Click for something better.
I could easily imagine a world ....
Fantasy.
Don't get me wrong, to each his own.
But no, I think we're done wasting our time on your fantasies. The challenge of having any discussion with you is that there really isn't any discussion to be had compared to you just meandering through your fantasies; you keep changing your story from post to post.
You've gone from
found a solution↑ to what that solution
will be↑ if it is ever found, for instance, and isn't that just
super?
It is one thing that, say, different literary and historical traditions might lead diverse people to competing opinions, outlooks, politics, &c.—
It is not about consenting governed, because the people are governed even without their consent. So this is, essentially, a lie, a trick. I would like to sign such a contract, but I was never asked to sign it.
—but you really do need to take a moment to consider just how poorly you present yourself, here. The first thing is to note the temptation to say I simply don't believe you're that stupid, because the contrast would be that we're actually witnessing something slightly different. If we look at your line as the second in a discursive exchange, the counterpoint to a point and that is all, then we consider one set of functional problems. If, however, we view your line further downstream, such as a third, fourth, or fifth point in an exchange, then it seems somewhat
non sequitur.
That is to say, sure, we get that you abide this dysfunctional, detached, thoughtless, self-centered gaslight definition of social contract, and that is what it is, but it's all just a two-bit distraction, because when we cut through it all we're right back to
your lazy equivocation↑ and the
glaring differences↑ 'twixt social contracts posturing government of and for people, to the one, and social contracts subjecting people to government. Iceaura and I, for all we might fight about particulars, do share
common political aspects↑ fashioned in a society with a direct heritage and explicit foundation in social contract, though it is true I was thinking along a different vector. In this moment, though, what stands out is simply this: Your cynicism versus multiple societies that have survived multiple human lifetimes isn't much of a contest; that you must insist everyone else should abide your fantasies in order that you might pretend to have a point is functionally problematic.
Even still, we encounter a strange phenomenon of conscience, and, yes, it seems to coincide with bigotry, but its weird dimensions are symptomatic of your application. That is, I sometimes wonder at the bigots who resist the label; in this case, it's not even the anti-Americanism. Rather, the underlying antisocial attitudes saturate your presentation; we actually have some scrap of agreement:
So, you could care about the freedoms important to you.
One striking dimension of your presentation is that you really are distilling it for us; when I said the unbelievable argument seemed key, the bit I skipped over was a contrast:
• To the one: There it is. To the other: And?
Maybe I should have used it then, because you just did it again. Furthermore, in noting anime, I forgot sims.
No, really, try this for illustration: If everyone who played
The Sims uploaded their worlds to a massive central server such that anthropologists could analyze the data, what would we see?
All one needs are sufficiently small "states", of the size of a gated community.
There it is.
And?
Your underlying argument is about empowerment, and this is one of those questions when antisociability becomes really, really important, because your underlying argument is also really, really selfish. It's the same thing we hear from Americans who focus on particular "economic justice" arguments seemingly custom-tailored to preclude real justice; for these it is not enough to claim their fair share from the bourgeoisie, but require also its authority to decide for others what constitutes a fair share. If it is, for instance, simply a matter of eating, then it is not enough for some to have a full belly, as they also require others must go hungry. Or, as you put it, to care about the freedoms important to you.
Meanwhile, antihistorical, antisocial empowerment fantasies are fine casual distractions, but they aren't much for logic or rhetoric, and probably have greater value in a context akin to Brown's post-Freudian psychoanalytic meaning of history than as any proposition of rational argument.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/2696371-56a48d4b3df78cf77282efcd.jpg)
