NO HEROICS

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
Philosophy
logiczombie
Libertarian
intp

Posts

Total: 26
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Yes, and this is the type of thing i mean when I say we should not let up on the narrative. There is no need to dilute the simple truth that he catered (and probably backmailed) many in positions of power.

I applaud the efforts of people who are trying to "bring this to light" (like @ura-soul and yourself). [***]

However, the main "problem" with this approach is that it focuses too much on "bad actors" and by doing this you divert attention and potentially exculpate "THE SYSTEM" (namely, FEUDAL HIERARCHY).

And without systemic reform (HOLACRACY), we'll just end up with new and "improved" "HEROES" (CON-ARTIST MOBSTERS).

And we don't want to fall into the HERO trap.

Click to watch 4 minutes,

We must insist on a system that mitigates all forms of DEMONIZATION.  [***]

We must insist on a system that protects truly INALIENABLE RIGHTS (rights that nobody can "voluntarily" sign away).

We must insist on a ("legal") system that holds the PRIMARY AXIOMS.

We must insist on a policy of +proHUMAN.

We must insist on a policy of +proFAMILY.

We must insist on a policy of  +proSOVEREIGNTY.

We must insist on a SYSTEM that can be effectively operated by SELF-INTERESTED BABIES (not "heroes").


Special thanks to @practicalthought

Click to watch 3 minutes,

Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,897
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words, a return to the values outlined in the US Constitution.
#3
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
*clicks on source convo*

"Have you been watching the new Snowpiercer television show?"

Ha, I knew that show would make its way into class discussions.
#4
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
We must insist on a policy of + proFAMILY.
Is homosexuality + proFAMILY?
Topic's author
#5
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Is homosexuality + proFAMILY?
+proFAMILY means you should love your family unconditionally.

+proFAMILY means you should protect your family by any means necessary.

Strengthening the core family unit (keeping families together) strengthens the bedrock (fundamental fabric) of society.
Topic's author
#6
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Castin
Have you been watching the new Snowpiercer television show?
Topic's author
#7
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
In other words, a return to the values outlined in the US Constitution.
Well, some of them anyway.

We can probably skip a few "values" like the 3/5ths compromise for example.
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,897
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I meant in the present day constitution.

You know, the ones where you can't apply the law based on DNA or skin color.
#9
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Is homosexuality + proFAMILY?
Topic's author
#10
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Is homosexuality + proFAMILY?
Please explain where exactly you think you see a conflict between the two.
Topic's author
#11
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
You know, the ones where you can't apply the law based on DNA or skin color.
I didn't think the "founding fathers" knew about "DNA".

And I'm pretty sure there are (at least a very few) racist police officers and racist judges and racist politicians.

Are you telling me that "the constitution" makes these (racists) "illegal" somehow?

Please explain.
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,897
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Systemic racism ended in 1964.
#13
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Is homosexuality + proFAMILY?

Please explain where exactly you think you see a conflict between the two.
Huh? I ask you a question and you request an explanation? What is it about questions that you liberal atheists so fear?

You said...
We must insist on a policy of + proFAMILY.
So I asked, "Is homosexuality + proFAMILY?"

Is it a difficult question? Do you fear it's a trick question? Have I restricted the way you can answer in any way? Is the question unclear? Do you not know the answer?

What exactly accounts for your inability/unwillingness to answer?
#14
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ethang5
Is homosexuality + proFAMILY?
That depends on the human. Some humans will adopt a child to abuse that child. Some humans will adopt that child to love that child. Percentage wise, less of us are insane. So overall, yes... homosexuality is pro family. Bc most couples will love their family and their child... or whatever else love comes with family. But some won't. That is reality. We should focus on hunting down the demons. And the demons aren't "homosexuals" ... the demons are humans. 
#15
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
Hi Outplayz

Is homosexuality + proFAMILY?

That depends on the human.
So homosexuality can be both + proFAMILY and not + proFAMILY?

Some humans will adopt a child to abuse that child. Some humans will adopt that child to love that child. Percentage wise, less of us are insane. So overall, yes... homosexuality is pro family.
What does homosexuality have to do with adoption?

