User talk:StopTheViolence

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, StopTheViolence!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Please sign your posts. DamoHi 06:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize my posts.----stop the violence
The proper way to sign your posts is to put four tildes (this is a tilde: ~). To format your posts with proper spacing you can use a colon. You may find the "Show preview" button helpful to ensure that the formatting and signing will come out right. Nullahnung (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Nullahnung, now that is a curteous comment. Damo came onto my page using abusive language right from the start and then said it was time for some "common courtesy" and then vandalized my talk page by censoring out about 2700 words to force his idea of courtesy onto me. StopTheViolence (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)stoptheviolence
I note, with some dismay, that you have chosen to disregard the requests for you to sign your posts and post with appropriate formatting. --DamoHi 09:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to format better, believe it or not it is not the most intuitive format for a beginner. StopTheViolence (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but it is important to at least make the effort to learn. Thank you. --DamoHi 09:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


Do you really, honestly and sincerely believe that the current USA is under "one of the world's most extreme left-wing military dictatorships in history under the dictatorship of Barrack Obama's authoritarian regime." I'm not sure you'd find many that would agree with you, especially those who have genuinely lived under military dictatorships. Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a logical fallacy: "I'm not sure you'd find many that would agree with you". You are not making a well reasoned argument with such a statement, is is an appeal to numbers/ Argumentum ad populum. StopTheViolence (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

Further, what were the aspects of Oceana that made it so "authoritarian"(in 1984)? Intense surveilance(check), tight control/manipulation of information(wikileaks,brad manning etc so check), constant war(check), "war is peace": we have obama, the peace prize winner, the supposed "great man of peace"(big brother) who is the most aggressive military

commander America has ever seen. He ran on a platform of peace yet has Americans fighting wars of aggression in more countries than any other. (so, check), "ignorance is strength": wikileaks scandal shows the GVT will go to great lengths to keep us in the dark about what it is really doing. (so check) 1984 is here bro.StopTheViolence (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

Authoritarianism defined, and civil power[edit]


Authoritarians don't necessarily want to "tell you what to do" - as long as, if they disagree with you, someone else in power will tell you what to do.

Don't just take RationalWiki's word for it. You've quoted the RW article, so I guess you've read at least some of it. Better to go to a more scholarly source, such as The Authoritarians(pdf) by Bob AltemeyerWikipedia.

I have read it, and I find his analysis highly flawed. Also, I believe the quote is taken directly from the work you mention.StopTheViolence (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence
OK. Particulars, please. How is it flawed? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

StopTheViolence (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)I plan to get into it later, carpal tunnel acting up now it would take a shit ton of typing to address the illogic.StopTheViolence (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Stop the violence

The tax man cometh[edit]

Regarding "You want to force people to pay for what you deem they "must" pay for"— you may want to see what George LakoffWikipedia has to say in Political Mind about what keeps a commonwealth going. If no one pays for roads, stoplights, bridges, schools, water supplies, even jails and cops, then things go to shit pretty quickly. What I've observed in a war zone is that it is a libertarian entrepreneur's wet dream. Black markets flourish, most civilians keep on living their lives, but it isn't a healthy way to live, too stressful for the human livestock. Also, atrocious things happen in a shooting war that look a lot like bullying, only bloodier and deadlier. Claiming, as you do, that the US gov't is putting a gun to our heads is an exaggeration, and just wrong. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Really, so then what happens to those who do not pay taxes, do men armed with guns then do something violent such as put them in jail? Or are you denying this is the reality of the situation? Aren't taxes taken by threat of violence? Do you deny that this is the case?StopTheViolence (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence
No need to be a drama queen about it. Sometimes we get away with it, sometimes the tax bureaucracy finds out and collects their due. Vanishingly seldom is a gun put to anyone's head for not paying taxes. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide a responsive answer? Yes or no, Are taxes taken under threat of violence?StopTheViolence (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence
No they are not taken under threat of violence, any more than crossing a double yellow line to pass another car on a two-lane road is forbidden "under threat of violence." Most people have the good sense to pay their taxes, even if grudgingly, because they wish to continue enjoying the fruits of living in a society providing for various common goods. Trying to cast it as black vs. white (i.e. gladly paying every bit required vs. gun to the head) is disingenuous bullshit. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So, then your answer is no, there is no threat of violence compelling people to pay taxes, is that correct?StopTheViolence (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence
You say:"Trying to cast it as black vs. white (i.e. gladly paying every bit required vs. gun to the head) is disingenuous bullshit."
I am asking which is it, violent or not violent? Either there is a threat of violence or there is not. Or is it a Schrödinger's cat paradox, where there IS a threat of violence, and at the same time there is NOT a threat of violence? It is a black and white issue, unless you allow the possibility that someone can threaten someone else, and yet at the same time NOT threaten the same person they ARE threatening. So which is it:
1. There is a threat of violence
2. There is no threat of violence
3. There is a threat of violence, and at the same time there is NOT a threat of violence.
StopTheViolence (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence
Forced choices do not work in a voluntary forum such as a wiki. How about this:
4. Taken on a case-by-case basis, in the enormously overwhelming preponderance of cases there is no need for a threat of violence, since most people just do it: they pay their taxes. Successful tax evaders hire lawyers and creative accountants who can help them get away with it. Again, no violence needed, nor threat thereof.
Gasping about the police power of the state, and how it offers you violence, amounts to playing the victim. Just as sure as taxes, not a one of us is going to get out of this world alive. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So, then there is no threat of violence to coerce the payment of taxes? There is no ultimatum of pay or go to jail?One can simply choose to not pay taxes and there is no threat? StopTheViolence (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence
How about in Muslim countries, is there a threat of violence prohibiting women from showing their faces? Most of them just do it, so there is no threat, correct?

