/sci/ - Science & Math

Well good thing this generation is full of shallow retards... or is it a bad thing.

zomg, i skim over and it sounds bad!! he must be asshole! look at evil picture!!

people suck

Most people are driven by their emotional characteristics, thus they frown upon statements like that because they can't grasp the core meaning behind it.

>>1394620
Actually, he'd just be wrong. The altruistic instinct and societal preservation instinct found in humanity helps explain the species' resilience through the ages. Not sure what he means by 'super niceness', though. Guess he just hates Ghandi or some shit. >_>

>>1394620

He wrote an entire book on why genes are selfish, but alturism can still evolve in individuals.

You have obviously taken this quote out of context.

Honest scientist is honest.

>Actually, he'd just be wrong. The altruistic instinct and societal preservation instinct found in humanity helps explain the species' resilience through the ages.

this is correct.
the o.p.'s quote needs context.

>>1394653
>helps explain the species' resilience through the ages
>implying group selection works
>it doesn't

>>1394620
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/20?page=3
Cited.

Still nicer than most Christfags. Take a look at those Calvinists.

>>1394653

I'm going to argue this Anon. If altruism and the preservation of society were common goals, or even instincts or nature if you prefer, why do they have to be enforced at gunpoint?

It seems to me that if something is in my nature, or is a common thread in all humans, we wouldn't need to force people to do it, right?

>>1394620
you're probably the same person who disagrees with apes being our relatives because it's somehow insulting to you.

Think about the fact that in the wilderness, without clothing, left to live on our own any human would get fucking killed in a day or two.

>>1394706

you need learn survival skills

>>1394620
yeah no shit, sherlock

>>1394687
your not getting takers on your argument, leftists/altruists/liberals/idiots don't like justifying their theft

>>1394687
A lot of people aren't necessarily super-willing to sacrifice for strangers, but I'd be willing to bet most people can be counted on to go out of their way to help those close to them: family, friends, and close neighbors. The instinct for grouping and internal altruism is a means to create social networks that help maintain themselves. We see some offshoots in either direction: the super nice guys and the real assholes. Most people fall between these extremes because some level of socialization and giving were passed traits.

If you hate someone for being realistic then i wouldn't care about your opinion.

>>1394653
"Super niceness," I would think, is letting retards and other incredibly unfit people live/breed instead of just letting them die out, like they would in the wild. At the very least, Dawkins is saying that, in the wild, retards would die out if there wasn't human society keeping them alive.

I see nothing disagreeable or unlikeable about his statement. He's right.

>>1394794
So, we're privatizing everything (military included) and disbanding the gubmint? Furk year!

He's telling it like it is. He's not saying he believes human super niceness is the wrong thing to do, in fact he obviously a very nice person himself. Don't take his talk about what Darwinism is, as his personal moral system.

>>1394802

Thanks for the reply. I agree with some of that, but this still doesn't answer the question of why do we have to enforce macro level altruism at the point of a gun if we all have the natural tendency to do it in the first place? No one has to point a gun at me to make me care for my family.

And a corollary: what makes this moral? Theft by force is immoral, right?

>>1394682
You know, there is a reason why the Pope used to burn heretics. Should have never stopped.

>>1394620
>implying Dawkins has not declared himself to be against social darwinism
>implying the rightwing anti-liberals that butthurt about Dawkins aren't the best examples of social darwinists

It would be really interesting if Dawkins had a "retarded" child....I dont wish him bad even though he is a jackass but it would be very interesting what he would do.

>>1394837
forgot to mention

>implying OP wasn't quote-mining
>implying that he did not debunk that very statement in "The Selfish Gene" elaborating further on that reasoning.

>>1394829
cool strawmen bro! you just proved my point! unable to reason or present an argument, leftists or altruists resort to your brand of idiocy. i guess you prefer force and violence of the state to the choice and freedom of the free market.

