So I have bid my farewell of the EUOT.

[LaCroix]

 

i feel for you, miglia, though i did not read your story of prosecution, i share in my heart all that you may hope to obtain with this petty post on a forum that seems to have disconnected itself from the paradox forums many years ago. good luck, soul brother! 

[Berkut]

I direct you to my post directly above yours.

I don't see how it relates.

[katmai]

Too much text, flashbacks to school, no fucking way I'm reading all that.

P.S. Have no fear no mod around here uses gay ass colors when modjucating!

[Razgovory]

What the hell was the point of posting all that?

[Berkut]

What the hell was the point of posting all that?

We aren't quite sure yet, but I think it might have something to do with librarians.

[Syt]

What the hell was the point of posting all that?

We aren't quite sure yet, but I think it might have something to do with librarians.

I had wondered what fahdizzle had been up to.

[Jaron]

my EU OT drama was soo much more interesting.

[Pat]

OK fuck that first post. You can go back to it if you need additional context.


Summary:


First I am warned for this (on account of religion being a banned subject):


/quote]On a priori rights.

If we are to assume there is such a thing as a priori rights, and these do not come from the sky fairy, we must seek their source in human nature and human DNA as shaped by human evolution. For a rational person, this is the only possible source of these rights.

Let us then assume a typical band of hunter-gatherers, before the invention of government.

Presumably, these hunter-gatherers have a primitive understanding of possession. If someone from another tribe comes to steal their things, they will defend them. But their possession is not individually linked. If Gorm is starving, Throg does not say "this meat is mine, I will not share it". Because then the other tribesmembers would quite right to kick Throg out of their tribe for being a selfish bastard.

So, if you say there is an a priori right to property, I can just as well say there is an a priori right to expect others to share.

---

And this is why I don't like libertarianism. They construct an entire intellecual edifice on phony premises. It is akin to religion.[/quote]



Later, I bow out of the discussion, and say I will leave EUOT because I found my arguments to be banned. Stonewall warn me again, saying he will not allow such dishonesty to perpetuate itself on this forum, and call me a liar, because I was never banned from making argumentation. Which is not true: Religion, as a subject, is banned.

He calls me a liar, while talking about the "sacrisanctity of credibility", and then forbids me from posting in the thread again. I.e. he accuse me of being a liar, and will not allow me to defend myself against the accusation. So I PM him, asking to have my explanation posted to thread. I do not ask to have the warning removed: I only ask to be able to say why I am not a liar.

[LaCroix]

OK fuck that first post. You can go back to it if you need additional context.


Summary:


First I am warned for this (on account of religion being a banned subject):


/quote]On a priori rights.

If we are to assume there is such a thing as a priori rights, and these do not come from the sky fairy, we must seek their source in human nature and human DNA as shaped by human evolution. For a rational person, this is the only possible source of these rights.

Let us then assume a typical band of hunter-gatherers, before the invention of government.

Presumably, these hunter-gatherers have a primitive understanding of possession. If someone from another tribe comes to steal their things, they will defend them. But their possession is not individually linked. If Gorm is starving, Throg does not say "this meat is mine, I will not share it". Because then the other tribesmembers would quite right to kick Throg out of their tribe for being a selfish bastard.

So, if you say there is an a priori right to property, I can just as well say there is an a priori right to expect others to share.

---

And this is why I don't like libertarianism. They construct an entire intellecual edifice on phony premises. It is akin to religion.



Later, I bow out of the discussion, and say I will leave EUOT because I found my arguments to be banned. Stonewall warn me again, saying he will not allow such dishonesty to perpetuate itself on this forum, and call me a liar, because I was never banned from making argumentation. Which is not true: Religion, as a subject, is banned.

He calls me a liar, while talking about the "sacrisanctity of credibility", and then forbids me from posting in the thread again. I.e. he accuse me of being a liar, and will not allow me to defend myself against the accusation. So I PM him, asking to have my explanation posted to thread. I do not ask to have the warning removed: I only ask to be able to say why I am not a liar.

how can one fuck a post? i am so confused 

[Pat]

Who the fuck are you?

[LaCroix]

Who the fuck are you?

..not

you..? 

[Jaron]

He is my sock.

Or I am his.

[Pat]

[Syt]

We are all Yi.

[LaCroix]

We are all Yi.

this seems reasonable