I'm applying the same logic you use to the tax thing, so do you think it also applies to this situation? Why or why not? Since most women just go along with it, there is no threat of violence to prohibit it, correct? And if a woman were to complain that she was prohibited from doing so, she would be playing the victim, by your logic, correct?StopTheViolence (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

It is easy to say someone is playing the victim when you are the one making the threats and initiating the violence.StopTheViolence (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

How about during slave times, was there a threat of violence forcing slaves to work? Lets apply your "logic" to the situation: "Taken on a case-by-case basis, in the enormously overwhelming preponderance of cases there is no need for a threat of violence", since most slaves just do it: they pick their cotton. So, there was no threat of violence, correct? StopTheViolence (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

Slavery is a mostly non-violent practice, then, by your logic, is this correct?StopTheViolence (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

And if a slave were to complain, they would just be playing the victim, right?StopTheViolence (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

Riddle me this Sprocket: Someone just outright refuses to pay taxes, in your opinion, in your ideal government what should the government do? Lets say they just will not pay, they've been making let's say 80,000 a year for 15 years and when asked to pay, simply say "no thank you." They blog about it, they advertise it to the world. What does your version of the ideal government do about it, if anything? StopTheViolence (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

More of your "logic" applied to slavery: "Successful runaway slaves have abolitionists who can help them get away with it. Again, no violence needed, nor threat thereof." StopTheViolence (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

Of course slavery and the Jim Crow stuff that came after it involved violence. If you think the way US taxes work nowadays is similar enough to nineteenth-century ownership of human beings that any such argument makes sense, then I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's your fundamental problem with complaining about taxes, laws, and the people who enforce them. You choose to live somewhere, you follow the rules. That isn't to say you can't work to change them if you think it needs doing, but there's no free ride. Wanna live tax-free? Go to Somalia. You get your choice of two or three different unrecognized states plus life under constantly shifting warlords and the occasional threat of a lawnmowing by the Ethiopian Army, and you will have to do for yourself what people in civilized, non-failed states pay their taxes to have done for them. But hey, you get to be free, right? At least as long as no one demands tribute at gunpoint -- and tribute is outside the law. The things you complain about as being "authoritarian" are the basic needs of a functioning society. Without those things, you have hell. You are free to work within the system to attempt to dismantle these things, but you're going to run up against an awful lot of people whose idea of freedom doesn't involve sandbagging yourself inside your house with guns, a satphone (conveniently supported by the service's largest customer, the US DoD), and enough beans and rice to feed an elementary school for a year. EVDebs (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a straw-man argument. You assert what you consider the "fundamental problem complaining about taxes, laws, and the people who enforce them." When have I "complained"? I have stated the objective fact that taxes are taken by violence. That is not a value judgment, that is an objective fact. An objective statement of fact does not change relative to whether that statement is perceived as a complaint. Do you deny that taxes are taken by force? I have not said it is "bad or "good", just that it is violent. If you advocate for the violent appropriation of personal property, then at least have the intellectual honesty to own up to that violence. Arguing that the violence is for a good cause does not negate the violence. Just come out and admit you want to stick a gun to our heads and take our money, if that is what you want to do. StopTheViolence (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

how about this: If someone is a US citizen, but goes abroad, and earns money while located outside, the IRS still claims part of their money if they make "enough".

