Author Topic: Belief in authority is a religion  (Read 4846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12677
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2014, 05:36:38 PM »
There is no country in the world that doesn't have some form of government. There is no such thing as a Libertarian Country and I highly doubt ever will be; and, if there ever was, or will be, it most likely look like a shithole society.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2014, 05:54:09 PM »
Anyway, define "belief in authority".
The mindset that one is required to obey.

I gotta admit, I didn't expect any specific thing. I only expected that it'd be bullshit. And I was right.

Ever been threatened with death before? How about the death of your loved ones? Torture? Ever been tortured? Starved? Been deprived of freedom?
There's a reason people adopt the mindset that they have to obey: because they do. Religion has no (real) support. No (logical) arguments. No evidence. Nothing.
Your opinion is noted and rejected.

Quote
There's a reason people adopt the mindset that they have to obey: because they do.
Why?

Oh, wait... I know. Because law is a politician's command backed by threat of force, up to and including killing them for refusal to comply.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11130
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2014, 06:10:05 PM »
Your opinion is noted and rejected.

Yes, what constitutes a good reason to obey and what doesn't is subjective. Does that make it any less true or relevant? I take it you don't "believe" in colors or good TV series then.

Why?

Read the line just above that one.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2014, 06:20:06 PM »
The mindset that one is required to obey.

I gotta admit, I didn't expect any specific thing. I only expected that it'd be bullshit. And I was right.

Ever been threatened with death before? How about the death of your loved ones? Torture? Ever been tortured? Starved? Been deprived of freedom?
There's a reason people adopt the mindset that they have to obey: because they do. Religion has no (real) support. No (logical) arguments. No evidence. Nothing.

Since either you didn't make the connection between the last part of my post and your OP or you just didn't want to reply,
Your complaint that I didn't post in the time span you allotted for me is noted. Get over it.

I'm going to spell it out for you:
Religion has nothing to support it.
Neither does Authority.

Whence comes authority?
Please show the details of your work to prove authority has something to support it.

The mindset that people have to obey does. In other words, "belief in authority", as you call it, is not a religion.

Whence comes authority?
Please show the details of your work to prove authority has something to support it.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11130
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2014, 06:24:57 PM »
Your complaint that I didn't post in the time span you allotted for me is noted. Get over it.

Sounds like you're the one who needs to "get over it". I simply noticed you replying to everyone else and, given that, from my experience, people with your mindset aren't very smart, I decided to spell it out for you.

Neither does Authority.

Whence comes authority?
Please show the details of your work to prove authority has something to support it.

I just told you. People have the mindset that they have to obey authority because they do, under threat of something (usually imprisonment or death). To them, that is justification. It is a real danger.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2014, 06:58:07 PM »
Edit: Sorry, double reply to the same post.

The Declaration of Independence announced the territory of the 13 colonies was now (then) independent from British rule, and provided a list of grievances to the King of England that led up to the declaration.  It was not a detailed outline for a system of government.

Here is the important part of the D of I:
Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Do you deny that all rights are equal?
Do you deny that all rights are unalienable? Cite unalienable definition.
Do you deny that if our rights are equal, I do not have the right to command you?
Do you deny that if I do not have a right to command you, I do not have the right to give any other entity the right to command you?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 06:59:46 PM by Habenae Est Dominatus »

Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1319
  • Darwins +430/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2014, 07:35:38 PM »
I take exception to your use of the term "lawbreaker", since it is actually the denial of the politician's command authority. A parable if I may...

Cop:
The reason I pulled you over sir, is I noticed you were not wearing your seat belt. I am issuing you a citation for failing to do so.
Driver:

What is the purpose of this seat belt law?
Cop:
It's for your safety.

Driver:
What happens if I ignore this citation?
Cop:
The court assume you are guilty and will fine you.

Driver:
What happens if I ignore the fine?
Cop:
The court will issue a bench warrant for your arrest, and I'll have to come to your home to arrest you.

Driver:
What happens when I resist your attempt to arrest me?
Cop:
I'll call for backup.

Driver:
While you are waiting for backup, I'll be making sure all my guns are loaded with rounds in the chamber. What then?
Cop:
We will escalate force until you comply.

Driver:
If I present an armed refusal to obey you, what happens?
Cop:
You could be killed if we are forced to shoot you.

Driver:
Didn't you say the purpose of this law was my safety?

Government always uses force. It may be hid behind euphemisms, but the gun is ALWAYS under the table.

So?  The gun is always under the table for Random Guy Driving Around With a Gun Who Doesn't Want To Obey Traffic Laws too.  The law doesn't just exist for his safety--it also exists for the safety of everyone else.  This loose cannon you describe in your parable is a threat to everyone around him.  The cops should arrest a person like that.  It's what we hire them for.

A parable:

DRIVER: Hey, this winding suburban street looks like a great place to test the cornering on my new muscle car!  *Vrrrm-VRRRRRRMMMMM--SCREEEECH!* 

VRRRRRRMMMM!  *screeches around a corner* ZOOM! 

DRIVER: Woohoo, this is fun!

*SPLAT!*

DRIVER: Fuck, what was that?  *Stops, gets out and looks*  Dammit, my headlight's broken!  I might even have to replace that body panel!

