- Register |
- Login |
- Premium Memberships |
- Audio & Video Chat |
- Top Leakers |
- Faq |
- Contact Us |
- Set As Homepage |
- Advanced Search
- Sections:
- All |
- News/Politics |
- Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran..) |
- Entertainment |
- Celebrity |
- Education |
- Citizen Journalism
Anarchy is Emergent
I believe this falls under "fair use", and I am uploading this under that belief.
If you have ZERO interest in Anarchism / Voluntarism, then your comments are not appreciated. Debating socialized beastmen about the necessity of having men in funny hats with a monopoly on force is not good for you or I.
If you feel the need to rail against this, please google "psychohistory" to determine More..
Liveleak requires flash. If you see this message, make sure you have the latest flash player installed. To install the latest version, click HERE
Added: Sep 21 2008 In: education
By: khydraa
- Tags:
- Anarchy,
- Anarchism,
- Religion,
- Origin,
- Civilization
- Views: 1068 |
- Votes: 2 |
- Recommendations: 0 |
- Comments: 18
- |
- Send to Friends |
Comments - sort by newest to oldest
FIRST!!!! There's anarchy for ya!
Posted Sep-21-2008 by "tanktop" (R)
Well thought out argument .
Posted Sep-21-2008 by "lauriebhoy" (R)
Well, in your preface, you said if one has ZERO interest in anarchy, then your comments are not appreciated. I have slight interest, maybe a 1% interest, as a curiosity in anarchy.
So I guess I qualify and meet the requirements, to make a comment. If the reverse is true, then you would appreciate my reply. This was done in the video, using the reverse and opposite to justify a position or argument.
After watching the video, my comment is, "I now have no interest in anarchy!"
The arguments were spoken very eloquently by the narrator of the video. I liked his voice. But the arguments he presented, the content of those arguments were flawed. They were flawed because they were based on assumptions. And logic was avoided or thrown out the window.
It was almost like saying: Mushrooms are natural and good for human beings. Science has determined that the antifungal properties of mushrooms increase the lifespan of all human beings. Therefore, the conclusion is, if we all eat mushrooms, we will live longer!
Wow! That's cool! I'll buy it! People are going to eat mushrooms!
Here's the problem, the same problem you have in the video and I have with the video as a viewer: The argument is flawed, illogical, not practical, and does not consider all possibilities. What is not said, is that certain mushrooms will kill people if eaten. Some people will go out on their own and naturally pick them. Some will pick deadly mushrooms and some will pick those that psychodelics. And even if a person picked or bought the right mushroom, they could have an anaphylactic response and die, even though that same mushroom would not hurt you or me. And what level of mushroom intake, gives the person the benefit of the antifungal properties? Is there resistance to the benefits of the mushroom, after prolonged eating of the mushroom? What are the side effects? Although they might have antifungal properties, they may also cause hepatic necrosis as a side effect, and therefore, actually shorten the life. The short term benefits do not justify long term use!
This video is flawed in so many areas and although using logic to make a point, it skirts more logic than it uses. And it also does not talk about the consequences of implementing that logic. As in the example of the mushroom eating, where potential side effects and death is the outcome, those topics were avoided. One only received a partial picture of mushroom eating. They did not get the whole story. I nitpicked logic and thus, the conclusion I came to in the mushroom story, mushrooms are beneficial, is full of flaws and illogical assumptions. Just like this video!
Total BS!!!
Posted Sep-21-2008 by "PhotoExpert" (R)
So I guess I qualify and meet the requirements, to make a comment. If the reverse is true, then you would appreciate my reply. This was done in the video, using the reverse and opposite to justify a position or argument.
After watching the video, my comment is, "I now have no interest in anarchy!"
The arguments were spoken very eloquently by the narrator of the video. I liked his voice. But the arguments he presented, the content of those arguments were flawed. They were flawed because they were based on assumptions. And logic was avoided or thrown out the window.
It was almost like saying: Mushrooms are natural and good for human beings. Science has determined that the antifungal properties of mushrooms increase the lifespan of all human beings. Therefore, the conclusion is, if we all eat mushrooms, we will live longer!
Wow! That's cool! I'll buy it! People are going to eat mushrooms!
