Posts by Lanny

2015-07-25 at 11:43 PM UTC in The 2nd amendment

Lanny Bird of Courage

The constitution? Ain't nobody got time for that in America, especially politicians.

You're right, most people don't have time to treat a 200 year old document drafted by some ignorant motherfuckers like some kind of unquestionable source of divine truth, nor should they.

I posit that firearm ownership is more than just a fundamental right, because I can go out in my garage and make a zip gun anytime I want. If I had a lathe and some machine shop tools, I could make rifled barrels. You can't stop that. Ever.

Ban or restrict all guns,and I can go arm myself in a few hours. Then I will be a wolf among sheep.

Except this, empirically, is not the case. However easy you feel it is to manufacture firearms, it's clearly hard enough that banning private ownership will cause a significant drop in rates of gun crime. Look, for example, at Japan.

2015-07-25 at 8:55 PM UTC in Psychomanthis should move to the united states

Lanny Bird of Courage

Bank bail-outs. Point demonstrated.

Point not demonstrated. We can imagine reasons (such as reasons actually given) for the bank bailouts without resorting to cronyism yet your model of the US as a crony capitalism has a hard time explaining why telecom, despite it's tremendous resources, has failed to evade legislation that harms its interests.

China not so much these days but it was in the USSR, remember how Stalin thought it would be a great idea to impose collectivization, now that was awesome wasn't it. Millions of people died of famine or had to stand in lines for hours upon hours to get a stale loaf of bread.

What exactly are you basing that claim on?

I do readily agree that animals cognition and emotions are quite like ours.

so, why is it ok for a pack of wolves to take down and eat a caribou, but it is somehow reprehensible if I eat the flesh of a dead chicken, tenderized and coated in flour, egg, and bread crumbs and fried for four minutes on each side?

Because there's a difference between being a moral agent (having moral responsibilities) and being morally considerable (having some rights, being the subject of moral agents' duties). Adult humans are both agents and morally considerable but animals are only considerable. By analogy, if an infant acts or fails to act in a way that causes someone harm it wouldn't make sense to blame it, it couldn't have done otherwise and didn't understand the meaning of its actions, yet we still would consider it immoral to harm infants, despite them not having the same responsibilities as us. Wolves don't seem to have the mental capacity to understand right from wrong, it would make no sense to hold them to a moral standard, but that doesn't mean we don't have some obligation not to harm then unduly.

2015-07-25 at 4:47 PM UTC in Extorting Lanny

Lanny Bird of Courage

bleh, I'll see what I can do. Not hot on the idea of dropping the whole DB though.

2015-07-25 at 7:12 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition

Lanny Bird of Courage

anti-psychotics sounds scary

I don't do scary sounding drugs

2015-07-25 at 7:08 AM UTC in Sitting in an sensory deprivation tank during benzo withdrawal

Lanny Bird of Courage

sounds like a shit combo, I would think you could at least get something for the benzo withdrawal. Not sure what the medical protocol for amp withdrawals is but damn, seems like they should at least give your _something_ to ease you off that shit.

2015-07-25 at 7:04 AM UTC in The 2nd amendment

Lanny Bird of Courage

So one way you could approach it is to say that firearm ownership is not a fundamental right, you can opt for privacy or you can own guns. Consider that many research institutes need to surrender their "right to privacy" to obtain controlled materials and that policy is largely uncontroversial.

The real answer is that the left proper (not moderates who get called liberals because of the US's skewed political spectrum) doesn't give a shit about privacy, the significance of Roe v. Wade is not privacy rights, which was simply a popular cover that worked at the time, but the obvious issue of abortion. The supreme court makes efforts to maintain some semblance of continuity with historical courts but the reality is that the legal justifications seem to be largely post-hoc. It would be a deeply disturbing fact about the political balance of power if not for the fact that they've made consistently better decisions than any other branch of government since the new deal era.

2015-07-25 at 6:55 AM UTC in Sitting in an sensory deprivation tank during benzo withdrawal

Lanny Bird of Courage

Also benzo withdrawal is on my shortlist of experiences I hope to never have to go through. I know I couldn't tough it out, if I ever got addicted to benzos proper I'd just have to be on them for the rest of my life.