Now, aren't the "laws" allegedly applicable to people in the US because they are in the US>? Don't they claim their laws apply because one is in the territorial jurisdiction of the lawmakers? Then how can one be taxed under those laws while physically located outside of that territorial jurisdiction, unless the government actually claims an ownership stake in THE HUMAN BEING? (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolaence

"I have no interest in continuing this conversation." You have no interest in having your irrational violent ideas held to a rational, objective scrutiny because you are an authoritarian and you exhibit: "sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, -a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic."

You do not wish to have your beliefs challenged because the cognitive dissonance you experience when confronted with the violence and aggression you advocate is highly unpleasant for you I'm sure(since you have convinced yourself of the lie that your beliefs are nonviolent). Your sloppy reasoning does cannot stand up to rational scrutiny, but since logic cannot change your mind, you cannot continue the conversation. (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

You jump to a lot of conclusions about people's thought processes. And your zealotry is clearly clouding your thinking. EVDebs (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


While you may have been added to the bin slightly too quickly, I hope this matter has now been resolved to your satisfaction. Please be aware that disputed edits should be discussed on the talk page, and people involved should argue with good faith and try to find a perspective that closely reflects reality (with some of our customary snark, to boot). Don't just edit-war away.--ADtalkModerator 15:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have indeed been taking the matter up on the talk pages, and no one has provided any kind of rational logical rebuttal, they just vandalize me to censor me. Or they throw a bunch of abuse or illogical arguments. Just look at the denialism and fallacious reasoning on this page in the limited debate my opponents have provided.
What I'm gonna do is take some of the controversial issues to the debates, and then people will have a chance to challenge me, and if they fail to do so, I believe per the rules of this site I am able to make the appropriate edits to reflect the more rational perspective after I win the debates.StopTheViolence (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence
I admire your confidence!--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Weirdstuff, I just created a debate on "is statism a type of authoritarianism?" (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence
You are free to debate anything you'd like, but please be aware that any discussion about edits to a page need to take place on that page's talk page. This is to centralize all discussion and allow anyone with an interest or expertise in the subject to keep an eye or participate in any decisions about the page. Thank you.--ADtalkModerator
Thanks, AD. I have identified a fallacious irrational fallacious non-argument on the authoritarianism page:
Although many libertarians and anarchists have attempted to equate the two, statism and authoritarianism are not the same thing; although most authoritarians (especially of the right-wing type) are statists, so are quite a lot of people who believe one of the functions of government is to enforce civil rights.
Now, I have pointed out already on the talk page that this statement contains at least two distinct logical fallacies, and no one has challenged me on this and no one has denied the fallacies.
My question is: If I am automatically censored and banned by authoritarian moderators for editing this fallacy out, and replacing it with a rational statement how can I correct the illogic/irrationality? I have already demonstrated the irrationality of the statement, and no one has denied that it is irrational, yet they insist on having it there, and censor me for challenging the irrationality.StopTheViolence (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence
Well, certainly fallacious irrational fallacious non-arguments are something we watch out for. But you do appear to have been challenged on such points on the talk pages. Once the rough consensus of the community involved has been convinced, then I think you can make the edits once more. You do not get to be both a participant and the sole judge of when you have "won."--ADtalkModerator 17:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government[edit]

Help, help, I'm being repressed Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this some kind of reference to the legend of Arthur/Camelot? Interesting you should bring that up, if that is what you mean.StopTheViolence (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

If would like your username to stop showing up in red you need to put something on your user page. Just so that you know. :-)--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Uncultured Twit.--The Madman (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)The Madman

Thanks Weirdstuff, appreciate the infoStopTheViolence (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)StopTheViolence

"All of you must die, anti-Soveriegn Citizen twits"[edit]

I'm confused, to say the least. (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it was added by someone else. Brenden (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Trololololol. That would be me.--The Madman (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)The Madman