Yes, I know their agenda. TPTB see every policy as a means to an end. They may support lgbt, free speech and free market in one instance and then do a 180 turn and go against them if they don't serve their goals anymore. It's all part of the grand chessboard and playing the dialectical sides to get to a desirable synthesis. They are above politics and ideologies - all they care about is power. Of course I know they don't do this because they're concerned with the wellbeing of society and are somehow based all of a sudden.
Absolutely. And that is precisely why I'd be very wary to support any power solution whatsoever. Especially when you know who does it come from and what ends does it serve.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
If you place personal liberty above everything, then you have to grant it to everyone else. So you couldn't really have any qualms against lgbt, abortion, usury, OF, feminism, grooming of children and other forms of degeneracy that ultimately destroy society. It's radical liberalism and exactly what the jews push on western society to get it ready for the 1984-style final revolution.
My point was censorship is not bad on principle and we ought to suppress certain ideas and behaviors in society. So in general I'm all for decency laws and fighting degeneracy and that trumps any personal "freedom" there might be.
The thing is, when an agent with bad intentions does something that is right, that thing is objectively right regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it. Saying otherwise would be similar to an ad hominem fallacy.
I mean this as a general direction. Not an absolute law. I'm against any power solution by default, which then can be evaluated on case by case basis. For example, of course murder is bad and to some extent should be suppressed, so in this particular case I'm in agreement that some kind of regulation is needed, but that absolutely does not mean that I trust said regulators or that I would allow them regulate something else. That, whatever that may be, on it's turn should be evaluated separately. Case by case basis is a key here.
Currently society has given elites kind of a carte blanche in regards to regulation and that is its gravest mistake. To trust and to give power to someone else. Trust in authority, belief that there even exists such a thing as authority, is the main reason of current downfall of our civilization.
It's radical liberalism...
No, it's not. It's voluntaryism.
...regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it...
Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.
A very simple example: Your have to hire a babysitter for, say, a few hours. There are two proposals. One comes from known child abuser and the second one comes from a person without such history. Of course you'd choose the second option. You'd be absolutely mad to do otherwise. Or, in case other options are not possible, you wouldn't hire them at all and simply cancel whatever errands you had previously.
Is this ad hominem by your logic? Yes, of course it is! Absolutely justified and necessary ad hominem at that!
So, going back to our world, it is absolutely a must to reject anything coming from the likes of WEF, WHO, EU and all the rest of those abominations. Whatever coming from that side of ballpark is rotten from the very get-go and you are absolutely mad to think otherwise. Their real intention is the most important thing in this case and we both know that it is not what it says on a tin.
Look at your username and remember why you chose it. We both know this isn't about smut, don't we?
Yes, I know their agenda. TPTB see every policy as a means to an end. They may support lgbt, free speech and free market in one instance and then do a 180 turn and go against them if they don't serve their goals anymore. It's all part of the grand chessboard and playing the dialectical sides to get to a desirable synthesis. They are above politics and ideologies - all they care about is power. Of course I know they don't do this because they're concerned with the wellbeing of society and are somehow based all of a sudden.
Absolutely. And that is precisely why I'd be very wary to support any power solution whatsoever. Especially when you know who does it come from and what ends does it serve.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
If you place personal liberty above everything, then you have to grant it to everyone else. So you couldn't really have any qualms against lgbt, abortion, usury, OF, feminism, grooming of children and other forms of degeneracy that ultimately destroy society. It's radical liberalism and exactly what the jews push on western society to get it ready for the 1984-style final revolution.
My point was censorship is not bad on principle and we ought to suppress certain ideas and behaviors in society. So in general I'm all for decency laws and fighting degeneracy and that trumps any personal "freedom" there might be.
The thing is, when an agent with bad intentions does something that is right, that thing is objectively right regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it. Saying otherwise would be similar to an ad hominem fallacy.
I mean this as a general direction. Not an absolute law. I'm against any power solution by default, which then can be evaluated on case by case basis. For example, of course murder is bad and to some extent should be suppressed, so in this particular case I'm in agreement that some kind of regulation is needed, but that absolutely does not mean that I trust said regulators or that I would allow them regulate something else. That, whatever that may be, on it's turn should be evaluated separately. Case by case basis is a key here.
Currently society has given elites kind of a carte blanche in regards to regulation and that is its gravest mistake. To trust and to give power to someone else. Trust in authority, belief that there even exists such a thing as authority, is the main reason of current downfall of our civilization.
No, it's not. It's voluntaryism.
Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.
A very simple example: Your have to hire a babysitter for, say, a few hours. There are two proposals. One comes from known child abuser and the second one comes from a person without such history. Of course you'd choose the second option. You'd be absolutely mad to do otherwise. Or, in case other options are not possible, you wouldn't hire them at all and simply cancel whatever errands you had previously.
Is this ad hominem by your logic? Yes, of course it is! Absolutely justified and necessary ad hominem at that!
So, going back to our world, it is absolutely a must to reject anything coming from the likes of WEF, WHO, EU and all the rest of those abominations. Whatever coming from that side of ballpark is rotten from the very get-go and you are absolutely mad to think otherwise. Their real intention is the most important thing in this case and we both know that it is not what it says on a tin.