And this “law of life” stuff. It’s a non-concept. The videos compare it to empirically determined physical laws, and offer NO SUPPORT for this argument, besides just repeating the lie over and over again.
Bullshit. Just because our civ hasn’t collapsed yet doesn’t mean its 100% immune to a future collapse. The only reason our civ hasn’t collapsed is b/c of ongoing state aggression.
Is that F4M in that one video? Because the kid makes about as much sense as he does.
No that’s not me. Why would you think it is?
Oh, and this repeated assertion that “every civilization that has existed has collapsed”. This is utterly false. Civilizations rarely collapse, but States do. Roman “civilization” didn’t collapse. The Roman STATE did. The Egyptian civilization didn’t collapse, the Egyptian STATE did. And so often, the results of these collapses isn’t the result of some massive systemic failure, but rather a weakening, followed by an invasion of another group of civilized or otherwise organized peoples.
Civilizations have collapsed. What about Sumer, Mesopotamia, the Indus River Valley civ, the Mayans or many others?
Civilizations have collapsed. What about Sumer, Mesopotamia, the Indus River Valley civ, the Mayans or many others?
No, that’s not the way this works. You and your sources claim that “every civilization in the past has collapsed”. That’s just false. There are many civilizations that have more or less withstood millienia. Most civilizations have never really fallen apart. They just go through reorganizations, abliet often ones filled with violence or hardship. You don’t get to just name a few that have suffered collapses or dispersals and then some up with some infalliable “law” that all civilizations must follow.
Bullshit. Just because our civ hasn’t collapsed yet doesn’t mean its 100% immune to a future collapse. The only reason our civ hasn’t collapsed is b/c of ongoing state aggression.
Your switching concepts again here. Nobody is stating that modern civilization is “100% immune” from collapse. I can come up with numerous scenerios that would cause a collapse, from pandemic to a cosmic event. However, this is VASTLY different than your position, which is that civilization is CERTAIN to collapse. So much so that we should just dump everything, reorganize our lives around that assumption, and return to a primitive state.
The “law of life” as you’re describing it, as far as I can tell, is based on a novel, not any actual body of science or philosophy. You then present the idea that this “law” can be equated to the laws of physics. This is ludicrous and intellectually dishonest. Get out.
So if americans decide to become hunters and pick off the land. how long does this last until every animal is gone or every berry is picked? If we all migrate south for the winter what about the people lalready living there that have gathered most resources. Are we ALLOWED to fish? Or throwing a spear in the water the only fishing allowed? What about boats? Think of places like japan (high population with little land). Are boats too advanced for society that it’ll destroy civilization?
So if americans decide to become hunters and pick off the land. how long does this last until every animal is gone or every berry is picked? If we all migrate south for the winter what about the people lalready living there that have gathered most resources. Are we ALLOWED to fish? Or throwing a spear in the water the only fishing allowed? What about boats? Think of places like japan (high population with little land). Are boats too advanced for society that it’ll destroy civilization?
Why should I care if there’s some kind of mass die-off if I’m living freely and suficiently after civ’s collapse? I don’t put individuals behind imaginary collectives. If other individuals don’t want to learn the skills needed to survive then its their own problem.
Civilizations have collapsed. What about Sumer, Mesopotamia, the Indus River Valley civ, the Mayans or many others?
No, that’s not the way this works. You and your sources claim that “every civilization in the past has collapsed”. That’s just false. There are many civilizations that have more or less withstood millienia. Most civilizations have never really fallen apart. They just go through reorganizations, abliet often ones filled with violence or hardship. You don’t get to just name a few that have suffered collapses or dispersals and then some up with some infalliable “law” that all civilizations must follow.
Name some of those civs which have “more or less withstood millienia” because I can’t think of any which have without severe massive amounts of violence to sustain them. The only reason our civ survives is b/c of violence. In order to keep ag going the state needs to invade other places when the land in its own territory bottoms out. I believe in the NAP so I reject ag the same way I reject eating animal products and statism.
Or how about this: name me one civ that’s still around today that’s been 100% peaceful.
So much so that we should just dump everything, reorganize our lives around that assumption, and return to a primitive state.
Perhaps I used a imprecise term. Pointing out the paradoxical, oxymoronic nature of the philosophy that is the topic of discussion is not ad hominem. It is just something you have no way to respond to, so you claim you are being personally attacked and then try to change the subject, or just reply with a video.
Will you address the fact that your philosophy contradicts itself, and you contradict your philosophy every time you get on here, or are you just going to keep posting bullshit videos that are the product of the very civilization and technology they are intended to claim is evil and inherently destructive?
Running out of berries and animals to eat isn’t the same as carrying the know how to make a stick into a spear. Great, you have the knowledge of survival. What will you eat when most things become scarce? Even if you know what can or cannot be eaten when most common things are gone doesn’t mean no one else will follow your ideas. People will learn what can and can’t as well. Long run your screwed.
No one is that stupid though. People would start to farm. Thus, increasing the stock on meat and vegetables. Trade would develop and there you go we have civilization. oh no…
Exactly. What F4M fails to realize, is that by not practicing what he preaches, we can only conclude that he does not believe what he is saying. Consider:
I preach against the evils of aggression
Agression is immoral, bad, evil, the cause of all suffering, etc.
I beat my neigher without just cause (i.e. I aggress against him)
We can only conclude that I do not actually believe that aggression is immoral, bad, and evil. It is obviously the same with F4M:
Civilization and Agriculture are by definition immoral, bad, evil, etc.
Technology is a derivative of Civilization and Agriculture, therefore it is by definition immoral, bad, evil, etc.
F4M uses technology to consume food products of Agriculture
F4M uses technology to converse with other people (Civilization!!!)
In other words, F4M uses immoral and evil means to consume immoral and evil food while using immoral and evil means to converse with other people, which is…wait for it…immoral and evil
We can only conclude that F4M does not believe a word of what he is saying, else he would stop doing all actions that he “considers” to be immoral and evil.
True as that may be, that wasn’t even my point. I was merely pointing out the paradox he is faced with in admitting he could not survive outside of civilization…without the help of civilization.
His entire philosophy is debunked by his own admission.
True as that may be, that wasn’t even my point. I was merely pointing out the paradox he is faced with in admitting he could not survive outside of civilization…without the help of civilization.
His entire philosophy is debunked by his own admission.
Why does it matter that I’m using the internet to help me learn primitive survival? How is that any more hypocritical of you using state resources to learn how to fight the state?
We do not view the tools of the state as inherently immoral, whereas you find the tools of civilization inherently immoral. The resources of the state have been taken from ourselves and other citizens. When we use these resources, we are only using what is rightfully ours and our fellow citizens. We do not consider these tools to be immoral.
You claim to find these tools to be immoral, yet you use them anyway. How do you live with youself?
I guess I see the use in quarantining F4M by banishing his dogma to his own thread, but really…why is this being debated? F4M is, by far, the most embarrassing member I have encountered on these forums yet. Sorry for the Ad Hominem, F4M, it’s just the way i feel.
I don’t lobby and buy off members of congress to further my libertarian agenda. You do use the internet, computers, video cameras, etc, to further your anti-civ agenda (or whatever it is that you are). I will concede you one point that does give me pause every day (and guys please correct me if I’m being illogical) but if we ridicule these people for using cameras (something they consider evil) to further their ideology, then what makes us any better by using ron paul and (hopefully) the office of the presidency (something we consider inherently evil) to further our ideology? I think this has been discussed elsewhere, and I still feel at odds with it. F4M doesn’t seem to have any problem at all with his cognitive dissonance.
