<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> Removed Asdrubal#6951 from Deported

**@Asdrubal** has been detained.

What?

I made a serious comment reffering to the man

Shut it, do not try to defend yourself.

It's pretty obvious that this conversation, no matter its length, does not belong in this channel.

To be completely honest I overlooked the fact that this is serious because of how unseriois that post was

Present an argument against the state @arandomfrog

People have rights (to their bodies, to free association, to speech, to property, etc.) independent of the state.

The state, by its nature, violates at least some of these rights (property, association, bodily autonomy, etc.).

Violating these rights is never permissible.

No state is legitimate.

"People have rights (to their bodies, to free association, to speech, to property, etc.) independent of the state." Justify this

Aww you already ran away? @arandomfrog

shame, i didn't even present an argument against your position, merely asked you to justify your core premise

arandomfrog has been detained for spamming in <#587015719141507102>.

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***ofvo#8313 has been warned., No adhom or insults in <#587028275918929925>***

OwO

@Sentient23 if you wanna debate, agree to be respectful and to not just mock me, alright? I want this debate to be respectful

I’ve talked with too many toxic people online and I don’t want to do so again

This is literally <#587028275918929925>

Insults and disrespect are not allowed.

"First, most crimes are related to money, so with the abolition of money, a lot of crimes wouldn’t exist anymore."

You cannot abolish money. Money is a medium of exchange. There will always be a medium of exchange because that's the most efficient way to trade

"There would be a non-official voluntary militia for that kind of things (and for army). And it isn’t a proper hierarchy because the militia isn’t « official »; it’s just people who voluntarily accept to help people in danger, or does not have any more power, since anyone could join that non-official militia"

The militia not being "official" (whatever that means) does not preclude the presence of a hierarchy. A hierarchy does not need to be proclaimed by someone in order for X to be hierarchical. We observe and analyze X, and based on the state of X we can deduce whether there's hierarchy present or not

In the instance of a non official militia, it would involve hierarchy because people need to be re arranged into their respective fields. You cannot put a guy who's 6'7 into a field which orients around being quiet and not being seen. Nor can you put a guy who has 60 iq in charge of planning operations. Who would plan operations? It would be democratically chosen? That's stupid because you're giving the ability of something which necessitates some form of high up knowledge, to brainlets. If you reject this, then your militia would and will get obliterated, which then transforms the argument from a theoretical one to a pragmatic one

“*You cannot abolish money. Money is a medium of exchange. There will always be a medium of exchange because that’s the most efficient way to trade.*”
You think we always had money? Of course money can be abolished! Why couldn’t it? It’s a medium of exchange, and the most efficient one? Sure, but I don’t support trades, so how can’t money be abolished? There’s no proper argument there.

“*The militia not being official does not preclude the presence of hierarchy*”
True, but the fact that literally anybody can do that militia role does. I’ll clarify my militia a bit. Anybody could join it anytime and be given the role they’re best at. **They do not have more power than others** since almost **anybody can join it**.

I’ll answer your last argument in the next message, just wait two seconds

Please next time type out the whole message without typing out 2 sentences per minute

If it cant fit, just do it in notepad and copy the messages gradually

> You cannot put a guy who's 6'7 into a field which orients around being quiet and not being seen. Nor can you put a guy who has 60 iq in charge of planning operations. Who would plan operations? It would be democratically chosen? That's stupid because you're giving the ability of something which necessitates some form of high up knowledge, to brainlets. If you reject this, then your militia would and will get obliterated, which then transforms the argument from a theoretical one to a pragmatic one
@Sentient23
Yeah, you can’t give a tall guy the role to hide and be quiet, true.. but let’s remind ourselves the definition of hierarchy; *”any system of persons or things ranked one above another.”* The short guy who will do the job that requires to be quiet doesn’t have any more power or influence than the tall guy. It’s two different roles, true, but one does not have more power than the other, so it is not a hierarchy. Now the operation argument: well first I don’t really see which kind of operation you are talking about but I’ll answer nevertheless. Of course, the smarter guys would create the strategy, but before just sending troops go fight when they don’t even know what they’re doing, the soldiers will have their say in the plan (doesn’t mean they create the plan, but they can express their opinion on it). Yet, it does not create a hierarchy because of a few reasons; first, soldiers are free to leave the non official militia, so it is completely voluntary - soldiers who obey “orders” do it because they want to, which means it doesn’t give any true power to the planner; second, when the smarter guy shows the plan to soldiers, the soldiers will agree with the plan or not, and if they don’t, they’ll be able to seriously suggest changes, which the planned will be forced to *at least* consider (and the idiots won’t have the interest to suggest smarter plans).

