User Controls
Anybody who "hates the police" is either retarded or a total fucking poser
-
2017-04-25 at 11:38 AM UTC
-
2017-04-25 at 2:04 PM UTC
-
2017-04-27 at 4:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Clearly someone did since we're talking about it. You can find it repeated several times in, ahem… second amendment activism promotional material…
Well by merit of being a coherent sentence the slogan in question information, and it does seem to be used to promote a political cause and point of view. Is it misleading or biased? I mean I think so, it does nothing to try and address the the actual risk that home invasion represents, opting instead to invoke somewhat uncritical concern. But hey, even if it's not I think we agree truth and propaganda are not mutually exclusive.
And what was the purpose of propagating that slogan in this case?
There is a difference in voicing an opinion and propaganda, again. Also the home invasion thing is completely irrelevant. That's not even what the quote about. It's about fucking demons but- grrrr. Nevermind. Even if we ignore the demons, it has nothing to do with home invasion. There's a million applications for it. For example, BLM uses it.
And again, nobody fucking uses it. Go google it. Look how old these links are. Add 2017 to the search. Everything is,
"As the saying goes..."
There is no organization behind this. Maybe a pro-gun rights organization made some signs once, but that doesn't really count as propaganda in this day and age. It's just a thing some people say, and has none of the building blocks of what makes propaganda propaganda. Nobody is trying to convince anybody. Nobody is trying to propagate this message with this slogan.
Compare that to the breadth of "I'm lovin' it." People pay good money to spread the idea that McDonalds is good food. Who is paying for this slogan? Who's propagating it? Nobody. It's like saying #BlackLivesMatter is propaganda. As if somehow simply uttering the name invokes it as the intrusive entity of propaganda. It doesn't. It's an opinion, it gets voiced. Nobody is trying to change your opinion in the way that adverts and political slogans do.
Like if Hitler just wrote is book and never started the whole WWII thing, it wouldn't be propaganda. It'd just be some book that some dude wrote. If you cannot agree with that then I can only come to the conclusion you believe EVERY OPINION is now propaganda. You can't say "Wow, it's warm out today" without spreading propaganda. We should all just sew our mouths shut, cut off our penises and move to the monastery where we can all die a quiet propaganda-less death.
Fucking liberals. -
2017-04-27 at 5:26 AM UTCfuck 12
(this is a shitpost) -
2017-05-03 at 4:01 AM UTC
-
2017-05-03 at 4:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Discount Whore Are you literally 14
Let me spell it out for you, numb nuts.
The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper names. A law is an opinion with the implied threat of force behind it. "Drugs are bad" - opinion. "If you drive faster than my arbitrary limit you will have to give me money" - opinion. The government has the "authority" to write the laws, therefore the laws are the opinions of the law makers with the implied threat of force behind it. They hire people to enforce their opinion on everyone else, and we call these people the police. You do not have a voluntary association with the police. Let's take taxes. The law says you have to pay taxes, what happens when you don't? You will get a letter, what happens when you ignore the letter? You'll get a bench warrant. What happens when you don't show up? They send goons with guns after you to come and get you. What happens if you resist them? They will shoot you. The government will continue to escalate violence until you comply or die.
Seems pretty cut and dry if you'll excuse the rhyme. -
2017-05-03 at 4:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper names. A law is an opinion with the implied threat of force behind it.
It's trivial to prove this is untrue. "The raiders are the best, don't even try to argue bitch" is an opinion with an implied threat of force but it is far from being a law."If you drive faster than my arbitrary limit you will have to give me money" - opinion.
That doesn't really seem like an opinion since you will be forced to repay debts for breaking speed limits. Like maybe you could argue "you ought to drive slower than some mandated speed based on actual research into safe driving speeds" is an opinion, although it seems like it's probably a justified opinion at that. But there is clearly more to law than opinions, even if you deny the legitimacy of the rule of law.The government has the "authority" to write the laws, therefore the laws are the opinions of the law makers with the implied threat of force behind it. They hire people to enforce their opinion on everyone else, and we call these people the police. You do not have a voluntary association with the police. Let's take taxes. The law says you have to pay taxes, what happens when you don't? You will get a letter, what happens when you ignore the letter? You'll get a bench warrant. What happens when you don't show up? They send goons with guns after you to come and get you. What happens if you resist them? They will shoot you. The government will continue to escalate violence until you comply or die.
Hold me, the scare quotes are really getting to me mama! -
2017-05-03 at 4:32 AM UTC
-
2017-05-03 at 4:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny It's trivial to prove this is untrue. "The raiders are the best, don't even try to argue bitch" is an opinion with an implied threat of force but it is far from being a law.
It doesn't work the other way around. If you say "The raiders are the best, don't even try to argue bitch" you are not making a law because you are not the state. But the law that the state mandates are opinions.
Originally posted by Lanny That doesn't really seem like an opinion since you will be forced to repay debts for breaking speed limits. Like maybe you could argue "you ought to drive slower than some mandated speed based on actual research into safe driving speeds" is an opinion, although it seems like it's probably a justified opinion at that. But there is clearly more to law than opinions, even if you deny the legitimacy of the rule of law.
