Converting a Statist.

[NonEntity]

Kel Wrote:Quite an arrogant claim. What makes you so sure?

Just an observation, man. No need to get all huffy. I didn't see you get huffy at AgoristTeen's claim that the state is both unnecessary and evil. Why so selective?

Just stating the way it looks from over here. If you have other evidence then go for it. I've just never seen any and the logic doesn't pan out either. But, like I said, I don't really care one way or the other WHAT you may believe, as long as it is voluntarily dealt with. Some people actually believe that rap is music. Go figure!

- NonE

[Kel]

NonEntity Wrote:No need to get all huffy.

I didn't.

NonEntity Wrote:But, like I said, I don't really care one way or the other WHAT you may believe, as long as it is voluntarily dealt with.

Clearly you do. Why else would you go out of your way to slander him?

[NonEntity]

Kel Wrote:

NonEntity Wrote:No need to get all huffy.

I didn't.

NonEntity Wrote:But, like I said, I don't really care one way or the other WHAT you may believe, as long as it is voluntarily dealt with.

Clearly you do. Why else would you go out of your way to slander him?

SLANDER??? :rolleyes2:

And you claim you're not getting huffy?

- NonE

[zonsb]

Kel Wrote:Quite an arrogant claim. What makes you so sure?

He enjoys being arrogant yet not being called on it. "You're just being huffy," is a projection of which I've come almost to expect.

[AgoristTeen1994]

All right, all right, could you two stop bashing on NonEntity? I highly doubt he was trying to slander me and even if he was, what he said didn't bother me. So I'd appreciate it if you would just leave it alone....if however you're determined to bash NonEntity, then kindly either start your own thread, or do it in PM's between the two of your...or three if NonEntity want's to join in the "discussion"
Normally I wouldn't even dignify your hypersensitive idiocy with a response but this thread was started by me and I would much prefer if it didn't get derailed in this manner. Getting off topic is one thing....getting off topic simply to troll or bash someone, is just plain irritating. So again, leave NonEntitiy alone....or else I'll hunt you down and feed you to a group of coyotes.

[NonEntity]

AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:...or else I'll hunt you down and feed you to a group of coyotes.

I'm thinking that it's illegal to poison coyotes. At the very least it's rude. :biggrinblue: (and it converts the state of their ists to coyote poop. [to bring the relevance back to the topic at hand])

- NonE

[AgoristTeen1994]

NonEntity Wrote:

AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:...or else I'll hunt you down and feed you to a group of coyotes.

I'm thinking that it's illegal to poison coyotes. At the very least it's rude. :biggrinblue: (and it converts the state of their ists to coyote poop. [to bring the relevance back to the topic at hand])

- NonE

1. I don't care about if the State arbitrarily decides it doesn't want me to poison coyotes....besides in the U.S. at least it varies from individual state to individual state....as for if it's rude or not...it probably is but again I don't care since they tend to be such a pain in the a$$ where I live that if it scares the coyotes off/poisons them that'll just be a bonus. Though I'm not sure since I know from experience with the heavy coyote presence in my area that those sly bas%$#@s can eat pretty much any meat and not get sick.....I learned that the hard way when I tried to poison the ones on my property. But anyway, just out of curiosity NonE how much success have you had converting statist friends and family?


- AgoristTeen1994 (though you can call me Duane to save time typing my entire username.)


Post Scriptum- I do like the joke about poisoning coyotes.

[NonEntity]

AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:But anyway, just out of curiosity NonE how much success have you had converting statist friends and family?

Somewhere between zero and none. But I've only had several decades to do it in, so ask me later when I've had enough time, okay?

Actually, I have converted a couple, maybe. But they were either leaning that way or there was a stiff breeze or they had to deal with some zoning officials or some such.

Interestingly enough, years ago I met and became really good friends with a Roman Catholic priest. I was straight up front about my thinking that the whole "god" thing makes no sense to me at all, and he was fine with that. We had discussions late into the night for weeks or months wherein I tried my very best to use reason to show him how his ideas didn't hold together. I could not convince him. He did the same with me. We had some very wonderful evenings of discussion and argument. Neither could convince the other, and finally we each realized that we'd used up all of the ammunition in our philosophical and argumental belts and just said, "Okay, well that's over with, what shall we talk about now?"

