What Is Anarchy??

TheBrutalTruth said:

One day we'll evolve into a peaceful species

That's the day when Pigs (the animal) will fly...

And vegetarianism has been proven to be more likely to result in horrible health problems than being omnivorous.

Man was designed with canines and molars for tearing meat, because believe it or not, we require meat to survive.

It is nigh on impossible to get all the proteins that we require from local sources, and that is why we have to eat meat. It is more difficult for us to extract some proteins from plant life than from animal life where it's been preprocessed for us. In some cases the previous is impossible with certain required proteins.

Vegetarianism is worse than any mystical mumbo-jumbo believing religion in that it is a specific rejection of what science has taught us.

Any one that is a Vegetarian is also a worse polluter than any non vegetarian because unlike a non-vegetarian not all of their diet can be grown locally.

Click to expand...

man, You really need to do some research. haha I dont know where you've been getting all this info from, but your sorely mistaken. LET ME SPELL THIS OUT FOR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR SO YOU, YES YOU, CAN UNDERSTAND THIS...SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THAT VEGETABLES ARE BETTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. END OF FUCKING STORY. IT IS HEALTHIER, and HAS LESS HARMFUL CHEMICALS IN THEM THAN YOUR PROCESSED MYSTERIOUS BEDROOM BEEF... haha alot has changed in science since the 50's buddy, try updating you encyclopedias or whatever obsolete sorce of info your using.

I'll trust my nutritionist over .org and .com websites. Got government studies or an actual published paper in a respectable and well-known medical journal that I can look at? None of those sites you mention list any known medical journal studies.

Yes, meat is easier for us to digest. Your stomach acids break down non-cellulose material FAR better and cellulose matter. If plants were easier to digest then our stool wouldn't be comprised of primarily cellulose matter, and in fact we would have more liquid stool.

No matter what, you're still slapping nature in the face for the way she currently designed you.

Musical Suicide said:

man, You really need to do some research. haha I dont know where you've been getting all this info from, but your sorely mistaken. LET ME SPELL THIS OUT FOR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR SO YOU, YES YOU, CAN UNDERSTAND THIS...SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THAT VEGETABLES ARE BETTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. END OF FUCKING STORY. IT IS HEALTHIER, and HAS LESS HARMFUL CHEMICALS IN THEM THAN YOUR PROCESSED MYSTERIOUS BEDROOM BEEF... haha alot has changed in science since the 50's buddy, try updating you encyclopedias or whatever obsolete sorce of info your using.

Click to expand...

Or how about you go your own way, and I'll go mine.

My choice is to eat meat, and not have to worry about where I'm going to get B12 from, because imo it is more unnatural to have to pop a pill for it than to get it from doing what humanity has historically done, eating meat.

More ironic, would be if you are a half-vegan, one of those hypocrites who eat the unborn of chickens (eggs) and drink the milk. You're views then are subject to a logical fallacy whereas you are advocating that animals be kept in slavery instead of being killed.

Though in fact you are also doing just that, killing animals. For with out the demand for eggs then there would be no need to enslave the hens to produce those unfertilized eggs and to prevent them from mating.

Tell me how would you feel if some one forcefully kept you from having sex despite you being insanely horny like those hens must feel every time they'd be ready to mate but are prevented from doing so?

Better yet, don't bother, I don't feel like wasting my time continuing this discussion.

You go your way

and I'll go mine

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

So tell before you accuse me of "slapping mother nature"haha, Tell that bitch to stop making me sick when I eat animal products, and making my shit hurt when I eat meat.

GrowTech said:

a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Click to expand...

Wrong. Thats not what it means. You need to look at the roots of the words not what some egg headed mother fucker decides to determine its meaning and slander the good name of Anarchy. Thats a recent term to associate anarchy with chaos while its exactly the opposite.

Heres the REAL definition:
1530&#8211;40; (< MF anarchie or ML anarchia) < Gk, anarchía lawlessness, lit., lack of a leader, equiv. to ánarch(os) leaderless (an- an-1 + arch(ós) leader + -os adj. suffix)

Lack of leader, nothing about chaos

Ill I have to say is 1936 Barcelona, Spain; Pre-Soviet Intervention

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

Dead wrong. Every land mammal, species of bird, and even some snakes have keratin outgrowths. If I let my thick nails grow out, and I sharpened them in the fashion that a cat did, I guarantee I would cut you if I swiped at you and made contact. We keep our claws blunt.

SLOTH = HERBIVORE = HAS CLAWS.

Did you pay attention to anatomy or biology in high school?

you guys are all missing the underlying factor. we are what WE eat, cows are what they eat, so we are what a cow eats if we eat cows....

Cows were meant to eat grass. cows weren't designed to consume...