WOMAN: *screams*  You just ran over my son!  You madman!

DRIVER: Yeah?  Well, your son shouldn't have been playing in the street 50 feet away from a blind turn.  Oh, and he damaged my car.  I'm not asking you to pay for the repairs.  That's just the vicissitudes of life.  We just gotta pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and move on.

WOMAN: The speed limit is 10 miles per hour!  You'd have had plenty of time to see him and stop if--

DRIVER: You mean, that number painted on that sign over there?  Silly superstitious totem!  No sign has the right to command me!

WOMAN:  You're insane!  I'm calling the police!

DRIVER: *draws pistol*  I wish you hadn't said that.  I don't acknowledge the existence of your "government" or your "speed limits" or your "residential zoning" or your "police."  Since you're threatening to call a hit-man to initiate force against me, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to shoot you, in self-defense.  *BLAM! BLAM!*  No one has the right to command ME!


Another parable:

MAN #1:  Hey, you!  Yes, you.  *Draws pistol*  You look pretty fit.  I wanna use you for target practice.  Start running.

MAN #2: You can't do that!

MAN #1: Watch me.  Whaddaya gonna do, command me to stop?

MAN #2: But--the Zero Aggression Principle!

MAN #1: Can you show me where I signed a contract to abide by a 'Zero Aggression Principle?'  Can you put a pound of 'Zero Aggression Principle' in a sack?  Yeah, I didn't think so.  If I were you, I'd zig-zag a bit, try to make it to cover.  Might as well make it interesting.

MAN #2: *Starts to reach for his holster*

MAN #1: Too bad I drew first, innit? 

MAN #2: But I have a right to live!

MAN #1: What is this 'right' of which you speak?  Just another silly superstition as far as I can tell, unless it can stop a bullet.  I bet you believe in Santa Claus too, don't you?  You bore me.  *BLAM!  BLAM!*


According to your metaphysics, nobody has any recourse against the Driver or Man #1 except to shoot first.  After all, no one has the right to "command" them, and there's no such thing as "laws" or "government."  Since nobody can serve up a bowl full of "rights," those don't exist either.  "Rights," like "governments," are a social construct.  Therefore, in your metaphysics, they don't exist.  And yes, the gun is always under the table, since the only way to protect yourself from aggression by others is to be faster on the draw.

Preventing this sort of Hobbesian war of all against all is one of the main reasons people create governments.  Governments also provide an agreed-upon framework by which we can provide for things like "streets," "national defense," and other public goods, and prevent things like factories dumping toxic waste into the water table because it's cheaper than treating it.  I think even you can understand that "rule by quick-draw" would be a Bad Thing.  Right?
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2014, 07:52:05 PM »
It should be noted that all the replies to my posts so far, wherein I ask for certain evidence, those requests are ignored just like the biblegod followers ignore your requests that they supply evidence that biblegod is real.

Ah yes, the standard because you are here argument.

For a law to apply to me, it must have authority over me, that is, a right to command me.
Please supply proof that the law has authority and a right to command me.
Please supply proof that a bartender has authority and a right to command you to give him/her money. <--- You asked for a drink from the bartender in a bar.  It is implied that you will hold up your end of the transaction.

Okay, I'll engage your distraction.

The bartender has no authority. He's shit out of luck. The best he can do is not serve me a drink the next time I enter his bar.
See Tit for Tat programs: Cite 1  Cite 2


Please supply proof that the law has authority and a right to command me. <--- You're holding onto your association as a citizen of the United States and subject to some level of government authority.  It is implied that you will hold up your end of the transaction - in this case, providing the government some level of authority over you.

Please provide evidence that I am "subject to some level of government authority".
Please provide evidence that "some level of government authority" actually exists. In other words, Whence comes government State authority?


If you don't want to recognize the US government you are free to do so, unless you want to remain a US citizen and enjoy the benefits (and suffer the consequences) of the US government.
As I stated elsewhere, I am not ready to pop the citizen balloon at this time. Regardless, What evidence do you rely upon to prove that I am required to recognize the US government just because I am alleged to be a citizen?

Being a US citizen necessarily means you recognize the US government.
Prove it.

And, likely, this US citizenship was forced upon you at birth.
Just as slavery is forced upon the offspring of slaves at birth.

Regardless, I am focused on getting all who have responded to my posts to provide the evidence that the State (federal and individual) have/has any authority over me.

And you can be bitter about that if you like - that's fine - but you're not forced to keep that citizenship now, are you?

Irrelevant. You have produced no evidence of the State's authority.


Quote
Also, please supply proof the writers long dead have the authority, the right to command me.
I don't think they do.
Progress. Excellent.

So if these long dead writers of the constitution do not have the right to command me, then neither do their scribbles on four pieces of parchment.

Seriously, if you don't want to be a part of this society, you are free to leave it.

This is a non-sequitur to the question of proof of the state's authority.


You libertarians are weird.
So are you statists.

Anymore labels you wish to apply?
You're all about personal responsibility and autonomy, but you seem to have a real hard time accepting other groups of people collectively getting together and agreeing to be part of a larger collective that has some degree of centralized, agreed-upon authority.

Sigh...

108. If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.

109. Thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician a right to command, if they do not have the right to command me, they do not have the right to give that politician the right to command me.

110. Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician the right to command me.


And you're right, you didn't sign up for that by birth, and there's something to be said about opt-in vs. opt-out, but right now you're in a position to opt-out.  You're complaining about how much the party sucks but don't want to take the step to just leave.  You want everyone else at the party to change.

I'm sorry, did I offend you because I challenge your belief in authority?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12434
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2014, 08:26:51 PM »
Thanks for your reply, HED; as others have responded to your response in much the same way I would, I'll pass on offering up a response of my own unless you'd like me to.

What occurs to me is that you don't seem to allow a framework by which any rights of any sort can exist.  Could you provide an example of a real, existing right?  For reference's sake.  I think the discussion would benefit by it.

Apologies for giving you attitude earlier.  Though I disagree with you, I do like your style.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2014, 09:06:02 PM »
If State authority doesn't exist, what else is left?

Lets test your hypothesis: rob an ATM this evening; please keep us posted on the details that follow.

Your failure to provide proof of authority is noted.

Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1319
  • Darwins +430/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2014, 09:16:06 PM »
It is interesting that you bring up corporations since the "State" (erroneously called "government") is a corporation.

What then is a corporation?

A "corporation" is a group of people who agree to act in concert in accordance with a certain set of protocols (e.g., having a "Board of Directors" and "management" structure, "shareholders" and "stock" which can be traded under certain conditions, as defined by the regulations of the government under which the corporation is chartered, etc..  A "government" is a special-purpose corporation[1] that is created to provide a uniform system of protocols called "laws" to "govern" a given territory.  Among other things, this system of "laws" exists to place the use of force under non-arbitrary control, so that "the gun under the table" may itself be governed. 

Do you believe in Santa Claus?

The difference between government and Santa Claus is that somebody told you the truth about Santa Claus.

Interesting fact about Santa Claus: "He" has far greater cultural and economic impact than you will ever have, mere "real" person!  How is this possible?  Of course Santa Claus does not exist as a physical magic person with magic flying reindeer.  "He" does exist as a cultural meme prevalent in our society, the exact same sense in which "Jehovah God Almighty" exists.  In both cases, people choose to act in concert in various ways because they value the meme.  The meme has powerful effects in reality as a result.

Political abstractions like "government," "rights," "corporations," "laws," etc. "exist" and have their effects in reality in the same way. 

Authority, as a right to command, does not exist.

Neither, in your metaphysics, does a "right" not to be commanded.  How much does a "right" weigh?  What is it made of?

You can not choose somebody to command me since you yourself do not have a right to command me.

The State's alleged authority works like this: Do what we say or we will kill you.

Well, there you go.  "Authority" is the ability to impose one's will upon another by force.  I can gain the "authority" to command you by drawing my gun first.  Of course, you can gain the "authority" to command me if you're faster on the draw.  Notice that there are no "rights" involved here.  All we're talking about here is physical capacity to wield force against one another.  If I can get a gang together, even if you draw first one of us can probably still bring you down before you kill us all, so you'd probably better do what we say.  The same applies if you get a gang together first.

So, each individual, and groups of individuals working together, have a capacity (not a "right," that's one of those abstractions you're denying), to impose their will on others by initiating force.  This is all very concrete, very real in the direct, physical sense of the term.

Now, every place where people exercise this capacity at will (Somalia, Syria, etc.) is demonstrably a hell-hole.  Few, if any people genuinely want to live like that.  You don't, or you'd be on the first tramp freighter to Somalia you could find.  So, people invented a solution to the problem of random violence: they delegate their capacity for violence to an organization of people to wield on their behalf.  In exchange for this privilege, the organization of people agrees to do everything in their power (which they have been given) to make violence within the territory they control non-random.  This group of people create a set of rules or principles that define when they can, and cannot use force.  In addition, this group of people act in concert to prevent individuals or other groups of people from using force.

In this way, the use of force itself is brought under control, so that the people living under the system can have some ability to predict when and under what conditions force can or will be used, and organize their lives accordingly.  For example, if the city a trader lives in and the city in the next valley are both under the control of the same group of people, and that group of people acts to prevent other people from, say, ambushing travelers along the road to loot them, then the trader can load up a wagon of goods and take it to the other city to sell.  S/he can do this with some degree of confidence because even if there are still some highwaymen out there, they have to act in secret and limit their numbers in order to stay under the radar of the group of people to whom the trader has delegated the use of force.  The trader may need to hire a few bodyguards, but s/he won't need an army.

We call this group of people to whom we delegate our capacity to use force a "government."  Now, "governments" can be organized in a number of different ways and under different principles (e.g. "monarchy," "oligarchy," "representative constitutional democracy," etc., and some of these work better for protecting the people who live under them and enhancing their prosperity than others.

"Government" turns out to be quite a remarkable invention.  Not only does it put a damper on random violence and enhance public safety, it can be used to provide all manner of public goods that disorganized individuals could not provide for themselves.  For example, roads--and a system of rules for traveling on them that, when heeded, prevent vehicles from crashing into one another--airports (with, you guessed it, another set of rules for aircraft), railroads, enforced rules that protect commons such as our shared environment, money for scientific research and development, a social safety net that (when designed and operated properly) makes it so that a medical emergency or the loss of a job does not ruin one's whole life.  And on, and on, and on. 

