[Itwæs Nom]

Gothos, on 31 August 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

Itwæs Nom, on 30 August 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

Gothos, on 30 August 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

Hey where's Central Europe?

I went for which army after 2nd WW freed the country as divider between west/east

If "freed" is the word you use for what the Soviets did I think you have gaping holes in your education.

No I get you. It's just commonly used to reference to the act of claiming the land here, especially during said education.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Andorion, on 31 August 2016 - 01:48 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Lets break this down. Nation - states. Nation = imaginary. Its a product of thought and imagination. State = population, territory, government, sovereignty. Very much concrete.

first off i like the delineation between nation and states, however i'd argue they are just as abstract,

population:an arbitrary delineationg and grouping of individuals based upon geography. You are born on this imaginary line therefoer you are x, you are born on this imaginary line, you are y.

territory:a trick of the mine revolving around the concept of possesion which in of itself is a social construct, though i think we'll touch more upon that down the thread

goverment: a social construct that arises out of a need to administer a greater and greater amount of people, ultimately its just a fictious as the rest. Can you phyisically point to a goverment? no its an idea. Flags, buildings, paperwork, SIN number are all social artefacts used to reinforce the idea that there is a goverment but in reality it just a group of people living the delusion that we call society in which we all take part in.

Sovereignty: more smokes and mirrors.

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

Andorion, on 28 August 2016 - 03:57 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Not sure about the legal part, I think you can legislate a nation into existence, but as for the rest, sticking firmly with Anderson, eh?

write a fancy piece of paper, call it constitution. Get a bunch of other pieces of paper to recognise you as a state and voila you have a country. Nation states came about to help administer and organise large groups of people, so we expanded the previous meta narrative that involve principalities, religion, and cities and made an ever larger meta-narrative and to facilitate that administration you have tons of legalities and bureaucracies established.

cant say im familiar with anderson

Want to break down documentary legality? Sure. But don't stop at nation states. By that logic all state and authority systems are invalid, throughout history.

all are just as fictious and all are social constructs. Not sure about the use of the word invalid however.

LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

Abyss, on 29 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Nothing fictional about it. It's a recognized boundary within which a specific set of laws and rules apply.

If you want to go back in time to clans and city-states, sure the idea is relatively 'recent' as human history goes, but it's not a fiction, it's not 'made up' nor in any way unreal any more than the physical limits of a clans' hunting grounds or a city-state's defence and transport system.

boundaries recognised by fancy pieces of paper. Is the ground in canada red whilst the ground in the US green? i think not. Borders are imposition upon the world by means of social constructs. Borders exist in only two places, on paper and in the minds of others. This is without getting into the various scenarios that make the entire thing laughable all together,. Impose fancy borders all you like, doesn't change the fundamental reality. All it is an imposition of the human mind onto the real world that is to often taken as if it was the world.

Neither of your example really flesh your argument either. Physical limits of a tribes hunting ground were just that. But was the ground theirs? hardly.

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Agreed. Current concepts of property stem from Lockean ideas of land ownership, usage and wasteland.

amphibian, on 30 August 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Animals pee all over the limits of "their territory" to delineate it and reduce conflict. Insects buzz around specific regions bc that's where they'll find their food. Bacterium too.

Territory claiming is a basic part of life and carefully negotiating the claiming and crossings of territories has been built into the fabric of life on this planet since life it self began. The only artificiality is the degree of permanent claiming and transformation of the territories due to groups enduring far longer than an individual.

Now this is not so simple. There is ownership, and then there is rights. Absolute property rights are a rather Western concept.

Take land ownership in Mughal India. The peasant did not own the land, but he had usage rights. That is he could grow crops in it, and he was entitled to his own share. The landlord had controlling rights, that is he administered it, took his share of the revenue and passed it on to the Emperor. The Emperor had revenue rights - that is, he got the share of the revenue dictated by Imperial law. But none of them truly owned the land. The concept of land as transferable and saleable property did not really exist.

But there is still this concept of land as something belonging to an individual, a collective a state etc...

I am falling asleep at my keyboard atm ill have to get at this later

[Malaclypse]

amphibian, on 30 August 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Animals pee all over the limits of "their territory" to delineate it and reduce conflict. Insects buzz around specific regions bc that's where they'll find their food. Bacterium too.

Territory claiming is a basic part of life and carefully negotiating the claiming and crossings of territories has been built into the fabric of life on this planet since life it self began. The only artificiality is the degree of permanent claiming and transformation of the territories due to groups enduring far longer than an individual.

OK kindly fuck off with this shit. One and only one warning in the interest of the new peace.

[Malaclypse]

LinearPhilosopher, on 30 August 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

Malaclypse, on 30 August 2016 - 04:48 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 30 August 2016 - 02:20 AM, said:

Malaclypse, on 30 August 2016 - 12:26 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

Abyss, on 29 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Nothing fictional about it. It's a recognized boundary within which a specific set of laws and rules apply.

