Borders Thread

For every anarchist, socialist, or generally Leftist thread I find on /r/, I will make a conservative thread in response. How can a nation define itself as a nation without borders? Is it even a nation at all, without borders? Everything which exists and can be individually defined in life has borders, so allow me to compile a list of the following examples: 1. Your house, or home has borders. 2. Your very body, physically, has a border, which is referred to as "personal space". 3. Your very being, both physically and metaphysically, has a border, which any person, not just Conservatives, tends to define as their set of rights, whether human, legal, or otherwise. 4. Even the smallest microbes, contained within all living things, have cellular walls to define their personal borders and strengthen their various structures and components. 5. Even supposedly decentralized communities on the Wired have borders, contrary to the traditional popular belief and myth that the idea of the "internet" is a humanist paradise. 6. Even lainchan.jp has borders, which they define as the set of beliefs that does not include Appleman's methods of moderation and ownership. 7. Even the simplest animals, predatory or otherwise, have borders, which define their behavior at any point in time, depending on how far another being has encroached on their border. 8. Even words have borders. In the English language, there is a space between each set of letters to define it. Even each point I make in my discourse lives on its own, within a number - a border. 9. Even education, knowledge, and information has borders. We cannot learn without classifying independent parts of the whole, and we cannot disseminate information without the use of packets. 10. Even evolution has a border, for all living things will eventually die. Including you, who will find himself or herself elsewhere in less than one hundred years. So what is meant by the anarchist or Leftist when he goes out on the street saying, "no borders"? Does it mean that his kindness should reach no borders? Then why does that person not host at least ten homeless individuals within his own home by the end of the day? Does he or she believe what is being said? Even more important, can these people be used as puppets to further an inhumane political agenda by the politicians whom they (the "no borders" crowd) claim to represent them? If all of our being is defined by borders, how does this crowd square the circle of life itself? If all the scientists in all of human history spent their time and their lives defining the borders of our existence and of our universe, how could these Leftists march in the streets claiming to defend them? Please provide some insight for me.

Waiter, this pasta is stale. Send it back.

>>1687 Butthurt anarchist spotted. You posted this within seconds of me making the thread, so I know you didn't read it. Does the word "border" trigger you? If this thread was indeed pasta, how could the .jp situation possibly be written within it? I spent at least twenty minutes writing this and getting my thoughts together, so appreciate it for what it's worth or stick a pencil in your eye and crawl off somewhere else blindly.

>unrelated things can be treated as discrete therefore we have to split people into arbitrary groups depending on where they live

>>1691 >arbitrary groups depending on where they live Ever had a simple thought excercise to test that idea? Think of, for example, two tribes that were once 1 tribe. These tribes have split in search of more food and materials. Their languages differ after some time due to evolution of language. Their cultures start to change. The environment around them start to affect their genetics, so one tribe might evolve a skin filled with melanin to protect themselves from UV rays. Then, try to put those people in same geographical area. They will have different languages, unable to talk to one another. Their cultures different, ideologies built upon those cultures, the struggles between these two cultures will be obvious. The racial impact will be most devastating. People, if you didn't notice, love to be around people like themselves. Which is why you have friends mostly like yourself. This multi-racial world will create alienating and hostile feeling. This sort of environment creates a chaotic state in which the ruling classes can implement statist laws to control everyone.

>>1691 So you're a humanist? You declare yourself an equal person, even in terms of culture, history, behavior, and likewise with a person, say, living in India? Where are you from? Are you the same as a person living in the barren countryside of China? How about the starving child picking insects off the ground to eat in North Korea, a self-labeled communist paradise. Are the needs of that child the same as yours? Do you share the same political structure as he, being from another land rules by another government? Where are your examples? Where even is your rhetoric? Your theory? You are a humanist, correct? Enlighten me.

>>1696 shhhhhh it's "arbitrary" because people make maps and country borders based on geographical divides like big rivers and mountains that created seperated groups of people that OVER TIME created different languages, cultures and even developed different genetics. Don't you get it? It's "arbitrary" because someone made a map and made a line in sand. Not because all those innate differences between humans. :^^)

>>1687 >>1690 >>1691 >Global Rule 3: Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. >Global Rule 4: You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.

>>1695 >They will have different languages, unable to talk to one another. >Their cultures different, ideologies built upon those cultures, the struggles between these two cultures will be obvious. It seems to me that the best thing to do would be to merge the two cultures into a new one, taking the best parts of each. (You might even say that their cultural and technological distincticeness will be assimilated, and resistance is futile.) >This multi-racial world will create alienating and hostile feeling. The world was always aliebating and hostile. That's just life. Look at the people complaining about books making people socially alienated hundreds of years ago. >feeling I thought it was supposed to be the tumblr teens who cared about those.