What even is a "justifiable opinion". If my opinion that you're a dickhead is justified does it then follow that if you disagree i may exert force onto you until you agree or at least acquiesce?
Originally posted by Lanny Hold me, the scare quotes are really getting to me mama!
Scare quotes or not what i said was objectively true.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon On the subject of economics, yes he is.
I'll kill you.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-05-03 at 4:52 AM UTCLaws are obviously opinions. C'mon now.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-05-03 at 5:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie It doesn't work the other way around. If you say "The raiders are the best, don't even try to argue bitch" you are not making a law because you are not the state. But the law that the state mandates are opinions.
Silly semantic game. If you want to characterize every assertion of truth as an opinion then fine, this works in the philosophical sense of opinion. But findings of mathematics or physics are also opinions. But like laws, they're not mere opinion, they have some property that makes them more than just an opinion even if they fit into that category.
And if you want to use "opinion" in the colloquial sense, that is as a "mere opinion" then no, laws are not opinions.What even is a "justifiable opinion". If my opinion that you're a dickhead is justified does it then follow that if you disagree i may exert force onto you until you agree or at least acquiesce?
Again, in the philosophical sense of the term "opinion", justified opinions are those that we can give convincing justifications of. For example, "my phone will run out of battery today" is an opinion. I can justify it by noticing my phone is at 20% battery and that usually lasts less than a day, although not all justified opinions are true we suspect many more justified opinions are true than unjustified ones. On classical accounts of knowledge truth and justification are the two criteria opinions must meet to be knowledge.
As for using force on dickheads, that depends on your position on the relationship of justification of knowledge of action and justification of action, as well as, orthogonally, some additional proposition like "dickheads ought to coerced into acknowledging their own dickheadedness" -
2017-05-03 at 6:22 PM UTCEvery law should be written as, for example, 'you are not supposed to burglarize. If you do and we don't catch you, we just want to reiterate that you're not supposed to do that. If we do apprehend you, the consequences will vary greatly depending on the day and the judge and your lawyer, and often times nothing to do with your actual case. Please don't burglarize. Thank you.'
While something like 'you're not allowed to talk in a movie theatre' is essentially a fact, at its core it is an opinion, simply because at some point someone decided it so. I can certainly open a movie theatre and encourage loud discussion and blood-curdling screams, because my opinion is that you can talk in a theatre.
All laws are really -you shouldn'ts-, not -you can'ts-. -
2017-05-03 at 6:46 PM UTC
-
2017-05-03 at 8:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Silly semantic game. If you want to characterize every assertion of truth as an opinion then fine, this works in the philosophical sense of opinion. But findings of mathematics or physics are also opinions. But like laws, they're not mere opinion, they have some property that makes them more than just an opinion even if they fit into that category.
And if you want to use "opinion" in the colloquial sense, that is as a "mere opinion" then no, laws are not opinions.
How can you even compare laws of physics to the laws of men. It's not like there is a fundamental constant in the physics of cars that prevents me from going faster than 20 in a school zone and 60 on the inter state.
Originally posted by Lanny As for using force on dickheads, that depends on your position on the relationship of justification of knowledge of action and justification of action, as well as, orthogonally, some additional proposition like "dickheads ought to coerced into acknowledging their own dickheadedness"
Lol no. Dickheads never ought to be coerced into any thing. In fact you shouldn't coerce people, period. -
2017-05-03 at 8:54 PM UTC
-
2017-05-03 at 9:18 PM UTC
-
2017-05-03 at 9:22 PM UTCBreaking the law is sometimes necessary and fun but know your place and don't thumb your nose at them of be like "lol prove it" or they'll find some other shit to get you in trouble for or just str8 up plant evidence on you.
-
2017-05-03 at 10:14 PM UTC
-
2017-05-03 at 11:11 PM UTCI think Sophie's arguments are actually pretty well thought out. Whether or not it's practical is another story.
Hey answer my question what do you think about national defense. If there was no government and thus probably no armed services, what if some oppressive country wanted to conquer us. How would that work in AnCap society? Mercenaries? If so who would pay for them if there are no taxes? -
2017-05-03 at 11:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws I think Sophie's arguments are actually pretty well thought out. Whether or not it's practical is another story.
Hey answer my question what do you think about national defense. If there was no government and thus probably no armed services, what if some oppressive country wanted to conquer us. How would that work in AnCap society? Mercenaries? If so who would pay for them if there are no taxes?
Thank you Fox Paws. And yeah, a common misconception is that if there is no state there would be no security forces. In an AnCap society there would be no restriction on Gun Laws, so citizens are well armed if they desire. What's more, there would be private defense contractors. The beauty of this system is that they are beholden to their consumers. This is especially important if you consider "Police Brutality" you can't fire the police, you can fire private defense contractors. Same goes with organized defense. If they are inadequate you hire another firm or what have you.
Also, you would pay for it with your salary, the government takes like 20% off your salary in taxes, well what you save by not paying taxes you can choose to invest in security. Like you would insure yourself medically, you would do the same for defense if that is important to you.
