metalsoup111
Last Activity:
Oct 29, 2017
Joined:
Jul 6, 2008
Messages:
2,709
Trophy Points:
83
Positive ratings received:
281
Negative ratings received:
0

Post Ratings

Received: Given:
Like 281 199
Dislike 0 0
Gender:
Male
Location:
The states...
Occupation:
bassist, chef, strategic bullshitt

Share This Page

metalsoup111

Unremarkably Exquisite, Male, from The states...

Lol. Well, what's happening? How's it going? And how are the kittens? Oct 29, 2017

metalsoup111 was last seen:
Oct 29, 2017
    1. metalsoup111
      metalsoup111
      Lol. Well, what's happening? How's it going? And how are the kittens?
    2. metalsoup111
      metalsoup111
      Greg is alive. What's up, dude? I bet you love Trump. lol. Hey KG...
      1. Koshka_Goddess
        Koshka_Goddess
        whassup
        Sep 7, 2017
    3. metalsoup111
      metalsoup111
      Bloody Fucking Hell!
    4. metalsoup111
      metalsoup111
      We shall see...
    5. metalsoup111
      metalsoup111
      Seriously. fractal, dyne, somebody...
    6. metalsoup111
      metalsoup111
      What happened? Bleach exile...gone...
    7. greg770
      greg770
      just fucking post it I'm dying to have an argument with an anarcho syndicalist. .
    8. OminousG
      OminousG
    9. TimidObserver
      TimidObserver
      ----------
      In my mind, both seem interconnected.

      I began by summerizing my personal view on the importance free speech/expression should hold in a society that wishes to be labled with any seriousness free and democratic. That was the only point of those statements. To recap, I see it as a two-sided coin. Unfortunately, too many paint it as a flat surface. We're all for it if we agree or feel comfortable with what's being presented, but once it crosses the line of disagreeable or offensive it is no longer worthy of the same categorical consideration as the former. A highly hypocritical stance, imo, and completely against they very reason behind the establishment of such a right in the first place. This is why most laws prohibiting hate speech are systematically struck down for their incompatibility with the First Amendment.

      I'll get into the slipper slope argument of the position you're advocating below.
      ----------
      Well the thing is that it is very negotiable. We went off on a huge tangent, but my main point was to correct your statement that it wasn't negotiable. It isn't done often and it certainly isn't done without great consideration and thought, but negotiation does happen.


      ----------
      I disagree. I don't think the 5-6 pieces you refered to are similar to the limit you're suggesting. Time, place and manner restrictions would not apply as the WBC demonstrate in daytime, in relatively small numbers, on public lands, do not employ amplification equiptment and, beyond the obvious emotional weight of their opinions and signs carry for the demographics they target, are generally mondane in nature. However, as I said in my last post in the thread, the only conceiveable restriction that could be placed on the WBC protesters would like be that of the proximity limit enforced upon abortion clinic protesters.

      But as I went on to say that this would open up a gargantuan can of worms. Upon which location do you place such a limit? The cemetary? The funeral home? Or anywhere the funeral precession may take in route between these two destinations? If such a line is drawn, do you not see how such a decision could easily be detrimental to all forms of expression that any self righteous Joe Schmo might find obscene, offensive or distasteful.

      The WBC are a determined group of nutters who seem to be quite well versed in the law and will likely relocate to a point of the most effective delivery if such a restriction were implemented.
      ----------
      The proximity legislation around the abortion clinic is not effected by amplification equipment, so that really doesn't matter. The abortion clinic proximity ruling is a mirror precedent to the one that this would set and the issues that you have are also dealt with in it. For example, the proximity thing doesn't just apply to the abortion clinic. It applies to the local residences of the abortion clinic employees. So this is precedence for applying a ruling to all locations that are effected.

      My personal solution is one that has no precedence, but I will state it anyway. A moving buffer zone that moves with the funeral procession. If the pickets come within x amount of feet of the funeral procession, then the cops can ask them to leave. If they don't leave then they can be held legally accountable.