>>1394846
I never got people calling him a jackkass or rude, I've only ever seen him totally polite and respectful.
Hitchens is the jackass and proud of it

>>1394840
Because we don't naturally work well with huge groups. If we assume some genetic component in our socialization schemes, we probably only naturally handle groups in the dozens to hundreds with relative ease. There have been many studies that show humans just don't intrinsically 'feel' huge groups like we do smaller ones - the tragedy of an individual or small group is immensely more emotionally moving to the average person than some massive genocidal tragedy.

But I get you're trying to say that, basically, taxes = theft.

>>1394860
So you're saying that some things MUST be run by forced governance? If any sort of collectivism you don't completely buy into is theft, how is what I suggested anything other than the natural end result of your beliefs?

Thank you for posting the source
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/20?page=3
so we can see what Dawkins was really talking about.

Dawkins never claims Darwinism explains all aspects of humanity and culture. I've never seen him promote the study of evolutionary psychology, for example, and I used to hang out on his web site every day for a year or two.

>>1394890

If we don't work well in large groups, which I agree with, then why are we forced to? As for the rest I agree, and I think I've experienced the small group bias you're talking about.

I'm making a few point actually: yes taxes are theft (and therefore immoral right? Stealing is wrong regardless of purpose and agent.) I'm also saying that state enforced altruism is misguided since it denies man's nature of selfishness, and I'm also saying that enforcing ANYTHING at gunpoint is immoral -- it doesn't matter what idea of good is served by it. The initiation of force is ethically bankrupt, but is the cornerstone of some political ideologies.

Altruism is a byproduct of bio-cultural evolution. The cohesiveness of society is something that the logical side of the human brain recognizes as good. It gets shit done and more can be accomplished by working together. In a survival situation altruism is not a good thing, however, if through altruism our society which enables our survival functions better, then it is a benefit.

>>1394907
no, nothing should be run by force since its anti-freedom to force people to do things. Collectivism is not natural, since I don't work to pay your bills, i work to pay mine. I wouldn't ask you to come labor on my farm unless you were getting something out of it, i have to meet your self-interest. I have to offer you something in return, pointing a gun at you doesn't make it right.

>>1394943
>>1394890
What? humans don't work well in large groups? Look at skyscrapers, look at almost any modern task and in most cases you will find its functionality is vastly improved depending on how many people are working on it.

I'm sick of people pretending man is capable of doing absolutely anything that is "unnatural."
Pro-tip, we're nature.

humans trade with each other. to trade you need to be tolerable. trade is mutually beneficial. whatever streamlines trade is beneficial to man. So being nice is good for mankind.

>>1394958

No. the cohesiveness of a society doesn't have to be based on altruism. At all. The baker doesn't bake his bread for the common good, he does it for the money. Now, it's true that we can get shit done together, but it doesn't follow that we therefore need to be altruistic... I can pay you for helping me. If I need a house built we can come together to get it done; you pour the cement, another guy frames, and third bro does the drywall, and I'll pay every single one of you for your self-interested ambition of profit, this doesn't have to include altruism at all. The motives are actually selfish, not selfless.

>>1394943
Social contract theory: the idea is we know that there's shit like sewage systems and roads we need, but we can't provide these as effectively with individual effort as when we pool resources to provide them for everyone in the group. For the more controversial stuff, you have to make the choice of whether you're willing to renounce citizenship to break from it or if you'll put up with the stuff you dislike to keep that which you do. Human rationality is unique in the animal kingdom, and forces us to work beyond mere instinct.

>>1394972

A skyscraper is a lousy comparison, a few thousand people working on separate tasks? By large I mean LARGE: tens of thousands of people, hundred of thousands, millions, billions. You misunderstood 'large'.

I have to wonder if psychopathy is an evolutionarily beneficial strategy for humans. Psychopaths can blend into most social situations and appear extremely friendly and personable. They learn how to get their way, they learn how to cover up acting against societal strictures...

