Essay talk:The corrupting and intellectually nihilistic influence of statist religion and the liberal statheist agenda on "RationalWiki"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I love that you're accusing rationalwiki of freewheeling censorship of you in an essay on rationalwiki. ikanreed (giving logicmaster chance after chance to come to grips with his lack of oppression) 20:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not just that, but all of the posts in ChickenCoop about being censored...while demanding people who disagree be banned and their disagreements deleted. I think it's time for the TrollTrollTrollTrollTroll -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, for someone who's anti-government, he sure likes telling people what to believe and how to behave. (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
That said, the word "statheist" is either stupidly awesome or awesomely stupid. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions? 23:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The latter, definitely the latter. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, nothing awesome about it. It's a lame opaque neologism, which one particular breed of moron is trying to push into the lexicon. At best, it is a useful marker for that type of moron, much the way "evolutionist" marks the rhetoric of creationists. Flux gate gamma (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't that pretty awesome? To tout your stupidity by waving around "a lame opaque neologism" which ultimately says more about you than the people you try to slap it onto? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Not just that, but from someone that goes around wailing like a banshee about the atrocities of being insulted (and censored because of it)...who is so enthusiastic about doing it to other people he even invents his own. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Not invented by this one, I think. "Statheism" smells like the kind of jargon that plays well in circle jerks inhabited by libertarians, sovereign citizens, or similar head cases. Stupid, yes, but it is a common garden-variety stupid, unworthy of anybody's awe. Flux gate gamma (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There's literally nothing pettier than making up terms to describe people you disagree with(light ribbing nicknames like "fundie" or overlybroad interpretation of existing words can be excused). Short of violence, anyways. And our pal here isn't a libertarian, he's gone way overboard and is drifting in the sea of an-cap. Ikanreed (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It is slightly more petty than declaring himself the most rational person ever on his talk page, and everyone needs to obey him, and not quite as much as putting up a video where he narrates it in fart noises that I am waiting for next. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think he's even an-cap. He's his own brand of craziness. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Masturbation masturbation pies pies Brian Cox 20:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Nah, he's fully an-cap, as far as I can tell. You gotta think about how you or I engage in motivated reasoning and then just step it up a notch. You find some essential thing that supports your view and desires, then you construct a greater theory around it. Most people do this. For him, that "thing" is an-cap, and that theory is this whole "government is a complete fiction" idea. It's helpful to me to see this mechanism extended to an unreasonable extreme to help me grapple with my own idealism, because everyone does it, and it's just a matter of scale. Ikanreed (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The "anarcho-" part certainly applies, but I haven't seen much evidence that he supports capitalism. Not that I've read all his rants in detail, I'll admit. (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
He left some rambling on his talk page critical of both anarchists and libertarians, so we can assume he's neither. I think. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets 01:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You're right about the lack of overt support for capitalism. I think the reason why LM is suspected of being an an-cap is that the sovereign citizen-style of "I decide what words really mean"-nonsense and petty fits sounds far more like an-caps of the "going Galt"-variety than "classical" anarchism. Actually, it does seem to me as if LM's brand is more like some personal, eclectic and über-cranky version of libertarianism of the most pedestrian "No one should ever tell me what to do"-grumpy-teenager-variety. Among its highly peculiar aspects is what appears to be his weird combination of his personal brand of pseudo-libertarianism and Christianity which he then poses as the opposition to the "statheists" (apparently atheists who worship the state religion - yeah, it doesn't make sense, I know). This is particularly odd as this Christian/libertarian combo tends to come with the "the U.S. is a Christian nation, just as the Founding Fathers wished it"- and/or "states rights"-blather - yet LM goes completely against this trend with his "the Constitution is just magic writing"-shtick. But, presumably, the market is also some sort of super-religion (or something), since LM has already agreed that by his (stupid) definition, corporations are religions too. I think the problem in pinning down LM ideologically is probably that he doesn't really have a very well thought out ideological framework (duh), an issue which isn't exactly helped by LM insisting only on using his own homespun terminology and definitions (I guess we could call it a sort of conceptual solipsism). ScepticWombat (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think corporations are religious institutions and "corporate persons" are purely abstract articles of faith. You can refute this by showing me a photo of the "corporation" called starbucks. Other than the magical writings of the articles of incorporation there is no evidence there is such a "person" as "Starbucks", yet it/he/she has "employees", owns property and has a bank account. And Santa brings presents to little kids and the tooth fairy comes and gets the little teeth; it is all a magical fairy tale. "Starbucks" the person is a religious article of faith in the same sense that "Athena" is/was. LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't try to re-define the words, I try to define the concept. And I try to use facts and objective reasoning. If we say "Government is a system which governs society".Okay. Circular, and not even truly a definition in the Socratic sense, but for the sake of argument: What does a Nasa astronaut do that governs society? What about a black ops CIA agent on assignment to steal info? How do we determine their "governmentness"? Do they govern society? If government is a system meant to make people play nice, how do we define the holocaust as a "government" operation? Because it was designed to make people play nice? How do you prove or falsify it? On the other hand, my theory of government is completely falsifiable. All you have to do is give me one example of a government employee that does not engage

