You absolutely have. In response to the question of "do you support raising the minimum wage", you've said "obviously".



So I'm asking you personal questions. Answer them.




Why does such protocol exist? Is it because there might be odious people with agendas who might like to see you suffer, and who might contact authorities reporting something wrong you've done? Maybe the FBI? Or maybe a school president? ass hole




So you never purchase anything from capitalists? You never benefit from capitalism? It doesn't afford you any sort of standard of life higher than people who do not have the luxury of living in a capitalist economic system?

You do buy from capitalists, and you do benefit from capitalism, and it does afford you a higher standard of life, doesn't it?

Wow, some war.




How does advocating for more government regulations of the capitalist economy, thus granting more power, size, and scope, work towards eliminating the government? You do support government regulations on the capitalist economy, right?



Absolutely. No two people are the same. ****in biology, huh!




Not really. All ACists that I've ever encountered seem to have a consensus on the adherence in the non aggression principle. We think using violence to get what is wanted out of other people is wrong, unlike you and your ilk, who think it's ok to destroy someone's property if they don't give you raise.



Ask away.






Unless Borodog wrote and maintained every bit of this, ASism isn't unique to Borodog ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_syndicalism

Bull****.

You and 27 disagree on:

1. Intellectual property. 27 claims ideas belong to society so if I write some music everyone is allowed to copy it.

2. You don't believe children can be owned/sold. 27 does.

And of course you don't even believe what you said because you want to use force whenever you feel like someone is doing something wrong.

Lirva you're a big dumb hypocrite.

You are perfectly fine with using violence to get what you want:

It should be clear that very few people agree with your doctrinaire property rights + NAP approach. So basically what you are saying is you want to violently impose your morality on everyone else.

Dude, I answered enough of your stupid questions. Why am I answering Qs in your thread to begin with? It's my turn to ask a Q...

You're the one championing this alleged ideology of ACism. Here is my question... why do you insist I answer any questions about anything, never mind things that have ansolutely no connection with ACism, before you'll tell any of us anything at all about ACism?

How about let's take it slow and concentrate on this one meta-question in isolation first. Why don't you just tell us all about ACism without all this pointless sideshow and drama? What if I got a 'gimmick' account and asked the same exact Qs... would you just answer them then?

So here's what I wrote about Star Trek Into Darkness:



The movie was terrible.

It's weird, because the cast is all great. Whenever there's a scene where the characters are just talking to each other about stuff, those scenes are good. When Kirk, Spock, and Uhura are flying to Kronos and just bickering like three friends would bicker, I really loved that. But all the action crap is dumb and nonsensical. Everything about the story and the way it's told is stupid and poorly done.

The problem is that the people who wrote this **** clearly just didn't give a flying ****. I hate to be That Guy, but they're pretty clearly not big Star Trek fans, and that sucks. They had an idea session that went basically like this:

"Hey, we want a scene with Kirk and the bad guy jumping through space."
"Hey, we want Spock to get in a fist fight with a guy while flying on a thing."
"Hey, we should put Carol Marcus in this one somehow."
"Hey, remember Pike? Maybe we could kill him off? Maybe that would add some pathos?"
"Hey, let's do Wrath of Khan, but this time we'll have Kirk do the sacrifice."
"Hey, Nimoy says he'll do a little scene for $150,000, so let's do that. Nerds love that guy."
"Hey, we should say something about the prime directive. Maybe with some Indians or something? Let's put them in danger from a volcano, exactly like on that Next Generation episode that I've never watched or even heard of because I'm not a huge nerd."
"Hey, let's have Carol Marcus be a really hot blond. And let's have her take her clothes off in front of Kirk for literally no reason, since she's a hot blond."
"Hey, people know about Klingons, right? Let's throw 'em in."
"Hey, what if the bad guy had a ship that was even bigger and faster?"
"Hey, we should put one of the crew somewhere else for awhile. It'll create drama. How about What's-His-Face, the British guy. Welshie? Is that his name?"
"Hey, aren't Tribbles a thing? Let's put one in."
"Hey, Kirk needs to do the 'To Boldly Go' thing, since I don't think he did it in the last one."
"Hey, remember when Shatner yelled 'Khaaaaaaan!'? Well this time, SPOCK will do that! It's ****ing revolutionary!"
"Hey, that Vulcan guy hides his emotions AND has a girlfriend. Let's do some stuff with that. It'll be funny."
"Hey, anybody know what makes the weapons/shields/transporters/engines work or not work? Anybody? No? All right, well we'll just disable/enable them as it's convenient for us, because who really cares, anyway?"

Then they wrote each of those things on an index card and stuck them on a cork board with thumb tacks. They connected the tacks with yarn basically at random until they were in a sequence. They then paid someone $24.50/hr to write a "plot" that would move the action along the yarn-sequence until we got to the next index card.



After chewing it over, I think what rustles my jimmies the most is that they rebooted this **** but don't actually want to do anything new with it. They just hit the numbers, reference things, blow **** up, and make money. It's the most cynical thing ever.

Here's my example: The only time I was fully engrossed in this movie was when Kirk died. For half a second I thought they were actually going to kill him off. It could've been great: We get the mirror universe of Wrath of Khan, and we see how it would have been different and how it would've been the same. Something like this: Spock has to give a moving eulogy for the captain and friend he loves. But he can't, really, because he's a Vulcan who suppresses all emotion. He tries to get Bones to do it, but he says "Dammit, Spock, I'm a doctor, not a reverend. You're the captain, now. It's your duty."