They take advantage of altruism without being in any way altruistic themselves. They get maximum benefits with minimal pay-out.

This, combined with the fact that many psychopaths have demanding egos, means they're likely to leave a lot of children too.

Psychopaths: The best thing to be, from an evolutionary standpoint.

>>1394996

You seem smarter than the average Anon. But can you show me a copy of this contract I signed? When did I sign it? Was I of legal age?

So, I never signed such a contract. Now, if I didn't sign it, who did? I never granted the power of attorney to anyone to sign this contract on my behalf, and thus under the law, we have to recognize the contract as questionable, if not outright invalid, right? I gave neither permission or power to sign such an agreement. If a person wants to argue that the SC is a valid theory, they have to accept that contract can be enforced without agreement, and without permission, and we know that to be unjust. I can't make you sign something and take your money, just as I can't CLAIM you agreed to something and start charging you for it, right?

>>1395007
>I have to wonder if psychopathy is an evolutionarily beneficial strategy for humans

If it was it would have spread throughout the population and a load of psychopaths probably isn't an ESS.

>>1394992
What a fucking load. True altruism, perhaps; selflessness is hard to come by, but if you're stating that our societal organization is based on nothing but selfish gain, you're crazy wrong. You're surrounded by people with things that could be yours; how much have you stolen today? Sure there's systems in place to prevent and punish, but by no means would it be strong enough to prevent an entire nation wanting that kind of destruction. Cops get shot trying to stop someone. Soldiers die believing they defend their country. Great thinkers devote their lives to science. Many who sacrifice may have done it for religious lies or false ideals in their countries meanings, but it's true to them, and sacrificial none the less.

You might argue that altruism, bolstering humanity and thus our achievements and gains overal, is itself selfish, but that'd be a different conversation.

>>1394972
We can organize in larger groups, and have been able to do so for ages (Great Pyramids et al.). My point's that humans aren't naturally inclined to fully connect with massive groups in the same way they do small social organizations. Think about school for a moment. In elementary school, you tend to follow a similar group of peers year to year, and so you'll know most of them. In high school, classes are more mixed. Unless you go to Podunk High, chances are you didn't know everyone in your grade, much less the entire school. You'd probably associate cliques together to ease understanding the social dynamics (the Debbies, the drama fags, etc.).

>>1395019
>and thus under the law, we have to recognize the contract as questionable, if not outright invalid, right?
Good try, indeed, but no contract = no "law"
Sorry.

(Not the person you're quoting, by the way)

>>1394976

We are natural, but if you think that therefore anything we do is natural, you're wrong. Nature is objective, we, by definition, make subjective choices.

>>1394988

I like this. Trade is the only just way of dealing with people, it treats both parties are equals, not as a lord and a serf.

>>1395022

Well, roughly 1 in 25 people is a psychopath and most people have at least SOME psychopathic tendencies (it's a spectrum, not a single disorder).

Psychopaths are usually lawyers, consultants, etc. They're not the criminal thugs or serial killers the name is usually associated with. A lot of serial killers and thugs are psychopaths but they're also usually sociopaths too.

For the record, I know anti-social personality disorder is the new name but psychopath and sociopath help differentiate it a bit.

>>1395027

Nice try, but false. Laws refer to pre-existing rights, they are not dependent upon a contract that would grant them. At least in America. The government does not grant us rights, it protects the ones we have, they are called self-evident.

Laws are not contracts, nor are they hinged upon contracts for enforcement or justification.

>>1395019

The US Constitution (assuming Amerifag here). And, no, you didn't sign it. You happened to be born in American territory, which meant you are assigned a place in the American system of governance. Now, it's tricky to try and have any sort of system that guarantees your total freedom to choose the system of allegiance to which you'll pledge... basically, all nations at some level enforce their contracts by gun, by nature of nearly all land and much of the sea being claimed by one or another well before you were born.

