Message from @Whitey
Discord ID: 410437645295157248
the collective is still determining the right sof the individual in this situation
it's not a contract you can bow out of
A collective is a philosophical concept. What matters is not giving such a concept legal power to oppress individuals in such a matter that can't be justified by consent from the start
that feels like you'tre changing the goalposts somewhat. my point was that you have no choice but to live in a collective
you can have degrees of individualism/collectivism
giving birth is immmoral and ultimately colllectivist. A baby can't consent to being born, yet he is forced into the world. Reproduction is many times worse than the holocaust but no one bats an eye when hundreds of millions of babies a violently birthed into the world every year.
An unborn child can neither consent nor refuse to consent so his consent is withheld. If he eventually revokes consent, he should kill himself
is really straying from the topic and is complete crap
saying such a thing is just stupid and you are not taking there discussion seriously
The point is that the individual has certain rights on their property that ensures their saftey from people who wish harm (burgulars and such). However, the collective have a right to be safe as well so they impose some laws that may infringe on peoples indivdualality. THIS is why rape is bad and why growing weed is okay.; weed does little harm and so can be grown on ones property because the collective say so.
I personally believe that john was meaningfully contributing to the discussion by invoking the collectivist implications of reproduction.
NO rape is bad because it violates CONSENT of the INDIVIDUAL.
The individual is what's real. What acts and feels and decides. The collective only exists as a philosophical concept
yet how do people then live in a soicety.
Only the ladder is real
yeah a society isn't a tangible object, either
A society can be reduced to the level of cooperating (or not cooperating in the case of socialist societies) individuals.
When you try to give power to collectivist entities you're really just giving power to certain individuals. Concepts such as the collectivist arise because they help us understand the world around us. But people are inclined to get confused, believing that the collective exists independent of the individual and is entitled to its own rights and powers
Lets just come down for a sec. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6FSh11QPlc
catholics love the collective
Boomer: I HEAR YOURE A RACIST NOW FATHER
that is why they do not believe in contraception
take father ted here
And Catholics also love smashing alterboi rectums
a totally terrible thing
can an anus consent independently of the consciousness of the mind?
the anus is nothing withou the collective body and SHAFT
whose the black sex machine SHAFT
black sex machine can be interpreted as all black people thereby being a collective
even though there are indivduals (SHAFT) they make up a whole body (sex machines)
silence speaks volumes
The collective may be 'created' as you say but it exists becasue people act like one.
Another example from the ever on top of Father Ted
He offends Asians, which then results in all asians on the island taking offence. Therby acting as a collective and being imune to what a lite joke, also showing that collectives can have similar traits like being humourless unless and the 'whites' expence (see bar scene in same episode)
It's still individuals taking offense. It's also not that irrational if ted is insulting traits that they all share or denigrating all people who belong to that group
"A society can be reduced to the level of cooperating (or not cooperating in the case of socialist societies) individuals."
so if a group of cooperating individuals choose to suspend the rights of a non-cooperating individual...? 🤔