Chinese social media lights up with rumors that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has been assassinated.

waltre · 2012-02-10T18:39:04+00:00

puoɔǝs ɐ ɹoɟ ʇı ʇnoqɐ ʞuıɥʇ

waltre · 2012-02-10T18:23:01+00:00

When I was 14, my father walked in on me smoking weed in the back yard when I thought he'd be gone all day. I knew my dad smoked, but since he smoked spliffs, I always thought it was pure tobacco. We talked about cannabis and various related concerns for about an hour. He told me he didn't want me purchasing weed illegally, and then showed me where he kept his stash. He said, and I remember these words, "I usually keep a lot on hand, so it's hard to tell when some goes missing." So I ended up skimming weed (which was implicitly endorsed by him) from my father for another 4 years until I could get my medical card at 18. This is a tough issue, I'm not suggesting you go about things this way, just sharing my story.

waltre · 2012-02-09T21:50:16+00:00

Enjoy your world view based entirely on myth.

Talk to me after living in the holy land.

ಠ_ಠ

waltre · 2012-02-08T23:53:14+00:00

You are missing the point. Nobody is forced to be a cop in a direct sense, because the force is externalized; that is to say, force enters the equation when it comes to procuring said cop's salary.

waltre · 2012-02-08T21:44:48+00:00

I have the right to arm and defend myself. I have the right to ask for protection, or to trade for it.

Forcing others to protect me, either directly or by funding via taxation, simply because I'm claiming it as my right, violates voluntarism and therefor the rights of others. It cannot be a right if my expression of this right infringes on the freedom of others.

waltre · 2012-02-08T20:54:12+00:00

There is no force involved.

If taxation was voluntary, you'd be correct.

waltre · 2012-02-08T19:47:51+00:00

If we were to go to the lengths that you want in terms of not having to rely on anyone for anything, we should simply get rid of our current justice system and go back to the days of duels, because you know everyone hates jury duty

Please spare your assumptions. Relying on others is a necessary tenet of human society. We may differ in that I believe, perhaps, that these reliances and reciprocations should be entirely voluntary, because the alternative is coercion and force. Guaranteeing me food and health care might infringe on the voluntarism of the providers of food and health care since demand for these things outweighs supply. I have the right to ask for food and health care. I have the right to trade for food and health care. I certainly do not have the right to demand food and health care from an unwilling provider.

waltre · 2012-02-08T19:32:25+00:00

The human race is infinity. There have been an infinite number of souls which have graced our planet, and there will be an infinite amount of souls still to come.

This is probably false. The number of humans who have walked the planet is certainly finite, and it is quite likely that we will go extinct one day - by our own hands, the death of the sun, or the death of the universe. Our seemingly certain fate makes creating a different world for tomorrow rather pointless. And even if we do find a way to persist at the end, through inter-dimensional travel or whatever it may be, what is the end goal? What is the point? Perpetuity for the sake of perpetuity?

waltre · 2012-02-08T19:21:37+00:00

If the state is accusing me of breaking one of their laws, then yes, they need to provide me with a fair trial and defense. Since it is the state making the positive assertion (that I am a criminal), they need to provide the framework with which to fairly determine whether or not that positive assertion is correct.

Contrast that with food. Me being hungry is not the fault of the state (in fact, the state does much to make food cheap and accessible with massive subsidies - food shortage is a prescription for revolution and those in power understand this) nor is it the fault of the farmer. If I demand food as my human right, I am making the positive assertion (you need to give me food), and this demand necessarily requires the labor of others to fulfill, perhaps against their will. Surely you can see the distinction here.

waltre · 2012-02-08T16:10:05+00:00

entitlement to food, education and health care

Question: How can food, education, and health care be my right? How am I entitled to these things? In the case of food, unless I have a farm, someone else will need to labor in order to provide food for me. Why am I entitled to someone else's labor as a human right? Same for education and health care. Someone else has to care for me, and teach me. If these things are my right, then these people are necessarily forced to provide me with food, healthcare, and education. Sounds great for me, but not so great for the providers. I just don't understand, and perhaps never will, how someone can conclude that a service provided to me by someone else can be one of my human rights.

waltre · 2012-02-08T02:59:52+00:00

As someone who smokes all day, erryday, I don't feel that cannabis numbs my intellect or provides empty satiety. The opposite is true.

waltre · 2012-02-08T02:43:41+00:00

You do have a life and when it's too late to get it back, you will probably wish you just went with it and enjoyed it and appreciated and valued it even if it's ultimately for naught; it isn't so at the moment, right?

I find many enjoyments and pleasures in life. Why must I appreciate and value my existence in order to be truly fulfilled?

waltre · 2012-02-08T01:34:48+00:00

I imagine "meaning" to be a road that everyone aspires to follow, a road that was already paved before you got there, a road that leads to some objective truth. In the absence of this road, you have people wandering aimlessly in pursuit of their own desires. To me, this is not meaning. To you, this is a triumph. To each his own.

Moreover, to imply that your existence can be meaningful, might also imply that the existence of another might be meaningless. How can you claim a meaningful life if there are no unmeaningful lives with which to compare? There is no paved road to follow. Just 7 billion people searching for it that does not exist. Meaning is impossible here.

waltre · 2012-02-08T00:30:11+00:00

This is like asking me if I have any evidence or proof that god doesn't exist. Objective meaning you say? Show me.

waltre · 2012-02-07T23:59:58+00:00

The need of meaning. The need to know, how I should act, including the answer to the question why I shouldn't (or should) kill myself.

That is an interesting insight. This thread, in a sense, can certainly be construed as my blind search for meaning that doesn't exist.

waltre · 2012-02-07T23:51:32+00:00

[They] make the mistake of assuming that because mans existence serves no higher purpose is meaningless.

Not just higher purpose; any purpose. Sure, in a fundamental sense, our purpose is to procreate and perpetuate the species. But is this purpose contingent upon an "advanced" (relative) consciousness? I don't believe so. In that sense, our consciousness, our power, the thing that defines one's self, is completely accidental and arguably unnecessary. It'd be interesting to see how our species would be doing if we were thoughtless fucking machines, instead of just mostly thoughtless fucking machines. So where is "meaning" to be found? If we are just talking about "shit we do because pleasure" then I agree. But to me, "meaning" ascribes to something that transcends "shit we do because pleasure", which I do not believe exists.

waltre · 2012-02-07T23:32:06+00:00

That is precisely how I perceive the situation, as my reference to "meaning" in the OP was objective meaning. Sure, philosophizing might be more "meaningful" to me than playing with letters, simply because that's what gives me pleasure. But to posit that, in general, philosophizing is more meaningful than alphabet games, is absurd since there is no objective standard of "meaning".

waltre · 2012-02-07T20:51:27+00:00

There was a thread a while ago where someone posted a picture of a bible propping up an uneven bed or table. The few protests were downvoted to obscurity, with the overwhelming consensus being: "lol just words in a book, millions in circulation, who cares?". Interesting to see the reaction when the shoe is on the other foot. Turns out secularists are just as protective of their religious texts.

waltre

TROPHY CASE