Conversation

Notices

  1. Quickly, I need something to carve into a tree for a background gag.

    Tuesday, 06-Nov-12 23:13:08 UTC from web
    1. @zeldatra "anarchy rules" with the anarchy symbol for an A

      Tuesday, 06-Nov-12 23:13:55 UTC from MuSTArDroid
      1. @abigpony the funny thing about anarchy having a symbol is that by giving anarchy a symbol, that gives it an order and therefore it is no longer anarchy.

        Tuesday, 06-Nov-12 23:15:22 UTC from web
        1. @derpy128 anarchy is lack of central leadership. Until the symbol is used as a source of leadership, it's just a symbol that represents the ideology.

          Tuesday, 06-Nov-12 23:36:22 UTC from MuSTArDroid
          1. @abigpony yes, but a true anarchy has no rules, and therefore it can not have a symbol.

            Tuesday, 06-Nov-12 23:37:52 UTC from web
            1. @derpy128 A symbol isn't a rule

              Tuesday, 06-Nov-12 23:39:25 UTC from MuSTArDroid
              1. @abigpony i symbol implies that it has some form or structure. anarchy has none of those.

                Tuesday, 06-Nov-12 23:40:23 UTC from web
                1. @derpy128 anarchy has a single structure consisting of the all as opposed to the few as other political structures are. A symbol may be used to unify, but it shows nothing of a leadership. It's not a rule to use it either.

                  Tuesday, 06-Nov-12 23:44:31 UTC from MuSTArDroid
                  1. @abigpony the definition of anarchy is the lack of government or structure whatsoever, so therefore your argument makes no sense. i think what you described there is Libertarianism.

                    Wednesday, 07-Nov-12 00:08:38 UTC from web
                    1. @derpy128 anarchy is "the lack of publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority." by promoting self-governing, it creates a state ruled by the whole of the individuals involved. Unorganized "chaos". It lacks structure, but by lacking structure, it creates a structure. A complete lack of structure theoretically impossible.

                      Wednesday, 07-Nov-12 00:35:05 UTC from MuSTArDroid
                      1. @abigpony so what you are talking about is Libertarianism.

                        Wednesday, 07-Nov-12 00:36:26 UTC from web
                        1. @derpy128 no

                          Wednesday, 07-Nov-12 00:49:08 UTC from MuSTArDroid
                          1. @abigpony :P

                            Wednesday, 07-Nov-12 00:49:40 UTC from web
                      2. @abigpony Wait, you mean it's more than kids in ripped jeans and funny hairstyles complaining about the principal's office!?

                        Wednesday, 07-Nov-12 00:37:05 UTC from web
                        1. @scribus with anarchism, THERE ARE NO PRINCIPALS!

                          Wednesday, 07-Nov-12 00:39:02 UTC from MuSTArDroid
                          1. @abigpony yes, but in your definition of anarchy the principals could be the self appointed government people.

                            Wednesday, 07-Nov-12 00:42:17 UTC from web
                            1. @derpy128 it was really a joke, but not really. Anarchism has no positions, no centralized structure for things like education and whatnot. A principal would imply leadership over another individual wherein it would become a void role.

                              Wednesday, 07-Nov-12 00:51:05 UTC from MuSTArDroid
      2. @abigpony @derpy128 and therefore a true anarchy sign is an ambiguous squiggle.

        Tuesday, 06-Nov-12 23:16:21 UTC from web