I never could understand the whole "celibacy" thing. I asked him about it and explained to him that I thought it was insane and undoable and stuff like that. He replied that it was a part of the bargain and that he was happy to give up any possibility of sex in order to serve his god, or however he phrased it. It still seemed insane to me, but ... whatever, as they say.

Well many years later he phoned me up and said he was being transfered from one church area to another and had a few weeks vacation and wondered if I'd like a visit. I proclaimed how very much I would love to have him come visit, and so he did. I picked him up at the airport and we drove back to my house to visit and catch up. It wasn't but two hours later that he "put the moves on me." I was stunned. I tried to explain to him that I dearly loved him as a friend but was not at all interested in a sexual relationship with him (or any other male, for that sake, and lots of women, either), and let's just forget this and go on with our visit and have a good time. Sadly he would not leave me alone. I finally drove him back to the airport the next morning and have not had any contact with him since. And I miss him. I really did like him a lot.

I'm not sure what all this means, but I'm very scared of anyone who relies on "faith" rather than having an open and inquisitive mind. I sincerely hope he's not one of those priests who have been diddling young parishioners over the years. I think faith is like (dating myself here) the line from Love Story, "[strike]Love[/strike] Faith means never having to say you're sorry."

I don't know if that is at all connected with your question. I didn't convert him. He didn't convert me (in either sense.)

I really appreciate your attitude, by the way.

- NonE

[AgoristTeen1994]

NonEntity Wrote:

AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:But anyway, just out of curiosity NonE how much success have you had converting statist friends and family?

Somewhere between zero and none. But I've only had several decades to do it in, so ask me later when I've had enough time, okay?

Actually, I have converted a couple, maybe. But they were either leaning that way or there was a stiff breeze or they had to deal with some zoning officials or some such.

Interestingly enough, years ago I met and became really good friends with a Roman Catholic priest. I was straight up front about my thinking that the whole "god" thing makes no sense to me at all, and he was fine with that. We had discussions late into the night for weeks or months wherein I tried my very best to use reason to show him how his ideas didn't hold together. I could not convince him. He did the same with me. We had some very wonderful evenings of discussion and argument. Neither could convince the other, and finally we each realized that we'd used up all of the ammunition in our philosophical and argumental belts and just said, "Okay, well that's over with, what shall we talk about now?"

I never could understand the whole "celibacy" thing. I asked him about it and explained to him that I thought it was insane and undoable and stuff like that. He replied that it was a part of the bargain and that he was happy to give up any possibility of sex in order to serve his god, or however he phrased it. It still seemed insane to me, but ... whatever, as they say.

Well many years later he phoned me up and said he was being transfered from one church area to another and had a few weeks vacation and wondered if I'd like a visit. I proclaimed how very much I would love to have him come visit, and so he did. I picked him up at the airport and we drove back to my house to visit and catch up. It wasn't but two hours later that he "put the moves on me." I was stunned. I tried to explain to him that I dearly loved him as a friend but was not at all interested in a sexual relationship with him (or any other male, for that sake, and lots of women, either), and let's just forget this and go on with our visit and have a good time. Sadly he would not leave me alone. I finally drove him back to the airport the next morning and have not had any contact with him since. And I miss him. I really did like him a lot.

I'm not sure what all this means, but I'm very scared of anyone who relies on "faith" rather than having an open and inquisitive mind. I sincerely hope he's not one of those priests who have been diddling young parishioners over the years. I think faith is like (dating myself here) the line from Love Story, "[strike]Love[/strike] Faith means never having to say you're sorry."

I don't know if that is at all connected with your question. I didn't convert him. He didn't convert me (in either sense.)

I really appreciate your attitude, by the way.

