Anarchism

nobody here believes the government doesn't lie.

I bet that there are some people on here that believe that the Government doesn't lie. :)

Things like this, which are plainly false:

2/3rds of all plant life relies on bees to pollinate, as such, that is the end of the world.

Would incline anyone to think that there is something 'different' about the way you think. Sticking to this point, I wonder if you thought about all the plant life there is under water before you wrote it. I wonder if you stopped to consider what a plan actually was, before you wrote that. How many plants don't flower, even.

I don't think so. I think you just wrote it down. "Yeah, 2/3rds of all plant life man, something like that, man - fucking end of the world, dude, I'm telling you."

That's what it sounds like to me. Taking no care over what you say, piling on impression after impression and not providing any evidence, that's what I might call beat poetry, but it's not informed debate, it's not argument, it's not, actually, even worth engaging with.

And it has nothing to do with whether or not you have a formal university education. Plenty of people become rational, independent thinkers who have nothing to do with the Academy. It has to do with being precise in how you formulate your statements, following logical principles in your arguments, adopting agreed standards of evidence, and so on.

You say you have been studying 'this stuff' for 15 years. I can tell you: you have started in the wrong place, and you have got nowhere.

You must mean 'tragedy'.

It irritates me when people go on about holding the officers actually involved in the shooting 'accountable' when it was the incompetence of the more senior officers/poor intelligence and particularly the rules of engagement which were at fault and ultimately caused the death.

But its cool, people seem to ignore this and happily play the blame game. Im surprised the police havent hung him out to dry to distract from their shocking inability, and the lies they told about the investigation were appalling.

Actually...I said none of that stuff

No, I have not said that those are your words, I was posting up an example of how you come across.

Is that really how I came across or how I have been portrayed

Yes, that is how you come across, you make extraordinary claims and then refuse to produce evidence to back them up. You then constantly change the subject and hurl unwarranted abuse at people questioning your claims.

. . . back to you first line.

Fucking Idiot.

I ask you? how am I or anyone esle, supposed to interpret that?

First line ?

I think you are mistaken, perhaps you are thinking about another thread.

I gave you a link to the Baxter case. Which you still haven't said anything about.

You didn't link to the 'Baxter case', you linked to an interview with a woman who has made claims against Baxter.

The Baxter case is complicated with claims running from incompetence and dangerous practice on one hand to evil plots to kill off mankind on the other, I watched the Burgermeister interview last year and didn't find her claims compelling.

Do you have a specific question about the Baxter case ?

. . . the brazilian student that was chased through a tube station and was wearing baggy clothing swarthy as fuck...we shouted several times and he had a back pak...that obviously had bombs in it...

not...that he was a brazilian student wearing light coloured denim.. and wasn't chased...and wasn't wearing baggy clothes...and didn't have a beard...nad was actually killed execution style in carraige...

not chased ot shouted at once.

Lies anyone?

Yes, lies, and attempts to cover up the worse parts of the incompetence / bad intelligence which lead to this tragedy - and certainly an attempt to set the news agenda before all the facts were out.

So we have now established that there is at least one example of the state lying. I am sure we could all think of hundreds of other examples if we put our minds to it.

As far as I am aware no one, anywhere in this thread at any time has stated that the government (or any government) never twists the truth or even outright lies, I have unambiguously stated (and more than once) that:

"No one here has claimed the government (any government) is infallible or completely honest, I doubt one has ever existed".

'Men' have been having kittens over a silly tart telling them the government might lie to them, for their own gain?
In response to that you are telling me I'm a lunatic. You sound like you are being shafted by the man...and are too ashamed to say you like it....

No one, anywhere on this thread has said they think the government would never lie to them, this idea that people are 'having kittens' at the suggestion that the government might lie to them is entirely in your own head.

my comment about university education is in relation to *your *claims that university education is bogus, without ever actually going to one! how can you judge what you have no experience of? .

Talking about judgement...If any one here has been subjected to dismissive and rude comments regarding this thread, it's been me. Since page one, people have been incredibley rude for no other reason that the subject matter is one they do not like.

Judgeing something you have no experience of is exactly what you have done regarding everything I have brought up so far in this thread. You comment on books you have not read, and theories you haven't researched, or even scratched the very surface of your reaction and others have been knee jerk reactions to the suggestion of a state that would possibly use your energies for the betterment of it's own.

