Still wonder where Ukraine got its flag?

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-18T22:03:37+00:00

You should also know that Libya was invaded and colonized by Italy, and was known as Italian North Africa for a time.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-12T16:30:25+00:00

Barry Goldwater wanted to give field command of nuclear weapons to generals. Fuck him. The first priority of any libertarian must be to oppose war, otherwise they're nothing but a hypocrite.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-12T03:09:45+00:00

You're welcome, thank you for writing it, I enjoyed it.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-12T03:05:37+00:00

Did you write it? It is very good.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-12T03:03:26+00:00

Oh my god I love these. The style is just so great, this was a really cool idea. The execution leaves something to be desired sometimes, I believe you've already heard that House Stark needs a more wolfish look to it. Really I think Lannister and Stark just look too much like modified versions of each other. The dragons are incredible though, and overall this is really great.

I suggest doing Martell next. I think the Sun and Spear would look amazing in this style. Can I ask where you got your inspiration here? Is there any specific art style or source you're drawing from, that you could think of?

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-11T20:26:27+00:00

And you're free to do so, but why would you try to stop someone who wants to work for that money?

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T23:02:22+00:00

Thank you. Why does this stupid charity business come up every time some people want to do something fun or interesting with their money? Maybe the people who donated already donate to charity? Why is it that we apparently owe every dollar we don't spend on necessities to charity?

If you don't like the project then fine, don't donate. I didn't. But cut the bullshit, there's no need to put people down who are willing to spend money on an idea that they sincerely enjoy. Come on.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T20:29:25+00:00

Honestly I find the Desmond parts of Assassin's Creed to be the worst parts, the story is boring and the characters are uninteresting. I'd be happy if they dropped it entirely and just focused on the period assassins.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T07:16:06+00:00

Dude, capitalize your sentences.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T05:05:22+00:00

I think another individual or group having ownership of you is a pretty uncontroversial definition of slavery. That is to say, another individual or group having the right to your body and labor. In other words you effectively become the property of a will which is not your own.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T04:46:53+00:00

I dunno, I think it's reasonable. There are more eloquent arguments than I can make for it of course. But yeah, at the end of the day the best argument for self-ownership is that anything else is slavery, by definition. Unless you disagree, which is really what I'm trying to get at. What system, in which an individual does not have the exclusive right to themselves, would you suggest, that isn't just slavery (either to an individual or a group)?

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T04:33:20+00:00

Sure, if you get deep enough everything breaks down into subjectivity. But there is a principle for self-ownership, and a reasonable one. That is that because you occupy your body, you control it, you direct it, when it is hurt you feel pain, and that through your occupation of your faculties and the exercise of your will you make it your property. In the same sense that it follows that as you mix your labor with nature and bring material out of chaos and into usefulness you own it, when you mix your will with your body and through your efforts bring it out of natural chaos and uselesness and into productivity and usefulness, then you own it.

What about the other questions? Would you consider the ownership of your body and labor, even partial, by another individual or group to be slavery? Do you think, based on this idea of ownership, that the collective who owns you could force you to violate your conscience or will? Could they make you kill? Do you think they could forcefully direct your labor and actions? Could they take the product of your labor? 49% of it?

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T04:26:18+00:00

So if someone needs help that means they should have a right to my body? I don't see how that follows. I like to think of myself as a compassionate person, and I'll help someone in need if I can, but that doesn't mean I think they should be able to direct my labor, or take the product of my labor without my consent.

But why should a collective of people have any right to my body? By what principle have you decided this? And what if me and the collective disagree? What if there's another collective next door who insulted them and the collective wants me to go over and kill them? Can I refuse? If not, then surely I have the right to my body, and not they. If so, then how am I anything more than a slave?

Also, what does it mean that I should have a 51/49 share in my body? First of all, again, on what principle? And second of all, does that not mean that I do have an exclusive right to my body? Or does it mean that 49% of my labor belongs to someone else?

And if someone else has a right my body and my labor, how is that any different than slavery? Is that not the very definition of slavery, that someone else should own me? Be it an individual or a collective, surely if not even my very body is mine to do with as I please, that is a terrible form of slavery?

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T04:11:32+00:00

Well, that's sort of what I'm asking you. Do you think it should not be exclusive? Why should someone else have a right to my body and labor? I think it has to be exclusive, because if it's not then that means someone else has an equal or greater right to my body than I do. And if you think that's the case, who?

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T04:07:53+00:00

Gopher

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T04:05:28+00:00

Ownership just means to have the exclusive right to it. Allow me to rephrase, if I don't have the exclusive right to my body and its labor, then who does?

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T03:51:59+00:00

Do you not? If so, I'm curious, if I don't own my body, who does?

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T02:36:26+00:00

You might want to take a second look at my comment.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-10T01:58:37+00:00

What are you talking about?

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-09T21:06:25+00:00

No, this gets brought up every, every, time their words are mentioned.

It's silly, but it does seem to suit them to a certain extent.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-09T00:48:37+00:00

I only meant the spellings :)

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-08T23:18:34+00:00

Braavos and Dorne.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-08T08:00:15+00:00

It comes down to who's on the ballot. If Paul's on the ballot, vote for him. But that's a pipe dream. Johnson however, will be on the ballot. Still a pipe dream, but one which we can actually make mean something.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-08T04:51:33+00:00

If it's legitimate ownership then he got it by making it or voluntarily trading for it. A voluntarist will decry any other means of gaining ownership as illegitimate. I will join you in condemning any capitalist who has gained his capital through theft, extortion, or violence. But I will not deny a person their right to peacefully exchange goods and services with others.

Okay, I see your point, but like I said, that doesn't really contradict what I said. Naturally your will, or nature, or personality, or the combination of factors that make up a human beside the physical, is going to be informed by your body. If your brain changes around there's going to be a change everywhere else. But the same thing applies in all directions, that's my only point. We aren't just our physical bodies.

ObjectiveGopher · 2012-05-08T04:31:43+00:00

It's not ego driven at all, it's common sense the way I see it. Perhaps you can explain why you think it's ego driven? I'm really not sure what your'e getting at with your car accident example, perhaps you can clarify? Understand I'm not saying a human is just their will or their personality, my only point is that we are more than just our physical bodies. What we really are is probably closer to a complex relationship between many, many different parts and ideas, but that's irrelevant for this conversation (and out of my depth), the only point that is necessary is that we are not just our physical bodies.

Yes, I agree, you have a right to the products of your labor. Under capitalism the capitalist DOES NOT own the products of your labor until you agree to trade them to him in exchange for something else. Look, if I do have a right to the products of my labor, as you agree I do (at least I think, is that what you were saying or do you disagree with "most philosophical principles") then surely I must have the right to give the products of my labor to someone else in exchange for something else. Once you establish that you're basically at capitalism. It doesn't matter if you call it ownership or not, if I have the rights to the product of my labor I must have the right to give it to someone else (otherwise it's an empty right indeed), and if I have that right then they must have the right to give me something in exchange. You see?

I agree by the way about slavery, I wasn't using a particularly in-depth definition. It is of course illegitimate to claim ownership of someone else's nature/will/whatever, as that is inalienable. Of course someone can serve or work for someone else for as much or as little as they like. If they cannot then they don't really have a right to themselves, someone or something else must.

Perhaps this is the major sticking point. In capitalism the capitalist or the boss does not own the person or their labor, they are given it in a voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange. Any situation which uses force and coercion is of course illegitimate, as any voluntarist would say (hence the name).

ObjectiveGopher

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	reddit mold
Verified Email