This is the official Freedom4Me thread. F4M, can you please post your anti-civilization posts to this thread instead of the low-content threads? We will be just as happy to debunk and ridicule you in this thread and forego the cluttering up of the low-content threads.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Clayton -
And just to kick things off:
Clayton -
So you’ve made an entire forum thread to mock me?
I can give you plenty of reasons why I came to the conclusions I did. Only a fool without any critical thinking skills would deny that civilization, agriculture and technology are inherently violent, unhealthy, collectivist and NOT sustainable at all. Fools need some “expert’s” studies because the scientific studies performed by their own brains aren’t good enough. I don’t need an official “scientific study” conducted by idiots to tell me that there is a connection between aggression/statism and civ/tech. Every news I read, everything I see and everything I know points to the fact that I’d be better off living outside of civ, off the grid and in the least violent state (New Hampshire) so when the state and civ start to collapse and their violence steps into overdrive I know I’ll be able to survive w/o having to deal.
Also, for those people who are unable to rely on their own brains for judgment on this matter, the law of life does provide sufficient proof that civ and the state have created their own demise.
No - I’m plenty happy to debate you I just frustrated with your trollish behavior in the low-content threads.
Ad hominem
Posting on the Internet is “off the grid” how?? Many of us have put this question to you multiple times, you’ve yet to directly answer why you are on the Internet if you’re trying to be “off the grid”.
We’ve also been over the ridiculous claim that NH is some kind of haven of libertarianism.
Law of life?
Clayton -
This makes no sense to me. You shall reject civilization, agriculture, and technology because they are somehow inherently evil to live “off the grid” using the agriculture or technology of civilization in order to survive?
Don’t get me wrong I am all for off the grid. I am a huge fan of geographical organization (ie. Israel) . The main economic benefit of geographical organization is the competitive cost advantage inherent in an area with no property taxes, regulations, etc.
Seven blink eight blink nine billion people cannot live off roots and tubers in the woods.
Personally, I’d like to see civilisation defeat and overcome its greatest enemy - its cancer; the state.
Don’t be crazy, obviously they can eat berries too.
First, remove all the shovels…
@F4M: Can you respond to Milton Friedman’s claim that no one can make a pencil? Are pencils really the source of evil in the world??
Clayton -
Posting on the Internet is “off the grid” how?? Many of us have put this question to you multiple times, you’ve yet to directly answer why you are on the Internet if you’re trying to be “off the grid”.
Now your making ad hom attacks. When I say it’s better for people to leave civ and live self-sufficiently you respond with pointing out me posting on the internet. Non-sequitur.
We’ve also been over the ridiculous claim that NH is some kind of haven of libertarianism.
Have you ever been to NH? How would you know it’s not any more libertarian?
Law of life?
There was no attack against your person in the quote that you provided. How, exactly, was it ad hominem?
Non-sequitur means “it does not follow”. He is pointing out:
There are a couple of conclusions that can be drawn from this. Either you choose to behave immorally, or you do not believe what you are saying to be true. So, when he points out that you do not act morally as you define it, it is now a non sequitur?
I would think that not only is it very relevant to the conversation at hand, the implicit conclusions do logically follow from the implicit premises.
Aha! Your question does not address his statement! He asserts that NH is not a libertarian haven. You respond with “how do you know it is not more libertarian?” This is irrelevant to his point. It is not a haven of libertarianism. It does not matter if it is more or less libertarian than Massachusetts, California, or Texas. NH is not a libertarian haven. Your question does not address his point.
Re: Law of Life
Wow. No. There is no law of life that says you cannot kill, steal, whatever your competitors in nature. Just no. There are many animals that kill competitors in nature, not just humans. Just no.
@Law of life
Um, maybe I missed something obvious, but don’t all predators eat other organisms (thus destroying them)? Hell, even herbivores destroy some of the plants they eat.
Clayton -
The guys point seemed to be that the law of life meant that predators could kill their prey, but they were not allowed to kill other predators, same species or otherwise. Quite a claim, considering there are numerous species that kill animals of the same species and others that are not meant to be food. I guess the lion who kills his cubs in order to have sex with his mate is guilty of breaking the lol (law of life).
The author seemed to be a fairly intelligent person so I can’t see how he could have missed such an obvious point - perhaps he’s saying that organisms that bring about mass extinctions of other organisms (through poisoning or other methods) for no benefit to themselves (i.e. just because) are doomed to extinction. I guess that could be true but are there any other species than human beings that have, for example, sprayed pesticides. And was it just me or did the section about pest control remind anybody else of MIB?!
Clayton -
Even if that were what he meant, it still doesn’t logically follow. That lions kill their cubs, or that ants wage war against each other does not mean they will lead their species to extinction. I mean, if lions can kill their offspring and still be around, wouldn’t that be a strong counter-example to extinction based on this law of life?
Even if that were what he meant, it still doesn’t logically follow. That lions kill their cubs, or that ants wage war against each other does not mean they will lead their species to extinction. I mean, if lions can kill their offspring and still be around, wouldn’t that be a strong counter-example to extinction based on this law of life?
Your missing the point about the LoL. No species on earth, NO ONE, kills as much as civilized man. Civilized man kills not only himself like no other species does but also behaves aggressively towards all other species on earth like no one else does.
@F4M: But that’s not a law - it’s not even a pattern, it’s just a unique property. We have other unique properties, such as our ability to engage in complex reasoning.
Clayton -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Life
@F4M: But that’s not a law - it’s not even a pattern, it’s just a unique property. We have other unique properties, such as our ability to engage in complex reasoning.
You have to be blind not to understand how civ is killing mankind both DIRECTLY (poisoning us through chemicals, making us dependent on ag to survive) and INDIRECTLY (law of life.) Any article on Infowars or Natural News will tell you that.
You make the claim that civilization is killing mankind. Why, then, is the world population estimated at 7 billion people and growing? This would seem to directly contradict your claim.
The Wiki article mentions none of the specific conditions mentioned by the Quinn reading YT vid. And as far as “evolutionarily stable strategies” goes, there’s actually been some research into that and I believe they’ve proved that there is no single evolutionarily stable strategy - the right strategy depends on the environment.
Clayton -