I have said, as you also know nothing of my experiences. From the very inception you have been judgemental, dismissive and rude, which I responded to. Such strong emotions would podssibly suggest that somehow you had something to protect. Would that be the very institution that gave you the scroll with the pretty ribbon around it?

reading and quoting verbatim from an agreed course, using recommended sources and using an agreed list of books, for an agreed panel of assesors that have preconceived ideas of what a 'good' and 'worthy' education comprises. That doesn't really constitute thinking to me.

Does that offend you? is that why you take such exception to what I type?

If I consistently used Noam as a source would you be happier? becuase he has an education green light, would you scoff at him for suggesting there was a world wide 'scam' of insider trading, double standards, colusion between business and governments?

no maybe not.

No, I was posting up an example of how you come across.

No, you were posting an example of how you interpret what I said.

And actually not everyone thinks the same as you.

Some people thought I had a point.

strangely.

people strongly disagreeing with you does not equal people being rude or judgemental. which are these books that i haven't read that i am supposed to have commented on? you haven't mentioned any books - this is precisely the problem!

what theories have i commented on without knowing about them? fluorescent lights? faraday cages? you know, i suppose you could say that i haven't studied them, as you consider "good" and "worthy" education to be meritless. do, please, show me these studies that explain fluorescent lights or faraday cages in any other way than that in which i have done.

and here you go again, suggesting i have something to protect! i haven't finished my degree yet, i have no vested interests in ensuring that people remain "asleep", but i ***do ***have an interest in ensuring the future success of the human population, which means that we need scientists and philosophers educated to a high standard, the current delivery system and assesment of that standard, being universities. care to suggest somewhere else completely not linked to universities that i could learn about electromagnetism or quantum physics? ah, fuck, shit, thats right, all our knowledge of these things came from people studying in universities. better rethink that one. where do you think we are going to get the knowledge to combat the (imagined and real) environmental disasters that you predict?

what does constitute thinking for you then? (serious question) maths for example. it's black and white (for the most part). it is apolitical. it is factual. how else would you suggest that pure maths be taught, except from an agreed list of authoritative texts?

if you consistently used anyone as a source, we would all be happier. why is chomsky a respected philosopher and political activist? because what he writes has actual merit, is well argued (i.e. consistent and evidenced), and not based on spurious facts, but actual truth! this is a non-point, because of course we would respect your arguments more *if you used authoritative sources.

*edit: in between all your posts, there has been some good discussion of anarchism, so why are you assessing that it is a subject matter that i do not like? check the first page of this thread. i supplied links as requested by the OP, why did i know of these links? because i have an interest in anarchism, but not with the pseudo-scientific babble that so often accompanies and obscures left-wing ideologies.

Things like this, which are plainly false:

Would incline anyone to think that there is something 'different' about the way you think. Sticking to this point, I wonder if you thought about all the plant life there is under water before you wrote it. I wonder if you stopped to consider what a plant actually was, before you wrote that. How many plants don't flower, even.

I don't think so. I think you just wrote it down. "Yeah, 2/3rds of all plant life man, something like that, man - fucking end of the world, dude, I'm telling you."

That's what it sounds like to me. Taking no care over what you say, piling on impression after impression and not providing any evidence, that's what I might call beat poetry, but it's not informed debate, it's not argument, it's not, actually, even worth engaging with.

And it has nothing to do with whether or not you have a formal university education. Plenty of people become rational, independent thinkers who have nothing to do with the Academy. It has to do with being precise in how you formulate your statements, following logical principles in your arguments, adopting agreed standards of evidence, and so on.

You say you have been studying 'this stuff' for 15 years. I can tell you: you have started in the wrong place, and you have got nowhere.

Worth repeating this I feel.

Talking about judgement...If any one here has been subjected to dismissive and rude comments regarding this thread, it's been me. Since page one, people have been incredibly rude for no other reason that the subject matter is one they do not like.

You are imagining it. No one was incredibly rude to you on page one, take a look.

Nor does page two contain any rude comments towards you, take a look for yourself.

Page three ? No, still no incredibly rude comments, mashton does a bit of satire, but nothing you could call incredibly rude.

It's not untill page 4 that dooks pulls out the good stuff with: "Oh do fuck off you sanctimonious, presumtuous, patronising twit." - but long before that you have already employed 'braying' - 'knuckle dragging' - 'wrapped in cotton wool' - 'pissing your knickers' - 'pick your fucking dollies up' 'force fed' - 'you are all perfectly happy. Why burst your bubble? Soma anyone?' - 'heads in the sand' . . . and so on.