If you want to go back in time to clans and city-states, sure the idea is relatively 'recent' as human history goes, but it's not a fiction, it's not 'made up' nor in any way unreal any more than the physical limits of a clans' hunting grounds or a city-state's defence and transport system.

boundaries recognised by fancy pieces of paper. Is the ground in canada red whilst the ground in the US green? i think not. Borders are imposition upon the world by means of social constructs. Borders exist in only two places, on paper and in the minds of others. This is without getting into the various scenarios that make the entire thing laughable all together,. Impose fancy borders all you like, doesn't change the fundamental reality. All it is an imposition of the human mind onto the real world that is to often taken as if it was the world.

Neither of your example really flesh your argument either. Physical limits of a tribes hunting ground were just that. But was the ground theirs? hardly.

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Haha, ok friend, I like the cut of your jib and I can detect that you were almost certainly inebriated when you posted here which explains the complete disconnect from reality, which I also enjoy. However, if you continue in this vein I will do my best to eviscerate you in the friendliest way possible. May I inquire as to the extent of your scholastic training?

Please i haven't had a good intellectual challenge in a while (exams don't really count imo)go for it.

As to the extent of my scholastic training, spent 4.5 years in academia, walked out with a bachelor in accounting with a minor in philosophy followed up with doing my CPA atm. Though i try and keep up the philosophy with readings on the side.

worry, on 30 August 2016 - 12:24 AM, said:

Ink on a page has a physical existence though. A contract with signatures on it doesn't require minds agreeing upon its existence. Does it have more in common with a skyscraper or a nod and handshake?

On the contrary is does require in two ways (by definition a contract requires two parties to agree to something)


ahh the ink yes, but does ink=country? does ink= agreement to do x or y. No it doesn't were just so used to doing the mental acrobatics to get from ink to markings>to language>promise or agreement>tangible object or effect.(gross oversimplification of the actual process) that the real tangible thing has been supplanted with mental constructs.

Ahhh man, I dunno if I can be mean here. An accountant with a wannabe in philosophy? I'm sympathetic, if I'm honest. You're in for a rough ride kid. All I can say is Know When to Get Out and that applies to jobs, marriages, friendships and frankly any commitment of any kind. Serve yourself first. Don't reproduce by accident! If you do, know that all your aspirations in life are as ash on the wind and nobody who has not reproduced has any sympathy for you whatsoever. Also try to pay attention to grammar and spelling, though I suspect that's a losing battle which is fair enough. In closing, you should never answer a question like the one I posed you at all, let alone in an honest fashion. It's obviously a hostile question - the more information you give me the more material I have to hang you with. I'm taking note of you LinearPhilosopher and Imma try not to hurt your feelings but you do need some seasoning and you mustn't lose your outrage.

cool story bro

you done yet?

Yes, I'm done for the moment. I felt that I gave you a considered reply and found your response needlessly hostile. If you would like to continue in that vein, I am happy to oblige.

[Malaclypse]

Vengeance, on 30 August 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 10:13 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

Secret Startaker, on 30 August 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

Eh, they were pretty good writers, though.

True, they were very eloquent about how men were created equal, women were beneath mention, and certain of the equally created people had three fifths the value of other ones.

Nearly brought me to tears it was so beautiful

Didn't know this was a serious conversation. As it is, it's fucking retarded and I'll not argue about the worth and importance of the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers.

The French almost certainly would have done all that anyway. The UK created a substantially more functional model for democracy, that pretty much every other reasonable country has adopted (the Parliamentary system---whereas our system in USoA leads to gridlock and two-way travesties like Clinton vs. Trump, as direct consequences of the shittiness of the Constitution).

Compared with the literary output of England, France, and Germany over the same period, the Founding Fathers---as writers---were not especially impressive. Maybe "good writers, for politicians"---the same way Trump is a good clown, "for a politician".... (But: as Enlightenment thinkers, they are markedly inferior to the French, Germans, and Britons who helped inspire them. Just as President Obama is a "great thinker"---for the political figure-head of an exceptionally anti-intellectual nation... yet as a thinker, he's not all that great.)

We get it you dislike Americans. We are stupid brutish and not that bright. You have said your piece. Start an America sucks thread if you wish to say more.

- admin Venge

Or what?! You missed a comma between stupid and brutish, suggesting some emotion in your response, btw. What if we don't want to start a specific thread about the persistent and brutish stupidity of the bulk of the American public and yet desire to say more? What then? Do not presume to censor people on that level in this place or by all the gods, above and below, I will take this place back and teach you humility.

[Vengeance]

Malaclypse, on 14 September 2016 - 05:32 AM, said:

Vengeance, on 30 August 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 10:13 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

Secret Startaker, on 30 August 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

Eh, they were pretty good writers, though.

