Happy Atheist Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyb0Vflg5fU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyb0Vflg5fU)

I listened to the one you posted and another on atheism.  Doesn't get much more plain and simple than that!  

Enjoyable, thanks!  I especially like the part about religion for animals.  And I like the new word that he coined - retardism.  I'll have to try to squeeze that into conversation over the next few days.

Corolla on religion: check
Corolla on the ACLU: not-so-check

*sigh* I wish I had a station to rant on like this. This was hilarious, thanks for posting

I dislike the ACLU because they're a political organization, so I would join him in a resolute 'fuck you!'.  Even if some of what they promote is alright, they're trying to get it through political means and badgering these mafiosos in that system.  The idea that a bunch of whiney college kids and leftist professors can control the apocalyptic and brutal power of the state, much less use it for anything good, is not only absurd it is morally corrupt.  Same reason I hate the libertarian party.

I love the Adam Corolla thing... I adore him!  

But I'm all for what the ACLU does and stands for... they stand for everyone, not just non-believers.  It is politicized because it has to be in order to play their game.  I'll carry their card until I die.

QuoteIt is politicized because it has to be in order to play their game.

In any compromise between good and evil, only evil can benefit.

It's not as black and white as "it's politicized therefore it's bad". For example, the ACLU is fighting to end warrant-less wiretaps. Actually, it was only a little over a year ago that the ACLU managed to convince representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to create an amendment to the House Intelligence Reauthorization Bill that reaffirmed FISA.

It's a pointless waste of time and resources, and also misleads people into thinking that political action can ever do any good.  It's like scolding Don Corleone, these people don't care about your bitching because they're evil, sociopathic bastards and all you're doing is getting people to put their hopes into a political system, which is about as rational as whining at gangs so they stop crime.  In addition, political influence and exposure always requires compromise and dealing with these scumbags which destroys all integrity the organization might otherwise have had.
It is perfectly black and white, initiating violence is evil ergo all politics are evil.  The only way we're ever going to be free is if we stop looking towards this giant criminal racket and its organization structure to free us and do it our own damn selves.  You want to get the assholes out of government?  Get rid of the jobs.

Quote from: "Vicky"It's a pointless waste of time and resources

Wiretapping? I agree. In addition to a waste, it's also patently illegal and unethical. I can imagine the hundreds of millions spent on programs that circumvent the FISA courts could be spent trying to repay the massive debt accumulated by the Bush administration.

Quote from: "Vicky"You want to get the assholes out of government? Get rid of the jobs.

Generally it's not the people in government that protect the populace, but rather the rules. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the best and most powerful defenses an American can have. It's when those rules are broken that we have a problem.

Government cannot 'protect' anybody.  They're a criminal racket.  They take your money to pay for things you don't want them to, if you resist they will kill you.  That is what I like to call 'evil'.  There is no such thing as a solution within politics, politics are the problem.

Quote from: "Vicky"Government cannot 'protect' anybody. They're a criminal racket. They take your money to pay for things you don't want them to, if you resist they will kill you. That is what I like to call 'evil'. There is no such thing as a solution within politics, politics are the problem.

Absence of government? Ah, anarchy. I'm afraid I can't buy this without you presenting historical precedent for a society flourishing in an anarchistic or pseudo-anarchistic state.

I'm over 6' tall and have about a decade in fighting experience. I could also procure guns very easily. What's to stop me from imposing my rule on everyone around me in an anarchist system (or lack of a system)?

Ancient Iceland.
But that sort of precedent is beside the point of the fact that you can logically prove that government protection is nonsensical in the same way that a married bachelor is.
Which is beside the point of: using and threatening aggressive violence against people is evil, and no argument as to the utility of it will ever make it right or cause me to support anything but its elimination, root and branch, from all areas of human affairs.  The argument (totally mistaken in my view) that I may lose this or that alleged benefit from the lack of a State does not persuade me anymore than you could persuade any person with integrity to rob an innocent man because he'll get away with it and make a lot of money.  To accept prizes from evil can do nothing for the pursuit of good, much less your own moral integrity.  Having the devil write your paycheck is ethical suicide, for he who pays the piper calls the tune.

And as to your question about guns n' ammo Carmageddon view of anarchy, it's better to be a victim than a criminal.

Quote from: "Willravel"

Quote from: "Vicky"Government cannot 'protect' anybody. They're a criminal racket. They take your money to pay for things you don't want them to, if you resist they will kill you. That is what I like to call 'evil'. There is no such thing as a solution within politics, politics are the problem.