in looting, theft, or extortion such as taxation, or other similar business models of appropriating capitol through conditional threats like "pay or go to jail" or "pay or get shot", etc, or get their paycheck from funds derived from taxation or similar extortionate methods like licensing schemes or tickets/tariffs etc or outright banditry/looting. Show me a single government agency which is exclusively funded by customers who bought goods or services on a voluntary basis without a conditional threat like "pay or go to jail" or the use of theft/banditry. Show me one example and I believe you have completely refuted my hypothesis. The only empirical property of government is extortion or theft. Pay or [punishment] or outright banditry. "Playing nice" is not a provable universal property of government and does not define what is or is not government in any logical sense. Also plenty of systems are designed to make people play nice that have nothing to do with government. LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to sign your essay[edit]

Only your commments. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC) K. Thanks.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


So how you doing LogicMaster? Reading any good books at the moment? (Tell Me What To Think) and (I'll tell you what to feel) 08:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Pretty good. How are you. Kind of chewing on the same ones, since I'm not really through with debunking them yet. Rousseau and Hobbes.

Why- are you trying to recommend something? What are you reading?LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


What the hell is "statheist" vs "stateist"? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 21:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

'kinell, Rob, don't encourage him! (I assume it's male, most women have more sense) Scream!! (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Checkmate, Scream. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 22:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I did write "most" not "all". Scream!! (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Statism is the ideology. It is tied up with a faith-based belief in a scriptural invisible abstract higher power called "the state" which forms the basis of government religion. So it is an ideology but it is inextricably linked with government religion, so it is a religious ideology. So basically, if you talk to right wingers, often they will tell you things like: the constitution is a companion to the bible, it comes from god, it's divinely inspired, and they tend to favor school prayer, religious/ideological discrimination toward gays, want the censored science in school, basically seperation of church and state is of little to no importance to them. On the other hand, you have leftist "statheists" who are adamant that the government and religion have nothing to do with each other, and tend to favor tolerance of gay marriage, anti-school prayer (except in the context of Leviathan worship), want more school science , want to assert the constitution" as "logical" rather than religious, and this ideology heavily correlates with atheism. When it does, this is leftist statheism (strictly speaking there is probably also a minority contingent of right wing statheists). People who are "skeptics" toward "religion" yet invoke all the same fallacies of religious fundamentalists when rationalizing their faith in government that they reject in "religion", while in extreme denial that their faith in government is itself religious. Righties will generally come out and admit it is part of their religious faith and often they don't care much about separation of church and state as a religious doctrine, although it is the supreme commandment of liberal faith generally, or at least one of the main ones. A denialist stance of denying their religion is a religion. This sort of crank magnetism of leftism and a particular brand of "anti-religious" government religion.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Last I checked, right-wingers were a lot more prone to be in the business of state-worshipping than 'leftists' and plenty of them don't invoke God to justify their religious-like dedication to and glorification of the state. (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
So in accusing us liberal secularists (or "Statheists" as you would prefer) of worshiping the state, how do you justify your irrational worship of the invisible hand? Alsto003 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Alex
I don't really worship it. I agree that the market can be subject to anthromorphic reification and the "invisible hand" "entity" you mention is a great example. I have also seen an anarchocapitalist pray to "the market" as if it were an intelligent "entity". I definitely get the point you are making though.LogicMaster777 (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)