True, they were very eloquent about how men were created equal, women were beneath mention, and certain of the equally created people had three fifths the value of other ones.

Nearly brought me to tears it was so beautiful

Didn't know this was a serious conversation. As it is, it's fucking retarded and I'll not argue about the worth and importance of the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers.

The French almost certainly would have done all that anyway. The UK created a substantially more functional model for democracy, that pretty much every other reasonable country has adopted (the Parliamentary system---whereas our system in USoA leads to gridlock and two-way travesties like Clinton vs. Trump, as direct consequences of the shittiness of the Constitution).

Compared with the literary output of England, France, and Germany over the same period, the Founding Fathers---as writers---were not especially impressive. Maybe "good writers, for politicians"---the same way Trump is a good clown, "for a politician".... (But: as Enlightenment thinkers, they are markedly inferior to the French, Germans, and Britons who helped inspire them. Just as President Obama is a "great thinker"---for the political figure-head of an exceptionally anti-intellectual nation... yet as a thinker, he's not all that great.)

We get it you dislike Americans. We are stupid brutish and not that bright. You have said your piece. Start an America sucks thread if you wish to say more.

- admin Venge

Or what?! You missed a comma between stupid and brutish, suggesting some emotion in your response, btw. What if we don't want to start a specific thread about the persistent and brutish stupidity of the bulk of the American public and yet desire to say more? What then? Do not presume to censor people on that level in this place or by all the gods, above and below, I will take this place back and teach you humility.

The or what had already been covered you spastic reader. Go pick a fight with someone who cares.

[Andorion]

This is a reply to Linear Philosopher

Replying separately to avoid Wall of Text

Quote

first off i like the delineation between nation and states, however i'd argue they are just as abstract,

population:an arbitrary delineationg and grouping of individuals based upon geography. You are born on this imaginary line therefoer you are x, you are born on this imaginary line, you are y.

territory:a trick of the mine revolving around the concept of possesion which in of itself is a social construct, though i think we'll touch more upon that down the thread


goverment: a social construct that arises out of a need to administer a greater and greater amount of people, ultimately its just a fictious as the rest. Can you phyisically point to a goverment? no its an idea. Flags, buildings, paperwork, SIN number are all social artefacts used to reinforce the idea that there is a goverment but in reality it just a group of people living the delusion that we call society in which we all take part in.

Sovereignty: more smokes and mirrors.

I don't agree with you about the seeming arbitrariness of population and territory. Sure, for the modern nation state it may indeed seem like that, but lets historicise things a bit.

The vast majority of human groups started off as nomadic communities. Groups as we are social animals and groups yield certain inherent survival advantages.

Now these groups were essentially familial structures which grew into clans. Kinship was very important in the structure of the clan. Clans often existed under the larger structure of the tribe.

Now with agriculture and the end of wandering the clans started settling down, and obviously the land they needed for their fields - both for grazing and crops became something to be claimed and defended. This was something new. In the nomadic period a fixed area of land had not been that important. But with the land being the source of sustenance it had to be possessed.

So the primitive clan can be located as the site of the birth for concepts of territory and population. Now obviously this scenario got changed over a lot through the ages but the basic concept remained the same until the modern nation where an imagined unity superseded ideas of kinship, language and culture.

Now if you are talking about the arbitrary borders of the 20th Century nation state you won't get an argument from me. I live in India. The Radcliffe line is the definition of arbitrary border.

As for government I think a better of looking at is as a process rather than a thing in itself. It is a socio-political function that happens through certain institutions and conventions.

[Kruppe of Darujhistan]

I am an Irishman by birth and an American by birthright. I think I will vote for Donald Trump, if only to validate your assumption that I am both ignorant and bigoted. Happy now? Me too, until such time as I find it convenient to destroy you. Have a nice day

[Malaclypse]

Vengeance, on 14 September 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Malaclypse, on 14 September 2016 - 05:32 AM, said:

Vengeance, on 30 August 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 10:13 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

Secret Startaker, on 30 August 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

Eh, they were pretty good writers, though.

True, they were very eloquent about how men were created equal, women were beneath mention, and certain of the equally created people had three fifths the value of other ones.

Nearly brought me to tears it was so beautiful

Didn't know this was a serious conversation. As it is, it's fucking retarded and I'll not argue about the worth and importance of the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist Papers.

The French almost certainly would have done all that anyway. The UK created a substantially more functional model for democracy, that pretty much every other reasonable country has adopted (the Parliamentary system---whereas our system in bungface leads to gridlock and two-way travesties like Clinton vs. Trump, as direct consequences of the shittiness of the Constitution).

