Jump to content

How Ostracizing Could Work In a Free Society.


KINGnoob

Recommended Posts

They probably had guides with rifles and spears but have you ever seen that lion that charges that hunter? Multiple people had rifles there and that guy was a split second away from dying. I kind of wish that lion would have got him though as I believe that was a canned hunt which I really don't agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They probably had guides with rifles and spears but have you ever seen that lion that charges that hunter? Multiple people had rifles there and that guy was a split second away from dying. I kind of wish that lion would have got him though as I believe that was a canned hunt which I really don't agree with.

 

I know there are those isolated instances of danger, it's my opinion that most hunters are in no danger at all. The risk is small to non-existent, IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note on a thread like this. Feel free to discuss, and take whatever point of view you choose on this subject, but keep the talk respectful (not just towards the other people on here, but in general as well). I've already had to delete one extremely out of line post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

And there will always people that will come to her side and suggest that what she did is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She has a hunting show so a lot of what she kills are trophy animals. I'm sure they eat some but I don't know what they do with the extra. I would guess that they don't just throw it away but probably donate it someplace. A lot of the time hunters in Africa are required to give the hide and most of the meat to local tribes. I hunt quite a bit and thought about trying to get there to bow hunt an impala or something but I would never hunt a lion or anything that has a low population.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind hunting if you eat and use what you catch and don't go after endangered species. I don't know enough about the girl or what she does to say anything about her though.

 

Well, we know two things. The first thing we know is that she mercilessly slaughters endangered animals for no reason, unnecessarily wreaking havoc on Mother Earth without regard for her or the generations that will come later . The second thing we know is that she's good-lookin'.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She has a hunting show so a lot of what she kills are trophy animals. I'm sure they eat some but I don't know what they do with the extra. I would guess that they don't just throw it away but probably donate it someplace. A lot of the time hunters in Africa are required to give the hide and most of the meat to local tribes. I hunt quite a bit and thought about trying to get there to bow hunt an impala or something over there but I would never hunt a lion or anything that has a low population.

 

Well then it sounds like I wouldn't have much of a problem with her. I agree with the lion part though no need for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind hunting if you eat and use what you catch and don't go after endangered species. I don't know enough about the girl or what she does to say anything about her though.

 

Well, we know two things. The first thing we know is that she mercilessly slaughters endangered animals for no reason, unnecessarily wreaking havoc on Mother Earth without regard for her or the generations that will come later . The second thing we know is that she's good-lookin'.

 

 

Lol I can't confirm the first, I concur on the second, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

African lions aren't technically an endangered species but I agree that their populations are declining so fast that people shouldn't be hunting them.

 

Maaan you don't even hunt big game breh

 

Disintegrating rabbits with a 12 Guage doesn't count

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Actually your thread title states quite clearly how ostracizing could work and then you fail to show an example of how it could work. You show an example of how it doesn't work so good job on acknowledging the other side of the argument I guess. You are the one at fault here my man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding in many places in Africa with enough money you can be granted permits to hunt pretty much anything you want. The money is supposed to help poor communities. A little while ago there was a story about a US hunter who purchased a permit to hunt an endangered rhino, with the idea the money would go towards rhino conservation. It seems like a strange concept, kill something to save it from being killed.

I have no problem with sustainable hunting as long as you use what you kill responsibly, and in many ways its superior and more responsible than a farmed equivalent. Its also important that people hunt invasive species that damage local ecology. But hunting purely for a trophy kill is extremely distasteful to me, especially when hunting endangered/threatened species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Actually your thread title states quite clearly how ostracizing could work and then you fail to show an example of how it could work. You show an example of how it doesn't work so good job on acknowledging the other side of the argument I guess. You are the one at fault here my man.

 

 

Actually not. What I am showing is that through social media major attention can be brought to controversial topics through ways of free enterprise. Now if you own a business you can choose not do business with her etc. Lots of things you can do to put pressure on things you disagree with. No need for a state.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Actually your thread title states quite clearly how ostracizing could work and then you fail to show an example of how it could work. You show an example of how it doesn't work so good job on acknowledging the other side of the argument I guess. You are the one at fault here my man.

 

 

Actually not. What I am showing is that through social media major attention can be brought to controversial topics through ways of free enterprise. Now if you own a business you can choose not do business with her etc. Lots of things you can do to put pressure on things you disagree with. No need for a state.

 

Actually incorrect as it did not work in this case. If you change your title to accurately address the point you are trying to make I would agree with you, but until then it is rather misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Actually your thread title states quite clearly how ostracizing could work and then you fail to show an example of how it could work. You show an example of how it doesn't work so good job on acknowledging the other side of the argument I guess. You are the one at fault here my man.

 

 

Actually not. What I am showing is that through social media major attention can be brought to controversial topics through ways of free enterprise. Now if you own a business you can choose not do business with her etc. Lots of things you can do to put pressure on things you disagree with. No need for a state.

 

Actually incorrect as it did not work in this case. If you change your title to accurately address the point you are trying to make I would agree with you, but until then it is rather misleading.

 

lmao uhhhh

 

Its just awkward at this point. Agree to disagree dude. haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title says "How ostracizing could work in a free society"

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Your title claims to show how ostracizing would work in a free society but your source does not show how negative media has impacted her whatsoever. I wouldn't make comments about other forum members IQ when your source doesn't even address your cited objective. As a matter of fact, if her behavior was not changed by negative publicity it has actually proved your theory completely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After doing some reading on line, I have found that she is still insistent that her actions were ethical and even cites reasons as to why hunting helps ecologically. Therefore, we can conclude that the media was ineffective in stopping the undesirable behavior and thus some other entity may be required to step in for the betterment of society (if we come to the conclusion that what she is doing is harmful). Therefore the thread title should be changed to "How ostracizing is not effective in a free society and why there is a need for a governing body of elected officials". McMod please change the title immediately, so people are not fooled by this inaccurate thread title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title says "How ostracizing could work in a free society"
She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Your title claims to show how ostracizing would work in a free society but your source does not show how negative media has impacted her whatsoever. I wouldn't make comments about other forum members IQ when your source doesn't even address your cited objective. As a matter of fact, if her behavior was not changed by negative publicity it has actually proved your theory completely wrong.

 

COULD WORK. lol

 

COULD. C, not W.

^

The point is to show how massive attention can be brought to topics without any state involvement. Now the negative attention may not sway her sure. But you could stop doing business with her etc. Lots of things. The point is to get you to think about it. The answer doesnt have to be so silly as creating a coercive immoral entity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title says "How ostracizing could work in a free society"
She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Your title claims to show how ostracizing would work in a free society but your source does not show how negative media has impacted her whatsoever. I wouldn't make comments about other forum members IQ when your source doesn't even address your cited objective. As a matter of fact, if her behavior was not changed by negative publicity it has actually proved your theory completely wrong.

 

COULD WORK. lol

 

COULD. C, not W.

^

The point is to show how massive attention can be brought to topics without any state involvement. Now the negative attention may not sway her sure. But you could stop doing business with her etc. Lots of things. The point is to get you to think about it. The answer doesnt have to be so silly as creating a coercive immoral entity.

 

 

The thing is, everything about this thread's premise only shows that the state would be more effective in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title says "How ostracizing could work in a free society"
She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Your title claims to show how ostracizing would work in a free society but your source does not show how negative media has impacted her whatsoever. I wouldn't make comments about other forum members IQ when your source doesn't even address your cited objective. As a matter of fact, if her behavior was not changed by negative publicity it has actually proved your theory completely wrong.

 

COULD WORK. lol

 

COULD. C, not W.

^

The point is to show how massive attention can be brought to topics without any state involvement. Now the negative attention may not sway her sure. But you could stop doing business with her etc. Lots of things. The point is to get you to think about it. The answer doesnt have to be so silly as creating a coercive immoral entity.

 

 

Attention didn't fix the problem. The fact is that the solution that you depend on for results failed in this situation.

 

In addition, it would be helpful that you stop basing all of your arguments on your narrow moral compass. One day you will learn that morality is subjective and this immoral entity you keep whining about may be completely moral to others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title says "How ostracizing could work in a free society"
She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Your title claims to show how ostracizing would work in a free society but your source does not show how negative media has impacted her whatsoever. I wouldn't make comments about other forum members IQ when your source doesn't even address your cited objective. As a matter of fact, if her behavior was not changed by negative publicity it has actually proved your theory completely wrong.

 

COULD WORK. lol

 

COULD. C, not W.

^

The point is to show how massive attention can be brought to topics without any state involvement. Now the negative attention may not sway her sure. But you could stop doing business with her etc. Lots of things. The point is to get you to think about it. The answer doesnt have to be so silly as creating a coercive immoral entity.

 

 

The thing is, everything about this thread's premise only shows that the state would be more effective in this instance.

 

Holy **** bro. Do you even read my posts? I always read you posts fully before responding or I dont respond. Either show me the same intellectual courtesy or **** off. And this is me assuming you comprehend what you are reading. So please dont bother wasting my time with "I have read them blah blah". You havent read them if this is your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title says "How ostracizing could work in a free society"
She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Your title claims to show how ostracizing would work in a free society but your source does not show how negative media has impacted her whatsoever. I wouldn't make comments about other forum members IQ when your source doesn't even address your cited objective. As a matter of fact, if her behavior was not changed by negative publicity it has actually proved your theory completely wrong.

 

COULD WORK. lol

 

COULD. C, not W.

^

The point is to show how massive attention can be brought to topics without any state involvement. Now the negative attention may not sway her sure. But you could stop doing business with her etc. Lots of things. The point is to get you to think about it. The answer doesnt have to be so silly as creating a coercive immoral entity.

 

 

Attention didn't fix the problem. The fact is that the solution that you depend on for results failed in this situation.

 

In addition, it would be helpful that you stop basing all of your arguments on your narrow moral compass. One day you will learn that morality is subjective and this immoral entity you keep whining about may be completely moral to others.

 

Please just read the response to Chons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title says "How ostracizing could work in a free society"
She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Your title claims to show how ostracizing would work in a free society but your source does not show how negative media has impacted her whatsoever. I wouldn't make comments about other forum members IQ when your source doesn't even address your cited objective. As a matter of fact, if her behavior was not changed by negative publicity it has actually proved your theory completely wrong.

 

COULD WORK. lol

 

COULD. C, not W.

^

The point is to show how massive attention can be brought to topics without any state involvement. Now the negative attention may not sway her sure. But you could stop doing business with her etc. Lots of things. The point is to get you to think about it. The answer doesnt have to be so silly as creating a coercive immoral entity.

 

 

The thing is, everything about this thread's premise only shows that the state would be more effective in this instance.

 

Holy **** bro. Do you even read my posts? I always read you posts fully before responding or I dont respond. Either show me the same intellectual courtesy or **** off. And this is me assuming you comprehend what you are reading. So please dont bother wasting my time with "I have read them blah blah". You havent read them if this is your response.

 

I don't think you read your own posts. Pointing out how things could work but don't actually work in reality is pretty stupid. All you have shown is that ostracizing failed to bring about change, which is what your whole theory is dependent on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title says "How ostracizing could work in a free society"
She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

She never stated that she was going to stop performing the behavior in question, so I guess your example sucks. A lot of people don't give a **** what other people think and will continue doing the behavior anyways.

 

It does make you wonder... Look at Ted Nugent, the haters only drive the guy to go even more over the top.

 

 

This is the IQ thing I was talking about. Maybe my fault because I figured I was having a conversation with people above a 3rd grade level. However, Its obviously implied thats its generalized. Like if I was to say, Jews have curly afros, and you come back with Ive seen lots of Jews with straight hair, its silly right? If I say Asians are short and you come back with I have seen big ****ing Asians, then we are just beating steel. We cant get anywhere because you cant understand basic generalizations. Basic concepts.

 

So, OBVIOUSLY ostracizing is not going to work on all accounts. The SAME exact mother ****ing way the state can not permanently eradicate hunting if it was banned. We still would have poachers correct?

 

So look, if you cant comprehend basic concepts, just dont ****ing post. Why waste your time in the conversation if its above you?

 

 

Your title claims to show how ostracizing would work in a free society but your source does not show how negative media has impacted her whatsoever. I wouldn't make comments about other forum members IQ when your source doesn't even address your cited objective. As a matter of fact, if her behavior was not changed by negative publicity it has actually proved your theory completely wrong.

 

COULD WORK. lol

 

COULD. C, not W.

^

The point is to show how massive attention can be brought to topics without any state involvement. Now the negative attention may not sway her sure. But you could stop doing business with her etc. Lots of things. The point is to get you to think about it. The answer doesnt have to be so silly as creating a coercive immoral entity.

 

 

The thing is, everything about this thread's premise only shows that the state would be more effective in this instance.

 

Holy **** bro. Do you even read my posts? I always read you posts fully before responding or I dont respond. Either show me the same intellectual courtesy or **** off. And this is me assuming you comprehend what you are reading. So please dont bother wasting my time with "I have read them blah blah". You havent read them if this is your response.

 

Say what brah? From the looks of it, the only other person to buy your failure is my split personality, the illogical one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...