Again, you can renounce your citizenship if the nation into which you were born doesn't suit you (the UN and treaty law help with this), but yeah, you got suckered into being an American, son.

>>1395052
>self-evident rights
Oh boy, here we go.

>>1395052
Huh? Then who enforces those laws, anyway?
Who would give you something for nothing?
Let's say you'd opt out of the contract. Who's gonna protect you? Why would he do that?

>>1395054

So, if I never signed it, or agreed to it of my own volition, I cannot be reasonably (or more importantly, morally) held to it. That's tyranny my friend! No different than a mafia boss.

Your argument seems to (sorry if I strawman) assume that this land belongs to the American government, not the people, and this is false. The government gets its power from the people, we grant it rights. The right to declare our land as its own is not covered, since that would be unjust.

The spirit of our founding speaks plainly, we don't move if we don't like the government, we change the government, or make it 'move'. by force if necessary if the constitution is any measure of truth. Citizens don't give way to government, the gov gives way to us. We are the hand that feeds.

>>1394620

" From a rational choice point of view, or from a Darwinian point of view, human super niceness is just plain dumb.”

This is plain dumb, This is dumb, Those can fuck off....
Nice judging, What an arrogant piece of shit he is.

Glad to him he had a verry strict mom and dad, giving him a strict upbringing.

Imagine what this person would have becoume if he hadn`t have his atheism thing as expression...
To express his feelings and his narcism.
He would be a born serial killer.

>>1395109
Whats with the anti-dawkins threads on /sci/ recently?

Ladies an gentlemen, I agree with that man.

He isn't saying that superniceness is dumb, he is simply saying that from a very strictly evolutionary standpoint, it is dumb.

Why is it dumb? It retards evolution. From an evolutionary standpoint, retarding evolution is RETARDED.

From a societal/sociological standpoint, its a fucking great idea. He isn't denying that, he is just stating that it stops evolution.

Maybe, we as humans do not need to evolve. We have evolved to the point were evolution is not necessary. We have achieved evolutionary nirvana.

Now, we just need to evolve the technology around us to propel us to greater heights.

Dawkins doesn't deny this.

>>1394998
Wikipedia.
Also, you used the word large without ANY indication of how many you were taking about. Therefore my base unit of measurement when taking about a large group of people is in relation to my body. Several thousands of people is very large is comparison to one unit.

>>1394681
>>1394681
>>1394681

Hey nigger, those are protestants.

>>1395085

The 'who' is not the question being debated, the 'how' and the 'why' are up for investigation. Try to keep up mate.

Something for nothing? lol wut? I pay my taxes too. The Olbermann argument is invalid, Something for nothing, you crack me up.

I don't have to opt out of the contract, you're not grasping this, I am *challenging* its legal and moral legitimacy. Invoking that which is being challenged to defend against the challenge is a strange thing indeed.

As for protection, the people that we've tasked with the duty to protect would do their job. Why would they do that? Because that is their function! A function that is not hinged upon the Locke idea of a social contract. They don't have to promise me, they take what is given to them (my tax dollars you seemed to ignore so foolishly) and do what we tell them, i.e. protect our PRE-EXISTING rights.

>>1395137
>He isn't saying that superniceness is dumb
>"From a rational choice point of view, or from a Darwinian point of view, human super niceness is just plain dumb"
>plain dumb
>he doesn't say it's dumb

lol wut?

>>1395109

You have no clue christfag. Dawkins has on many occasions said that he DOES NOT approve of social darwinism, that humans should behave in such way as to oppose natural selection, help the weak, sick, be nice in general.

But sure, christfags have to make him look bad, cant have non-evil atheists runnin around, bad for the...

>>1395104
Yep! Go have telling the government you aren't paying your taxes because you never got to choose to be a citizen. Shit like this makes me wish we had a more Greco-Roman design to citizenship; you're born a resident but have to earn/gain full citizen status.

Anyhow...