Compared with the literary output of England, France, and Germany over the same period, the Founding Fathers---as writers---were not especially impressive. Maybe "good writers, for politicians"---the same way Trump is a good clown, "for a politician".... (But: as Enlightenment thinkers, they are markedly inferior to the French, Germans, and Britons who helped inspire them. Just as President Obama is a "great thinker"---for the political figure-head of an exceptionally anti-intellectual nation... yet as a thinker, he's not all that great.)

We get it you dislike Americans. We are stupid brutish and not that bright. You have said your piece. Start an America sucks thread if you wish to say more.

- admin Venge

Or what?! You missed a comma between stupid and brutish, suggesting some emotion in your response, btw. What if we don't want to start a specific thread about the persistent and brutish stupidity of the bulk of the American public and yet desire to say more? What then? Do not presume to censor people on that level in this place or by all the gods, above and below, I will take this place back and teach you humility.

The or what had already been covered you spastic reader. Go pick a fight with someone who cares.

The point is, you insufferable wanker, that you don't get to censor people because you're personally offended by their point of view - we here do not live in a police state that is unfailingly loyal to anything. In short, you overstep when you take offence on behalf of America or any fucking place. I'm not sure what to make of the epithet 'spastic reader' but I'm prepared to let it go You shouldn't be on staff here if you're going to be a cheerleader for America and seek to punish people who don't share your views. Carry on this way and you're easy meat for me so by all means carry on

[Malaclypse]

Kruppe of Darujhistan, on 15 September 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

I am an Irishman by birth and an American by birthright. I think I will vote for Donald Trump, if only to validate your assumption that I am both ignorant and bigoted. Happy now? Me too, until such time as I find it convenient to destroy you. Have a nice day

[Malaclypse]

Kruppe of Darujhistan, on 15 September 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

I am an Irishman by birth and an American by birthright. I think I will vote for Donald Trump, if only to validate your assumption that I am both ignorant and bigoted. Happy now? Me too, until such time as I find it convenient to destroy you. Have a nice day

So you'll vote for Trump knowing that it's stupid just to poke at me, is that right? I don't know whether or not you're ignorant or bigoted but if that's your strategy to get at me...well, that's just plain stupid.

Also, let's be clear, Irish people from Ireland feel no kinship for you because you are not remotely Irish. They despise people like you. Go to Ireland and find out

You want to destroy me? Do your worst

[Macros]

Malaclypse, on 05 October 2016 - 05:13 AM, said:

Kruppe of Darujhistan, on 15 September 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

I am an Irishman by birth and an American by birthright. I think I will vote for Donald Trump, if only to validate your assumption that I am both ignorant and bigoted. Happy now? Me too, until such time as I find it convenient to destroy you. Have a nice day

So you'll vote for Trump knowing that it's stupid just to poke at me, is that right? I don't know whether or not you're ignorant or bigoted but if that's your strategy to get at me...well, that's just plain stupid.

Also, let's be clear, Irish people from Ireland feel no kinship for you because you are not remotely Irish. They despise people like you. Go to Ireland and find out

You want to destroy me? Do your worst

I'm confused on this one, is he an american of irish parentage or an irishman of american parentage?

[Khellendros]

Mentalist, on 29 August 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

Ukrainian, obv. Although each year spent in Canada I find the idea of going back harder (not in a sense "I won't fit in" (though I probably won't, if I'm being perfectly honest,), but more in a sense of "all that I know how to do is life is not in demand there").

Nevertheless, I keep up with the music (much more so than North American music that I come into contact with occasionally through other people's radios), literature, sports, and, (most of the time), politics and news.

I 'self-identify' with this

I am Bosnian by birth but have lived most of my life in the UK. While in the past I always used to think of myself as Bosnian first, British second, the Bosnia I remember from my childhood is barely reflected in the Bosnia of today, and I find I have very little in common with many of the people there every time I go back. So I suppose I now identify as British, with exotic south-eastern Europeaness (or, as forms call it, "White (Other)"). Interestingly, strangers in the UK would usually identify me as Spanish or Italian.

But with Brexit, I have seriously been considering getting Croatian dual nationality, so that I can remain an EU citizen. So I suppose I also identify with just plain 'European.'

I'm finding the discussion of the concept of nations, nationhood, states, and patriotism extremely interesting, by the way. As a history lecturer, this comes up at points in my teaching, and is always fascinating to hear views on.

[Malaclypse]

Wow this is genuinely interesting - people having a meaningful choice with regard to nationality. Well, there won't be a lot of room for small countries going forward, that's my conviction, take it as you will. You're either with Russia or against it. If you live in a modern western democracy you should strive to stay there and hope for the best. All of the alternatives end badly. Unless of course you think that Russia wins, in which case you should go live there. I don't mean to denigrate this option necessarily - it's just that freedom of speech is fucking important to me, even in the truncated form that we currently enjoy