      Since you will likely go haywire on the moving buffer zone, because I don't think anything like that is done anywhere else and I couldn't be bothered to research it, I'll add a more conservative version that has 100% precedence. Rather than a moving buffer zone, the buffer zone can be static at any static or stationary location of the funeral procession(IE: Church, home of the departed, cemetery.) However the actual moving procession would not be covered, because like you said, that gets more complicated. I prefer my above solution with the moving buffer, but I put this one here to circumvent any kneejerk reactions to the moving buffer zone.


      ----------
      No, not really. Most of what you listed seemed reasonably conciderate, thought out and legitimate restrictions that don't really raise many questions. Banning funeral protests simply because they just so happen to be in close visible proximity to grieving friends and relatives, regardless of how unquestionably crude and distasteful it is, however, is starkly different in nature and legal veracity...
      ----------
      A funeral is just as much a business transaction as an abortion. An abortion clinic is not some how more deserving than a funeral. As I said above, the abortion clinic precedence fits this situation perfectly. I'd be fine with literally taking that legislation, and pasting in funeral on top of abortion clinic. I'd like a moving buffer zone, but I could settle for nothing that goes beyond what the abortion clinic legislation does. Now you may not like it, but you can't argue that the precedent isn't there.
    10. greg770
      greg770
      ----------
      The fact of the matter is that a vast majority of people's lives (working lives) is aimed towards trying to either acquire access to or sustain the availability of the 6 or so needs I listed. If these needs are provided for then a certain amount of equal footing will be established for the citizenry from which I believe a rise in everyone's capability/opportunity to excel will necessarily follow.
      ----------
      That's all very nice, but from what I've seen IRL people who must be fed from Governments plate in wealthy western part of the globe are most of the time lazy fucks who screwed up their own life in one way or another. There is no need to provide, just give enough jobs and make them earn it. Dude, what kind of life experience did you have anyways? I mean, we don't connect at all lol.

      ----------
      Eliminate a major time consuming aspect imposed by such capitalistic systems and the possibilities are far, far more open for individual enrichment. Thus, the society as a whole will inevitably benefit.
      ----------
      What's so bad abut consuming (not idiotic buying spree of course) and how are you going to eliminate it?

      ----------
      Simply quoting someone does not imply an endorsement their methodology.
      ----------
      That's exactly what it means, stop trying to jump off my fork. If I quote Jefferson that means I agree with him most of the time and represent his traits and vice versa.

      ----------
      I'm well aware Marx's dialectic and, to a large extent, I agree with some of the major principles involved.
      ----------
      Well then I'm your enemy. If you agree with them, wouldn't you want me to accept/submit to their point of view even if I hated them?

      ----------
      What do you see wrong with giving every person the freedom to choose their own way while watching out for the overall wellbeing of their fellow traveller?
      ----------
      The "watching" word man, it's there. I'm not obligated to watch out/care for anyone's well being in order to justify my existence. Ayn Rand would wipe floor with Chomsky's kisser any day..

      ----------
      They can easily be compatible if you seriously concider what I'm trying to say. In the end, though, my ideal vision is that "class" (both socially and economically) will be eliminated from perception.
      ----------
      And I can make the Iron man suit for myself. Well, why do you want to eliminate classes then? I don't, rich, poor, middle class, above middle class, below middle class..Love it all. Motivation, no class - no motivation. nOw tell me how wrong I am and how evil greed is, which I love btw.

      ----------
      Not even close, imo. Social contract only applies to what the individual can aquire/exceeed/extend beyond his fellow man. It's a competition based on unequal grounds and, therefore, in my mind, illegitimate. If your fellow man is on equal footing then it is fine, but far, far, far more often than not it becomes a competition between vastly unequal peoples.
      ----------
      People are unequal, everyone has his own story of failure and success, which is very natural. All competition, both human and natural is always taking place on unequal ground, if grounds were absolutely equal there would be nothing but mutual and absolute destruction.