2015-07-25 at 6:54 AM UTC in Sitting in an sensory deprivation tank during benzo withdrawal

Lanny Bird of Courage

~~~ aint shit to do out here but smoke and drive (just smoke and drive) ~~~

2015-07-25 at 6:52 AM UTC in why is it legal

Lanny Bird of Courage

Gay no doubt, but there are some very LSD-like RCs on the market at the moment. 1P-LSD _very_ similar, and AL-LAD is, in my experience, better in terms of being more positive and happy an shit (but maybe less introspective, depends on what you're looking for I guess).

2015-07-25 at 6:43 AM UTC in Dear American's

Lanny Bird of Courage

Yeah, like just a cheapie glass pipe. I bought it at a smoke shop so I guess when they signed up to accept credit cards or whatever they had to put down that they sold "vice goods" or whatever. It's legal to buy a pipe of course, but I guess based on my history of usage it was considered fraud or something dumb like that. Kinda funny considering I paid for booze with the same card the same day, but I guess smoking paraphernalia is a notch above in the minds of credit card companies.

2015-07-25 at 6:40 AM UTC in Psychomanthis should move to the united states

Lanny Bird of Courage

Define 'consent' in the context of obtaining nutrition. Is a vine morally wrong for strangling a sapling to death, because no 'consent' was given?

I reject "consent" as a primary qualification for morality to start with. I think we, for example, would be fully within our rights to stop a murder from killing people against his consent. The relevant question is whether or not an action maximizes the well being of moral agents. Animals, and particularly mammals, seem to have intellectual abilities not to far from our own, they seem to the best of our knowledge to be able to experience happiness and suffering. I don't believe there are any non-human animals that have equal moral agency as ourselves, but I do think that minimally certain mammals are capable of suffering (and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise). So in the case of vines strangling other plants to death, the act is morally neutral since there doesn't seem to be significant evidence that plants can experience pleasure or suffering in a way that's meaningful analogous to our own experience.

But even if you did view consent of affected parties as a requirement for moral action, you can't reconcile a rejection of beastiality and an acceptance of meat eating. I suspect the predominant view is that animals simply are not moral agents since they don't possess rationality (one among many reasons deontology is a crock), and if a person holding such a view rejects beastiality it would have to be on the grounds of divine prohibition or something equally silly. "But it's natural" is a prime example of the naturalistic fallacy and "you've got to eat to survive" is both a false dichotomy (you can eat without consuming animals) and a non-sequitur ("I need to do X to survive" does not imply X is good in any way shape or form. You could be forced, at gun point, to murder 20 children. Doing that would be necessary to survival but it certainly wouldn't be a moral positive).

All higher life needs to feed on living, or once-living things. Animal or plant, what is the difference, really? .

So again, animal vs. plant, the difference is capacity to suffer (on my view). But no matter how you look at it, beastiality and eating meat come as a package unless you invoke divine law or something similarly stupid.

2015-07-25 at 6:27 AM UTC in Fuck religion.

Lanny Bird of Courage

what I said about using the internet, I just meant debating with others to sharpen my debate skills and general knowledge base

in a capitalist 'system', no one is stopping people from taking care of their loved ones and friends,with charity or even forming organizations like hospitalers, salvation army, or shriners.

No matter how the left tries to make their competition with the right into a life and death struggle, where the right are the heartless religious zealots, or overly moralizing hypocrytes, or darwinian capitalists, it is no big secret the left accuses the right of great evils. Oppression, racism, fascism.

Don't get me wrong, we on the right see the left as evil too, but it is a more foolish, stupid evil, not the way the left see the right as evil towards humanity out of malice.

I don't really get what you mean with the 'deserving' stuff. I am totally uneducated, so if you are referring to any sort of scholarly work, it will be lost on me.

IThe right is not evil, no matter how much the left wants it to be.. Right wing beliefs (I wish I was more articulate, all this sounds way better in my head) are just a system, a human way of doing things. It doesn't have to be followed to the utmost, and in a true 'right' oriented society, the left would be free to collectivize and share their wealth if that is how they want to live.

It's definitely true that there's vilification of the opposition of both sides of the political spectrum. I'm even willing to concede, in the face of evidence, that the left is more prone to it, but it ultimately doesn't change my point. I'm not trying to say the right is heartless and hates poor people or whatever, but in combination with the world we live in, libertarian ideology does seem to advocate policy that would leave a large number of people to suffer, fail to reproduce, and ultimately die in the name of the free market. Whether or not that is a consequence of malice, the implicit condemnation of human beings, especially those who have no meaningful alternative, to premature death does not equate to a fostering of overall human wellbeing.