Bc most couples will love their family and their child... or whatever else love comes with family. But some won't. That is reality. We should focus on hunting down the demons. And the demons aren't "homosexuals" ... the demons are humans.
?? Are you saying homosexuals cannot be demons? In my experience, humans are far more easy to find than demons.
#16
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Have you been watching the new Snowpiercer television show?
WE MARCH FOR THE ENGINE.
#17
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ethang5
So homosexuality can be both + proFAMILY and not + proFAMILY?
Yes, bc we are talking about individual people. You can't generalize and say all of homosexuality is or isn't pro-family. Some people are pro-family some people aren't. Some homosexuals are very pro-family... some aren't. But, i think there are more (just more humans in general) that are pro-family.

What does homosexuality have to do with adoption?
I suspect homosexuals adopt more than the regular person... i don't know however, haven't looked into that. But this was just an example in what i was saying. 

?? Are you saying homosexuals cannot be demons? In my experience, humans are far more easy to find than demons.
No i'm saying they most def. can. I just think there are less bad people (demons) than good people. I think most people at least try to be good. Demon is just a metaphor for evil people here. I think there are less evil people therefore, even less homosexuals that are evil towards family... which would mean they are not pro-family to me. 



#18
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
I get you outplayz, and that was a good post, but you seem to be talking about homosexuals and I was asking about homosexuality, the condition, not people. But thanks.
Topic's author
#19
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
...but you seem to be talking about homosexuals and I was asking about homosexuality,
Masterful hair-splitting!
Topic's author
#20
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Huh? I ask you a question and you request an explanation? What is it about questions that you liberal atheists so fear?
This is called "NORMAL CONVERSATION".

I don't understand your question, can you please be more specific or rephrase or provide an example to illustrate.
#21
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Masterful hair-splitting!
Homosexuals and homosexuality are not the same thing. Just like human and humanity are not these same. I understand you want to call it "hair-splitting" for political reasons, but the fact remains, they aren't the same thing.

What is it about questions that you liberal atheists so fear?

This is called "NORMAL CONVERSATION".
With a liberal atheist yes, but what is it about questions that you liberal atheists so fear?

I don't understand your question, can you please be more specific or rephrase or provide an example to illustrate.
You wrote...

We must insist on a policy of + proFAMILY.
I asked..... "Is homosexuality + proFAMILY?"

You gave your definition of + proFAMILY.

+proFAMILY means you should love your family unconditionally.
+proFAMILY means you should protect your family by any means necessary.
Nothing about homosexuality. I did not ask what +proFAMILY was, I asked if homosexuality was compatible with the "policy of + proFAMILY" that you want us to "insist" on.

Is it?
#22
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,896
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
.....ET..."Nothing about homosexuality. I did not ask what +proFAMILY was, I asked if homosexuality was compatible with the "policy of + proFAMILY" that you want us to "insist" on. Is it?"...

It is a mind-game generalization on your part i.e. non-specific for a specific and your narrow viewpoint can broaden to acceptive of specific circumstances of each every homo-sapien.

Family =  familia = people who we are familiar with.  The whole of humanit/homo-sapiens are all within 50th cousins, yet most are not familiar/famlia/family.

ET-ang is like this drunkard stupor who gets fixated on this  one generality { The Forest } and he cant see any trees and all of the trees on the planet are either pro-family  or their not.  ET needs to get grounded in reality, that, most homo-sapiens practice, and leave his  narrow-head space in the gutter, where it belongs.

Gutter mind = ??

#23
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
The loon got all that from one single question.

This isn't 1935 Germany  Adolf. Take your jackboots off and let rational people discuss topics.
#24
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ebuc
***
Regarding: #22

I think I see why this was reported, a general comparison of a user to a bad habit. In repetition it would get really bad. As an isolated incident it's ugly, but not exactly what the CoC is designed for (we updated the CoC to clarify that people aren't forced to be exclusively nice to each other).

As reporting anything asks me to read the thing, and related things, please save it for the real bad stuff... Like say one member accuses another of murdering millions of people, as seen in post #23.
***

Topic's author
#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
"Is homosexuality + proFAMILY?"
"Yes".
Topic's author
#26
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
I appreciate your vigilance.