Anyways I should go now

You can answer tho

I might come back later

See you

Yes we've always had a medium of exchange
You're opposed to trading????? What? How would you help your community if you've forbidden trading
When your militias raid something for supplies, them supplying it to the village would be trading.
It can't be abolished because if trades exist, a medium of exchange will always inevitably come into being. I want eggs from the militia, the eggs they've gathered by raiding an oppossing faction, I want 10 eggs, but there's only 20 eggs, and there's 20 other people, it would be rational to redistribute 1 egg for each person, but i want 10 eggs. How would that be resolved without invoking hierarchy? what if i propose that i give the militia my 3 chickens to redistribute to the rest for their 10 eggs, but they don't want chicken they want apples. So it would be much more rational to agree upon a medium of exchange which could be used as a thing who's purpose is just to be that which enables indirect exchange. It is a proper argument

So you've changed your notion of how militias would function. That's fine. "and be given the role they’re best at" THIS part is crucial here, because by virtue of one person assigning people roles in reference to their abilities, you're invoking hierarchy, since the person applying doesn't get to pick them themselves. "almost anybody can join it." Almost? Almost anybody could join it? Who gets to decide the criteria of who can be allowed in the military and who can't? It cannot be dictatorial, since that invokes hierarchy. It also cannot be democratic, since that also invokes hierarchy since 10 people voting Yes on X proposition of criteria, but one people voting No, would mean that X would still be passed, and thus you're invoking hierarchy since those "10" people have more power of decision making than that 1 person.

You completely misinterpreted my argument. My argument is not about "person X gets role 1 therefore person X has more power over person Y" That's not the argument at all. The decision making which takes place which determines which person should get the role necessitates hierarchy. Since it would either be 1. Monarchical (one person deciding for the rest) or democratic (everyone getting a say and voting)
I suppose you would be for the latter. That would still invoke hierarchy, since there's two alternatives to invoking democracy in decision making. 1. Either your standard for what constitutes a proposition being passed is EVERYONE agreeing on it, or 2. Your standard is MAJORITY agreeing of it
If its the former, no one will agree on anything, since people have different beliefs all the time. Especially if a person is well versed in military training and strategical planning. If its the latter, then that invokes hierarchy since its X Y and Z, having more power than person H.

The knowledge of the specific operation isn't relevant since there's always a reoccuring pattern in strategical operations.

"Of course, the smarter guys would create the strategy, but before just sending troops go fight when they don’t even know what they’re doing, the soldiers will have their say in the plan" Well this is just ridiculous. This would bring about the full destruction of your operation. Explain to me, would a strategical operation be more effective if only those well versed in strategical training decide how to go about doing the operation, or would it be more efficient if low iqs also got their say in the plan? Unless you're willing to sacrafice efficiency for your theretical belief that hierarchy is bad, you can't evade this problem. If you are however willing to sacrafice efficiency for your theoretical beliefs that hierarchy is bad, then you won't get to sustain the absence of a hierarchy, since a hierarchical militia from faction Y will and would obliterate you. And if that's the case, you've proven anarchy to be contradictory since anarchy in its full pure form, would bring about the antithesis of anarchy.
It being voluntary does not preclude the presence of a hierarchy.... I can voluntarily assign myself to X which is hierarchical, but what determines wheter there's hierarchy in X, is whether or not some people have more power in decision making than me

@Philippe

gommunism

Anarchists in serious chat is an interesting development

Okay, this post above is unironically ridiculous. Misinformation on the subject is rampant. Just as the number of people and countries affected by this new virus have spread, so have conspiracy theories and unfounded claims about it. Already social media sites, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok, have seen a number of false and misleading posts about 2019-nCoV, such as:

“Oregano Oil Proves Effective Against Coronavirus,” an unfounded claim, with no solid, confirmed proof.

a hoax stating that the US government had created and patented a vaccine for coronavirus years ago, shared with nearly 5,000 Facebook users

a false claim that “coronavirus is a human-made virus in the laboratory”

sales of unproven “nonmedical immune boosters” to help people ward off 2019-nCoV

unfounded recommendations to prevent infection by taking vitamin C and avoiding spicy foods

a video with useless advice about preventing 2019-nCoV by modifying your diet (for example, by avoiding cold drinks, milkshakes, or ice cream). This video, which demonstrates the removal of a parasitic worm from a person’s lip, is many years old and has nothing to do with 2019-nCoV.

The one sole problem with coronavirus is how quickly it's spread. It has a lower death rate than the common flu, and only old people are in danger.

I would go in depth and argue about every single point this irrelevant guy, who most probably has no medical experience or training, but it's useless, really. Just misinformation.

All of that is irrelevant

To what i posted

If you can rebut each point presented in the paper, rebut it

I was not talking to you, I was speaking about the coronavirus generally. I also do not have the time to rebut these ridiculous statements either, but I should remind you, that by the will of the staff team, you and I are not to engage in any political debates or conversations in general without their permission.