And the idea of private charity in a purely capitalistic system is naive and a red herring. The very idea that makes free market systems seem plausible and desirable is that they "trim the fat", in the sense that participants which do not produce maximal profits will eventually be edged out of the system. Yes, we may be free to choose charity, but how is charity at the price of economic suicide a meaningful option at all?

2015-07-25 at 6:16 AM UTC in Fuck religion.

Lanny Bird of Courage

Oy, Lanny, this is awful. You have so many horrendous misconceptions, but it's very common among people your age, particularly in your environment.

What's actually awful is you refusing to actually engage with my position, falling back on a generalized boogman of the young left. It's your loss though.

2015-07-25 at 5:56 AM UTC in Psychomanthis should move to the united states

Lanny Bird of Courage

It is crony capitalism because the corporations and special interest groups pay big money to get the president of their choice elected and then the president can do the corporation favors in return like monopoly rights.

See, the issue here is that you have to demonstrate that's actually the case. Consider, for example, the telecom industry in which the president has been generally in favor of neutrality laws which work against the interest of every major ISP in the USA. Clearly such companies like comcast are as big as you can get and yet they, for some reason, have completely failed to win political favor on this issue despite it costing them tremendous amounts of money. How can you explain that in your framework of "crony capitalism"?

Also china/ussr was socialist because every aspect of the economy was controlled there wasn't a free market or capitalism and we all know how the USSr turned out.

That's clearly not true in the case of China and for the USSR, there's a lot more that goes into being a socialism than the state having control of the means of produciton. Consider that the state has control of means of production in despotisms and classical monarchies as well, yet neither of these forms of government are socialistic.

And you make a valid point about animals not being able to consent to be killed for food, but niggas gotta' eat nahmean blood?

Doesn't a nigga gotta fuck too? We can live perfectly well without consuming meat, I've learned this first hand recently. It's somewhat more challenging to live without consuming any product that requires farming of animal products (veganism), but at very least it's obvious that meat is produced without the consent of animals. Would I be justified in violating such libertarian principles as non-aggression or property rights against other humans if it was what was required for me to eat?

2015-07-25 at 5:08 AM UTC in Dear American's

Lanny Bird of Courage

also companies are niggers about what they reject. Tried to buy a pipe the other day and two different cards were like "lol nope" before I was like "fuck it, I'll pay cash". Every time I try to buy bitcoin it's a clusterfuck of 2 or 3 or 4 factor authentication.

2015-07-25 at 5:06 AM UTC in Dear American's

Lanny Bird of Courage

On the west coast here. There's some threshold for when you have to enter your PIN. I think it's $50, under that you can just swipe your (debit) card without using a pin and it works. Over that you need a PIN or no dice. For credit cards it's a similar situation, swipe and under whatever amount that's it, and over that you need to sign (although god knows it's not verified so w/e).

2015-07-25 at 4:58 AM UTC in Fuck religion.

Lanny Bird of Courage

p.s. I'm drunk, I may have better arguments in the morning but feel free to reply, I'll stand by my drunken rants as well as my sober rants.

2015-07-25 at 4:58 AM UTC in Fuck religion.

Lanny Bird of Courage

I addressed that in my post right above yours.

ahh, should have read the whole thread. No doubt the tarantino version sounds more badass but I was a little upset when I learned it wasn't real (I what a total PF fanboy when I was younger, I knew the whole dumb verse, word for word, for a time).

Also, I like what you brought up, pretty much everything you said encompasses the whole reason I am even on boards like this, and it even underscores my general outlook on life.

I am a far-right winger, almost to the point of being an anarchist. You remember our discussions about 'vigilance committees'. I believe that our society is entirely 180 degrees wrong about everything. We espouse things like diversity, inclusion, and fairness, but these are all the exact opposite of how reality works.

I believe the way I do because I firmly believe that competition and capitalism are very basic concepts that are almost instinctual to nearly all life forms. Competition brings striving, it brings rivalrys, it sharpens skills, it brings out the best in people. Think famous inventors, or feuds over women or material goods. I really do believe in people, and I believe that people can take care of themselves when left to their own devices. For the most part, we don't need cops standing over our shoulder all the time.