A. corn
B. steroid hormone injections
C. growth hormone injections
D. recumbant bovine growth hormone injections
E. a list of antibiotics
F. AAALLLLLL of the above

Most commercial feed-lots feed cows corn- the cheapest, most widely-produced (legal) bullshit crop in america

Cows possess rumens...45-gallon "tanks" designed to convert healthy fatty acids to lean, digestable proteins

70% of commercial, corn-fed cows develop pnemmonia @ the time of slaughter due to gastro-intestinal disease caused by eating CORN


It's not red meat that causes heart disease...it's the conventional, CHEAP way that we raise and feed cattle, which increases your likelihood of heart disease, cuz...

Has anybody tasted a grass-fed steak or burger before? EXPLAIN to the audience how much diff it tastes

the grass fed beef I purchased had far less than 1/5th the saturated fat that commerical beef has...and it was ground hamburg.

it had 1 GRAM of saturated fat

now think about that before you look at these twisted "facts" about beef causing heart disease...i gaurantee you the studies weren't conducted using grass-fed, natural beef

budsmoker87 said:

you guys are all missing the underlying factor. we are what WE eat, cows are what they eat, so we are what a cow eats if we eat cows....

Cows were meant to eat grass. cows weren't designed to consume...

A. corn
B. steroid hormone injections
C. growth hormone injections
D. recumbant bovine growth hormone injections
E. a list of antibiotics
F. AAALLLLLL of the above

Most commercial feed-lots feed cows corn- the cheapest, most widely-produced (legal) bullshit crop in america

Cows possess rumens...45-gallon "tanks" designed to convert healthy fatty acids to lean, digestable proteins

70% of commercial, corn-fed cows develop pnemmonia @ the time of slaughter due to gastro-intestinal disease caused by eating CORN


It's not red meat that causes heart disease...it's the conventional, CHEAP way that we raise and feed cattle, which increases your likelihood of heart disease, cuz...

Has anybody tasted a grass-fed steak or burger before? EXPLAIN to the audience how much diff it tastes

the grass fed beef I purchased had far less than 1/5th the saturated fat that commerical beef has...and it was ground hamburg.

it had 1 GRAM of saturated fat

now think about that before you look at these twisted "facts" about beef causing heart disease...i gaurantee you the studies weren't conducted using grass-fed, natural beef

Click to expand...

And the truth shall set you free!

NorthwestBuds said:

And the truth shall set you free!

Click to expand...

yes, so being 95% of the meat consumers buy cheap meat, and being vegetarian is always healty, this just proves that it is easier to stay healthy as a vegetarian... especially in the long run.

KaliKitsune said:

I'll trust my nutritionist over .org and .com websites. Got government studies or an actual published paper in a respectable and well-known medical journal that I can look at? None of those sites you mention list any known medical journal studies.

Yes, meat is easier for us to digest. Your stomach acids break down non-cellulose material FAR better and cellulose matter. If plants were easier to digest then our stool wouldn't be comprised of primarily cellulose matter, and in fact we would have more liquid stool.

No matter what, you're still slapping nature in the face for the way she currently designed you.

Click to expand...

i AM a nutritionist and you might want to ask your nutritionist if plant-cellulose (fiber) IS digested.

it's not digested. not at all...it passes through the body untouched and its importance in our body is to...

A. clear the digestive tract of residues, harmful bacteria or toxins
B. soften stool to relieve constipation

I mistyped. "FAR better and cellulose" should be "FAR better THAN cellulose."

Yay for pot!

KaliKitsune said:

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

Dead wrong. Every land mammal, species of bird, and even some snakes have keratin outgrowths. If I let my thick nails grow out, and I sharpened them in the fashion that a cat did, I guarantee I would cut you if I swiped at you and made contact. We keep our claws blunt.

SLOTH = HERBIVORE = HAS CLAWS.

Did you pay attention to anatomy or biology in high school?

Click to expand...

SLOTH=TREE DWELLER=Needs claws to live in the trees so it doesnt get eaten.


Yes I did pay attention, when I wasnt dead tired from working full time to pay rent... but your just reaching dude. Humans have nails, not claws. Technically, a nail is similar to a claw, but with a curved edge. A nail that is big enough to bear weight is called a ‘HOOF.’ (so it would hurt if you grew your nail out, but you wouldnt cut me tought guy.) havent you seen the longest nails in the world, not very scary. True claws — found in reptiles, birds, and mammals — consist of a dorsal scalelike plate (unguis) covering a ventral plate (subunguis), the whole capping the bony tip of a digit. Nails—found only in mammals—consist of a broad and flattened unguis, with the subunguis reduced to a vestige under the outer tip.
Much like the tail, the claw in apes was no longer necessary as other appendages evolved better so claws disappeared over a period of time. Just another sign that we were supposed to stop eating meat. But hey, if you want to kill life when you dont have too, and kill yourself along the way, nice and slowly till your fatt ass has a heart-attack when your 50, be my guest.