In "Khan," Kirk says of Spock "Of all the souls I've come to know, his was the most... human." It's the most beautiful line in Trek, and the most emotional by far. In this movie, we could've had Zachary Quinto say something that echoes that at Kirk's funeral. "Of all the souls I've come to know, his was the most... human." That would normally be an insult coming from Spock. But his voice could crack, and it could've been just absolutely great. Then the next movie (or the first act, anyway) is about resurrecting Kirk somehow, perhaps by recovering his chakra (sp) from a mind meld that Spock performs just before Kirk died, a la Star Trek III. Or perhaps through some other means.

I ran through all that in my head as soon as I realized Kirk was going to go into the magical death room. In reality, if they'd done that, it may well have sucked. But that's OK. There's plenty of Trek that sucks. (There's seven whole seasons of Voyager for ****'s sake.) But at least they'd be doing something new and interesting, instead of blending up references to Star Trek stuff/characters with space explosions and fist fights.

But, no, they don't do any of that. Kirk's "dead" for like five minutes of screen time before Bones says "I think I can save him!" and then we all know that McCoy's going to save him somehow, and knowing that they're not going to take any chances just sucks the drama out of the rest of it. We know that Spock's going to beat Khan in their fistfight, and that Kirk will be OK, and that'll be that. And that's a shame. I would much prefer watching a movie that is "an interesting idea that ends up not really working" than "a generic action movie that's in the Star Trek universe, sort of."

Way TL;DR, this movie sucks and **** everything about J.J. Abrams.





SPOILER ALERT: There were spoilers in the above.

They need a 5 year mission to read that post

PVN is an acronym for "scroll past this." It's as good an acronym as his posts. BOOM!

Mayo,

no, it is very obvious that the writers and JJ are big fans of Trek. It is the Trek film for Trek fans. I stopped skimming at that point, there arent enough stardates in my life to waste reading it all, sorry.

LirvA, lol at you calling someone ******ed right after you said that government is organised crime.

wat

I've been a fan for 40 years, Trek Film was awesome, Mayo is an idiot.

That is all.

So what? Obviously different Anarchists will have different thoughts on things. That doesn't change the fact that we all believe in adherence to the NAP, and condemn violence.

Also, do you think I'm against downloading or something? Do you think I support IP? I think if you're going to try to come up with things we have different positions on, you should find things we actually have different positions on.



No, I'm not. In my view, the only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual lives, rights, and freedom. This is not using violence to get what is wanted out of others. It is defending others.




Are you sure? Are you sure you don't agree with it yourself? Do you own property? If so, do you go around attacking your neighbors? Most people support property rights, and the NAP.



This is absolutely ******ed. How so? Do you think I support sending goons around to people to force them to take an Anarchist pamphlet, and if they don't take it, shoot them in the head?

No. Don't be ******ed.

It absolutely is an organization of terrorist criminals. The government kidnaps people, robs people, and murders people. This is criminal activity. The government also uses the threat of force to get what is wanted out of others. This is terrorism.

LMFAO

Wow MissileDog, you really gotta let go of this dictionary thinking. I feel as though it is hampering our ability to have a meaningful conversation. Plz drop this ACism this, and ACism that nonsense. We're talking about Anarchism, and if you don't want to do it like an adult, and without a dictionary over your head, you should go take a bubble bath or something.

How do the anarchists prevent anarchy from turning into the biggest bastard with the most guns running things? Stern pamphleting?

Ignore him and hope he goes away afaik.

Hi kero! Plz provide such content free "rebuttals" in the form of lolcat.

Simple, don't form a government.

Your post seems to imply that the biggest bastard with the most guns running things is a bad thing. I invite you to recognize that's what we have now under government.

Dude... when you use the word 'anarchism aren't you using it as a synonym for ACism? That was my innocent and honest assumption.

If not, you really need to explain what you mean in particular by that word ITT. Whatever you say it means to you personally is good enough for me ITT -- see no dictionary thinking at all on my part!

But what is really hindering the conversation is this... If I ask you a Q about whatever it is you call 'anarchism', you then insist you won't answer it unless I answer your laundry list of completely unrelated personal Qs regarding myself first.

If I got a 'gimmick' account and asked the same exact Qs, would you just simply answer the questions then?

How about a simple yes or no answer to the above meta-question?

Dictionary thinking

Well obviously you are using the term 'dictionary thinking' in a totally different way than I do. But whatever, that part really doesn't matter.

So you wanna chat about what whatever it is you you call 'anarchism'... without either explaining whatever it is you might mean by 'anarchism' in your own words =OR= referencing a particular dictionary's definition that you happen to agree with?

How are we supposed to know WTF you are even talking about ??

You didn't require kerowo to answer a laundry list of questions before you answered his above. If I got a 'gimmick' account would you show it the same courtesy?

How about a simple yes/no answer to this simple meta-question.

So what is the benefit of giving up the bastard I know for some other bastard I don't know?

It's official. Lirva is a terrorist.

Except you don't agree what the **** the NAP is. Good job!

And you don't condemn violence - I just quoted a number of posts where you support it*. We should have a whose the biggest hypocrite thread.


* Don't bother writing up the property stuff. The rest of already know what your personal preferences are for when force is ok.

Current government is far from the biggest bastard.

They suck, but nearly as much as the guys who'd quickly take over your utopia would.