      ----------
      Honestly, most of the time your a dick of the highest order. But I take no offense from what you've said (though, imo, calling me a "brain dead fucking moron" was a tad bit harsh). Like you, I'm simply speaking my mind. The difference is that I don't try to start an argument over my opinions like I sometimes feel you are. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I sincerely enjoy the fact that you are mostly willing and capable of interacting in such a discussion. And for that I thank you. You're still fucking crazy, though. ;)
      ----------
      I called you a fucking brain dead moron cuz you reminded me of that guy on youtube who said he'd vote for Obama cuz Obama will legalize weed. You suffer from the same fantasy level bro. I mean, give up on your lalala world ideals and enjoy reality. Iz bettah.

      Hmm, if I didn't have a strong conviction of being correct I wouldn't engage in the debate to begin with. And we have an argument because we have different opinions, so we started it, didn't we? And I ain't a dick, I serve my own interests.
    11. TimidObserver
      TimidObserver
      I understand all of that, but the point remains that there is precedent in U.S. law to do this sort of thing. You started the conversation going on about how Free Speech is not negotiable. Now you are moving to the whole "slippery slope", future implications argument. I listed 5-6 pieces of case law that all limited free speech/expression in similar ways. One of them was limiting protesting in and around abortion clinics. You keep going on about the future, but this type of thing already has a clear precedent in multiple pieces of case law. If something catastrophic was going to happen then it would have already happened after one of the other cases.
    12. Shinra
      Shinra
      I just wanted to say thank you for sending me the link to his website I found it useful and also fun to read/watch.
    13. TimidObserver
      TimidObserver
      Yeh Watermelonrat has been on a delete spree lately. I don't remember what you said. I looked for it in the trash can section and didn't see it there. If you sum up what you said for me I'd be happy to respond.
    14. greg770
      greg770
      So wait up, feeding people and establishing care state is the same as giving them the right to excel? Are you trying to say that they are the same? I have tough time connecting with what you are saying sir.

      When you quoted Marx, did you actually do your own research on him and that he was against free market and all that stuff?Or that he was for devaluing goods and making sure people couldn't earn more than they they had a need for (Government would decide what they need etc)

      I mean, you quote the guy, but then you kinda disagree with him, then you agree that people aren't equal but then you state they sort of are. You are always coming up with very complex ideas that actually contradict each other and all of them would never work the way you want them to.

      ----------
      Well, ideally (don't even start in with your shit ), you wouldn't need to. The calculations would be done by yourself with honesty and moral responsibility to maintain respectable social cohesion. Of course, this would under a stateless society I advocate. Remember, Anarchism requires, more than anything else, personal responsibility. Under a government run society, however, they would, unfortunately, be done by the governing bodies, most likely.
      ----------
      So we do need a government to watch us and feed us (mum) because we can't even feed ourselves properly (baby). What does the mum do to her child all the time? She controls him/her. Do you want to be treated as a child? Or do you think that the government will wipe your ass and give you bunch of individual rights just like that? You see, every single concept you make sounds like "I wanna have my dick in vagina and someones dick in my anal", or "I wanna sit on 2 chairs at the same time" IE I want to have the best of both worlds. People will never manage without government/power structure, hence, it's impossible by default.

      ----------
      The people can, have and will, if given the opportunity, run things fairly and adequately amongst themselves. All historical accounts attest to this fact.
      ----------
      Do you really believe that? And where the government/institutions arise then? Anyways, the most advanced and fair system is liberalism and capitalism. It works, it has shortcomings, everything does. The most dishonest version was developed by the guy you quoted and supported by your fav intellectual. The main reason I disagree with you is because you're being unrealistic and contradicting yourself.

      ----------
      In my mind and from many interactions I've had, these can all be accomplished by the cooperation of the individual parties themselves. Social operation thru agreeable social contract.
      ----------
      That's what we have nowadays. Don't we?

