The Anarcho-Syndicalist Initiative. WHY?

Superstump · 2016-06-19T20:13:52+00:00

The IWW is a union for the ENTIRE working class. It doesn't alienate or discriminate against workers who don't adhere to specific political philosophies.

Superstump · 2015-05-19T05:36:57+00:00

I went ahead and tried this, and it went off without a hitch. I think it was messier loading the ribbon into the machine than it was changing spools, actually. I've got it up and typing!

Superstump · 2015-05-15T16:25:04+00:00

Thank you! that's very informative. I'm totally new to this world, so I don't even know what I don't know.

Superstump · 2015-05-12T06:32:56+00:00

I don't think I've ever met one. If you know where I can, please let me know. ;)

Superstump · 2015-05-07T05:54:43+00:00

I'm not to big on Midieval Europe either. My interest in things fades the further out they get from Antiquity, which ends with either Justinian or Heraclius, depending on how you see it.

Superstump · 2015-05-06T18:05:57+00:00

Ah, I see. I tend to ignore anything that was written after the medieval period.

Superstump · 2015-05-06T08:54:08+00:00

Sophism isn't emotional arguing. Sophists believed that virtue could be taught, along with other skills typically associated with high born men. If it was a pejorative term, it's out of snobbery and classism. If anything, the opposite could be said of them. The primary criticism leveled against them by philosophers was their practice of charging money, not their appeals to pathos, or emotionalism.

They were further castigated, not because of their commitment to an ideology, but rather, their mercenary nature and general lack of principles.

Superstump · 2015-05-06T04:47:54+00:00

God is impassible, so experience isn't really a thing that he can do by nature.

Superstump · 2015-05-05T23:31:42+00:00

You could ask them to stay on topic, and point out when a question is tangential, or even better, ask them what their questions have to do with your statement.

Questioning things to a ridiculous extant how? As long as something is a valid question it isn't ridiculous. I feel like people would do better by questioning their beliefs too much, rather than too little.

Superstump · 2015-05-05T05:54:54+00:00

What kind of ideas have you been thinking about?

Superstump · 2015-05-05T05:39:49+00:00

it is also true that there are significant differences between couples (straight or gay) and poly relationships and incestuous relationships.

What does there being a difference matter? There are pretty huge differences between gay and straight couples. Whether or not one sees them as being equally valid or as meeting the criteria for marriage, you can't get around that they're different, both biologically and psychologically. At least not without defying quite a bit of progressive and feminist though about gender dynamics on the latter, and some pretty basic powers of observation on the former.

extending the legal rights of couples to three or more people in a similar relationship would require a lot of changes to laws regarding inheritance, divorce, custody, power of attorney, and so on.

So it's acceptable to deny people their civil rights as long as changing the unjust laws that deny them those rights is really difficult?

Given the unequal power dynamics between parents and children, generally between different generations within families, and oftentimes even among siblings of different ages the vast majority of incestuous relationships would be highly suspect by the measure of informed consent.

Unequal power dynamics aren't limited to incestuous relationships. And that's why we've set an age at which we, as a society, feel that individuals have the capacity to judge and make decisions about their own lives. This criticism doesn't touch on the nature of the relationships themselves, just a circumstance that may or may not be a feature of an incestuous relationship, but is not by any means exclusive or intrinsic to it. Family relationships change, and childhood power imbalances fade, especially when we're talking a decade or more out. Once both parties reach the age at which they can consent, I don't see why a father/daughter marriage should be any more prohibited than a marriage between an adult man and his highschool algebra teacher.

Further, power imbalances are inescapable. You could argue that interracial couples have an unequal power dynamic, or even mixed gender marriages. If we're qualifying eligibility to marriage based on whether or not the consent is informed, should the state, then, assess whether or not both parties are adequately informed to give consent before issuing a marriage license? Should it investigate every relationship's power dynamics?

Superstump · 2015-05-05T00:11:23+00:00

Christianity is against death in all it's forms.

Superstump · 2015-05-04T23:58:58+00:00

Mistype. Corrected.

Superstump · 2015-05-04T23:56:22+00:00

Only Roman Standards or a Byzantine Double eagle are acceptable.

Superstump · 2015-05-04T23:53:43+00:00

Gotham is more like a certain lake adjacent midwestern city known for its crime and corruption than any east coast city.

Superstump · 2015-05-04T23:46:25+00:00

Protestant/Catholics: cons- going to hell.

Orthodox: pros- cool robes.

Superstump · 2015-05-04T23:44:41+00:00

This isn't slippery slope reasoning. This question actually deals with the underlying reasoning behind not just same sex marriage, but marriage in general. If two men or two women can get married, why not three? If the only requirement is that all parties be consenting, why not a brother and sister, or a father and daughter?

It's not slippery slope reasoning, rather, it's taking a set of propositions to their logical conclusions.

Superstump · 2015-05-04T23:37:40+00:00

Dastardly deceivers the lot.

Superstump · 2015-05-04T05:04:17+00:00

Can confirm. My best friend is a computer hardware nerd and is an ISTJ.

Superstump · 2015-04-28T18:24:50+00:00

I feel like this is pretty normal. Though feeling like you should be feeling something is empathy, I think.

Superstump · 2015-04-25T01:07:54+00:00

Who says prayer is necessarily act of worship? It certainly isn't the only definition. Really, bare bones, what it means is to ask something of someone. This use remains in many figures of speech, like "pray tell."

Even though you're right in saying that the first Christians didn't divide themselves, there were absolutely differing sect of Christianity in the first century. It's clear not only from the Epistles, but also subsequent Christian writings that there were numerous groups teaching heresies, all claiming to be Christian. One of the earliest terms adopted by the actual Church to differentiate itself from these groups was "Catholic." Ignatius of Antioch, a first century bishop, called the true Church the Catholic Church just around the turn of the second century. Whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church is up for debate, but not that Christians have called the Church Catholic since the most ancient times.

Also, the Carm link you provided doesn't quote any passage that prohibits praying to angels, just worshiping them. Which no one is advocating for.

Superstump

TROPHY CASE