The land of the United States belongs to individuals, for the most part. But basically all land in the US is either owned by an individual, a corporation, or collectively under the auspices of the US government. The enforcement of the Constitution, which is what makes that land US rather than Canada or Mexico, is however entirely the matter of the government. It happens that the guys who founded this government wrote into it that mechanism that anyone born in the land protected as American is himself considered an American automatically. Obviously, the founding fathers had a direct choice in this, since they had representatives who signed the literal contract of our nation. If you're pissed that the Obama tyrants forced you to be a socialist, yell at Jefferson.

>>1395144

I hate to have to point this out, but you are a not a large group of people. Using your person to determine the size of macro issues is illogical, and individual is a micro issue.

When someone says large group, they don't mean large compared to YOU, they mean large compared to GROUPS OF PEOPLE.

You're welcome!

post the whole thing fucktard (an OP):

"From a rational choice point of view, or from a Darwinian point of view, human super niceness is just plain dumb. And yes, it is the kind of dumb that should be encouraged - which is the purpose of my article. How can we do it? How shall we take the minority of super nice humans that we all know, and increase their number, perhaps until they even become a majority in the population?"

of course its dumb from the perspective of evolution. but thats not to say he supports it dimwit

>>1395155

People who know what he actually says and means dont dislike him. only christfags dislike him

I'm an atheist, and I don't like saying this about the most prominent atheist-but Richard Dawkins is just a fucking jerk. Not to mention he's wrong, at least on this. Altruism would be very strongly selected for in pack animals.

>>1395162

WOW, so you just let your immorality just hang out like that huh? Being born creates a social and economic obligation without just consent? Payable to a government that cannot then be said to be deriving its power from the people? You're insane mate. Batshit insane. They answer to us, not the other way around. We grant them power.

The contract of our nation is not a contract on my part, since it was made without my consent and illegally. If our founders fought and died over taxes, it's insane to sit here and read that you think we're born into obligation we had zero choice in instituting. And who said anything Obama? Where do you get this stuff?

>>1395196
Actually, he's only saying super-altruism isn't something that makes sense in a Darwinist sense. I agree its expression makes sense if we're willing to consider 'altruism' as a non-binary option in the gene pool like hair color, but it's not a trait that naturally shows up in huge numbers, so it's not a dominant trait, FWIW.

>>1395152
>Something for nothing? lol wut? I pay my taxes too
I was talking about a hypothetical scenario where there is no such "social contract". Now, you argue that you already have self-evident rights. Again, who protects them?

>I don't have to opt out of the contract, you're not grasping this, I am *challenging* its legal and moral legitimacy
Fine, so some ancestors of yours have decided to form such a contract. Without being forced to do it. No problem here, morally and legally right?

Now, generations later, you're born into a country that has established a government. You are part of the system, whether you like it or not. But well, shit, that is unavoidable. So you don't agree, you get to opt out.

>As for protection, the people that we've tasked with the duty to protect would do their job. Why would they do that? Because that is their function! A function that is not hinged upon the Locke idea of a social contract. They don't have to promise me, they take what is given to them (my tax dollars you seemed to ignore so foolishly) and do what we tell them, i.e. protect our PRE-EXISTING rights.
I'm not ignoring your tax dollars. If they get paid, there is no problem. But you insist on having rights that exist before any contract is made (i.e. before it is decided that you have to pay taxes, before someone is assigned to actually protect your rights/enforece laws).

HERE'S A JOKE:

Q: WHY WAS JESUS NAILED TO A CROSS?

A: BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK

>>1395162
he didnt say he wasn't going to pay taxes, your making that up and being retarded. if you don't like choice and freedom thats fine but don't ruin it for the rest of us that do. and what is this obama talk, no one brought that up but you.