Here's the problem, the same problem you have in the video and I have with the video as a viewer: The argument is flawed, illogical, not practical, and does not consider all possibilities. What is not said, is that certain mushrooms will kill people if eaten. Some people will go out on their own and naturally pick them. Some will pick deadly mushrooms and some will pick those that psychodelics. And even if a person picked or bought the right mushroom, they could have an anaphylactic response and die, even though that same mushroom would not hurt you or me. And what level of mushroom intake, gives the person the benefit of the antifungal properties? Is there resistance to the benefits of the mushroom, after prolonged eating of the mushroom? What are the side effects? Although they might have antifungal properties, they may also cause hepatic necrosis as a side effect, and therefore, actually shorten the life. The short term benefits do not justify long term use!
This video is flawed in so many areas and although using logic to make a point, it skirts more logic than it uses. And it also does not talk about the consequences of implementing that logic. As in the example of the mushroom eating, where potential side effects and death is the outcome, those topics were avoided. One only received a partial picture of mushroom eating. They did not get the whole story. I nitpicked logic and thus, the conclusion I came to in the mushroom story, mushrooms are beneficial, is full of flaws and illogical assumptions. Just like this video!
Total BS!!!
mushrooms are good!
Posted Sep-21-2008 by "brako" (R)
Elitist prick!
Posted Sep-21-2008 by "Avolson" (R)
wheres GOD again???
Posted Sep-21-2008 by "rclark951" (R)
So I guess I qualify and meet the requirements, to make a comment. If the reverse is true, then you would appreciate my reply. This was done in the video, using the reverse and opposite to justify a position or argument.
After watching the video, my comment is, "I now have no interest in anarchy!"
The arguments were spoken very eloquently by the narrator of the video. I liked his voice. But the arguments he presented, the content of those arguments were flawed. They were flawed because they were based on assumptions. And logic was avoided or thrown out the window.
It was almost like saying: Mushrooms are natural and good for human beings. Science has determined that the antifungal properties of mushrooms increase the lifespan of all human beings. Therefore, the conclusion is, if we all eat mushrooms, we will live longer!
Wow! That's cool! I'll buy it! People are going to eat mushrooms!
Here's the problem, the same problem you have in the video and I have with the video as a viewer: The argument is flawed, illogical, not practical, and does not consider all possibilities. What is not said, is that certain mushrooms will kill people if eaten. Some people will go out on their own and naturally pick them. Some will pick deadly mushrooms and some will pick those that psychodelics. And even if a person picked or bought the right mushroom, they could have an anaphylactic response and die, even though that same mushroom would not hurt you or me. And what level of mushroom intake, gives the person the benefit of the antifungal properties? Is there resistance to the benefits of the mushroom, after prolonged eating of the mushroom? What are the side effects? Although they might have antifungal properties, they may also cause hepatic necrosis as a side effect, and therefore, actually shorten the life. The short term benefits do not justify long term use!
This video is flawed in so many areas and although using logic to make a point, it skirts more logic than it uses. And it also does not talk about the consequences of implementing that logic. As in the example of the mushroom eating, where potential side effects and death is the outcome, those topics were avoided. One only received a partial picture of mushroom eating. They did not get the whole story. I nitpicked logic and thus, the conclusion I came to in the mushroom story, mushrooms are beneficial, is full of flaws and illogical assumptions. Just like this video!
Total BS!!!
mushrooms are good!
LOL Of course mushrooms are good! Why do you think I used them as an example in my analogy?
Posted Sep-21-2008 by "PhotoExpert" (R)
Elitist prick!
I am not a prick. I just really am right all the time.
Posted Sep-22-2008 by "khydraa" (R)
So is cancer.
Posted Sep-22-2008 by "khydraa" (R)
There.
Posted Sep-22-2008 by "khydraa" (R)
There.
Where?
GOD, well is this a topic you want to talk about or are you they type of person that feels their idea of God is the only right one? If so your idea of God is right for you, yet there are so many questions about God you have yet to ask. Isnt there?
Posted Sep-22-2008 by "rclark951" (R)
So I guess I qualify and meet the requirements, to make a comment. If the reverse is true, then you would appreciate my reply. This was done in the video, using the reverse and opposite to justify a position or argument.
After watching the video, my comment is, "I now have no interest in anarchy!"
The arguments were spoken very eloquently by the narrator of the video. I liked his voice. But the arguments he presented, the content of those arguments were flawed. They were flawed because they were based on assumptions. And logic was avoided or thrown out the window.
It was almost like saying: Mushrooms are natural and good for human beings. Science has determined that the antifungal properties of mushrooms increase the lifespan of all human beings. Therefore, the conclusion is, if we all eat mushrooms, we will live longer!