>>1706 >all those typos >the empty oekaki Sorry. I'm stuck on a soykafty device for the moment because of work reasons, and keep hitting the wrong things because my fingers are apparently too big for it.

Literally all of your examples are false equivalences. How is any of those anything like a nation?

>>1714 Can you explain how is a house anything like a nation? Why does a house having borders necessitates that a nation must have one, too? Houses and nations are completely different. While you are at it, what is exactly a nation?

>>1690 I didn't have to read it all to recognize it as pasta. Why re-read something I've already seen multiple times?

>>1690 > I spent at least twenty minutes writing this You're unemployed aren't you.(LAINON PLEASE, I REFERRED TO GLOBAL RULE 3 JUST A FEW POSTS AGO!)

As a side note to OP, next time just remove the "against anarchism" paragraph. It really makes people not care about your posts and arguments, not because they are not valid, but it's clear that you're trying to fight instead of having an honest discussion. At least i get that impression and i have no interest in discussions where the opposite party only wants to make me annoyed or angry. This exact same thread without the first paragraph would be just a normal, healthy thread.

>>1723 >you seem to care tho Oh i care about healthy discussions in lainchan in general. I have very little interest for politics and actively try to avoid it, i never studied enough of it to identify with any party or point of view.

What bother me than borders is the notion of nationality, its nothing but an abstract grouping, with some distorted economy involved. People like to hide behind the identity of nationality just to compensate for their lack of individual identity. Nations and government are only an outgrowth of those kinds of people who want to force everyone into their group structure. I wouldnt be so opposed to this notion if it werent for the fact that some regions/cultures are entirely absorbed trough these structures.

>>1706 Let's take a look at your logic. >The world was always [alienating] and hostile. That's just life Somehow leads to the conclusion: >It seems to me that the best thing to do would be to merge the two cultures into a new one, taking the best parts of each. How did your reach this conclusion, given that the premise is true? If you agree that the world is always hostile, why would it be in anyone's best interest to push various cultures together? (Forcefully, of course). How do you reach this conclusion? The stuff you say about "taking the best parts of each" is meaningless in this regard, because it is only fluff added to the argument as an afterthought, in order to justify your argument because it hasn't even been properly justified by the premise in the first place. Do you see how this argument makes no sense? >>1711 >>1716 Ten examples were provided in order to show that there are borders within everything in the world. My question, therefore, is why do you believe that a nation is different from everything else in the world? I'm going to assume that the both of you are intelligent, so I'll also assume you understood what I was really asking. Why then, did the both of you fail to come up with what we would call counterexamples in the world of debate and rhetoric? I truly wonder. >>1721 Is one not allowed to state (or imply) the reason why he wishes to begin a debate, before beginning a debate? (Also note how I made my statement in a clear, single sentence without elaboration).I expect an answer to this. >>1732 >Nations and government are only an outgrowth of those kinds of people who want to force everyone into their group structure. Then what is your proposal for an ordered society? Can you provide an example in which a society had gotten rid of their borders, and prospered? This is the main issue I'm seeing here; Every single lainon who has expressed their content with the original post has failed to provide counterexamples in order to forward an argument of their own. >I wouldnt be so opposed to this notion if it werent for the fact that some regions/cultures are entirely absorbed trough these structures. I'm trying to understand what this sentence means, but I cannot grasp the logic. If human governments are only an outgrowth of people who you claim to have no identity, then how could you say that governments are "absorbing"? Governments most certainly are absorbing, especially when socialist and communist governments are created and violence ensues, but I don't think you are using the word [/i]absorbing[/i] in this fashion. I think you have to elaborate.

>>1683 1-9 are all without a question spooks. 10 is maybe a spook as well. Also, sage.

What makes you as a conservative think you could ever just freeze society into a state where you like it, without the same society ever progressing to the future? >protip it's impossible.

>>1747 My examples are "spooks"? What is a spook? >>1748 So you've apparently avoided addressing any of my points and proceeded to attack me for what I claimed to be, a conservative. So you want to change the topic? Very well. I claimed to be a conservative thinker, but that was a vague term. What I am is a republican (not to be confused with the "Republican" party of the US), that is, I support a democratic republic. So with that out of the way, could you possibly provide an argument for me that a democratic republic can never "progress", however you wish to use the term?

>>1683 >10. Even evolution has a border, for all living things will eventually die. Including you, who will find himself or herself elsewhere in less than one hundred years. I know soykaf about politics, i am biology type, but well, uhh, how do I say this. Some organisms in Cnidaria phylum managed to "cheat" death. Also, don't forget about Sponges who can regenerate from a single cell. Just, this stuff is rather "simple", but hey! still alive. >4. Even the smallest microbes, contained within all living things, have cellular walls to define their personal borders and strengthen their various structures and components. Some microbes merge together if they have to, sorta. Or make one nice colony. Also, as you know microbes do not reproduce in "standard way", but they can exchange genetic material by one another. Turns out they can exchange their material with microbes from different species too. So borders between stuff in microworld is kinda hard to define, sorta.