- NonE

I see. Interesting experience. And thanks for saying you appreciate my attitude. As for the celibacy thing....I do think that it allows them to be closer to God, but, I am definitely sure I want no part of it...while I do plan on waiting until I'm married I do plan on experiencing "that" once I'm married. But yeah I can understand what you
mean about your fear of anyone who relies on faith. But that's just the way some people are. I actually didn't become interested in that until I came across the Myers-Briggs-Jung typology test. A very interesting test. But anyway it does annoy me when people simply take things on faith. Especially Christians...especially since as a Christian, I see it as God having gifted humanity with the ability to use logic and reason on a level much superior to animals, not whether he did it directly like he did according to the theory of Creationism, or indirectly through "guiding" the evolution of homo sapiens along a certain path, which is personally what I believe, I do believe that our abilities to use logic and reason is a gift...and to waste it in any circumstance could very well be something that would make Him quite...irate to say the least. But what's slightly ironic about you telling me that story is that I was actually raised Catholic (and "technically" still am Catholic") and I've always been annoyed by cases where a priest molests a child, and the Bishop in charge of his diocese just simply sends him to another one....which is why I respected the former bishop of my diocese, since in the only three cases of child molestation by a priest in the diocese I live in...he (the bishop) stripped them of their priesthood, excommunicated them, and helped the cops in putting them in prison. He wasn't an enabler...he helped punish them. Oh and sorry if it seems I was babbling but...as I like to say, my mind behaves like a rabid squirrel with ADHD that is hopped up on 100 pounds of caffeine, 100 pounds of highly processed sugar, and 100 pounds of crack.....or at least how I imagine the aforementioned squirrel would behave...but yeah that's how my mind runs and when I get a chance I tend to babble as I bounce around from one topic to another topic that is completely different. Oh and thanks for sharing that experience. It definitely give an interesting perspective.

[NonEntity]

AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:...in the only three cases of child molestation by a priest...

[right](emphasis mine)[/right]

As one of my favorite people in the world likes to say: MAYbe. MAYbe not! :winkwink:

- NonE

By the way, not related to anything in particular, but the thought is spurred by the conversation... I HIGHLY recommend you buy Larkin Rose's book, The Most Dangerous Superstition (no, it's not about religion!), and read it. You will love it. ($10 including postage and if you don't like it you can mail it back to him and he'll return your money!!!)

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

NonEntity Wrote:... Larkin Rose's book, The Most Dangerous Superstition (no, it's not about religion!)

Ackually, it is.


(it's just not as typically recognized/identified/labeled as the other biggies are)

FWIW, on the OP topic, I've influenced two others away from a both a worship of and belief in The State Way (Statist/Statism). One of those being equally influenced away from the other Americon biggie pop religion (christinsanity), the other not so much (yet?). Both were long-time close friends prior (and a decade younger in age).
I've had very little noticeable influence on 'family' members (and for practical matters, have technically deFOOed --but which didn't afford the luxury of being able to drive 'em to the airport and putting 'em on the next flight to anywhere... ;D ) My youngest biological brother is attuned to aStateism, but I've not seen any activity centered around heralding or living it; it's more along the more typical bitch about it tact, but to his credit, the natural process having as yet evolved enough minds towards critical mass is a pretty persuasive argument regarding his non-active position.

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear Wrote:

NonEntity Wrote:... Larkin Rose's book, The Most Dangerous Superstition (no, it's not about religion!)

Ackually, it is.

[center]TWIT![/center]

Okay, it sorta is, but in the context of our (AgoristTeen1994Duane and my) conversation, it's NOT ABOUT RELIGION! Sheeeeesh!

Whut I don't understand is how it's spozed to be easier to type AgoristTeen1994Duane than it is to type AgoristTeen. I must be stoopid or something, but that just doesn't make sense.

[move]TWIT!!!............. :winkwink:[/move]

- NonE

[Kel]

zonsb Wrote:"You're just being huffy", is a projection of which I've almost come to expect

Projection. Sounds about right.

AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:All right, all right, could you two stop bashing on NonEntity?

I wasn't "bashing" him. I asked him a question;"What makes you so sure?" Then he threw a hissy fit.

AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:Normally I wouldn't even dignify your hypersensitive idiocy with a response

And you claim I was bashing? It's projection all around! This from a kid who calls himself a "devout christian" all while submitting to this notion a supreme beings existence(whom he "devotes" his life to) could never be proven. Oy vey! Teenagers! I can see why NonE mocked you in the first place.

[eye2i2hear]

Marc Stevens Wrote:If you can't get past the fear, it doesn't matter...

