although an interesting rant, we profoundly disagree with pretty much all of it ;D. State your reasons for disagreement (Justify why AP may be wrong). AP cares not for random opinions, but rather why people have them, and what information they are based upon. (See NP thread on Death Penalty Ban to learn how AP evaluates opinions. s2.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=1629)
|
|
|
Post by InterstellarPlanet on Jul 6, 2004 9:59:07 GMT -5
I also believe there is neither an effective method nor a justification for trying to disprove an opinion in a matter such as this. I wouldn't want you telling me why my opinions are wrong any more than you would want me telling you why yours are wrong. At least, that is my opinion ;D. So you will know only that I disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Anti Pharisaism on Jul 6, 2004 10:05:39 GMT -5
I do want that. ;D
Otherwise, what is the point in stating my ideology?
A thought: If you have no reason for your beliefs, then you have no reason to believe in anything....
|
|
|
Post by Anti Pharisaism on Jul 6, 2004 10:09:37 GMT -5
I also believe there is neither an effective method nor a justification for trying to disprove an opinion in a matter such as this. I wouldn't want you telling me why my opinions are wrong any more than you would want me telling you why yours are wrong. At least, that is my opinion ;D. So you will know only that I disagree. Effective method: Develop a valid and sound argument for your belief. Justification: There are many. Otherwise you never would have responded. Take Care, AP
|
|
|
Post by InterstellarPlanet on Jul 6, 2004 10:42:02 GMT -5
In matters such as this, opinion is all. Neither my arguments nor yours are based on facts, just opinions. And so, any valid and sound argument on my behalf could be completely irrelevant to someone who does not share my opinion, someone such as yourself, and so their sound and valid argument would prevail. And by justification, I mean I do not believe it right to question the validity of fellow beings' opinions in matters such as this.
But as you insist, for what it's worth, before I go off into RL, I will very briefly summarise my own opinions on the subjects you raised:
Agreed.
Semi-agreed, if you're only referring to the economic aspects of said ideologies. Still, as an inalienable human right people with no money should not be left to die out on the streets, they should be given the bare essentials, though nothing like the kind of welfare given by nation states such as Great Britain. Everyone has potential if they have opportunity, and some people need doors opening for them. No more, however. Nothing like equal wages, excessive taxes on the rich, or anything else that is typically associated with socialism. The Federation is a capitalist culture. Though, I don't think that's what you were dealing with, but rather the more 'extreme' ideas of communism.
War is the practice of barbarians who lack sufficient intelligence to negotiate over their problems - we should be striving to improve ourselves despite the nature we began with. For example, do you act on every instinct you feel? No. So, if we can control any instincts at all, we can also control the instinctive desire a select few of us have to kill one another. 'There is no such thing as an inevitable war. If war comes it will be from failure of human wisdom'. A favourite quote of mine from Mr. Law. I personally have never been forced into conflict over any issue regardless of how urgent it is or how aggressive my opponent is. And I have always seen ways of avoiding large scale wars; however their flaws usually require intelligence and open-mindedness on the behalf of the politicians involved. Meaningless human deaths - and that's what they are, meaningless, in all cases - are wrong so far as I'm concerned. I sincerely hope I don't need to explain the value of human life to you as well as my opinions.
You're absolutely right. So far as nature is concerned, no life form has any preordaned rights. It is our job, however, as a continuation of the self-improvement I mentioned above, to ensure that no humans suffer. In a society with no inalienable human rights, those in a position of luxury and power have the advantage of not understanding the suffering of those 'below' them. The point of human rights is, how would those in elite positions like it if the tables were turned, and they were the ones suffering a lack of rights? There has to be a system in place to prevent anybody having to find out. I would hope that said rights do not depend wholly on the whim of individual governmental systems, and that they would be recognised and enforced by all governments, militaries and individuals everywhere. Theoretically, any democratic government cannot remove these rights. Militaries would certainly not support it as they too are used to the rights they and their families enjoy. The government would be almost immediately overthrown if the basic, inalienable human rights were revoked by them, or even a few of the not-so-basic luxury rights were. So, we are not a slave to them, moreover, they are a slave to us. Dictatorships are another matter, and as I don't agree with such a form of government anyway it is a moot point.
|
|
|
Post by Anti Pharisaism on Jul 6, 2004 15:06:21 GMT -5
A brief response to InterstellarPlanet
“And so, any valid and sound argument on my behalf could be completely irrelevant to someone who does not share my opinion, someone such as yourself, and so their sound and valid argument would prevail.”
We suggest you go to school good friend, and take some basic critical thinking courses.
A basic introduction:
AP agrees that opinions are not facts. However, they should have an intimate relationship with each other. An opinion not based on evidence of fact, or not supported by a valid and sound argument, is just rhetorical ranting and is not worth our time.
Today’s vocabulary word: (From Webster’s Dictionary) Valid: the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
Sound: All the premises are true
Any Valid and Sound argument would be a consistent argument founded on truth. Perhaps the truth may be irrelevant to you, but in the rare occurrence that you come up with a valid and sound argument it would not be irrelevant to AP.
It is very unlikely to have two competing valid and sound arguments on the topics presented.
End Lecture. Begin Discussion:
“Still, as an inalienable human right people with no money should not be left to die out on the streets, they should be given the bare essentials, though nothing like the kind of welfare given by nation states such as Great Britain.”
What are you talking about here my friend? Are you trying to say that humans have some inalienable right to some standard of living?
To quote your later statement:
“You're absolutely right. So far as nature is concerned, no life form has any preordaned rights.”
We agree with your later statement: please be consistent with your beliefs.
“War is the practice of barbarians who lack sufficient intelligence to negotiate over their problems - we should be striving to improve ourselves despite the nature we began with.”
This is loserspeak: what the conquered tell themselves.
“I have always seen ways of avoiding large scale wars; however their flaws usually require intelligence and open-mindedness on the behalf of the politicians involved.”
Where would the world be if America sat idle during WWII? Are you a Nazi, despite your capitalist claims? If not you can’t make that statement. What was the diplomatic solution for Poland and France, for China (Manchuria)?
Human beings are barbarians, with the capacity for diplomatic solutions. Often, however, diplomacy cannot always achieve victory.
“War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin.” A favorite quote of mine from Mr. Sun Tzu.
“In a society with no inalienable human rights, those in a position of luxury and power have the advantage of not understanding the suffering of those 'below' them.”
Please explain such value statements. AP does not need to become stupid to understand stupid. AP does not need to become a kleptocracy to understand how they work.
What are the inalienable human rights of which you speak?
With respect to your rebuttal to our Freedom is Slavery argument. Please rewrite your idea. Such poor clarification, grammar, and lack of evidence may be in violation of the civil code.
|
|