>>1749 >My examples are "spooks"? What is a spook? A spook is an idea which controls the people that believe in it. A good way of spotting a spook is to check: if everyone stopped agreeing it existed, would it still exist?

>>1683 >For every anarchist, socialist, or generally Leftist thread I find on /r/, I will make a conservative thread in response. Please don't sully our board with politics. Please. There are places where political discussion is very welcome. also > buying into the conservative/liberal meme

>>1752 >A spook is an idea which controls the people that believe in it. A good way of spotting a spook is to check: if everyone stopped agreeing it existed, would it still exist? Can we say that the concept of spook controls the way that we think of other concepts and so is a spook itself?

>>1755 The concept of a spook isn't a self-serving idea though. It's kind of like the idea of some memes(actual memes, not innernet maymays) being selfish, i.e. they're memes that control people for their own gain. The concept of spook doesn't do that, since there's not exactly anything for it to serve.

>>1756 >>1756 >being selfish, i.e isn't it genetic that we only look after ourselves and close relatives?

>if someone soykafposts, I'll do it just as much great idea, that won't lead to a downward spiral.

OP, you could've made this entire post without bringing any politics into it. Opening your post with a passive aggressive attack is rather annoying. >can a nation define itself without borders Subscribing to the english dictionary definition of a nation, no. If the nation would like to be recognized as a soverign state by literally anyone, no >Everything in life has borders Really interesting assertion, you can rest assured I'll be spending a lot of time thinking about this one today. This is the biggest reason I can't discount your post as a troll. It's a personal opinion of mine that you're a powerful thinker; I just wish you would break free of this "us vs them" mentality I'm picking up on from your posts. >why do people support an open border movement Tons of people support every movement for a multitude of reasons. I imagine some people in the states (you sound like you're from the states) likely don't feel as threatened as others by large scale immagration. Whether they should or shouldnt be is beyond my intrest in debating at this time; however, I don't believe being confused by anothers choice of beliefs warrants a hostile attack on their capability to think logically. Either they're mistaken in some way about what they believe, you're misinterpretting what they believe, or theres simply a difference of opinion. Are any of those cases really deserving of the demeaning tone you've taken in your post? >how does this crowd square the circle of life itself? I like the word usage here lol.

>>1775 The generally accepted definition of a nation is cultural, united by a common language, culture & history. You could argue that the USA is 2 nations, red and blue. The borders, laws, government & institutions make up the state. The USA and Canada are different states. Most states overlap with a nation as a nation-state. Where there is a mismatch between the state and the nation, you tend to find independence movements.

>>1777 So, if the nation is not the state, what are we talking about? Anarchists are clearly against political borders (and states in general), I don't think they would care about abolishing categorizations. The borders of a nation and a state very rarely overlap. Almost all states have to deal with sizeable minorities. If nowhere else, around the borders the neighbouring states' population tend to mix. States usually have to deal with either independence movements or chunks of people from their "own nation" who live outside the state but want to be supported by it. Not to mention people who can be considered to be part of multiple nations, or none. Of course one only needs to look at history to see that nations in this cultural sense were always moving around, merging, splitting, sometimes disappearing.

>>1750 Even single celled organisms cannot exist without their cellular walls. Yes, they merge with one another but when they do a new border is formed. So if you re-read what I've typed, you will find that the argument I am making says the following; That all nations have borders, and is not a nation without borders. I never made an assertion stating that borders cannot converge, but the Leftists may twist my words to make it seem like I said that and make statements saying that borders don't even really exist in the first place, just like this insane person here, >>1752, spouting nonsense about things which he calls spooks - I mean the guy sounds like some kind of cultist. It's ridiculous, really. One could then argue (in vain) that when these Leftists spout the slogan "no borders", what they really mean is that yes, borders to exist, but we should force different sets of borders together against the will of the people living within them. But this would then be a different topic regarding the ethics of such an action, which I obviously believe would be wrong. >>1753 If you want to tell me how and what to post, let me do the same and tell you not to post anything without reading the original post. And if politics isn't for you, then get out of this thread. >>1760 Except if you read the original post, it's not a soykafpost. And the mods would agree, so far. Look how I speak rationally and with quality, unlike you. >>1775 My opening statement isn't a passive aggressive attack, it's a direct one. How is it not direct? For every Leftist thread I see I will make a direct counterattack with an alternatively conservative one. And if I do, so what? Am I not allowed? > I don't believe being confused by anothers choice of beliefs warrants a hostile attack on their capability to think logically. Either they're mistaken in some way about what they believe, you're misinterpretting what they believe, or theres simply a difference of opinion. Are any of those cases really deserving of the demeaning tone you've taken in your post? If someone presents their belief without evidence, especially when the subject matter isn't inherently a matter of moral or ethics, why shouldn't someone be able to criticize them? (Saying that borders for nations don't exist isn't inherently an ethical matter, it's a logical one. That is, if you want to claim that a microbe doesn't have borders or cell walls, you should be able to support your claim with scientific evidence. Why can't the same be said for a nation-state? That's the question being put forth.) And when that person presenting his or her belief fails to present evidence when asked, shouldn't that give at least some right to the criticizer to be demeaning? After all, they were asked to support their belief and they failed to do so, for whatever reason, (usually not a good one). And it should also be assumed, that if someone fails to defend their belief logically, especially when it's a non-ethical matter, that that person is therefore illogical and most likely brainless, or furthering a social/political agenda. There is nothing wrong with this conclusion. >>1786 >If you don't like freedom, try leddit instead. That's probably the stupidest thing you could possibly say. Freedom and liberty is the constitutional conservative's number one goal at the end of all of his or her political endeavors. Moreover, freedom of the individual cannot be ensured without having borders surrounding that individual's nation-state. If you want to argue against that, come up with a counterexample. I bet you won't be able to, because you are stupid.

