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.
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.
So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.
The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.
It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful content. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle, even if Satan himself is enforcing the restriction.
They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game.
This I do agree with. Regarding restrictions though... I think I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. I don't think it should be restricted. That should be parent's job and not government's.
Weapons are dangerous too. Should those be restricted? What about knives? In UK nanny state they have to show passport before buying a fucking knife. Do you think that is ok? Why not take this a step further? Everyone should not only prove their age when buying a knife, but also register all their knives in possession and write an explanation for each one of them why they need it. Whould you be on board for such a proposition as well? I don't mean this as a strawman, but more like an illustration of what a dangerous slippery slope this really is.
That's a false equivalence. Weapons are tools and as such are neither good or bad inherently. It's all about how they're being used. Coming from a Christian perspective, it's easy to see degeneracy is inherently bad. It shouldn't be tolerated in society to begin with but you see it as a "freedom" because you've been desensitized to it as it became widespread. In reality, it's the opposite of freedom - sin enslaves you and is death.
Sadly, the US is premised on a false revolutionary liberal dialectic of a struggle between the state and the individual, between the public and the private. This makes it fertile ground for individuals demanding rights and liberties that ultimately destroy them, because people are easily manipulated and deceived. The function of a strong state (a monarchy) is to protect against all kind of enemies and to take care of the spiritual and physical prospering of the people.
This is why jews historically promote revolution and democracy against monarchical states - they know a good monarch serves as a buffer between their power (banks, "free trade" and media) and the people. Democracy on the other hand is easy to manipulate via their powers.
Of course they don't really care for democracy or equality, they use it as a chess piece to further their agenda. Once society is weakened through liberalism and degeneracy, they get more open about their project and show the true face of their regime, which is authoritarian (1984 and any totalitarian communist regime). We're at that stage now.
The function of a strong state (a monarchy) is to protect against all kind of enemies and to take care of the spiritual and physical prospering of the people.
In theory, yes, but I'm not sure it has ever been the case. Most probably it has always been like it is now. It's just that they could no longer sell fairytale about hereditary rulership to the public, so they came up with this thing called democracy. Most people were successfully fooled by it for a while, but now the masses are waking up to the absolute farce of it, so they have to come up with something new and come up quick. I suspect they'll try to sell AI to the public as some kind of neutral, incorruptable and just form of government. Which it very obviously is not.
In any case, I don't see a fundamental difference between monarchy and that abomination we have now. It is all the same. Small group of elite is fucking over everyone else. Probably always has been like that. Only decorations, narratives and justification change.
To believe that any government cares about its citizens is a bit naive in my opinion. Which brings us to voluntaryism (which is not the same as liberalism as you seem to believe). Basically, very short version is that humanity has to get rid of superstitious belief in this thing called authority. Any authority. The problem is not that the government is bad or that politians are bad, or that the form of government is not the right one. The problem is that it exists at all and that masses believe in it.
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.
So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.
The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.
It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful content. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle, even if Satan himself is enforcing the restriction.
This I do agree with. Regarding restrictions though... I think I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. I don't think it should be restricted. That should be parent's job and not government's.
Weapons are dangerous too. Should those be restricted? What about knives? In UK nanny state they have to show passport before buying a fucking knife. Do you think that is ok? Why not take this a step further? Everyone should not only prove their age when buying a knife, but also register all their knives in possession and write an explanation for each one of them why they need it. Whould you be on board for such a proposition as well? I don't mean this as a strawman, but more like an illustration of what a dangerous slippery slope this really is.
That's a false equivalence. Weapons are tools and as such are neither good or bad inherently. It's all about how they're being used. Coming from a Christian perspective, it's easy to see degeneracy is inherently bad. It shouldn't be tolerated in society to begin with but you see it as a "freedom" because you've been desensitized to it as it became widespread. In reality, it's the opposite of freedom - sin enslaves you and is death.
Sadly, the US is premised on a false revolutionary liberal dialectic of a struggle between the state and the individual, between the public and the private. This makes it fertile ground for individuals demanding rights and liberties that ultimately destroy them, because people are easily manipulated and deceived. The function of a strong state (a monarchy) is to protect against all kind of enemies and to take care of the spiritual and physical prospering of the people. This is why jews historically promote revolution and democracy against monarchical states - they know a good monarch serves as a buffer between their power (banks, "free trade" and media) and the people. Democracy on the other hand is easy to manipulate via their powers.
Of course they don't really care for democracy or equality, they use it as a chess piece to further their agenda. Once society is weakened through liberalism and degeneracy, they get more open about their project and show the true face of their regime, which is authoritarian (1984 and any totalitarian communist regime). We're at that stage now.
In theory, yes, but I'm not sure it has ever been the case. Most probably it has always been like it is now. It's just that they could no longer sell fairytale about hereditary rulership to the public, so they came up with this thing called democracy. Most people were successfully fooled by it for a while, but now the masses are waking up to the absolute farce of it, so they have to come up with something new and come up quick. I suspect they'll try to sell AI to the public as some kind of neutral, incorruptable and just form of government. Which it very obviously is not.
In any case, I don't see a fundamental difference between monarchy and that abomination we have now. It is all the same. Small group of elite is fucking over everyone else. Probably always has been like that. Only decorations, narratives and justification change.
To believe that any government cares about its citizens is a bit naive in my opinion. Which brings us to voluntaryism (which is not the same as liberalism as you seem to believe). Basically, very short version is that humanity has to get rid of superstitious belief in this thing called authority. Any authority. The problem is not that the government is bad or that politians are bad, or that the form of government is not the right one. The problem is that it exists at all and that masses believe in it.