- Thread starter
- #61
the strange guy
I LOVE ALLAH YOUSE
I'm glad to see nobody objects to this.the strange guy said:WSM is an anarchist movement.
I said that authoritarianism is a binary property, either you believe in it or you don't. Both you and WSM-bot have argued that authority always exists. You both gave examples for when authority is legitimate.the strange guy said:WSM is not anti-authoritarian.
You also said earlier:
'.....The WSM would be situated very close to "Anti-Authoritarianism" on this spectrum, but with the proviso that we only oppose a specific form of authority - this being hierarchical authority.'
'.....I should have been clearer before in explaining that there is NOBODY in this category (Anti-authoritarian).'
Compare this to:
'.....if the WSM is an anarchist organisation, we are also, by definition, anti-authoritarian.'
All you are doing now is jumping hoops and arguing that nobody is truly anti-authoritarian while at the same time believing that you are, in fact, anti-authoritarian (according to Wikipedia). Take a position and stick to it looking for definitions on websites. You don't need a dictionary to know what's inside your heart.
I'm surprised you find this statement to be 'extraordinary'.the strange guy said:When a consensus is reached among its members, the WSM itself can be considered an authority.
WSM-bot:
'...We simply put forward arguments, they only gain authority if a lot of people agree with them and put them into practice.
'...Anarchists, on the other hand, can only succeed in imposing their will if they persuade enough people that it is a desirable course of action.'
'...If we fail to convince enough people that this is an appropriate restriction on their rights, we would soon find ourselves incapable of imposing the restriction.'
The first statement shows that when a consensus is reached, arguments 'gain authority'. The group has now agreed that they may now 'impose their will', 'restrict (people's) rights' and 'impose restrictions'. This is a self-made authority; the WSM has become an authority.
You have said that the above statement is false, yet you believe that in 'limited circumstances this right can legitimately be curbed'. If you have declared the circumstances under which a human being may not speak freely you have not only become an authority, you confirm the above statement, the key word of which is 'universal'. Either all human beings may speak freely or they cannot.the strange guy said:WSM does not consider freedom of speech as a universal right enjoyed by all human beings.
I don't understand how you are unclear about how I came to this conclusion. You said that you don't believe that rights are natural, it is granted by others:the strange guy said:WSM believes that the act of speaking freely is a privilege granted by others.
Headmuzik:
'...the entire concept of "rights" is a human invention, there is nothing "natural" about it... If we were all born with natural "human rights" there would be no need to debate which rights we do or don't have or make attempts to have them protected, they would just exist naturally. Of course they do not, they require a social framework or legislation etc to have any value at all.'
If the right to speak freely requires legislation then it is not natural, it is a privilege granted by others.
It does not matter how many situations the WSM can 'impose its will' and 'restrict the rights' of other people, whether its every day or once a year. The statement holds true even if it only happens once in order to complete a WSM objective.the strange guy said:When a consensus is reached among its members, the WSM can take away this privilege from others.
This statement has not been contested.the strange guy said:WSM believes that diplomacy just isn't enough to gain political goals; violence is sometimes called for.
This statement still holds true.the strange guy said:WSM will use censorship and violence against fascist groups as a way of fighting for its own existence, not to protect minorities.
WSM-bot:
'... We aren't protecting minority groups we're protecting ourselves.'
The WSM can argue over whether their use of violence and censorship is honorable but they will have a harder time proving that my statements are false. I'm aware that WSM-bot and headmuzik are not the same person, but as they are both WSM spokespersons I have quoted both of their posts as from WSM.
I tried to get away from writing huge responses as a way of holding everyone's attention, but sometimes it can't be avoided!