Smapti is Pitted

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

What does it benefit the world, society, or myself if, instead of one person drowning in the river, two people drown in the river?

Your cowardice is appalling. There exist situations in which a small risk to your life exists, but this risk is necessary to save the life of another. I guess if you have a baby, and it falls into a stream, then that baby’s out of luck, because there’s a non-zero risk that you could die trying to save it.

Just make sure you let any prospective romantic partner know about this before you have children.

Any of which would increase my risk of sharing the fate of the people they’re hunting, which is not acceptable.

More apalling cowardice.

[dasmoocher]

@iiandyiiii

People are in danger all the time. It’s very possible that someone in your family might fall into a river someday, and you’ve stated you would not risk your life to save them. I weep for your family, but I hope they learn the extent of your cowardice so they know they can’t rely on you in a dangerous situation.

Yeah, this cat is a braver parent. Cat Walks Through Flames Five Times To Rescue Her Kittens.

[Smapti]

@dasmoocher

Yeah, this cat is a braver parent. Cat Walks Through Flames Five Times To Rescue Her Kittens.

Cats, of course, operate on instinct, not reason.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

Cats, of course, operate on instinct, not reason.

Considering how badly your reason is failing you, perhaps you should try instinct.

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

Considering how badly your reason is failing you, perhaps you should try instinct.

The entire purpose of civilization is to prevent humans from acting on instinct.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

The entire purpose of civilization is to prevent humans from acting on instinct.

No. Certain instincts are fine. Your reasoning ability is shoddy, since you refuse to recognize that your ideas about authority have been entirely harmful to humans and human society, so I suggest you might revert to instinct.

[dasmoocher]

@Smapti

Cats, of course, operate on instinct, not reason.

So do people, sometimes: Troy woman runs into burning building to save child.

Are you going to tell us this was a bad thing? This wasn’t even her kid and three people went into the building to rescue the kid.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Smapti

Going against the rules is the definition of injustice.

Not when the rule is unjust.

You live in a fantasy works where all rules are just or remain just. There are too many example of legally enacted laws that are fundamentally unjust. You’re view of the works is very narrow.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Smapti

The entire purpose of civilization is to prevent humans from acting on instinct.

Nooooo…

Maternal instinct has been pretty darn good. The whole point of civilization is to protect the weak from those who would abide power.

[Smapti]

@dasmoocher

So do people, sometimes: Troy woman runs into burning building to save child.

Are you going to tell us this was a bad thing? This wasn’t even her kid and three people went into the building to rescue the kid.

It was her choice to make. It’s not what I would have done.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Smapti

It was her choice to make. It’s not what I would have done.

No shit. I don’t think anyone reading this thread thinks you’d break a sweat to save anyone if there was a minuscule chance of you getting hurt.

[Fuji]

@Smapti

No genocide would ever be possible if everyone followed the rules.

@Fuji

:dubious:

Oh, come on.

What are these fucking “rules” of which you speak? You’ve already denied the existence of fundamental human rights and the irrelevance of justice and morality.

So what “rules” were the Romans breaking when they committed the Carthaginian genocide after the 3rd Punic War? Can you point to any citations that were violated when the Qing exterminated the Dzungar people? What law was violated when, just this past century, the Turks almost wiped out the Armenians or the West Pakistani government decided to slaughter every Bengali they could find in East Pakistan?

@Smapti

And yet we still have laws and treaties prohibiting them. The fact that there exist no fundamental human rights doesn’t mean that we can’t create them and enforce them through law.

None, with the exception of the final case, which occurred after Pakistan joined the UN.

You just contradicted yourself. You said that A (genocide) can only happen when B (there exists rules which the actors subsequently break). Now you acknowledge that A can happen without B. :smack:

As for Pakistan and the UN - what supranational authority do you recognize outside of sovereign national government? From reading your posts, I already know the answer is “none”, so why the pretense of referring to them as is they were a legitimate authority?

You really should that Becker book I referenced earlier. Again - it’s not just cowardice, it’s basic ignorance of the human condition you present to us.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

This guy is broken. I mean, fundamentally he is just not operating.

[Steve_MB]

Error… Error… Norman, co-ordinate…

@Smapti

Here’s the more important question: Why the hell is it any of your business, and what relevance does her reproductive history have to her ability to govern the state?

(emphasis added)

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Steve_MB

Error… Error… Norman, co-ordinate…
(emphasis added)

But if the State wanted to know why you had an abortion, that’d be cool, right?

[Steve_MB]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

But if the State wanted to know why you had an abortion, that’d be cool, right?

A distinction without a difference – so saith Smapti:

@Smapti

Well, of course the government has a right to abrogate it, because the government is the people and therefore cannot act contrary to their will.

[Superdude]

@Smapti

What does it benefit the world, society, or myself if, instead of one person drowning in the river, two people drown in the river?

“Hey, son? I know you’re 4, and that I just accidentally dropped you in a river. I’m rooting for you! If you survive, let us know how it turns out.”

[Steve_MB]

@Steve_MB

As noted on the earlier thread, Smapti’s opinion is becoming irrelevant as well as trivial and absurd. New developments are rendering it obsolete:

1. Communications channels designed so that the system manager simply does not have the ability to betray customer privacy:
2. The use of passive “dead-man switch” communication rather than active notification, thus rendering moot any legal prohibition on the latter – a legal basis for a gag order does not provide a legal basis for compelling a citizen to actively utter a flasehood:

@Smapti

The first ought to be illegal and probably will be made so, and the second is by its own admission fomenting treason.

A quick followup on the sad state of Smapti’s cloudy cracked crystal ball:

Congress Tells FBI There’s ‘Zero Chance’ Of Giving The Bureau Backdoor Access To Americans’ Cellphones

Members of Congress wasted little time before shooting down a proposal by FBI Director James Comey to give the bureau a backdoor into Americans’ cellphones – a request made in response to new privacy standards adopted by Apple and Google…

“To FBI Director Comey and the Admin on criticisms of legitimate businesses using encryption: you reap what you sow,” California Republican and Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa wrote in a recent tweet…

Long-time anti-surveillance California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren said in a Hill report earlier this week that such a request has “zero chance” of passing…

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden speculated no more than “a handful of members would support the idea of backdooring Americans’ personal property”…

[Smapti]

@Steve_MB

A quick followup on the sad state of Smapti’s cloudy cracked crystal ball:

Guess they’ll just have to continue paying employees under the table to break the software for them, then. Won’t that make you sleep easier?

[Steve_MB]

@Smapti

Guess they’ll just have to continue paying employees under the table to break the software for them, then.

That’s what Open Source is for. I hear that some of the new distros come with actual MP3s of James Comey’s teeth grinding and overpressurized veins throbbing!

Even in the commercial sector, good old reliable greed will insure that corporations serve the public interest by giving customers the privacy they demand, the whining and yowling of bureaucratic drones notwithstading.