>>1811 >Except if you read the original post, it's not a soykafpost. >>1683 > For every anarchist, socialist, or generally Leftist thread I find on /r/, I will make a conservative thread in response

>>1811 >Am I not allowed? No. Go away. Lainchan is not for trolling, go troll them libruls somewhere else. also sage

>>1811 >cells At one hand i understand your point clearly. At the other hand i fail to recognize how you got from "cells need borders" to "people need borders". I will have some fun with that too, okay? Borders are needed in life, because they make you appreciate the lack of borders, for example in love where there's a moment when you don't know which parts are yours and which parts are your lover's. When your bodies are together, not separate. It ends eventually, because you separate, but you feel bliss in that togetherness.

>>1811 >My opening statement isn't a passive aggressive attack, it's a direct one. Yeah. That is where you fuarrrked up. One thing is wanting to discuss politics. Another thing is wanting to tell the world why you are right and they are wrong. So maybe try a different approach and make a better thread next time, ok? This board isn't /you-know-what/ nor should it be.

>>1812 >stating why you're making a thread in a single coherent sentence before you proceed to make a valid argument is brewing soykaf You need to do some self-reflection on what brewing soykaf is. I have an idea, look at your own post. And while you're at it, think of a way in which you can counter my argument, which I have provided evidence for. (Hint: Come up with a counterexample). >>1813 Nice counterargument, but you failed. Try again. >>1815 It's not just cells. You worded your response to make it seem like microbes were the only piece of evidence I ever provided. I provided nine other pieces of evidence, (and I could go on, obviously, because my argument is that literally everything in life has borders), but you simply ignored them, so let me reiterate the argument; All things in existence have borders, so why should nation-states be any different all of a sudden. What evidence do Leftists have to support this claim? So you are the first lainon to try and bring up a counterexample, and I congratulate you for it. You state that during sex, people's borders converge. And to that, I'll ask you to read my response given to this self-acclaimed biologist in the first paragraph here >>1811. To reiterate what I said to him in response to your counterexample, I have never stated in my initial argument that borders cannot converge. Borders can converge, but a new border is always formed immediately afterward, and there is not even a minute second in existent where a border does not exist for the two distinct individuals. So let's think about it in detail for your counterexample - isn't sex private? Yes, it is, and private for whom? The answer would be the individuals involved in the sex. You see, a border still exists, and there is never an instance where a border does not exist for the individuals involved. Therefore, it is impossible to have "no borders". Even group-sex participants need to have their sex in hiding, to avoid police and other prying eyes. Now, if you want to make an argument saying that people should be forced to have sex with one another, or that nations should be forced to converge as if borders don't exist, then that would be another topic involving ethics. However, my points still stand. >>1816 Every lainon like yourself should cease making posts about the first sentence of the original post, and then ignoring the rest of the content. Every lainon like yourself is making it obvious, at least to lurkers, that the reason why you are so focused on the first sentence of the post is because you cannot refute any of the posts made subsequently with counterexamples or counterarguments. You should be embarrassed, not me.

>>1823 I'm not intetested in arguing with sh*tposters, don't care about your political views, and just pointing out that you are in fact a sh*tposter.

>>1823 >korwa oh god, i shouldn't be laughing so hard it doesn't have anything with your post, just that's very specific word in my lang Anyways, now define exhibitionism fetish, if we are about sex

>>1823 Look bud, I don't know if you can't understand or don't want to. But The point I'm trying to make is that your attitude and theme is just not welcome here. You of all people should understand this. Want to talk politics? then go to one of the many places where you get your dick sucked for doing so. Here is not the place, and also, not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. You sound like you're new to this place, so I'm trying to help you understand why these kinds of threads aren't what make this community great.