I find this to be the significant point. And following up on that, I find Christina Molynuex, a certified counseling psychologist, to nail the fear issue with her remark: "It all starts with the family."
By which we get to the root of each human beings state -or State- of mind. As primaries (animals in nature) it is quite understandable and essential to need fear. It is what guides primal survival. Don't fear the saber tooth tiger and you likely get eaten; don't fear the rustling as caused by said tiger, you likely meet the eye of the tiger. Don't fear the lightning strike's boom and you're likely to eventually find yourself zapped.
It is arguable [sic] then, that fear strikes the other human survival aide, in balance: logical reasoning ability. Fear, as an instinct, prompts towards flight. Stay in flight mode too long, rather than hunting/gathering, and your long haul (ass) isn't so long aka short lived (you). Logical reasoning over time, settles whether the specific fear was of value, or whether it was a waste of time. Values result from such evaluations.
Parenting thusly, holds the potential of passing values, as the results of evaluations (aka wisdom) gleanings, onward to the next generation. How to optimally evaluate fear(s) as how to do logical reasoning is one option.
But if fear(s) wasn't or isn't dealt with by the elder generation(s), then it's easily passed along to the younger generation (often in what Richard Dawkins dubs as memes; see also religion). Indoctrination is a word often used for this failure. Preying upon fears, in the form of manipulation, and fogging logical reason being used to address it, often occurs. [e.g. the use of violence, relabeled as "spanking" aka whipping (something once done to slaves) for dealing with disagreement/conflict and/or psychological fears]

Children (new developing brains) are coping machines. They observe adults and seek to emulate them. Often you can spot them acting, in their own little world, as their parents do -walking, dressing, (faking) driving, (faking) cooking, sporting, worshiping, believing, etc- as early as 2 years old [primitive acting, of course, occurs all along e.g. making sounds that lead to speech, etc].
To a large degree, it's WYSIWYG. Fortunately, natural selection's coding of fear -and- logical reasoning as core aspects of our (human) being, allows for overcoming mere monkey see, monkey do. Kids eventually question (everything!). But as contemporary neuroscience is validating, the human brain doesn't fully develop ("mature") until around 25 years of age (as a state of mind). So even in the questioning, the copy machine is greatly influenced by fear --primal fears especially. The confusion inherent in the Euro-American Education System, with it's cognitive dissonance being embraced as the norm, only fuels the questioning towards rebellion rather than genuine inquisitiveness. Thus, logically and rationally dealing with fear(s) becomes practically impossible --apart from outside influence(?).

Evolutionary progress has vamped up the pace in recent centuries (so much so that the prior gets dubbed The Dark Ages, and the later The Age of Reason/The Enlightenment/etc). The awakening to/awareness of the mechanism of science, as a standard (of logical reasoning), has proved an invaluable tool for dealing with much of what humanity prior, as generation following generation, family after family (thank you Ms Molyneux), could only speculate about (aka superstition). Arguably, We need another Darwinian Leap (in Reason) when it comes to battling the fear-based indoctriNationing of most 'adults' about us/U.S. (as my specific realm).

In wrapping, perhaps we could begin to list some concise, cutting questions that come from awareness of the two crucial aspects of current popular human nature, fear and logical reasoning, that we've discovered?

Marc of course has several; one that pops to mind being: what product or service should be provided at the barrel of a gun?

Others might be:
[list]
[*]If I disagree with you over this [specific issue], do you think I should be shot?
[*]Is it logical to embrace and support a lesser of two evils? (for those still caught up in the superstition of there being 'evil', of course)
[*]If an individual doesn't have a right to do something, can one claiming to represent them do it? (for those still believing in the notion of 'rights')*
[*]Factually, what's the difference between taxation and stealing?
[*] [post your suggestions...][/list:u]


*footnote: I personally saw this tact work towards a 'conversion'; I first asked, if as a neighbor I needed a ride to work, could I just walk into his yard and use his car for the morning? He said "no, of course not"; which I followed with, if I went to another neighbor and he agreed that I needed it and should take it, then would it be ok? He repeated "no"; etc; I eventually asked if the whole neighborhood agreed that he should pay for my kids college education, should he?... followed by why "grade school education" is any different? And, what if We hired a guy and gave him a costume that said "Police", and that guy says he has to pay/provide a car, would he accept it? etc, etc --aka logical consistency over fear indoctriNation

[AgoristTeen1994]

Hey, I'm reading this thread on the bitcoin forum, and I'm came across this poster who is either a troll, or a statist zealot....now while I'm not interested in replying to him he did bring up an interesting point that I haven't been able to answer concretely myself...so the point he brought up was that if you don't like the way that the gov't is run, then "get the F*** out of this country" So any suggestions on how to answer that? And if you don't mind I'll play devil's advocate as to how he might respond to each point you make...just to continue the discussion.