Anarchy is not necessarily a crime, it is a simple point of view, in that our governing body is unstable, Old, Corrupted or useless. The want for freedom is the same idea, we are all born to do as we please in life, but we are pressured to abide the 'common way of thinking'. We are told at a young age that to want something is selfish and bad. However that is just brainwashing.
Desire can lead to suffering. Sometimes the more you want things, the less you feel like you have. Parents telling us to do things which will fit in with society tends to shape society, it doesn't just work the other way around. A parent will tell a child off for shouting and stuff because it is annoying and this shapes societies view of shouting in public for no reason. We are being brainwashed out of convenience by normal people rather than to help us got into a society we disagree with. We often comply naturally without pressurisation in order to gain social advantages or simply because it is human nature. People who spend time together tend to become more like each other in terms of personality as they can pick up certain repetitive traits from their companion. This probably won't happen if the individuals are not so confident and outgoing (and less charismatic maybe) but it is still part of human nature to imitate others.
I am bit saying that humanity is evolved to be lead without freedom of their own, just that compliance isn't unnatural.
I am bit saying that humanity is evolved to be lead without freedom of their own, just that compliance isn't unnatural.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by protonitron
So how oppressive (and freedom limiting) a system is can entirely depend on the attitudes of the individuals in the hands of the system rather than what the system does? Or do you mean that the system should change entirely to fit those within it so that it can work with all its members to allow them to do what they want to do?
That isn't one of the real problems with the system.
Originally Posted by protonitron
But shouldn't people be allowed to think what others have told them and then infer these thoughts onto others? I assume that what they think started off as belonging to someone who did think for themselves and their purpose to carry the message to those who can critically analyse it themselves is subsequently important. Just because a thought being presented is not presented by the original thinker doesn't necessarily mean that it is any less relevant to any conversation. Or am I reading too far into your word choice?
I was talking about people that don't want to think for themselves.
I put that in brackets for a reason.
Originally Posted by protonitron
I feel like the fact that ImmortalPig infers that he is arguing a view he does not hold himself and the fact that you say the arguments of people who just recycle other peoples thought/views rather than arguing their own are not relevant to the conversation contradict the fact that you think we should listen to ImmortalPig talking about thoughts he does not necessarily think are right himself.
This paragraph was a bit stupid.
You don't need to believe something to argue for it, ever heard of a lawyer?
Originally Posted by Oizys
Anarchy is not necessarily a crime, it is a simple point of view, in that our governing body is unstable, Old, Corrupted or useless. The want for freedom is the same idea, we are all born to do as we please in life, but we are pressured to abide the 'common way of thinking'. We are told at a young age that to want something is selfish and bad. However that is just brainwashing.
Read some of the comments before you post and sound like a complete mongoloid.