Also, try learning some things since you graduated, if you did. I know I have learned way may since I graduated High school.

"SLOTH=TREE DWELLER=Needs claws to live in the trees so it doesnt get eaten."

That's the lamest attempt at turning around a point I've ever seen. You stated:

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

as if it were an ABSOLUTE FACT. It is not. Koala = herbivore = has claws.

By the way, I saw where you got that source from. I typed in herbivores with claws and the first two links give me you're little quote there plus some other hilarious ignorant bullshit. Here, let me show you some of it:

"Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue Herbivores: perspire through skin pores Humans: perspire through skin pores"

Meat eaters, like cats and dogs, perspire through pores on the nose and ears, which is also SKIN. You sir, have been busted.

http://www.google.com/search?q=herbivores+with+claws&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I like how they all repeat themselves and reference each other, but never a scientific study to back up their claims. They even copy and paste each other and just slap it on their blogs.

Anything you say is not to be taken seriously, from now on. You are uneducated. You rely upon non-credible sources that do not cite real peer-reviewed material.

Um, yes. I study everything. I'm a slashdotter it's practically my fucking job description. All I do is read educational journals and tech manuals and articles all day long, I'm like fucking Scotty from Star Trek. You want to try getting into anthropology, here's a lesson for ya. Our fingernails are there PRECISELY to support pressure upon our fingers, to help us grip things.

" A nail that is big enough to bear weight is called a &#8216;HOOF.&#8217;"

Do you know the difference between digitgrade and plantigrade walking? Quite a bit of weight in a cat is supported on the claws when it walks, with a bit going to the toepads for a little extra surface area to keep stable. We don't call a cat's claws hooves even though it does end up supporting the majority of a cat's weight while the cat is in motion.

"But hey, if you want to kill life when you dont have too, and kill yourself along the way, nice and slowly till your fatt ass has a heart-attack when your 50, be my guest."

Wow, yet another unfactual statement with more opinion and spite in it than information. Besides having metal in my body from an accident, my physique couldn't be any better. See, I exercise as well. I have one compact muscle structure attached to a six foot tal frame. The only downside of being an ectomorph is I have to work in order to build large muscles, but my natural muscle system is in great condition without ever needing to work out. I maintain about 2.5% body fat. I *TRY* to gain weight and I can't, which is a bitch due to my right leg having some atrophy from my accident two years ago.

I don't see how you've learned your way since you graduated high school. I don't think you actually graduated, you just got a GED.

ilkhan said:

Ok, let me get this straight.
You want Direct Democracy
and No Private Property.

So lets theorize for a moment.
Lets say I work to restore a P51, I spend thousands of hours working on it.
But I have no private property rights to it.
So you and some friends waltz on down to the airport and
deside your going to take her for a few laps around the airport.
I say "no your not" we have a vote. You and your buddies win.
And you take the plane.

Do you see how this might cause a problem?
Do you see how I might have to shoot you?

Your theory of freedom is very diffrent from mine.
I want private property rights.
I want those rights protected.
That is why we have Government to protect our rights.
Who would protect the rights of the individual in your world?
the Majority? Don't make me lauph.

Click to expand...

Under an anarcho-syndicalist society that P51 would belong to you. That would be considered personal property. Hell, that's even considered personal movable property now. That was a bad example.

budsmoker87 said:

well i agree with you here- anarchy sounds awesome- i'm just questioning the feasability of this system.

as far as the "beauty" standard, I didn't even define beauty but it most-likely elicited some sort of image in your head. After all, we learn what's considered beautiful from other people, right? times change, fashion changes, and ideals of beauty change, but the fact we're influenced never does. So you misread me, and I agree with you here- beauty IS undefined, but it's learned. And if it's learned, you can betchur ass, in general of course, that we'll compete for beauty, however it may be defined in large-scale, to many people, @ a given point in time. it's the theory of zeitgeist and i gotta give it credit.


hmmm I do suppose if somebody does any wrong-doing (suppose a man rapes your wife or steals your belongings)...then under anarchy, murder or torture doesn't constitute punishment unless, of course, retaliation occurs. that itself should be enough to keep people in-line. so why the need for a middle-man (gov't) to inflict punishment on people? he's profiting from it anyway. anarchy would work just as well as any other form of gov't when it comes to grounding social and civil order.

