RE: A Little Something for the Delusional Sophists of Steemit: A Rebuttal to an Article Written by @kyriacos
Here is my quick reply to your pathetic response
My post was directed to people like you that seem to have rebranded 101 anarchism into their own personal self promotion. I read the whole article. You refuted nothing to my claims. You only make assertions of things you think you understand.
I am an anarchist living in a state country much like all of you anarchists. I operate under my own rules based on free association. Yes anarchists, the internet can allow you to live freely in a anarchic-like state. No need to whine. If people want to have a state then let them have a state. I adhere mostly to anarchocapitaist values. I won't be violent against the State. You seem to be anarcho-communist. You see the "demon" of state chasing you. Too bad. You are dellusional.
The "State" or "religion" or "science" have not "killed" anyone. People kill people under different excuses. Your logical fallacy is based on overgeneralisation. Please rephrain from playing smart-ass with me. You are not in your safe space in facebook anymore. These kind of 101 arguments won't work.
I can be an anarchist and still aknowledge that the state is not the problem. Seriously take a philosophy class and learn basic logic principles. I don't even need to expand on this. I am an atheist and believe that religion is not the problem. Usually this mistake of false association is made from noob atheists and/or noob anarchists.
I never said that anarchists are the enemy. I said some anarchists are dellusionals. including you, the dollar vigilante and any other groupie with an edgy name that gained some publicity due to amateurs running behind them. You discovered the idea and combined it with your college major. Whoopy fucking doo.
Please make an actual argument. Stop boring me with nonsense.
I found that the writing was in poor taste and not in line with Steemit etiquette. Therefore, in the spirit of playful sarcasm, I titled my rebuttal "A Little Something for the Delusional Sophists of Steemit."
At least I am not not writing bullshit. I prefer honesty rather than savoir vivre. Also do learn what sophism is. I bet is an epithet someone else threw at you because a look at your articles precesely demonstrates that you are one. Throwing it back at me doesn't make it your case any better.
I speak purely on objective critique with logical arguments. You use quote-mining and false associations.
I really thought the community discouraged these kind of responses. I was really hoping for something a little more cordial and substantive, with a less patronizing tone. This saddens me, as my intent was not to attack you, but to inform and create an opportunity for dialogue.
I thought you like anarchy. Now you speak for the whole community anarcho-cheerleader?
@kyriacos: Why you so angry?
I just wanted to have a decent discussion, but you came in on the offensive. Why all the anger? Can't we just discuss our differences and come to a working conclusion?
@modprobe this was the response I got. ;(
Dude. refute this. I can be an anarchist and still not hold the state responsible.
Are you really that DENSE?
It's not just about holding the State responsible, though. You said that government is not the problem. Claiming to be an anarchist while saying the state is not the problem is a misapplication of the term.
As anarchists, we generally understand they government is actually the problem because it directly caused many of the issues we are trying to combat. That's why we have adopted that particular terminology.
Furthermore, I am confused why you would go on an all out crusade against anarcho-capitalists, if you adhere to that particular philosophy and its basic ideas.
I hope that you can appreciate this perspective and hopefully let your guard down a bit so we can converse in a more civil manner.
Misapplication of the term? Are you for real man? Seriously? Are you? Pull your head off your ass really. The goverment is not responsible for anything because "the goverment" as with "religion" or "science" or or or is a general abstract concept.
Some goverments at times did good things. Same ones did bad things. Same thing applies to some scientists in respect to some others.
As NEO-anarchists you understand that the goverment is the problem. Don't try to throw everyone under the same umbrella. You do have a tendency to group people. Did you get this from your facebook cheerleading fans that have not clearly opened a single book on anarchism?
I go on a crusade against cancer-like groupies like you who think they are anarchists by being celebrities, overgeneralising, over-simplifying in order to be likeable ignoring the real problem.
Let my guard down? I am not even trying. Seriously, you need to lay off your ego a bit.
Here is another term to get rid of your "communism-like" anarchism.
"individualist anarchism". read some Marx Stirner. Rephrain from picking up debates with people above your caliber. You ridicule yourself
This just seems like a wild strawman. I'm an anarchist, and I don't dispute that I'm generally free to associate with people as I want to. I doubt Sterlin or any other specific person did either.
It doesn't mean there's anything good about aggression wherever it does exist. I don't even see what point you're trying to make or why this is worth pointing out.
Nobody is whining, people are advocating a consistent moral outlook on the world. Which btw can translate to their personal relationships, how they treat others and whether they put themselves in situations that aren't egalitarian to themselves.
Ya they can have a state. They just can't force you to be a part of it if you don't choose to join.
And FWIW, where the state does have an impact will often have a compounding effect. Like public schools and prisons and war. So it isn't as simple as "look, I'm free 99% of the time", if the 1% of the time spirals into a whole host of new consequences that are no longer directly performed by the state.
Are you just throwing the word "strawman" in order to make a point? Do you even know what strawman is?
A state can be a voluntary place. People vote for it right? So what is your problem if they want to be abused?
There is no "consistency" in morals. morals are subjective. everyone is different.
you are talking bullshit regarding the rest. neo-anarchist mind in all its glory. propaganda over propaganda.
I haven't argued that one way or the other. Do you even read the posts or do you just have a bot that spits out random condescending sentences?
I don't know what "hold the state responsible for the ills of society" even means really, that isn't a sentence that just clearly means something without you explaining it more. So I couldn't possibly have an opinion.
I do think initiating violence against someone always makes things worse.
Ya I know what a strawman is. Presumably I was trying to make a point, ya. (my point though was just that you didn't have one, that you were barking at something nobody had claimed.)
I don't know what a neo-anarchist is, that one I would need explained.
if you can't digest that someone can be an anarchist and not hold the state responsible for the ills of society then i can't help you.
His whole argument is based on this premise. a neoanarchist thinks that an anarchist is a product of rebellion against the state.
do i seriously need to chew the obvious?