Like any invention--especially a very powerful invention--it can be misused to do horrible things.  So can rockets, but that doesn't mean we want to destroy all rockets, does it?

"But I don't choose to delegate my capacity to use force to this 'government' of yours!  I don't agree!  Just because I won't pay taxes to your 'government' doesn't mean you can command me not to drive on the roads it builds or enjoy its national parks or take shelter behind its military!  WHA'EVAH!  I DO WHAT I WAAANT!"

Very well.  You'd better get off our land then.  Because, as soon as you decide to wield your capacity to use force against others at will, refuse to pay your fair share for the operation of our government or the like "because nobody can command you," you'll find out the hard way that we can.  We are members of a civilization.  We can cooperate (a power you lone-wolf libertarian anarcho-capitalists lack), and we can bring far more force to bear than you can all by your lonesome.

Now, you're welcome to hold your eccentric beliefs if you like.  You're welcome to hate our civilization and our government and criticize both openly, so long as you don't practice your belief that you can use force whenever you like, refrain from paying taxes, obeying laws, etc. because you think no rules apply to you.  Our civilization incorporates and values certain abstractions called "rights," such as a "right" to hold and express an opinion even if it's idiotic, a "right" under certain conditions to call land and other objects "your property" and expect that our government will act to prevent others from randomly taking it from you, etc..  However, these "rights" are an abstraction of the same sort that our "government" and "civilization" are, so if you deny the legitimacy of the latter two and act on it, you cannot claim the protection of the first.
 1. Unless it is an absolute monarchy or dictatorship under the unlimited control of a single individual, in which case it's more like a "property owner" and people who work for him/her.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #40 on: April 18, 2014, 09:25:00 PM »
Quote
If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.

HED, several on this forum have provided the constitutional legalities inherent in citizenry -- it is not magical or mysterious.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur (what is asserted without reason may be denied without reason) No, they have not.

So are you asserting that if I don't have a right to command you, I can give somebody else the right to command you?

I have yet to see any evidence posted that proves that State authority, government authority, or constitutional authority exists. Yet my evidence that it does not exist is posted in the very first post of this topic. So at this point I must insist that you read the numbered points in that post as being preceded with the words Admit or Deny that 101. You were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I and so on.

If you do not specifically deny with proof then I must take it to mean that you admit to each unanswered statement.

You can even research it yourself on the intertubes. Continuing to deny it doesn't stop it from being true.

Again, admit or deny with proof these 20 points.

If you don't like it, the Constitution even has provisions to change it -- even those old dead guys who wrote it knew it would need changing to suit the times, so have at it.

However, if your intent/agenda/conclusion is to continue to base your arguments on denial of what it means to be a US citizen, then you've probably played-out the subject.

I'm still waiting for proof of the alleged authority.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #41 on: April 18, 2014, 09:29:36 PM »
There is no country in the world that doesn't have some form of government. There is no such thing as a Libertarian Country and I highly doubt ever will be; and, if there ever was, or will be, it most likely look like a shithole society.

-Nam

Hence there is no country in the world where the illusion / delusion of authority does not exist.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #42 on: April 18, 2014, 09:31:18 PM »
Your opinion is noted and rejected.

Yes, what constitutes a good reason to obey and what doesn't is subjective. Does that make it any less true or relevant? I take it you don't "believe" in colors or good TV series then.

Why?

Read the line just above that one.

Sorry, with the context missing I can not address this post. And I am not in the mood to put it back in the post I am replying to.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #43 on: April 18, 2014, 09:39:04 PM »
Your complaint that I didn't post in the time span you allotted for me is noted. Get over it.

Sounds like you're the one who needs to "get over it". I simply noticed you replying to everyone else and, given that, from my experience, people with your mindset aren't very smart, I decided to spell it out for you.
Your ad hominem personal attack is noted.



Neither does Authority.

Whence comes authority?
Please show the details of your work to prove authority has something to support it.

I just told you. People have the mindset that they have to obey authority because they do, under threat of something (usually imprisonment or death). To them, that is justification. It is a real danger.

I believe the word you are looking for is EXTORTION.

You have not answered the question, whence comes authority?
Whence comes the right to command?
Whence comes the right to extort threaten?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12554
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #44 on: April 18, 2014, 09:41:31 PM »
So, HED, what's your thing, man?  Are you an anarchist?  A weirdo loner who hates society?  Just a country bumpkin who chafes at authority?  I don't get your whole approach to collective endeavors.  Why is everything seen through the lens of commands and threat of violence?  Do you really not see the benefits of group action?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 09:51:14 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #45 on: April 18, 2014, 09:46:51 PM »
I take exception to your use of the term "lawbreaker", since it is actually the denial of the politician's command authority. A parable if I may...

Cop:
The reason I pulled you over sir, is I noticed you were not wearing your seat belt. I am issuing you a citation for failing to do so.
Driver:

What is the purpose of this seat belt law?
Cop:
It's for your safety.

Driver:
What happens if I ignore this citation?
Cop:
The court assume you are guilty and will fine you.

Driver:
What happens if I ignore the fine?
Cop:
The court will issue a bench warrant for your arrest, and I'll have to come to your home to arrest you.