However, I do believe that the human condition doesn't permit anarchy as equality at all. It doesn't matter that we're human and able to understand our need for dominance. It will exist anyway. it doesnt make us "bad people" it makes us human, just another species.

so unless you can influence (control) people to all adhere to the same belief (that money/laziness/exploitation of others for personal gain) does no good for them nor anybody else, then anarchy wouldn't be possible. to an extent, people do chose to be influenced, but only by the choices of influence provided.

we all have influences- unconscious or conscious ideologies which influence our behavior. that is why i feel anarchy, wonderful an idea as it is, couldn't exist

do u know what i mean...does it make sense the way i explained?

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense. Participation within a mutualist or collectivist society would be largely voluntary. There wouldn't be direct control in that regard.

Yay! the wobblies are here!

john.roberts85 said:

It doesn't make sense. Participation within a mutualist or collectivist society would be largely voluntary. There wouldn't be direct control in that regard.

Click to expand...

Pure Capitalism is the only true anarchist system.

Anarchy, being a completely voluntary society will allow for any form of organization possible. There will not be a government, per se, but there will likely be corporations that fulfill the role of government bodies. Such as companies/proprietorships that provide public services such as transportation systems and their maintenance, contract enforcement, crime protection, etc.

To argue that there will not be such thing as corporations because "they are not voluntary" is ignorant of the fact that while an unskilled person working at mcdonalds may not think their job is not voluntary it is.

At any time they feel like it they can attempt to start their own proprietorship. There is nothing stopping them from coming up with a business plan, determine where they want to put their location, or what they want to do, and doing it.

Well, except being paralyzed by fear, or perhaps being loyal to their employer (for some strange reason.)

Yes, they might have a spouse and children, but if they are going to let that stop them, then they can not complain that they are being forced to work at the corporation by "the corporation or society." It was their choices that lead to them being stuck in their current position.

Failure to accept self-responsibility is the symbol of a child. Like a child people that seek to blame other people or entities for their problems are acting in an immature, irresponsible fashion.

This of course ties in to where I pointed out that any time they can give up modern conveniences and return to a primitive state (if they can find wilderness in which to do it.)

Capitalism is voluntary? I dont think so. In capitalism, I dont think anyone likes to work their dead end jobs with no real value to society. The only reason people work are because that is their right. Their right to submit or to die. You cant do anything in this society where all the factors of production, modes, capital etc is controlled by a small minority

TheBrutalTruth said:

Pure Capitalism is the only true anarchist system.

Anarchy, being a completely voluntary society will allow for any form of organization possible. There will not be a government, per se, but there will likely be corporations that fulfill the role of government bodies. Such as companies/proprietorships that provide public services such as transportation systems and their maintenance, contract enforcement, crime protection, etc.

To argue that there will not be such thing as corporations because "they are not voluntary" is ignorant of the fact that while an unskilled person working at mcdonalds may not think their job is not voluntary it is.

At any time they feel like it they can attempt to start their own proprietorship. There is nothing stopping them from coming up with a business plan, determine where they want to put their location, or what they want to do, and doing it.

Well, except being paralyzed by fear, or perhaps being loyal to their employer (for some strange reason.)

Yes, they might have a spouse and children, but if they are going to let that stop them, then they can not complain that they are being forced to work at the corporation by "the corporation or society." It was their choices that lead to them being stuck in their current position.

Failure to accept self-responsibility is the symbol of a child. Like a child people that seek to blame other people or entities for their problems are acting in an immature, irresponsible fashion.

This of course ties in to where I pointed out that any time they can give up modern conveniences and return to a primitive state (if they can find wilderness in which to do it.)

Click to expand...

Don't dare pass of your bullshit anarcho-capitalism as true or pure anarchism to me. Pick up Proudhon or Bakunin and then get back to me. Your types have already ruined the word libertarian, why start in on anarchism now?

john.roberts85 said:

Don't dare pass of your bullshit anarcho-capitalism as true or pure anarchism to me. Pick up Proudhon or Bakunin and then get back to me. Your types have already ruined the word libertarian, why start in on anarchism now?

Click to expand...

What, are you arguing that I would not be free to work for some one else if that is what I wished?

Are you arguing that under your society I would be EVEN LESS FREE THAN I AM NOW?

Then you sir, are nothing more than a Socialist Piece of shit, do not ruin Anarchy by stating that it would be a collective.

Anarchy - With out leader, or with out government.

Your Anarcho-Socialism/Anarcho-Syndicalism is bullshit that fails to account that if people are truly free then they will be able to do whatever they want, organize however they want, and thus you will see a wide range of organizations ranging from Entrepreneurship, through varying forms of Partnerships to Corporations.

Your lack of critical thinking is exposed by your fallacious views, you sir are nothing more than a socialist.