The Egyptian Protesters are Wrong

Originally posted by muzzleflash

I am really liking your posts a lot nenothtu.

You totally get it. I can't help but star your posts.

Thank you for adding your straight talk to this conversation, I really appreciate it.

Sure thing. We've had our differences over this and that, but in this case you're right, and that's the side I always try to stand on.

Your basic premise of what constitutes liberty, and what government actually is - an illusion of power handed over to "them" by "us", is dead on.

I'm glad you decided to post early-on that it isn't really an Egypt issue, and that the current Egyptian situation serves as but an example. We may differ in a deeper analysis as to what is actually going on there, and whether or not Mubarak really needs to go, but the discussion at hand - personal liberty vs. "delegated power" is not a place we would differ in, I think.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
We are alone in our actions.
Our actions DO affect others, that is why we are personally 100% responsible for what we choose to do.

Thinking you are responsible for OTHERS actions is the problem here. It leads you to attempt to CONTROL them, and to trample their human rights in the good intention of " being responsible for them ".

It's a road to hell.

No one is responsible for my actions. If they were, that would make me their slave.
And that's not an acceptable outcome.

I believe you are twisting it and you are completely wrong.

First of all, to take responsibilty of another's actions doesn't mean stomping on their face and "controlling" them.

You are forgetting that we are living in a group + humanity as a group just to state that.

We are responsible for what happens on this earth since what we do effects it.
And when we are cause, something or someone else is effect.

Therefore the person being effect is subject to our actions.
Do you see where I'm leading?

Basically, we effect eachother; therefore we are responsible for eachother.

Someone hurts your mother. It is your responsibility to help her as a moral and ethical human being.
The man that hurt her won't help her and YES, it is definitely first his responsibility, but since he won't do it, then it is ours. We are responsible for eachother and ourselves.

It's really easy to see once you just think about it.

I feel like all you are trying to do in this thread is be right. But of course, if you really can't see it then it ultimately doesn't matter.

Last one for you:

Since our actions effect people or things around us, it is our responsibility to make sure our actions are good since they will effect our sorroundings.

It is our responsibility to have a good sorrounding; if someone tries to do the opposite, it is again our responsibility to fix that.

Not many people practice true responsibility, and don't confuse what I am saying with pure good will etc.. It is in basis our responsibility!

- Nico Collu

Originally posted by PrimePorkchop
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

so they're tired of their government and are fighting back, but they're wrong? What should they do? Lay down and do nothing?

Please, enlighten us.

Well, not do "nothing". I am proposing that we "Think about it".

They are fighting something that is not real. Therefore no ground will ever truly be gained in that struggle, and at the end of the day, we will be right back a square 1.

By thinking, we can find better routes to seek change.
Sharing ideas.
Stop using the excuse of "laws" or "orders" to trample on other's rights.

Once we take responsibility for our own personal actions, and realize the lies fed to us, we will automatically find ourselves in a new paradigm.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Sorry OP, but that's some BS you wrote. There is a difference between philosophical constructs and how the world actually works. Your presentation is half baked.

Originally posted by Mizzijr
I'm not really down with the whole anarchist theme of a country.

Anarchy is another brainwashed system, thought up in opposition against the official government. People liked the idea so much because they hate their governments' rules, they haven't stopped to think ahead.

I am not proposing Anarchy.

I am proposing Common Sense and Logic.

If you think the failed ideal of "Government" is so wonderful, than why are there people on the streets of Cairo?

I would call our system right now ---> a Violent Anarchy. There is just chaos.
And the rights of humans are being trampled upon.

By realizing the futility of all of these ideals, there would be no violent revolt.

Originally posted by rockn82

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Civilized:

1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable:

...

You bring an interesting point in your chain of thought. The only problem I can see with it is that many people cannot handle the responsibility to care for themselves. One could venture that the human race will never command the ability to do so. Then there are those who, by handicap, cannot take care of themselves and would need a structured life set out by others so they can accomplish something close to normalcy. However while I ponder this for a while longer, your definition of "civilized" prompted me to post a video. I think it fits your definition rather well.

I hope at least some find it though provoking.

Nice post.

Isn't it quite Ironic that Koko the Gorilla fits the definition of Civilized better than we Humans?

