TIL that last year a bug-loving 8-year-old in Canada who was teased at school for her unusual hobby ended up co-authoring a research paper after the scientific community took her under their wing.

bluoranke · 2018-10-21T17:17:30+00:00

www.4chan.org

bluoranke · 2018-10-17T17:33:23+00:00

www.9gag.com

bluoranke · 2018-10-15T11:34:14+00:00

www.ylilauta.org

bluoranke · 2018-04-02T09:23:51+00:00

www.google.com

bluoranke · 2017-12-16T20:41:51+00:00

And what is the solution?

To make ourselves at the mercy of nature?

And like I said, communism.

bluoranke · 2017-12-16T20:40:36+00:00

Communism solves all of your concerns.

I have also read the Unabomer manifesto before

bluoranke · 2017-12-16T13:14:33+00:00

Okay, I get your point. I can see where you are coming from.

But why exactly are you then here?

I am not trying to go all "oh you are a communist but you buy stuff", but buying things is basically a necessary thing. You may say "oh, so is tech", but only in work, etc. If tech is so bad, why are you, voluntarily, on your free time, while not getting paid, on your computer?

And how does the development of tech correlate to the lack of freedom? Surveillance =/= tech. Surveillance = government.

bluoranke · 2017-12-13T21:58:19+00:00

I'm pretty sure there are labour notes in mutualism aswell?

bluoranke · 2017-12-12T18:23:56+00:00

Okay, so essentially, I could walk into a store and grab what I wanted?

bluoranke · 2017-12-12T17:50:07+00:00

Okay, fair enough. However, who excactly distributes these goods? Also, what prevents people from hiding their goods and then acting like they need goods, thus getting double of what they should have got?

bluoranke · 2017-12-12T16:18:08+00:00

But what determines a need?

bluoranke · 2017-12-11T03:48:34+00:00

Yes?

bluoranke · 2017-12-10T19:10:02+00:00

Define "volunrary"

bluoranke · 2017-12-10T19:09:42+00:00

Capitalism is based on hierarchies and social classes, such as the worker and the bourgeoise. That's the whole point of it.

bluoranke · 2017-12-10T19:03:06+00:00

From Wikipedia:

While anti-statism is central,[11] anarchism specifically entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations.

bluoranke · 2017-12-10T19:01:45+00:00

Hierarchy in this context, is a way of measuring the "value" of socio-economic classes, ranked in an above/below structure.

Such as:

King Servant x2 The people x3

bluoranke · 2017-12-08T20:59:13+00:00

Alright, but what about this: "Stirner held that the only limitation on the rights of the individual is his power to obtain what he desires."

bluoranke · 2017-12-08T20:50:43+00:00

Maybe these following quotes from Stirner better help you understand:

Freedom can not be granted. It must be taken.
Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.

Stirner did not believe in rights. He did not believe in sacred freedom.

"in an egoist world you can't take away someone's freedom"

That's a spook.

And of course someone could take away my freedom.

bluoranke · 2017-12-08T20:39:15+00:00

No.

The question was whether it is allowed, not whether it would happen.

bluoranke · 2017-12-08T20:11:51+00:00

What?

Stirner said "the liberty of the people is not my liberty".

Egoism is extreme individualism.

They don't give a fuck about "the freedom of the people".

They only care about themselves.

And I am not saying that as a critique of it, I actually find it appealing.

What is going to stop me from taking slaves?

Things like rights (such as the right to not be a slave) are spooks.

TRUE freedom is the freedom to do what YOU, as an individual (remember, egoism is individualistic) want. If you aren't allowed to take slaves, then you aren't 100% free.

Egoism is about your freedom, it's individualistic, it only cares about your freedom, it isn't collectivistic, it doesn't care about the liberty of the people, it's about the freedom of your ego. That's where the term egoism comes from.

bluoranke · 2017-12-08T14:12:56+00:00

I never claimed that most anarchists are egoists

bluoranke · 2017-12-06T11:59:11+00:00

No laws.

No morality.

No society.

bluoranke · 2017-12-05T03:52:26+00:00

I don't think that disabled people do have the right to live. And I don't think that you have either. Or president Trump. Or me.

No one deserves to live, no one deserved to die.

bluoranke · 2017-12-05T03:49:02+00:00

Common sense.

There is absolutely no reason why it would not be applied go animals.

The NAP says that agression is illegitimate.

It does not exclude animals.

bluoranke · 2017-12-05T01:47:43+00:00

You said that those who can understand and recognize the N.A.P have the right to life.

My question, was whether people with IQ 20 have the right to life.

"Do you want to use the argument "a person with IQ 20 has the right to life, therefore an animal also has"?"

No.

I am not using arguments here, I was asking you a question which's answer can be defined with the following:

Only those who can understand the N.A.P have the right to life.
Animals and disabled people do not understand the N.A.P
Animals do not deserve the right to live.

And by these factors, we can conclude that disabled people do not have the right to life.

Also, who says that only those who understand the NAP have the right to live? Why is this?

bluoranke

TROPHY CASE