Anarchism Anyone?

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

That may be an outcome, too, but that’s an answer to a different question.

Perhaps, but it's a very tight venn diagram. 

[dimreepr]

On 9/25/2022 at 2:23 PM, sethoflagos said:

Empirical evidence does not require an explanation to establish its validity.

However, you might consider why religious oligarchies bring with them a large package of strictures that are deemed exempt from public debate. Such as a creation myth for example that must be accepted as gospel in defiance of any observed evidence to the contrary. Or else. What benefit to society do such arbitrary faith based beliefs bring other than seek total subjugation of the individual? Absolutely toxic imho. 

Trying to design a society by excluding some unnecessary members (the stupid and gullible etc.) is like trying to design evolution by excuding bacteria and viruses etc,; that would be toxic IMHO.

Imagine, if you will, that 'the creation myth' is just a story like "Star War's", they both explain the value of the light side over the dark side; but I'll bet you wouldn't be so quick to condemn those that answered the question of religion, by claiming to be Jedi. 

[sethoflagos]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Trying to design a society by excluding some unnecessary members (the stupid and gullible etc.) is like trying to design evolution by excuding bacteria and viruses etc,; that would be toxic IMHO.

Where did I say anything about excluding such individuals from society? 

Straw man #2.

 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Where did I say anything about excluding such individuals from society? 

You didn't, you said ignore (check out roget).

20 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Straw man #2.

Strike straw man 2, please explain my first alleged transgression. 

[sethoflagos]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You didn't, you said ignore (check out roget).

Where did I say anything about ignoring such individuals? (That was your iinvention in your 22nd september post)

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Strike straw man 2, please explain my first alleged transgression. 

No.

Straw man #1: Falsely asserting I wished to ban religious books (21/9)

Straw man #2: Falsely asserting I wished to exclude religious people from society (25/9)

Straw man #3: Falsely asserting I wished to ignore religious (stupid, gullible etc.) folk (22/9)

Contrary to your further false assertion, Roget does not believe these concepts to be synonymous.

It is clear however that you are arguing in bad faith. So please desist from trolling me with your negative nonsense.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

It is clear however that you are arguing in bad faith.

What's clear is your inability to refute my argumants.

18 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

So please desist from trolling me with your negative nonsense.

Oh the irony, check out the antonyms... 😉 

29 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Roget does not believe these concepts to be synonymous.

Really?

[sethoflagos]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What's clear is your inability to refute my argumants.

You've not presented any worth considering. Just fake news. And bad spelling.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

You've not presented any worth considering. Just fake news. And bad spelling.

You're lucky I'm not the grammar police...