      ----------
      you are totally fucking crazy...
      ----------
      no I'm not, I'm honest and intense. And crazy, but badass crazy. Anyways, sorry for insulting you, but really felt like doing it.
    15. greg770
      greg770
      ----------
      I clearly outlined in the first couple of sentences that the difference the specific traits, abilities of the individual that distinguish them from everybody else and that of the required necessities (food, water, shelter, ect.)
      ----------
      And I summed up your previous post. The equality you talk about doesn't lie in providing food and satisfying basic needs. It lies in giving people equal ability to excel, that's all. Not feeding them.

      ----------
      every person should contribute to society to the best of their ability and consume from society in proportion to their needs.
      ----------
      And If I want to take more than I need. If I want to take as much as I can? Who will calculate the proportion of my needs? Marx?

      ----------
      But more importantly, explain how you think food is a 'want' and not a 'need'? Water? Shelter? Clothing? Does someone not always die if they don't eat, drink, protect themselves from the harsh environment enough? Sure, with the idea of excess it requires the abundance of something in which case anything can transfer to a 'want'. But only after the physical 'need' is met first and foremost. Therefore, regardless of excessive intake, these things are still needed.

      Or better yet, can you tell me how you define 'need', 'want', and 'equality'...?
      ----------
      If you will read your Marx quote well and try to comprehand it, IE how it would work in not so perfect world, you'll see that it's a exchange system that requires 3 subjects, Giver, Equalizer/watcher and receiver. The watcher is Government/Corporation/Big brother and your best friend, not.
      Need=good excuse for want
      Want=Sad but true by metallica, Love it.
      Equality=
      ----------
      "Equality is a lie…A myth to appease the masses. Simply look around and you will see the lie for what it is! There are those with power, those with the strength and will to lead. And there are those meant to follow—those incapable of anything but servitude and a meager, worthless existence.
      "Equality is a perversion of the natural order!…It binds the strong to the weak. They [the weak] become anchors that drag the exceptional down to mediocrity. Individuals destined and deserving of greatness have it denied them. They [the strong] suffer for the sake of keeping them even with their inferiors.
      "Equality is a chain, like obedience. Like fear or uncertainty or self doubt."
      ?Darth Bane[src]
      ----------
      I'm pretty crazy, I know.
    16. greg770
      greg770
      I like how well you contradict yourself, people are not equal but in the end they are because they must be fed or otherwise they will get sad. And the government is to make sure the spoon isn't empty.

      ----------
      To each, their need. From each, their ability...
      ----------
      Suum cuique
      Man, you're fucking brain dead moron. It's not need, it's what you want. It's not from each their own ability. My ability is mine alone and money I make from myself is my own money. You're already entered the realm of communism within your own psyche, have a nice journey.
    17. greg770
      greg770
      ----------
      one mode of equality to its participant...the equal oppurtunity to be exploited
      ----------
      You with your equality delusions. People aren't equal so get over with it. You're like some kind of hippie.
      Thing is, he's being realistic and I totally agree with him. So come on, give up on Chomsky.
    18. greg770
      greg770
      Ohh yes he does, as a matter of fact he sounds a lot smarter than Chomsky.
    19. greg770
      greg770
      Beefheart just beat chomsky. Marvelous.
    20. fourwalls
      fourwalls
  • Loading...
  • Loading...
  • About

    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The states...
    Occupation:
    bassist, chef, strategic bullshitt
    Gender:
    • Male
    I was born...

    Signature

    Kickin' ass...fuck the names.

    Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction, and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives.

    When the eyes of a thousand turn blind to a problem which returns a stare, repercussions become a lesson to which sadly most will soon forget.

    Wise men have something to say; fools have to say something...

    [​IMG]
    \../Praise be to Masz \../


    FC's & Other Affiliations
    [SP]
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    \m/Thanks, Goroth\m/

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG][/SP]
    What the bastard?
    [SP]
    [/SP]
    "The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.'" - George Carlin :p