Wow! That's cool! I'll buy it! People are going to eat mushrooms!
Here's the problem, the same problem you have in the video and I have with the video as a viewer: The argument is flawed, illogical, not practical, and does not consider all possibilities. What is not said, is that certain mushrooms will kill people if eaten. Some people will go out on their own and naturally pick them. Some will pick deadly mushrooms and some will pick those that psychodelics. And even if a person picked or bought the right mushroom, they could have an anaphylactic response and die, even though that same mushroom would not hurt you or me. And what level of mushroom intake, gives the person the benefit of the antifungal properties? Is there resistance to the benefits of the mushroom, after prolonged eating of the mushroom? What are the side effects? Although they might have antifungal properties, they may also cause hepatic necrosis as a side effect, and therefore, actually shorten the life. The short term benefits do not justify long term use!
This video is flawed in so many areas and although using logic to make a point, it skirts more logic than it uses. And it also does not talk about the consequences of implementing that logic. As in the example of the mushroom eating, where potential side effects and death is the outcome, those topics were avoided. One only received a partial picture of mushroom eating. They did not get the whole story. I nitpicked logic and thus, the conclusion I came to in the mushroom story, mushrooms are beneficial, is full of flaws and illogical assumptions. Just like this video!
Total BS!!!
shh logic requires more then we can ever understand.
Please Google Video "Dangerous Knowledge"
Peace.
Posted Sep-22-2008 by "rclark951" (R)
So I guess I qualify and meet the requirements, to make a comment. If the reverse is true, then you would appreciate my reply. This was done in the video, using the reverse and opposite to justify a position or argument.
After watching the video, my comment is, "I now have no interest in anarchy!"
The arguments were spoken very eloquently by the narrator of the video. I liked his voice. But the arguments he presented, the content of those arguments were flawed. They were flawed because they were based on assumptions. And logic was avoided or thrown out the window.
It was almost like saying: Mushrooms are natural and good for human beings. Science has determined that the antifungal properties of mushrooms increase the lifespan of all human beings. Therefore, the conclusion is, if we all eat mushrooms, we will live longer!
Wow! That's cool! I'll buy it! People are going to eat mushrooms!
Here's the problem, the same problem you have in the video and I have with the video as a viewer: The argument is flawed, illogical, not practical, and does not consider all possibilities. What is not said, is that certain mushrooms will kill people if eaten. Some people will go out on their own and naturally pick them. Some will pick deadly mushrooms and some will pick those that psychodelics. And even if a person picked or bought the right mushroom, they could have an anaphylactic response and die, even though that same mushroom would not hurt you or me. And what level of mushroom intake, gives the person the benefit of the antifungal properties? Is there resistance to the benefits of the mushroom, after prolonged eating of the mushroom? What are the side effects? Although they might have antifungal properties, they may also cause hepatic necrosis as a side effect, and therefore, actually shorten the life. The short term benefits do not justify long term use!
This video is flawed in so many areas and although using logic to make a point, it skirts more logic than it uses. And it also does not talk about the consequences of implementing that logic. As in the example of the mushroom eating, where potential side effects and death is the outcome, those topics were avoided. One only received a partial picture of mushroom eating. They did not get the whole story. I nitpicked logic and thus, the conclusion I came to in the mushroom story, mushrooms are beneficial, is full of flaws and illogical assumptions. Just like this video!
Total BS!!!
Let me summarize your comment:
"This video does not make an overarching case for anarchy."
And you are correct. I do not believe I can make the anarchistic case in one sitting. I have uploaded other videos if you care, and there is a whole world wide web of information as well.
Posted Sep-22-2008 by "khydraa" (R)
anarchy can only work with intelligent people; most of the internet proves there aren't enough of them. Not referencing LL here, should have said "the rest of the internet:)
Posted Sep-22-2008 by "ronald8" (R)
Oh noes! If people are unintelligent, then you positively CANNOT have a government, because then stupid people will vote for stupid things or a dictator will be swept into power by appealing to the stupid masses.
People are stupid, thus we must have government... do what? Remember, government will be made up of said stupid (possibly even stupider) people.
Should government make computers? Should government make hamburgers? Should government coordinate food production and distribution?
Should government handle police? If so why? Is it because government is needed to do large and complicated things?
Remember, you had people saying that privatizing the postal service would lead to horrible exploitation, and people would be charged monopoly rates and abused horribly if they were isolated.
Posted Sep-22-2008 by "khydraa" (R)