Driver:
What happens when I resist your attempt to arrest me?
Cop:
I'll call for backup.

Driver:
While you are waiting for backup, I'll be making sure all my guns are loaded with rounds in the chamber. What then?
Cop:
We will escalate force until you comply.

Driver:
If I present an armed refusal to obey you, what happens?
Cop:
You could be killed if we are forced to shoot you.

Driver:
Didn't you say the purpose of this law was my safety?

Government always uses force. It may be hid behind euphemisms, but the gun is ALWAYS under the table.

So?  The gun is always under the table for Random Guy Driving Around With a Gun Who Doesn't Want To Obey Traffic Laws too.  The law doesn't just exist for his safety--it also exists for the safety of everyone else.  This loose cannon you describe in your parable is a threat to everyone around him.  The cops should arrest a person like that.  It's what we hire them for.

A parable:

DRIVER: Hey, this winding suburban street looks like a great place to test the cornering on my new muscle car!  *Vrrrm-VRRRRRRMMMMM--SCREEEECH!* 

VRRRRRRMMMM!  *screeches around a corner* ZOOM! 

DRIVER: Woohoo, this is fun!

*SPLAT!*

DRIVER: Fuck, what was that?  *Stops, gets out and looks*  Dammit, my headlight's broken!  I might even have to replace that body panel!

WOMAN: *screams*  You just ran over my son!  You madman!

DRIVER: Yeah?  Well, your son shouldn't have been playing in the street 50 feet away from a blind turn.  Oh, and he damaged my car.  I'm not asking you to pay for the repairs.  That's just the vicissitudes of life.  We just gotta pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and move on.

WOMAN: The speed limit is 10 miles per hour!  You'd have had plenty of time to see him and stop if--

DRIVER: You mean, that number painted on that sign over there?  Silly superstitious totem!  No sign has the right to command me!

WOMAN:  You're insane!  I'm calling the police!

DRIVER: *draws pistol*  I wish you hadn't said that.  I don't acknowledge the existence of your "government" or your "speed limits" or your "residential zoning" or your "police."  Since you're threatening to call a hit-man to initiate force against me, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to shoot you, in self-defense.  *BLAM! BLAM!*  No one has the right to command ME!


Another parable:

MAN #1:  Hey, you!  Yes, you.  *Draws pistol*  You look pretty fit.  I wanna use you for target practice.  Start running.

MAN #2: You can't do that!

MAN #1: Watch me.  Whaddaya gonna do, command me to stop?

MAN #2: But--the Zero Aggression Principle!

MAN #1: Can you show me where I signed a contract to abide by a 'Zero Aggression Principle?'  Can you put a pound of 'Zero Aggression Principle' in a sack?  Yeah, I didn't think so.  If I were you, I'd zig-zag a bit, try to make it to cover.  Might as well make it interesting.

MAN #2: *Starts to reach for his holster*

MAN #1: Too bad I drew first, innit? 

MAN #2: But I have a right to live!

MAN #1: What is this 'right' of which you speak?  Just another silly superstition as far as I can tell, unless it can stop a bullet.  I bet you believe in Santa Claus too, don't you?  You bore me.  *BLAM!  BLAM!*


According to your metaphysics, nobody has any recourse against the Driver or Man #1 except to shoot first.  After all, no one has the right to "command" them, and there's no such thing as "laws" or "government."  Since nobody can serve up a bowl full of "rights," those don't exist either.  "Rights," like "governments," are a social construct.  Therefore, in your metaphysics, they don't exist.  And yes, the gun is always under the table, since the only way to protect yourself from aggression by others is to be faster on the draw.

Preventing this sort of Hobbesian war of all against all is one of the main reasons people create governments.  Governments also provide an agreed-upon framework by which we can provide for things like "streets," "national defense," and other public goods, and prevent things like factories dumping toxic waste into the water table because it's cheaper than treating it.  I think even you can understand that "rule by quick-draw" would be a Bad Thing.  Right?

I see nothing in your post that gives evidence to a right to command.

Hobbes - English materialist and political philosopher who advocated absolute sovereignty as the only kind of government that could resolve problems caused by the selfishness of human beings (1588-1679)
Hmmm. Are you sure about that?

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6612
  • Darwins +789/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #46 on: April 18, 2014, 10:00:40 PM »
I second everything kcrady has said. And just remember, the only reason you can drive to the revolution is because people you totally disagree with built the roads, HED.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #47 on: April 18, 2014, 10:01:12 PM »
Thanks for your reply, HED; as others have responded to your response in much the same way I would, I'll pass on offering up a response of my own unless you'd like me to.

What occurs to me is that you don't seem to allow a framework by which any rights of any sort can exist.  Could you provide an example of a real, existing right?  For reference's sake.  I think the discussion would benefit by it.

Apologies for giving you attitude earlier.  Though I disagree with you, I do like your style.
What you call attitude is of no consequence, no umbrage is taken. I've had heated discussions back about ten years that make your attitude look like an invite to your party with your close friends where you're buying the beer and pizza.

Well we could start with the right to life and the right to liberty.

If by framework you mean State laws, I'll concede that your observation is likely correct. If you mean something else, then let's explore it.

Back to you Azdgari.