>>1823 >Every lainon like yourself should cease making posts about the first sentence of the original post, and then ignoring the rest of the content >wahhh pay attention to me! >not that way, do it the way I want it!

>>1824 >>1826 >>1827 you three are still giving him food tho. He soykafposts and you respond, he wins. there's nice saying at polish chans >if you ever happen to see soykafty ass boring troll, you ignore him, not tell him he is like kicking dead whales down the beach, not fall from kindness, you ignore, if you respond, he won

>>1828 You're right, but I don't want to make the same mistake I once made of letting the 'funny trolls' take over a chan and turn it into their personal echo chamber. I want them to know that this is not the place for their soykaf. Also learn how to sage. It is good for you. you sage by inputting sage into the mail field, it means that your post won't bump the thread.

>>1829 i just sorta forgot about it honestly, also i don't feel like it changes anything. they want attention and fun from it. brewing soykaf is kind part of the charm for me

>>1830 >brewing soykaf is kind part of the charm for me Yes, indeed. I've done it myself and it can be quite fun, but I think it is one of the rules of this place: "pour out the soykaf" it says So please respect lain and don't brew your stews here.

>>1825 Taken from Psychology Today, >Exhibitionistic disorder is a condition marked by the urge, fantasy, or behavior of exposing one’s genitals to non-consenting people, particularly strangers. >non-consenting people In other words, if we are to take this definition as correct, exhibitionism doesn't work without a clear line between consenting and non-consenting people. After all, if you have an obsession with shoving your genitals into someone's face who doesn't want you to do it, wouldn't it be boring if he did want you to do it? A border still clearly exists between the two distinct groups of people. Moreover, it's considered a disorder because, beyond being abnormal, it's unethical, given that force is naturally involved. Now, if you want to argue that people should force different borders together, that would be a separate argument regarding ethics. Thank you for providing counterexamples though. >>1824 >>1826 >>1827 >>1828 >>1829 >>1830 >>1832 Do not despair! I can see I've won the debate, because the lot of you cannot conceive counterarguments! I therefore have no need to post further, unless someone else wishes to bring up a good piece of evidence to refute the apparent existence for borders for nation-states.

>>1834 > I therefore have no need to post further Thank you. Please do abstain. I really am grateful that you understand.

>>1683 >For every anarchist, socialist, or generally Leftist thread I find on /r/, I will make a conservative thread in response. Could you not make them for that reason? We already have too many political threads.

i am geniuely scared to patronize him in that new centralisation vs decentralisation thread, because what if this is some other anon, and i will be mean

>>1683 Your post is kind of rambling sophistry man. By the same token I could say that even the most solid border is mostly empty space and quantum vacuum, except that they're different concepts with no useful point of comparison. Borders in my country are different from borders on my body or schemes for the organization of knowledge or whatever. >Does it mean that his kindness should reach no borders? Don't know about others, but that seems like a decent, self supporting, and trivial position. You mean you think otherwise? >Then why does that person not host at least ten homeless individuals within his own home by the end of the day? 1)How do you know they don't? 2)That would be a fair point only if 90 percent of the population was homeless. I dont want to do your part if I can avoid it. 3)From an utilitarian perspective it is better to donate to a efficient charity anyway, diminishing returns on preventable misery and all that. >can these people be used as puppets to further an inhumane political agenda by the politicians whom they (the "no borders" crowd) claim to represent them? Sure, same as if they had the opposite belief or no belief at all. The question is whether they are more likely than a baseline to fall for such things, which is a statement of fact that requires empirical support. There is probably something to be said about healthy local communities, and even to function properly they should include some resistant to foreign elements from a trust and cooperation perspective. What I find funny is how people apply that to countries of millions of people. By that point any sense of community and kinship becomes meaningless.

>>1870 I wish people realized all the "the other side looks worse" arguments are symptoms of consuming media that caricaturizes the other side. Be better than this lainon, you know the media is feeding you selected images to advance specific ideologies.

>Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. I have just deleted a bunch of posts which were nothing more than personal attacks over appearance. Come on lainons, your'e better than this.

>>1897 >Your post is kind of rambling sophistry man. > By the same token I could say that even the most solid border is mostly empty space and quantum vacuum... You just accused OP of sophistry and then committed sophistry yourself, meaning you rambled about something involving quantum vacuums (like, what?) and then failed to elaborate on why that is relevant or make any coherent argument involving evidence. This is so laughable. You then proceeded to say things regarding utilitarianism, something about baselines and empiricism, which somehow led you to the conclusion that "community and kinship becomes meaningless". Like, dude. You are the sophist, not OP.