Absence of government? Ah, anarchy. I'm afraid I can't buy this without you presenting historical precedent for a society flourishing in an anarchistic or pseudo-anarchistic state.

I'm over 6' tall and have about a decade in fighting experience. I could also procure guns very easily. What's to stop me from imposing my rule on everyone around me in an anarchist system (or lack of a system)?

I'll join you...I'm pretty good with a bow staff.  

Quote from: "JCM"I'll join you...I'm pretty good with a bow staff.  

Ah, but that's just it. We'd be a government, which negates the anarchy. We'd pair up, then other people would pair up. Organizations would become bigger and more powerful until an equilibrium of power was reached. That's what we have now, and it's the natural state of an overpopulated human population. When there aren't enough resources to go around, we band up and fight. This behavior can be seen in most intelligent mammals including dolphins.

Dolphins, as smart as they are, are hardly capable of rational interaction and division of labour on the level human beings are.  And the fact is that rational, voluntary cooperation is far more effective than Statism, which is nothing but jungle-law.  The state is not 'us', nor 'society' in fact it is the greatest enemy to civil society which has ever existed - as a casual examination of Stalinist Russia can easily prove.  Beyond that even if what you said were true it would only mean that it is highly likely that people will choose to behave in an aggressive and evil manner, something I can not condone regardless of the alleged 'benefits'.  Perhaps I can make it entirely clear by quoting Leo Tolstoi, a man whom I do not agree with much on except in the area of the State and War (and, as Bourne says, War is the health of the state).
"It may well be that government was necessary and is still necessary for all the advantages which you attribute to it...I only know that on the one hand, government is no longer necessary for ME, and on the other hand, I can no longer carry out the measures that are necessary to the existence of a government."

Quote from: "Vichy"Dolphins, as smart as they are, are hardly capable of rational interaction and division of labour on the level human beings are.  And the fact is that rational, voluntary cooperation is far more effective than Statism, which is nothing but jungle-law.  The state is not 'us', nor 'society' in fact it is the greatest enemy to civil society which has ever existed - as a casual examination of Stalinist Russia can easily prove.  Beyond that even if what you said were true it would only mean that it is highly likely that people will choose to behave in an aggressive and evil manner, something I can not condone regardless of the alleged 'benefits'.  Perhaps I can make it entirely clear by quoting Leo Tolstoi, a man whom I do not agree with much on except in the area of the State and War (and, as Bourne says, War is the health of the state).
"It may well be that government was necessary and is still necessary for all the advantages which you attribute to it...I only know that on the one hand, government is no longer necessary for ME, and on the other hand, I can no longer carry out the measures that are necessary to the existence of a government."

So you're more of a council communist?

I'm an anarcho-capitalist.  I believe in private property, which is why I am an anarchist.

Quote from: "Vichy"I'm an anarcho-capitalist.  I believe in private property, which is why I am an anarchist.

Anarcho-capitalism means if you're poor you're fucked, so it's proponents either think their ambition is stifled or they're already rich. What the stifled people fail to realize is that if you can't make it in a capitalist system like we have now, you wouldn't stand a chance in an anarcho-capitalist system. You'd have to live on the charity of others and that'd make you a hypocrite.

I totally disagree, but that is kind of irrelevant to the point I was making.  As I said, I believe that invasion of private property is aggression, aggression is evil and therefor I refuse to sanction it at any time under any circumstances for any purpose.  Moral consistency and integrity are more important to me than the material circumstances of one or another person's life, regardless of how unfortunate or fortunate that those circumstances may be.  This is what I had hoped that Tolstoi quote would have made clear.  Given my understanding of the logic of ethical behaviour, using aggression to any end is totally repugnant to me.
Also, there is nothing evil about charity (although it can be morally hazardous).  All voluntary behaviour is perfectly acceptable.

Quote from: "Vichy"

QuoteIt is politicized because it has to be in order to play their game.

In any compromise between good and evil, only evil can benefit.

I tend to be a bit negative and pessimistic at times, but you've got me beat.

I don't believe that only evil can benefit.  I refuse to see things that way.  I have my days when I feel beaten down, but I won't ever concede the battle.

I don't believe that good can ever benefit from compromise with evil, any more than truth can ever benefit from compromise with falsehood.  I am not pessimistic, I have a high opinion of human capacity, but a low opinion of human history.  I do not hope that evil can ever be used to benefit good, but I do not give up - I simply refuse to compromise.