This is probably due to the fact Koko is not swamped with dozens of completely fake ideals that lead them into committing atrocities.

Maximum Irony.

Originally posted by Sound.Voice.Productions


We are responsible for what happens on this earth since what we do effects it.

Ok I actually think it's possible we are in agreement.

But we are just on different trains of thought and are articulating our ideals from very different perspectives.

We probably do agree, but just don't realize it due to the constraints that language contains.

It could just be a mere misunderstanding.

The sentence I quoted here from you, shows me that we are in agreement.
At least on this 1 point.

We are responsible for our actions and the effects they have.
But we are not responsible for other people's actions. We have no control over them at all, therefore it is not our fault if they do something.

reply to post by Sound.Voice.Productions


You seem to be missing the point. By "taking responsibility" (see how it's already "taking"?) over the actions of others, you are robbing them of their OWN responsibility, their OWN self determination. You are effectively insisting on "power" over them and their OWN responsibility and actions.

Which is what got us where we are now.

No, I AM responsible for MY actions, and no one else's. Likewise, I will allow NO MAN to wrest that responsibility from me, yourself included, regardless of your intentions.

You may "take responsibility" from any that you can. That won't be my problem, because I won't be among them.

Edit to add: it appears that the discrepancy here is our insistence that we are responsible for our own ACTIONS, and your contention is that part of that responsibility, part of those ACTIONS, is to look out for others around us. I don't see a discrepancy there, unless you ignore the "actions" part. An example, from your own words:

Someone hurts your mother. It is your responsibility to help her as a moral and ethical human being.
The man that hurt her won't help her and YES, it is definitely first his responsibility, but since he won't do it, then it is ours. We are responsible for eachother and ourselves.

See how, in that scenario, we are responsible to "help our mother"? Still, that is our action, and of course it is the correct one. We ARE responsible to help her, "help" being OUR actions. We are NOT responsible to direct HER actions, or anyone else's, including the injuring party. If the injury is grievous enough, we are responsible to prevent the possibility of he injuring party from ever even HAVING any actions again, but not for directing any subsequent actions on their part.

Their actions are solely their OWN responsibility, and with responsibility comes consequences, which may mean that as a consequence of bad actions one is unable to ever have any actions again.

I had the radio on and was listening to this drama. I agreed with everything the host of the show said. Then it cut to commercial and I realized it was Glenn Beck.. WOW. Maybe he's not as crazy as I thought.

If ANYTHING said in the OP "blew your mind," you don't deserve freedom.

It seems to me the ones we've given 'authority' over our society actually are Anarchists. They impose various constrictions on the rest of us, but they believe they have none themselves. We are enslaved, so they can enjoy freedom. We are less than human to them, they want to allow us only the illusion of having 'rights'.

Here's a video that makes some interesting points on this matter:

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Sound.Voice.Productions

 

You seem to be missing the point. By "taking responsibility" (see how it's already "taking"?) over the actions of others, you are robbing them of their OWN responsibility, their OWN self determination. You are effectively insisting on "power" over them and their OWN responsibility and actions.

Which is what got us where we are now.

No, I AM responsible for MY actions, and no one else's. Likewise, I will allow NO MAN to wrest that responsibility from me, yourself included, regardless of your intentions.

You make "take responsibility" from any that you can. That won't be my problem, because I won't be among them.

Yes, there you go with your straight talk again.


What could I possibly add to what you have said? Other than my little ramble of a post?

You articulated it perfectly.

Originally posted by cluckerspud
Wrong or right, they are tired and demand change.

edit on 1-2-2011 by cluckerspud because: (no reason given)

Why demand? Just CHANGE!!!

Will you or anyone else change? No? Then what is the point asking the change, if you do not change???

reply to post by thektotheg


All the OP did was rehash ideas that have been around for as long as there's been government/religion/society. They didn't say anything different from what people like Paine said (which the OP even admitted) hundreds of years ago...or what folks like David Icke have been saying consistently for the last 20 years. Mr. Icke says it, and he's a crazy loon. The OP says it in an online forum, and somehow the masses have managed to think about things differently.

I didn't particularly enjoy the spin as though it were your own revolutionary idea, nor did I enjoy the fact that you have no sense/understanding of cultural differences.