>>1395196

o rly? and how do you think we got the altruism in the first place? of course its selected for in some groups, dawkins himself says thats exactly why we're the way we are (the non retarded ones anyway)

srsly, i think i know why you think hes a fucking jerk... cuz youre a fucking idiot

>>1395226

You presuppose that this is a two choice option: social contract or something for nothing. False Dichotomy is false. Who protects them? I already went over this.

You extend the actions of my ancestors to me without accounting for my own volition? Really? Well my friend, indentured servants were free from force when they formed a contract, so then their decedents, themselves having never agreed to the terns, are on the hook to serve as well! No, this is not sound in any sense. One does NOT grant the other in this case.

I do insist on those rights pre-existing, and do you know why? The constitution of the United States of America speaks plainly; they are not granted by the SC, they are our right as people. You are making the mistake of assuming that our rights are derived from the gov or the SC, which is false.

>>1395109
I LIKE YOU SO MUCH

>>1395213
I am now thoroughly convinced in your troll status. Assuming you're correct, and the stipulation of the Constitution that you were born a citizen by default is tantamount to tyranny, your only logical conclusion must be to define your own contract of life with anyone else who agrees with you.

Unlike you, I'm willing to accept some level of expediency to draw order from unmitigated chaos. I was born an American citizen (a Canadian one, too, but that's not important). I was not born a slave, but given immediate membership into the collective body, with all its benefits and responsibilities. It happens that the Constitution provides mechanisms by which I can change the social contract if enough other like-minded people agree with me. If I felt sufficiently disenfranchised from the operation of the governing system, I'd be able to leave it for some other group of people (Canada, presumably), but it turns out that I'm okay enough with the responsibilities I bear.

We answer to the government and it answers to us because in the case of any constitutional democracy or republic, the two are the same. When I was born, I was given the protection of my voice within the group, thankfully enumerated pretty fully in several amendments. A military the US has which could force me to obey its demands only works because enough Americans are willing to take up arms in its behalf. At the end of the day, the government is just a hierarchy of citizens we set up to maintain an order to which those before us found useful. We'll in turn modify it to fit our desires, and so on until it dissolves or is destroyed.

>>1395109
>>1395109
SERIOUSLY GUYS STOP ARGUING, THIS POST HERE IS ONE OF THE BEST I'VE SEEN ON THIS BOARD. WE NEED TO HOLD HANDS AND CELEBRATE LIKE THIS POST DESERVES.
INB4SAMEFAG

>>1395235
Know why I brought it up? The taxes and the Obama crap? Because that's the only reason you'd reasonably be arguing this. I've already explained pretty clearly that you're not being coerced into remaining an American, but your continued citizenship and residency carries with it certain responsibilities as agreed upon by the majority (ideally, at least) of the American people. If this argument ISN'T going to end up being about taxes or policy, then you're literally just saying America's a tyranny because it has an opt-out policy to citizenship.

I can only hope this is trolling because the idiocy required to believe your arguments is profound... non-Darwinian, perhaps.

>>1395290
>You presuppose that this is a two choice option: social contract or something for nothing
Well, okay, there's also "nothing, see how you protect your rights on your own"

>Who protects them? I already went over this
The guys who take your taxdollars. Wait, there are no taxes yet. Remember, the cavemen have just learned talking.

>Well my friend, indentured servants were free from force when they formed a contract, so then their decedents, themselves having never agreed to the terns, are on the hook to serve as well!
Nah, not really. If you dont agree with the terms, you should be able to opt out. Of course you'd have to be asked at some point. Where did I say anything else?

>I do insist on those rights pre-existing, and do you know why?
Okay, let's say they exist, they're useless, because nobody will protect them for you (see above)

Remember, i'm talking about a scenario where people are just about to start forming a government.