Offline smokemonster

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #48 on: April 18, 2014, 10:05:39 PM »
New posting here but have been reading awhile...

Kind of get what you are saying hed.  The gov, state, or whatever "authority"  may not have a right to command you, but they will,  and will back it up with force only because of superior numbers.  Doesn't mean they were right, just stronger force.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #49 on: April 18, 2014, 10:10:38 PM »
I second everything kcrady has said. And just remember, the only reason you can drive to the revolution is because people you totally disagree with built the roads, HED.

What evidence do you rely upon to prove that the people who built the roads totally disagree with me?

Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1319
  • Darwins +430/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #50 on: April 18, 2014, 10:18:13 PM »
I see nothing in your post that gives evidence to a right to command.

You keep talking about this thing you call a "right."  Can you demonstrate that a "right" not to be commanded exists?  If you can't, then you'd have to agree that there's no such thing as a "right" to command or a "right" not to be commanded.  So, we're left with demonstrably-existent capacities to command.  A mugger who pulls a gun on you is in a position to command you to hand over your wallet, with a reasonably good chance that you will obey.  Likewise for a SWAT team that tells you to put your hands up.  Unless you're writing from a jail cell (and for that matter, even if you are...), you have to admit that the capacity for people to organize and create rules that do, in fact, "command" you, does exist.

A human capacity for violence exists.  So, how do we control this capacity?  How do we limit it, so that we don't have to be ready in season and out of season, to draw a firearm on everyone we see faster than they can draw one on us?  So far, we have been able to invent exactly one social technology that can constrain violence and make peaceful coexistence in a society larger than a hunter-gatherer tribe possible.  That technology is called "government."

Hobbes - English materialist and political philosopher who advocated absolute sovereignty as the only kind of government that could resolve problems caused by the selfishness of human beings (1588-1679)
Hmmm. Are you sure about that?

You realize it's possible to agree with a person on one thing without agreeing with them on everything, right?  I can agree with you that a cloudless daytime sky on Earth is blue, even though I think your political views are nonsense.  Likewise, I can agree with Hobbes that a war of all against all is a bad thing without agreeing with him that the kind of monarchies he was familiar with are the only possible or legitimate system of government.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #51 on: April 18, 2014, 10:18:30 PM »
New posting here but have been reading awhile...

Kind of get what you are saying hed.  The gov, state, or whatever "authority"  may not have a right to command you, but they will,  and will back it up with force only because of superior numbers.  Doesn't mean they were right, just stronger force.
You are correct. No argument from me.

And they have the superior numbers because of the many that have a religious belief in authority.

No proof. Just their belief.

When prosecutors are asked what evidence do you rely upon to prove your law applies, the answer is basically, we say so.

Have you seen any replies to my questions in this topic that you think gives proof of authority?

From one Noob to another, welcome.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #52 on: April 18, 2014, 10:26:43 PM »
In perusing this post, I see that I will have to make a two part reply.

I see nothing in your post that gives evidence to a right to command.

You keep talking about this thing you call a "right."  Can you demonstrate that a "right" not to be commanded exists?

If you are honest, yes.

Admit or deny that these words are a part of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

101. Admit or deny that You were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.

102. Admit or deny that Therefore, you DO NOT have a right to command me by your mere birth.

103. Admit or deny that If this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.

104. Admit or deny that If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.

105. Admit or deny that Persons long dead were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, they were not born with a higher rank than I.

106. Admit or deny that Therefore, persons long dead DO NOT have a right to command me by their mere birth.

107. Admit or deny that If persons long dead do not have the right to command me by their mere birth, then their commands scribbled on a piece of paper DO NOT have a right to command me after their death.

108. Admit or deny that If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.

109. Admit or deny that Thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician a right to command, if they do not have the right to command me, they do not have the right to give that politician the right to command me.

110. Admit or deny that Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician the right to command me.

111. Admit or deny that If the politician does not have a right to command me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.


Admit or deny that A contract requires an offer, consideration, acceptance, and a meeting of minds.

It has been said that the Constitution is some sort of contract.

201. Admit or deny that The federal constitution was never given to me as an offer, therefore I never gave an acceptance in return.

202. Admit or deny that Since I was never given the offer, the consideration from the other party was never presented.

203. Admit or deny that Since I was never given the offer, the return consideration was never presented.

204. Since I was never given the offer, there was no meeting of minds.

205. Therefore, the constitution is NOT a contract that I am party to.

206. Admit or deny that Even if the constitution was a valid contract created by the constitutional convention, those people did NOT have a contract with me to represent me and thus could not bind me to that contract.

207. Admit or deny that Therefore, the constitution is STILL NOT a contract that I am party to.

208. Admit or deny that Since the constitution is NOT a contract that I am party to, it has NO AUTHORITY over me.

209. Admit or deny that Since the constitution has no authority over me, the laws derived from that constitution have NO AUTHORITY over me either.


You only need to answer to the specific points you deny. Unanswered points are considered as admitted. Points denied need proof as to why they are incorrect.

Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1319
  • Darwins +430/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #53 on: April 18, 2014, 10:35:39 PM »
Well we could start with the right to life and the right to liberty.