These things may be illusory, but you have to start somewhere. As many who have had their "minds blown" have shown...the real problem is the vast majority don't know their past and are incapable of affecting change for their future.

Here, I'll summarize the entire post and the solution: read and think.

Originally posted by thektotheg
reply to post by thektotheg

 

All the OP did was rehash ideas that have been around for as long as there's been government/religion/society.

Yeah...

"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." 
- Andre Gide 

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Sorry OP, but that's some BS you wrote. There is a difference between philosophical constructs and how the world actually works. Your presentation is half baked.

"How the world actually works" is a DIRECT result of having bought into the illusion. It would "actually work" quite differently if more people were to recognize the illusion for what it is.

Have you got anything constructive to add as your viewpoint, or only flinging allegations of "half-baked BS", which is really no solution at all, nor is there anything in there at all to refute the premise of the OP.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Mizzijr
I'm not really down with the whole anarchist theme of a country.

Anarchy is another brainwashed system, thought up in opposition against the official government. People liked the idea so much because they hate their governments' rules, they haven't stopped to think ahead.

I am not proposing Anarchy.

I am proposing Common Sense and Logic.

If you think the failed ideal of "Government" is so wonderful, than why are there people on the streets of Cairo?

I would call our system right now ---> a Violent Anarchy. There is just chaos.
And the rights of humans are being trampled upon.

By realizing the futility of all of these ideals, there would be no violent revolt.

edit on 2-2-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

You and whoever starred you, obviously didn't read my post. I clearly said:

Now, I'm not calling for a Capitalist, Communist, Socialist, and damn sure not Facist life style, but not Anarchy either. People have not reached the point in there lives where they will do something for somebody if they need help in return for something they need. I hate to say this, but Freemasons have this idea on lock. Now I don't know what kind of things they do in secrecy, but that karma idea they have going is where we all need to be, but even in that situation it creates a sort of tribe style society.

aka "failed" government.

Also, you are proposing Anarchy, you said:

If we simply led ourselves, all governments would lose power over night. Instantly.

But it requires all of us to shrug off the old outdated ideas of power and control that are actually just illusions.

Once we shrug it off, no government is necessary. We will become self-governing.

Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

Do you know why we gave government power? Because of the outdated idea of governing ourselves and protecting ourselves and working SUPER hard just to find food. It's not time to take a step backwards, its time to step forward and come together and help each other from the kindness of our hearts instead of the "money" in our pockets. We can't smash the governments and take a step back, history will repeat itself faster than ever.

It's not violent anarchy either, it's mind control. Your right, the illusion of power and government. But it's not exactly an illusion, why? Because the people gave that to them. So it's already there in place and ready. So it's more like "shared" power. More like we are letting them trample our human rights. It will come a time when the people will take back their power in America and across the globe, just like in Cairo.

There would be no violent revolt? yes there would be, under Anarchy we'd all be fighting each other.

We need to come together, not as Anarchist, and not as the government we know today. What we need to come together as is a word that isn't even made yet, because no society has EVER been there. When SHTF we need to make something that will be loved by everyone a system with no tricks, no slavery, no debt, a whole new world never known to man.

reply to post by muzzleflash

No one has to listen to him. He can say he is President all day but if no one listens, it loses any real meaning.

I bet he still has people working for him, I would get to them first, and ask WTF is their problem.

Well this can go for anything. For example, Parents only have control (power) as long as the kids listen but when they don't they get beat. If that don't work then you kick them out and cut off their bread and butter.

Originally posted by eMachine
It seems to me the ones we've given 'authority' over our society actually are Anarchists. They impose various constrictions on the rest of us, but they believe they have none themselves. We are enslaved, so they can enjoy freedom. We are less than human to them, they want to allow us only the illusion of having 'rights'.

Indeed, but the individual must come to the realization that "they" have no say whatsoever over what rights we are "allowed" to have, illusory or not. For them to even THINK they do is an illusion itself. Rights ARE rights because they have no need for external approval. If such approval is required, "rights" become "privileges", because then the approval, and so the privilege itself, is subject to revocation.

Rights are not subject to revocation. That's what makes them "rights".