>>1395109
>>1395109
THE EXQUISITE CHOICE OF PICTURE AND WORDS, ALL OF IT IS FINE-TUNED FOR THE READER TO COMPREHEND APPROPRIATELY. AS I WITHDRAW FROM THIS THREAD, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SALUTE THIS FINE GENTLEMAN OR THIS GRANDMASTER OF ARTS IF YOU PREFER

>>1395302

Opens with a false dilemma and moves on to an argument from chaos: unjust and immoral action are warranted to protect us from injustice and immorality. Wait... what? You hope to protect freedom by robbing people of freedom? What chaos are you saving me from by delivering me into more garbage? You claim expediency? Well, what would follow from that? Unicameral government, or how about one party state? Come the fuck on. I can only stand so many contradictions and nonsense. If you support unjust contracts and theft, that is your moral failing, good day sir!

And you also missed the point of the constitutionally limited government, it is NOT to be dissolved slowly over time, they meant what they said, if you stop to read it.

>Dawkins

Hmm, either a troll or a science fan who can't do real science

>Human super niceness is a perversion of Darwinism

Someone hasn't read The God Delusion before posting, have they?

7.4/10 for generating 74 posts

>>1395356
Indeed, the opt-out status of citizenship is an unbearable mark of tyranny, and we must take up arms to end this blight!

To what end are you even arguing any more? Obviously, you love what the Constitution stands for, what with the whole call back to what it represents. I mean, if you're saying you can't handle the mechanism by which you became a citizen, petition to change the Constitution so that citizenship must be chosen/earned by any adult who wishes to partake?

>>1395346

After you 'foot in mouth' with a false dichotomy you move along to strawmen about 'there being nothing'? You are scrapping the bottom of that barrel aren't you?

Then onto another strawman about there not being taxes yet, your assumptions ruin your ability to think. I know it's scary, but I believe in you. Our country was founded on new ideas, arguing that there are no more options for new ones is strange.

Even if they exist they're useless? Are you high? I will protect them! I'll protect yours! Of course they have meaning! People killed and died for these things you know.

You deconstructed the discussion down to cavemen and 'nothing;, then say that rights exist before the government but they're useless, and that there is actually 'something'. This is not reasonable. At all. If you want to argue from nothing, go ahead, but don't insist that there is something after all (our property rights).

>>1395373

You're equivocating between the SC and citizenship. Sorry, that's not going fly. One is not dependent on the other, in any sense.

The end I'm arguing is pretty clear by this point, but I have to spend most of my time clearing up misunderstandings, which is natural, this is the internet and we were educated publicly.

I'm not saying I 'can't handle' the mechanism, that is a red herring on your part, and a pretty poor one at that. I should be glad you didn't just start in with claiming that I'm whining or crying. I'll settle for this simpler misdirection instead, some progress is better than none I guess.

I think the idea of petition the gov to make changes is a good idea, and you know what really makes that work? Consciousness raising -- No change has ever been instituted in America without it. You stand there and hold the red herrings, I'll help get shit done, and drag the useless along with us. Bring that fish for a snack, you seem to have enough to go around!

>>1395456
Well, what you claim now to be a red herring was the entire point of our side of this... debate? Sure, debate.

You said enforcing anything with the threat of force is immoral, to which I replied that a group willingly ties itself in such a manner with a social contract, then it mightn't be. You then claimed that because the contractual system into which you were placed didn't provide a choice to enter it was also immoral, I had to explain how citizenship (the method of entering a formal social contract in most regions) was provided as an opt-out exercise of the contract, which means you can leave the social contract if you feel you were coerced into being part of it and have no interest in it.

At each step of the way where you claim some fundamental immorality at work, I call BS, and you retreat to a new point. You claim being born into obligations is immoral, but you don't address any alternative. If you were born into a society which was not devoted to preserving freedom, than the injustice of the system would be evident. However, being born into a system like the US as a citizen is really one of the fairest deals one can get. There are obligations for it as decided by earlier citizens, but you are also granted many protections and are given equal power (in theory, at least) to effect change to the contract, thereby making it better suited to your beliefs. Any alternative I can see requires either entirely unclaimed land or merely an exchange of lesser obligations for fewer protections.