>>1920 >You just accused OP of sophistry and then committed sophistry yes, that was my point. And example for why those kinds of arguments can support anything and so are useless. A reductio ad absurdum if you like. >which somehow led you to the conclusion that "community and kinship becomes meaningless Those two parts where unrelated, you can tell because they were in different paragraphs. Also you're omitting qualifiers, which make me think you're arguing in bad faith. Kinship is very important, but it likely has no reach beyong ~20 people. Certainly not at the thousands let alone millions.

>>1732 >but an abstract grouping refer to >>1699

>>1752 isn't a spook a spook in of itself?

>>1922 Just curious. Do you support basque separatists?

>>1924 I don't know about the topic enough but if their separatist movement is based on some kind of real divide between Basque and France (which is more often than not the case, ie. look at Scotland) then sure I support them. But as said before, cultural divide, is one of factors.

>>1921 >yes, that was my point. It was your point to make yourself look like a hypocrite and a sophist? LMAO I don't think so! >hurr durr reductio ad absurdum For those of you that don't know, reductio ad absurdum means "reduction to absurdity", which is a form of argument attempting to disprove a debater's statement by showing that his statement, if true, would logically lead to an absurd conclusion. But this doesn't work for OP's case! The argument given by OP is so simple, and it works: >All things in existence have and are defined by borders >[Proceeds to give an inexhaustible list of ten examples] >Therefore, we can conclude that a nation-state, if it exists, must also have borders. Thus, the only way you can disprove OP's conclusion is if you give evidence that a nation-state does not exist, not that borders do not exist. And that's exactly OP's point, because the Leftists out on the street are holding up signs and chanting slogans saying "NO BORDERS", which is a completely ludicrous statement backed up my absolutely no evidence. And the implication here is that what they really should be saying is "NO NATION", but then why aren't they saying that? That's the hundred-dollar question! And, in my opinion, the answer is that anarchists and their Leftist brothers and sisters don't want to give away their true intention and goal to destroy the nations they live in. In other words, the whole thing is a farce; They want to force different nations together to destroy everything, and then ??? what's the next step? Gain power? That last implication was a tangent, but the point is that you are so out there, logically, that you should be utterly embarrassed. >Those two parts where unrelated, you can tell because they were in different paragraphs. I don't mean to be mean, but did you receive secondary education? When writing even the simplest school paper, the number one goal you should be striving for, in all of your English writing endeavors, is to make sure every sentence and every paragraph come together in a relate-able sense and then finally a conclusion. You literally cannot even into the English language. It's super sad. >Also you're omitting qualifiers, which make me think you're arguing in bad faith. Tell me, am I omitting "qualifiers" in this new post? I see you're trying to appeal to the mods reading this though. >Kinship is very important, but it likely has no reach beyong ~20 people. Certainly not at the thousands let alone millions. You are so hypocritical what you are doing should be considered a crime. You literally just told me I had no "qualifiers", and then proceeded yet again to make a statement backed by no evidence. You are a sophist. You are a hypocrite. You are just ludicrous. To reiterate, OP's argument works, logically, because he stated the following: >If [A] is the set of all things in existence, e.g. [B], [C], [D], etc., and [E] exists, then [E] must be contained within the set of [A]. In other words, >If all things in existence have borders, and a nation-state is a thing which exists, then a nation-state must have borders. Scientists, a great example being astronomers, have used this logical method for years upon years, to prove things like for example how solar systems beyond our reach must work or how individual planets behave and react with one another. That is, if we know all matter reacts to each other, (gravity), then we can predict what the solar systems we can barely even see must act, because they must also be made of matter. So, OP's argument, being a logically justifiable one, puts Leftists into an uncomfortable position, or a corner if you will, because it reveals their true nature and their hate for humanity. Because in order for them to oppose his logical statement, they have to make a claim that nation-states don't exist, which means that NO group of humans sharing a culture and language and seeking order can EVER declare themselves a sovereign group of individuals, and NO ONE could ever be considered a free and protected person. The concept of this, metaphysically, would be something out of hell itself. It's pure evil.

>>1926 >would logically lead to an absurd conclusion. More precisely, you prove both "p" and "not p". I this case "p" is OP, "not p" is the reply. So that somewhere on the premises there is a mistake. Reductio ad absurdum doesn't say where the mistake is, but I would say in this case is just because of a generally faulty logic. I will not bother with the rest because you were rude.

>>1927 >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, but I actually found the study I had read about the claim I stated. This is interesting enough to break my promise. In the interest of honesty, I'll note that I seem to have been wrong by about an order of magnitude (~200-300), so it's good I gave myself some slack on the upper bound (<~10^3). Anyway this is soft science so take it with a grain of salt (replication crisis and all that). Better than nothing, though. Update your epistemic status accordingly.