Also you are confusing the idea that people do not like the subject matter with the fact that they just don't think the ideas you are putting forward are credible.

No, you were posting an example of how you interpret what I said.

No, really, I know what was meant by my post, I was actually there when I wrote it !

That is not how I interpret what you said.

It was an example of how you come across to me.

And actually not everyone thinks the same as you.

Some people thought I had a point.

strangely.

Agreed, I should have said this how you come across to me.

If I consistently used Noam as a source would you be happier? becuase he has an education green light, would you scoff at him for suggesting there was a world wide 'scam' of insider trading, double standards, colusion between business and governments?

no maybe not.

Well, now you have brought Chomsky in to it....
The point about Chomsky is that he is meticulous with his sources; all the material on which he bases his views can be found through the references in his books. And it is precisely because you seem unwilling to be that meticulous yourself that you are getting a hard time on here. If someone asks Chomsky where he finds his source material he will tell them; he won't say they should UTFS or that there is no point telling them because they won't read it or understand it or they are too brainwashed to deal with it. Do you see my point? You have been your own worst enemy on this thread by your unwillingness to share your sources and the constant way you have implied that anyone who disagrees with you is unable to think for themselves and, in your last post, by your travesty of a portrait of university education; Chomksy himself would not be uncritical of the Acadamy but nor would he go along with your gauche trashing of it.

Yes, lies, and attempts to cover up the worse parts of the incompetence / bad intelligence which lead to this tragedy - and certainly an attempt to set the news agenda before all the facts were out.

So we have now established that there is at least one example of the state lying. I am sure we could all think of hundreds of other examples if we put our minds to it.

Exactly, It should come as no surprise to anyone. All to keen to cover their tracks after our police force again became an international embarrassment.

didn't have a beard...nad was actually killed execution style in carraige...

lol wat

So... Anarchism-related discussion, anyone? I would probably describe myself as a species of green anarchist, in that I think we should be aiming for a political set-up that has the protection of the biosphere as its highest priority (the green bit) and I don't believe that governments, being the elected servants of the public, have the right to use force or coercion to make people comply with their political objectives (the anarchist bit).
But I'm aware that there's a huge problem with that combination of beliefs. How do you persuade people who care more about their own short-term wants to change their lives in ways that they won't like? How does an anarchist resolve their own dislike of government force with the existence of powerful opponents who are more than happy to use force?
The Spanish civil war was a good example - how can you fight your way to (local) power and then expect to run things without coercion, when your enemies remain all around you and within your own territory? Or, more pertinantly, how is it right for anarchists to use violence against property (the windows of every Tesco in central Bristol right now, for example) but wrong for the BNP to use violence against property (eg a mosque)?

.........gauche trashing of it.

he would however agree that large parts of its more advanced research were paid for by multinationals, and subsequently that money did have an affect on the research that was carried out.

He would also agree that...Whatever, you would rather pick it to pieces and call me an idiot than admit that any of it had any relevence to anything.

facts and figures aside...you want a link that says categorically that 'they' are fucking you over by what percentage?

You want sources that you are living in a media steered society thats obsessed with consumerism at the detriment of all life.

ok, then Noam...he's a good starter.

And as for sharkstar...nope.

and Tynan...actually it was another thread that you called me a fucking idiot, however, I'm sure everything since then has been as unbiased.

I'm out of this thread, you can continue to talk about anarchy without breaking any windows.

You want sources that you are living in a media steered society thats obsessed with consumerism at the detriment of all life.
...
I'm out of this thread, you can continue to talk about anarchy without breaking any windows.

With you on the first bit... But it's an internet discussion - no windows are going to get broken however radical you are.

and Tynan...actually it was another thread that you called me a fucking idiot.

Yes, like I said, it was another thread.

I should really have said it was the ideas that you were presenting, and the way you were presenting them that was idiotic, rather than you personally, not only would that have been a little fairer, it also might have prevented you from using your indignation as an excuse as to why you were not going to support any of your more silly ideas.

You want sources that you are living in a media steered society thats obsessed with consumerism at the detriment of all life.

Yes, sources for the claims made that others are sceptical about, this is the only way you are going to convince people that what you say has some merit, calling people brainwashed cunts might feel good, but doesn't work as well as supporting your arguments with sound and credible information.

Winged Angel- this is a request for clarification.

