Non sequitur.
Yeah, drug users have no social stigma at all, do they? I mean, they’re never ostracized now. Never refused jobs. Never put in prison. Oh wait…
We all know that’s what you meant.
Except that I’m not. Do you think you could start being intellectually honest?
Nope. Do you think you could stop concocting strawmen?
Hint: you’re losing badly. Quit while you’re behind.
How you miss the point…
Fixed for you.
But you are.
But I’m not, your argument was you get the same reaction from theists as you do statists, ergo statism and theism are two sides of the same coin.
That just doesn’t follow logically and if it did it would imply that if I got the same response from a statist as I do an anarchist, in defending their positions, the two would be the same. Which is silly.
What theism is to statism is statism to moralism.
Rather, you’ve missed the point. You’re trying to paint a picture of something which doesn’t exist. Drug users aren’t being coddled or protected; they’re being jailed and ostracized. Look at the prison populations! I have FACTS on my side. What do you have?
Want to keep playing that game? I can do it better. You’d better end it or I will push every one of your buttons and cause you to melt down. I am incredibly good at learning people’s “tells”. You’ve been warned.
Being intellectually honest? Of course I am. You, OTOH…
But you are.
Not what you thought it was. Try reading; it helps.
Yes, quite. Because the state and belief in god are not, in fact, the same thing at all. They may cross paths, even frequently. But then so does every other imaginable institution in our current, statist society.
The fact of the existence of anarchist theists disproves the idea that statism is inherent in theism, or follows inherently from it. Unless you’re going to tell me that I don’t really believe in God since I’m an anarchist. But that would be you telling me what I believe - which, I hope you’ll agree, is stupid.
Yeah, they are. They’re both products of mysticism and fantasy. Both rely on brainwashing and other inculcation. When you suggest to a True Believer that whichever one isn’t necessary/doesn’t exist, you get the same response. Both are forms of parents-writ-large.
So please: keep proving me correct. Your responses indicate an embarrassment as well.
And who’s saying anything of that sort? Certainly not me. Must be that mouse in your pocket.
And? You still miss the point that as Nock says, every increase in state power leads to a decrease in “social power”, in which ostracism is included. Now, I’m sure you wouldn’t deny that currently the state has a fair bit of power? Hence, it follows that ostracism isn’t as effective as it would, in fact the jailings you mention are an example of the corrosion of social power. So yes, they’re is some degree of ostracism at present, it doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be more effective in a free society.
Go.
Do correct me then, please.
OK, I think it’s time I put this thread to sleep.
-Jon