>>1683 > How can a nation define itself as a nation without borders? > So what is meant by the anarchist or Leftist when he goes out on the street saying, "no borders"? The full slogan is "no borders, no nations, stop the deportations." I hope this answers your question.

>>1927 >>1935 Look, you're being ridiculous. You stated that there was a mistake in the premise, (That all things which exist have borders), and then attempted to disprove that premise by stating, without explaining, that the premise contained >generally faulty logic Instead of proving yourself to be even more of a sophist, why don't you just admit that you can't disprove anything being claimed, premise or otherwise? Dunbar's number theory has nothing to do with nation-states. Absolutely nothing. A nation isn't about "who knows who", is it? That would be absolutely absurd, and if you believe that is how a nation is defined, you have some serious thinking to do. A nation is defined by their culture, language, borders, and most importantly, their sovereignty. It's all about sovereignty, something Leftists don't believe in, and I urge you to think about what sovereignty is before commenting on politics again. >>1950 I don't know if you've been reading the thread, but now that I know the full slogan I have to admit that at least some of them are being honest in that they don't believe in nations. Honestly, to all the anarchists out there, how does a supposed anarchist collective protect themselves from harm and invasion without claiming their own sovereignty, and therefore their own borders? I bet none of the anarchists here or in the main thread will reply coherently and with logic.

>>1953 >you believe that is how a nation is defined Not a nation, but small local communities (including management of the commons through elected representatives and such) are certainly build by people in regular contact with each other. >culture I find that a little hard to believe, within a nation there is a lot of difference as regards customs. At least where I'm from people from certain coastal areas have different traditions from people on more central areas, or more mountanious areas, etc. I've heard people say things about geography and culture (northern, east coast, etc) about the us too, but I may be misrepresenting the difference. From my understanding countries usually come about when a local power achieves hegemony and establishes a violence monopoly. Quite good for peace and such. I don't see why the subjects ought to feel any strong identifications towards a mostly administrative entity. That seems to be a relatively modern phenomenon.

>>1953 If every that exists has borders, then all nations have borders. If things that don't exists, don't have borders, then all nations that don't exists don't have borders. If there are no nations, then no nations have borders. No borders, no nations, stop the deportations?

>>1683 If there was no such thing as borders, then the following things would not make as much sense. * MSF or Doctors without borders would just be Doctors * Border collies would just be normal collies (see pictures) * Border Patrol and Customs would not be a career option or a television show. * Over 15 CSS selectors would not exist. * Would Hadrian's Wall, the Berlin Wall, and the Great wall of China exist ? Discuss, as I am not sure. * Two films would need different names, as well as at least 3 songs, 1 television series and one TV station. as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_(disambiguation) * Border's Group / Books would not be a thing, oh wait, they already not a thing, I guess Amazon won. * Another 4 films, 3 songs, 1 tv series, 1 book and a radio station would not exist or would have different names as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Border * Everything on this page , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline would just be Line <xyz>, including Line personality disorder, Line tumor and Line the classic Sega arcade game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_(video_game) * Kanjiro Kazunori mixed media project https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/BORDER_(%E9%87%91%E5%9F%8E%E4%B8%80%E7%B4%80) , would have a different name or not exist. * Would other synonyms exist (e.g. boundary and perimeter) ? If not, there would be no concepts of perimeter or boundary conditions in mathematics , and the solution of specific real world problems would become much more homogeneous and much less useful. * If perimeter didn't exist, does that mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war) would not exist or would it just exist under the Dead Hand and the whole concept of the cold war be a different one ? * If border's did not exist as concept, would boundaries exist ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary lists a variety of things that would be changed if boundaries didn't exist due to borders not existing including, personal boundaries, Boundaries of the mind, Professional boundaries, symbolic boundaries, Boundary-work ,Boundary critique and Boundary turbulence. Cricket would be a different game without boundaries, and if sporting fields did not have borders, how would you have teams being off side ? Without the borders on various game boards (chess, Go, etc) how would the playing and rules of those games change ? * Restaurants like https://www.ontheborder.com/ and http://www.bordergrill.com/ would not exist or would have a different name at least, but would not having the concept of borders affect their patronage or their types of cuisine ? * The Trump Border Wall would be the Trump Wall, like the Trump Tower ? I realise my post asks more questions, than it answers, but I am still giving the questions generated by the absence of the concept of borders some time to be thought about in my own mind and would welcome your opinions, suggestions and feedback. In the meantime please find attached some "collies".

>>1683 It's called the Holy See.

>>1959 Not the same anon you were replying to, but i agree. In my nation sometimes people that live distant more than 100 km can't understand each other when talking cause they speak different languages, and even on shorter distances there can be great cultural differences between cities. This is probably cause it's an old european nation in which every fuarrrking 200 inhabitants village has many hundreds of years of history, probably in places like Russia or U.S.A. this is different cause those nations were unified since the beginning (IX century the former) and many cities have been founded very recently and didn't have the time to develop a cultural identity, so it's more difficult for them to understand the nonsense of nations and patriotism.