Can you provide any evidence that either of these things exists?  If you catch Ebola, how does your "right to life" prevent you from dying?  If you're trapped in a coal mine, how does your "right to liberty" interact with the several thousand tons of dirt and rock that prevent you from leaving?

Can you provide any physics equations that model their behavior?  Any experimental demonstration of their reality?  If not, then you aren't in a position to argue that "authority" of "government" is a delusion that violates your "rights" as if the latter are any more real than the former.  I can make a case for "rights" within the context of my political and metaphysical models.  From what you've said so far, I don't see how a case for "rights" can be made within the context of your viewpoint. 
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline smokemonster

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #54 on: April 18, 2014, 10:42:08 PM »
So maybe the govt or state doesn't have the right to command, but the ability



Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #55 on: April 18, 2014, 10:53:27 PM »
I see nothing in your post that gives evidence to a right to command.

You keep talking about this thing you call a "right."  Can you demonstrate that a "right" not to be commanded exists?  If you can't, then you'd have to agree that there's no such thing as a "right" to command or a "right" not to be commanded.
You could go further with this. There is no such thing as a "right" if it is not honored.

Do I have a right to keep my wallet? The mugger is violating that right. Do I have a right to use whatever force is necessary to keep my wallet? Do I have a right to carry a concealed weapon just for such an event? Does "Shall not be infringed" ring a bell? But I digress.

So, we're left with demonstrably-existent capacities to command.  A mugger who pulls a gun on you is in a position to command you to hand over your wallet, with a reasonably good chance that you will obey.
What evidence do you rely upon to prove said mugger has the right to command, the right to use that capacity?

Likewise for a SWAT team that tells you to put your hands up.
Same request for evidence.

Unless you're writing from a jail cell (and for that matter, even if you are...), you have to admit that the capacity for people to organize and create rules that do, in fact, "command" you, does exist.
I am not discussing the capacity to command. I am discussing the right to command, the right to use the capacity to command.

Are you going to present evidence of a right to command or not?

A human capacity for violence exists.
Agreed.

So, how do we control this capacity?  How do we limit it, so that we don't have to be ready in season and out of season, to draw a firearm on everyone we see faster than they can draw one on us?  So far, we have been able to invent exactly one social technology that can constrain violence and make peaceful coexistence in a society larger than a hunter-gatherer tribe possible.  That technology is called "government."
Apparently you have never googled Police brutality videos youtube. Take some time and watch a few vids at random.


Hobbes - English materialist and political philosopher who advocated absolute sovereignty as the only kind of government that could resolve problems caused by the selfishness of human beings (1588-1679)
Hmmm. Are you sure about that?

You realize it's possible to agree with a person on one thing without agreeing with them on everything, right?  I can agree with you that a cloudless daytime sky on Earth is blue, even though I think your political views are nonsense.  Likewise, I can agree with Hobbes that a war of all against all is a bad thing without agreeing with him that the kind of monarchies he was familiar with are the only possible or legitimate system of government.
You have the advantage unless and until I read the Hobbes writing referred to.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #56 on: April 18, 2014, 10:57:07 PM »
Well we could start with the right to life and the right to liberty.

Can you provide any evidence that either of these things exists?  If you catch Ebola, how does your "right to life" prevent you from dying?  If you're trapped in a coal mine, how does your "right to liberty" interact with the several thousand tons of dirt and rock that prevent you from leaving?

Can you provide any physics equations that model their behavior?  Any experimental demonstration of their reality?  If not, then you aren't in a position to argue that "authority" of "government" is a delusion that violates your "rights" as if the latter are any more real than the former.  I can make a case for "rights" within the context of my political and metaphysical models.  From what you've said so far, I don't see how a case for "rights" can be made within the context of your viewpoint.

And I don't see any evidence from you that the State has the authority, the right, to command.

Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1319
  • Darwins +430/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #57 on: April 18, 2014, 11:52:21 PM »
Admit or deny that these words are a part of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sure, the DoI says those things, but they're not factually correct.  We are not created.  There is no "Creator" to endow us with anything, and it is a demonstrable fact that no "Creator" ever shows up to make sure that any endowments it offers are respected.  The "Rights" in question are obviously "alienable," otherwise the Declaration of Independence would never have needed to be written in the first place.  Physics would have made the violation of those rights impossible, and their existence would have been self-evident even to the British.  Fact of the matter is, the Colonists had to win a war and form a government in order to make the Declaration of Independence stick.  If you read the next line, you'd notice that the DoI explains why we create governments.  Funny how you missed that.

101. Admit or deny that You were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.

Admit. 

102. Admit or deny that Therefore, you DO NOT have a right to command me by your mere birth.

103. Admit or deny that If this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.

Admit.  However, I do possess a potential capacity to command you by force or threat of force.  This fact is also true for every other human being born on the planet (the ones that are currently alive, anyway).  Therefore, in order to prevent the destruction of society via the competitive application of this capacity (i.e., violence unleashed unpredictably at individual whim), we need a way to regulate and limit this capacity.

