User Profile: The Third Archon

The Third Archon

Member Since: November 02, 2010

CommentsDisplaying The Third Archon's 10 most recent comments.

  • “THE PRO-GUN BILLBOARD IN COLO. THAT HAS SOME RESIDENTS UPSET”
    Yeah, except it’s a LITTLE different when it’s native Americans as there was never even a PRETENSE that the American government was, or was even SUPPOSED to, act in their best interests. Whereas by contrast, the American government IS expected (even if it doesn’t necessarily do a particularly good job) to act in the best interests of American citizens (and indeed, the American government necessarily must provide some minimum quality of governance, as its OWN existence is dependent upon the acquiescence of the People). In the case of the native Americans, the American government has ALWAYS been predominantly antagonistic towards them and their interests, so of COURSE they want them disarmed–they’d prefer them dis-empowered at every turn.

  • The point is that children are socialized at an age of innocence, when they are comparatively credulous towards and dependent upon adults. This makes their long term personality malleable to a degree at those developmental stages, particularly from adults who have established relationships of trust and care with the child, that it is not in later stages of life (say, past the “age of reason,” where, most people, developmentally begin to critically examine and cross-examine the claims they are presented with). In short, children lack an experiential basis for comparison and a skepticism of possible claims that makes their identity uniquely easy to lastingly influence. It ISN’T an accident that the overwhelming majority of members in any established contemporary religion are BORN, rather than CONVERTED, into the religion.

  • “Religious people, though, would argue that advancing Dawkins’ views on evolution and the lack of a deity would also constitute a form of indoctrination, especially if these elements are trumped as “reason” and held above theological standing.”
    Well there’s a least a difference in that the former are substantiated by what empirical findings we do have, whereas the latter are merely bald assertions.

  • “No they’re assimilating us into their culture.”
    Muslims are ~0.6% of the U.S. population–no Americans who weren’t ALREADY part of an Islamic community by birth or choice could possibly be being “assimilated” into any “foreign” culture. Now it IS true that there is a problem if people come over here and expect to find special exemption to do things that justifiably reject and criminalize, such as genital mutilation. But that’s entirely independent the question as to whether there some pandemic of “Islamic cultural conquest” in the U.S.

  • “MAYOR BLOOMBERG: INTERPRETATION OF U.S. CONSTITUTION WILL ‘HAVE TO CHANGE’ FOLLOWING BOSTON BOMBINGS”
    Forget changing “the interpretation”–change THE Constitution itself!

  • “…the president of the legislative body expelled a disruptive protester in pink, the color adopted by French opponents of gay marriage.”
    Wow, isn’t the color ironic compared to America? (obviously the reaction isn’t ironic at all compared to America)

    Liberté, égalité, fraternité

  • “IS GLOBAL WARMING MAN-MADE? THE MAJORITY OF CHRISTIAN PASTORS DON’T THINK SO”
    Who cares? The majority of Christian pastors also believe they can get favors from an omnipotent omniscient disembodied being by just hoping really strong–they’re HARDLY credible scientific authorities.

  • “REPORT: BOY SCOUTS SET TO ABOLISH GAY BAN”
    …sort of.

  • @OLIE
    LOL–I love it. I’m not exaggerating the least when I call y’all fascists, because my god, look at what you wrote! This is SO Nazi–”cleanse the political dissidents,” aha ha aha ha–you sound like an armchair Goebbels.

    Thanks for proving my point PERFECTLY for the umpteenth time Blaze! XD

  • @TOR
    Neither socialism, nor communism, are about “everything being equal.” You’d have to be a real credulous idiot to believe ANYONE is seriously dedicated so simplistic a philosophy.

    Socialism is about, and is ONLY about, the democratization of productive power–THAT’S it. It’s true that there are a number of CONSEQUENCES of adopting such a mode of socioeconomic organization over others (namely, increased meritocracy, among others), and of course those consequences are the basis on which the respective utility of these socioeconomic systems are judged, however these consequences should not be confused for the systems themselves.

    Communism, at least the theoretical system of Marxist anarcho-communism (I say theoretical because we’ve scant evidence of it in practice–Cherokee ‘communism,’ not called that of course as that would be anachronistic, being probably the CLOSEST example), is a socioeconomic system in which post-scarcity (for our functional purposes) has been achieved, and consequently there is no need for private property because there is no scarcity requiring a zero-sum system of distribution. As a result, there are no a priori class (i.e. status) divisions among society on the basis of differing control of and benefit from the productive powers of society.

    Neither stipulate ANYTHING so categorical as “everything shall be identical in every respect.”