I have used this search string: [ame="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sub-aquatic+bees&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a"]sub-aquatic bees - Google Search[/ame]

And I have to admit I am not getting any viable results- could you assist please?

he would however agree that large parts of its more advanced research were paid for by multinationals, and subsequently that money did have an affect on the research that was carried out.

*I am sure you know that Chomsky has often pointed out that when he started at MIT the lab he worked in was funded largely by the Pentagon and that MIT as a whole was funded by industry and yet it was one of the centres of organiased resistance to the Vietnam war and there was never any effort made by MIT to comrpomise him or his work - make of that what you will, it's not my story, it is Chomsky's. The point I was making was that he would not be uncritical of Universities but nor, I think, would he go along with your characterisation of them in your previous post; but I am reluctant to try and speak on behalf of anyone, let alone the an outstanding intellectual.
*
**He would also agree that...Whatever, you would rather pick it to pieces and call me an idiot than admit that any of it had any relevence to anything.
**
*Except I did not call you an idiot did I? I said one of your contributions was gauche; if you translate that as idiot then you have reached the point where you are actually working hard to insult yourself.

• 
  **facts and figures aside...you want a link that says categorically that 'they' are fucking you over by what percentage?
  
  

You want sources that you are living in a media steered society thats obsessed with consumerism at the detriment of all life. **

This is exactly the problem; people ask you for links about specific claims you have made and you come back with this scornful tone about generalisations and a very patronising assumption that anyone who questions you in any way is blind to the 'real' situation or to the kind of society in which we live and that they must be less well read than you or only obtain their information from mainstream sources. It makes it impossible not only to have a reasoned argument with you but even to have a discussion and people like myself, who would broadly be sympathetic to your view of the world, are dismissed by you in a way which is utterly self defeating.

.

And as for sharkstar...nope.

Doesn't really cut it, I'm afraid. You obviously get something out of hanging on to this set of beliefs, and this style of thinking, if you can call it that. It must sustain you in some way, and excuse you from things you've done, or more likely not done. This is the price you pay: people getting frustrated, exasperated with you because you are refusing to live in the same world as them. They want to see where you started from so they can trace a path to where you are, but you won't show them the way. You promise them ElDorado but provide no map.

I can only imagine you spend most of your time alone, or talking to morons, or people who are continually stoned, or the nice people in the hospital who give you your medicine and who are paid to listen to your line of crap, and who in any case get counselling themselves afterwards. Who knows?

Doesn't really cut it, I'm afraid.
Oh, yes...it does, you were definitely wrong the first time. Use Occams, looks like a duck ...etc...

You obviously get something out of hanging on to this set of beliefs, and this style of thinking, if you can call it that. It must sustain you in some way, and excuse you from things you've done, or more likely not done.
Not done...no..sorry.

This is the price you pay: people getting frustrated, exasperated with you because you are refusing to live in the same world as them.
If they are frustrated, as they obviously are, it's them that are paying, thats because the world they live in, is one that allows the things I've mentioned to happen and they don't really want to believe it's that bad.

They want to see where you started from so they can trace a path to where you are, but you won't show them the way. You promise them ElDorado but provide no map.

If I live in eldorado, would I want it full of 'these' type of people?

I can only imagine you spend most of your time alone,
no.

or talking to morons, or people who are continually stoned,
..though for sport I come onto this thread...no.

or the nice people in the hospital who give you your medicine and who are paid to listen to your line of crap, and who in any case get counselling themselves afterwards.

it's called care in the community, they don't have those nice safe clean sanitariums to protect you from us anymore.

Who knows?
as I said before, you don't

what we do have in common is bicycles. and some other stuff, though I said I'll bow out of here as we are just winding each other up, and it's not worth a jot. I'm not going to agree with you, and noone is going to believe a word I say.
as basically if you can't find it on wiki...it cannot exist.
so lets leave it...
you can continue talking about anarchism and I will continue living it.

and yes.,.I said that with a shit eating smile on my face, whilst wearing my tin foil hat bikini combo, that lady gaga mailed to me last week.

Oh, yes...it does, you were definitely wrong the first time. Use Occams, looks like a duck ...etc...

Definitely wrong about plants and bees? Kindly fuck off. I know you hate to be pinned down to a single claim but you are talking utter shit, as you must now see unless you have lost your mind, as surely as you have lost all of your credibility here.

Maybe you really are schizophrenic, as your thought disorder suggests, in which case I apologise, but you ought really to consider declaring yourself before getting involved in these kinds of debate.

What a load of posh mustard.

Oh yes, that remind me..

GIVE US THE LINK!