The only way to limit the individual capacity for violence is to provide reliable assurance that the would-be aggressor will lose, at least in the long run.  In other words: superior force.  In order to restrain an individual from exercising their capacity for violence at will, it is necessary to create a system that can command them to refrain from violence, and expect to be obeyed.  In order for you to exercise a "right" not to be attacked, a system has to be in place that can command others not to attack you.  In order for others to exercise a "right" not to be attacked, a system has to be in place that can command you not to attack them.  This system we call "government."  So, in order for you to have a "right to life" or a "right to liberty" that isn't just a plaintive wail you emit as you fall under a hail of bullets, knives, or fists, a government has to exist that is powerful enough to make it against the law to attack you.

Let me say this again: In order for there to be "rights," there must be a government that can command people--including you--to respect them.

104. Admit or deny that If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.

Deny.  If I assert a "right to life," I am simultaneously commanding you not to kill me.  Likewise, if you assert a "right to life," you are simultaneously commanding me not to kill you.  In order for you to "have" a "right to life," I must recognize your right to command me and constrain my actions within a limited sphere, and vice versa.  By asserting that no one has any "right" to command you, ever, you are asserting that you have the "right" to attack or kill anyone at will.  That makes you a dangerous person to have around.

>snip<

The same principles apply to the dead (i.e., the signers of the Constitution, dead legislators, etc.).

108. Admit or deny that If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.

Deny.  Since "rights" are only possible if you can be commanded to respect them (and likewise for everyone else), if we want to have rights, we need to have a "system of command" with the power to uphold and enforce them.  If individuals are left to fend for themselves in protecting their rights, then we're in a situation of competitive individual violence between aggressors and victims and/or between people who have disputes over whose "rights" are being violated (e.g. one person claims a "right" to build a house on a certain spot, but another person claims that the land in question is "their property"--who's the aggressor?). 

It turns out that the best way we've found to solve this problem is for people to delegate rights-enforcement to a cooperating group able to bring overwhelming force to bear if necessary, so that violence-competition ceases as much as practically possible.  We call this group "government."  So far, the best form of government that we've developed is representative democracy--precisely, a system whereby people agree to collectively choose who can command us to respect the "rights" we want ourselves and others in society to be able to exercise.  Is this system perfect?  Nope.  It's just the best thing we've come up with so far.

109. Admit or deny that Thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician a right to command, if they do not have the right to command me, they do not have the right to give that politician the right to command me.

Deny.  Some version of that is the only way for there to be any "rights" at all.  In other words, you cannot assert a "right" not to be commanded (at all, ever), since such a "right" eliminates the social structure that makes "rights" possible in the first place.  In order for you to have "rights" to life, liberty, etc., you must live in a civilization wherein you agree to be commanded within a limited sphere (i.e., you'll obey commands not to violate others' rights) in return for others abiding by the same rules.  Since "rules" are worthless if they're not enforced, there must be some agency that enforces the rules and protects "rights."  That agency we call "government."

110. Admit or deny that Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician the right to command me.

Deny.  So far, "electing politicians who can command" the people within a society (including you) within a limited sphere has proven to be the best way we have of creating any "rights" at all.

111. Admit or deny that If the politician does not have a right to command me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.

Deny.  If you are living within the physical territory of my civilization, driving on its roads, benefiting from the rights-protection services it offers, using the currency whose value the "faith and credit" of its government insures as your medium of exchange, breathing the clean air its environmental regulatory agencies insure your "right" to, using the internet its research-and-development funds created, enjoying safety in "your" home and "property" because it commands other people not to pillage you at will and mobilizes the necessary force to deter them from doing so, if you can shift a little lever on your toilet and have your stinky shit go into the sewer system my civilization provides for you so that your ungrateful ass doesn't die of cholera...

...then it bloody well matters where you're standing, and you can just sod right off if you think you're such a special little snowflake that the rules that make it all possible don't apply to you!

Admit or deny that A contract requires an offer, consideration, acceptance, and a meeting of minds.

It has been said that the Constitution is some sort of contract.

201. Admit or deny that The federal constitution was never given to me as an offer, therefore I never gave an acceptance in return.

202. Admit or deny that Since I was never given the offer, the consideration from the other party was never presented.

203. Admit or deny that Since I was never given the offer, the return consideration was never presented.

204. Since I was never given the offer, there was no meeting of minds.

205. Therefore, the constitution is NOT a contract that I am party to.

So you agree that I am fully entitled to just show up and kill you whenever I like, or kidnap you and chain you up in a basement and feed you to rats piece by piece?  Can you show me a contract I signed that says I agreed not to do that?

I dare you to post a sign in your yard, front window, or door (whichever is the most visible) that says:

LAW-FREE ZONE.
  THE RESIDENT OF THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY LAWS OR ANY RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF LAW OFFICERS OR ANY OTHER AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT.  THE RESIDENT OF THIS PROPERTY WILL NOT CALL THE POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENT, OR ANY OTHER AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE RESIDENT OF THIS PROPERTY MAY ALSO BE CONSIDERED NOT TO ENJOY THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW WHILE HE IS OFF OF THESE PREMISES, NOR DOES ANY OF THE RESIDENT'S POSSESSIONS OR MONEY ENJOY THE PROTECTION OF LAW.  THE RESIDENT WILL NOT CALL POLICE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Feel free to post your "I Got A Gun" "Beware of Dog" or whatever signs in addition to this.  Go ahead.  I dare ya.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 12:32:44 AM by kcrady »
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina