: Gideon, my dear chap,: Apparently you are REALLY wound-up this time. Calm down, it's no big deal, only discussion.
Nope. I'm fine. But you're even more off-course than usual.
: : Robert, who defines the term "anarchist"? It comes from the theorists who invented the idea. Any other usage is simply incorrect.
: Gideon, those who have actually lived in real-world anarchy are those who have had continual anxiety and perhaps unceasing threat to their lives during those times.
I said "anarchism" and "anarchist"; not "anarchy"; as did Floyd. Read more carefully in future. Anarchism is a specific term that has nothing to do with violence and very very little to do with the usual public perception of "anarchy". Your terminology is simply incorrect.
: It is one thing to theorise, regardless of the codification of the defined term, and another to live with the ramifications of those actions whether they be intended or otherwise. When anarchy reigned in France, Russia, and Federal Yugoslavia clearly it was not a holiday at Disney World. It was pure terror for those involved.
Actually, Russia and the former Yugoslavia weren't even anarchy; they were acts of war by centralized governments in an effort to eliminate dissenters; countrywide purges.
Ask yourself also why the Slavs were trying to expel the Kosovars?; because they were not Christians; a clear example of the Serbian government using existing Christian bigotry to fuel genocide.
(And the Kosovar Moslems are responding with equal and opposite bigotry in the name of revenge...)
:
: : If you seek to define a term by the gloss that the opponents put on it, then I'm entirely justified in calling you a "genocidal reactionary supremacist bigot", since opponents to Christianity have used those terms (with some justification!) to describe the Christian Church.
: I don't tend to gloss over anything. I (like in the evolutionary debate) always prefer to weigh actual evidence / practice over theoretical speculation.
As long as it's evidence that agrees with your own preconceptions...
: As for name calling, I think you realise by now that I have developed rather thick skin in this regards and the inuendo and smear tactics don't work.
Did I call you names? No. I merely said that if I used your tactics, I would be justified in calling you a bigot. In condemning my turning the tables on you, you are merely condemning your own style of argument; and condemning yourself. Nice one *g*
:
: : So, Robert, if I were to use your own (faulty) logic against you, I would be entirely correct in calling you genocidal (check the last 1800 years of Christian history), bigoted (ditto), narrowminded (ditto) and so on.
: I'm not aware that I've lived for 1800 years. It would be your own faulty logic to hold me responsible for historical events that old.
I'm not aware that Floyd has lived for 200 years. Which makes it just as ludicruous for you to try to imply Floyd's complicity in events in 1793...
:
: : To which, of course, you would respond "oh, but that's not Christianity; it's not what Jesus taught"; so how is Floyd any more responsible for those who have misused the idea of anarchism than you are for those who misused the teachings of Christ?
: Firstly, (and read carefully since I've said this before) the equating of Christ to the mistreatment of people (ie. inquistion, etc.) is the work of man, not God.
(And you still believe the Bible to be infallible?)
: Secondly, It never was my purpose to hold Floyd responsible for any "misuse" of his anarchistic theory. I'm not sure I even understand his theory, to be quite frank.
So why are you trying to rubbish it, if you don't understand it?
It's not just *his* theory, by the way; it's the generally accepted political theory of anarchism.
If you actually have any interest in actually paying attention to the points your opponent is raising, you can find a very good explanation of what anarchism is at the Anarchist FAQ.
If you continue to try and debate anarchism when you don't even understand the subject, you are going to end up looking foolish.
: He asked me (better he demanded of me under the threat of ridicule) to back up my original reply to him with evidence. In a kind reply to his demand I simply provided three anarchistic examples, two historical and one contemporary, to illustrate my understanding.
None of which are anarchism; two of them are/were state-run and the other one was merely revolutionary (which then became a tyrannical state).
: Even you would admit that these examples, however flawed as you view them, are more than anyone else has provided in this thread.
Non sequitur. Blue is a colour. Black is not a colour. Red is also a colour. Therefore Red is more like Blue than Black is. It doesn't follow. There comes a point at which a given example is so remote as to be useless.
Would you say that Islam is more like Christianity than Buddhism is? After all, Moslems revere Jesus. Does that make all Muslims really Christians?
: All other anarchism has been pure textbook theory, not actual practice. You know yourself as a scientist that classroom work is insufficient, field work is necessary. So criticise if you must.
Perfectly true. Governments tend to find anarchism to be repulsive; thus they try to destroy it wherever they find it. As such, large-scale anarchist communities have never existed for long. That doesn't invalidate the theory.
: : Anarchism is not inherently violent. If you define a term by the bias of its opponents, then you belong to a murderous cult. Take the beam out of your own eye, Robert...
: Anarchy itself, however, is terrifying in its violence. Just ask the people who have actually lived through anarchistic times.
Again, this sloppy reading... Anarchism not Anarchy. Say it ten times.
: Moreover, any murderous cult cannot be equated with God, it would solely be the work of man. God says, "Thou shalt not murder".
Uh-huh and how many Christians have been responsible for no deaths at all during their lives?
How many of them have served in armies?
Are you a pacifist, Robert?
Would you turn the other cheek?
I am a pacifist; and I have been a pacifist all of my adult life and half of my teens as well. Because I don't believe in imposing my views on others, whether it be with missionaries or physical compulsion.
It cuts both ways; I will also not accept anyone attempting to force their views on me.
Gideon.