People can do things for and take care of themselves better than any 'government' ever could. We always have, and we always will. When people are put in extreme situations, when everything is stripped away that makes them human, what remains? capitalism, and competition. Think prison. Think war. Think frontier life. This is why I believe that the left is foolish and doomed, they are fighting against human nature itself.

So like, as you know, I hold a very different view of things (I guess that illustrates the point we're both trying to make, to a degree). There's a world of difference between a perfect darwinian society and a world wherein our ideas face stiff disagreement. Like when you're on the internet and you have some stupid belief then what are you risking? You may be made to look like a fool to your peers (which is a powerful motivator, no doubt) but there's no risk of death. The economic capitalistic premise condemns human beings, and a large number of them at that, to death for ignorance or ineptitude or even poor luck (god knows capitalistic markets are prone to wild swings). The leftist ideal is based in the fundamental idea that human life and happiness is worthwhile in and of itself. It's conceivable that the maximization of human wellbeing can only be achieved through a capitalistic system, but almost every thinker who's accepted the premise that maximization of human well being is the goal has come to the conclusion that socialistic policies are the most likely way to achieve that goal. There is a recurring rhetorical thread in the right wing of the idea of what people "deserve", the notion that if you don't do the right things you are somehow less entitled than the rest of us to wellbeing. There's a lot of focus in the right's rhetoric on "deserving", how people who aren't well off are their because they deserve to be but that's clearly a metaphysical mire. What entitles those with the means to succeed to their success? There is no valid argument to support that position, human life is human life, if we could save and provide well being for a hundred human lives at the cost of on other who didn't do anything to "deserve" their sacrifice we would be monsters not to. If you don't agree with that simply replace 100 for any number up to the population of earth. "Deserves" falls away in the face of needs, in the face of right. What is right is not what is deserved but what leads the the optimal outcome. A darwinist should appreciate that.

2015-07-25 at 2:40 AM UTC in You little cocksucker

Lanny Bird of Courage

50 shades of ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy lmao

Best seller in the making.

You know I kinda miss the days when I wasn't used to alcohol and I couldn't type very well when I was smashed. It was fun to just slap at my keyboard with my head on my desk for a while and post it. I don't know if it's tolerance or I just learned to type when drunk but I can't do it. I mean I'm a shit typist 24/7 but it doesn't get any worse any more.

You ever get that feeling sploo?

2015-07-25 at 2:36 AM UTC in Fuck religion.

Lanny Bird of Courage

:headbang:

we need better smiles, someone should really get on that.

oh wait.
aaaanyway, I like the sentiment in Proverbs 27:17, "As sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another". People poke fun at arguing on the internet and I think everyone here has done their fair share of that. I think there's something really valuable though in being in and creating a sufficiently hostile environment where people will argue with you over anything and everything. Like it's kinda darwinian in some sense, you go into everything you do with a collection of beliefs and if you engage in activities where those beliefs face really strong opposition then a reasonable person will be forced to throw away anything they can't satisfactorily defend. I know people calling each other faggots on the internet isn't _exactly_ the same thing, but I think we write it off as unproductive too hastily. Like I've been on these godforsaken boards for the better part of a decade now and there have been numerous times where someone convinced me of something, although usually they'd never know it. Like at one point I was convinced fluoride was the worst thing even and I got into and argument with Rust about it and he just fucking destroyed me and I backed out with some BS excuse but despite the attempt to save face or whatever his point eventually hit home and I realized the fluoride conspiracies are dumb. Obviously I don't know what the case is with other people but I suspect a lot of people have similar experiences that leave artifacts suggesting the whole exercise was pointless but actually resulted in real human beings holding a more sound collection of beliefs Anyway, I think that passage kinda summarizes that mindset, it's only through a sort of limited conflict with each other that we can really test the reliability of our own beliefs and skills.

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon you."

Lol the old Ezekiel 25:17. You know verse doesn't actually appear anywhere in the bible right? I think it's like a couple of verses stuck together.

User Controls

Navigation