>>1965 [appleman1234][/appleman1234]

OP here, don't expect another response from me in this thread. After putting one of the anarchists in this thread in a corner, logically speaking, he lashed out like an animal and posted CP. (He hid it in a lainfile and said it was a documentary related to borders. What a coward.) That draws the line for me; Anarchists are animals and can't be reasoned with. This must be why they act the way they do, like subhumans or not humans at all. >hurr durr not all anarchists I've never seen someone with my own political views steep so low. Ever.

>>1972 that person is a cunt, but that is not an argument against anarchism, just anarchists. As an anarchist I have hung around with a lot of others and can confirm most anarchists are idiots. That doesn't mean there isn't value to the theory. I do not post in these political threads because if I agree or not with views I do not think these threads belong on lainchan.

>>1972 This logic is flawed. If your interest in this thread was to look for sophism e-penis, why bother with Lainchan in the first place? I thought about replying to your arguments back when you created this thread, but it's clear that you have very little interest into an honest discussion, as this post of yours exemplifies. Speaking as if anarchists (or any other group of people) were a tight-knit group that behaves in a similar, mindhive way when you know that isn't true nor makes any sense, but you'd rather use cheap sophism to get out of a conversation and feel on top. The same argument could be made against you, that people of whatever political religion you identify with are all sophists that always try to be on top of arguments, even if they didn't give any insight into the conversation, it's cheap and devoid of meaning. But i cannot make that argument, because who behaves like that is you specifically. This is not what lainchan is for, it never was and it never will be, just look at any other thread from /sec/ or /tech/. This is what political discussions should be like, people like you would be completely ignored on any tech board, because you don't know how to enter a healthy discussion with adults, as exemplified with this thread. This is not the kind of discussion that thrives in here, except, sadly, when the theme is political.

>>1972 Yeah I'm sure that happened.

>>1972 > what is a false flag, Alex?

>>1972 >a-ha, I declare myself the victor of this internet argument due to an event that all of you can not see and that can not be attributed to any party in particular due to this board's anonymous nature, now I will resort to name calling and stereotyping of every one who disagrees with me based on this alleged happening Yet another example of why general political """"discussion"""" doesn't belong on this site.

>>1972 user, there was a cereal CP poster yesterday that trolled multiple threads. Hiding some within that files was a dirty trick (I'll be removing that video from my 'to read' list now) but to attribute it as a direct attack towards you - especially to do so while simultaneously turning that sicko into a 'muh anarchists' strawman - is a totally incorrect intreptation of events.

>>1972 I talked with anarchists ITT and he asked provoking question to see how I will reply. After I didn't respond the way he expected then he stoped replying. Anarchists are cowards. They will claim Nations having borders is result of some big white man having power yet when neo nazis attack their community centres they say "our safe spaces were attacked, they attacked our soverengty rawr". It's hypocrisy to the max. They are up for power and influence yet they talk as if everyone around them is for that. I really honestly am scared for future of lainchan, because I have seen this kind of cultural hijacking done before. Usually done with feminists, but now even anarchists have been doing it, but it goes something like this: >their propaganda tool of spreading their ideas is soykaf so they look for vaguely similarly centred community (ie lainchan) >they then push themselves on that community, try to get moderator or administrator control, insist that ideas of community are same as their own >they then start to push their agendas and ideas onto that community, driving everyone away because they don't care about political propaganda bullsoykaf, those that eat up the propaganda have destroyed their old social ties and have gone another way I tell you, its always like this.

>>1991 Do you not even know what a false flag is? It's when you attack your own people pretending to be some outside force so the people become angry enough to follow you into war. In this case, it was already pointed out that some bot was spamming the whole forum and this thread wasn't specifically targeted. But if it was in fact a "false flag" then by definition of that term it was done by anyone other than whomever they were claiming to be. That is what the term means. Just try to keep up. Also stop samef4gging.

>>1991 >Didn't leftists proclaim few years ago Do you have a link to this alleged proclaimation?

>>1994 >imblying you know that conspiracy theory guy was actually opposition trying to false flag It sounds like another conspiracy theory of "everyone who doesn't represent my ideology the way I like isn't true ideologue like me" scotsman fallacy

>>1996 Citation guy is here >>1995 So is the samefagging guy >>1994 And brewing soykaf fella Damn you peeps come as soon the bell rings. Sooo, hows the evening? Loving the show?

>>1974 I think that is the very nature of politics and political discussion. A soykaffest. And I have never in my life seen any counter example to this, that is, I've never seen any level-headed political discussion. I guess it's just a placeholder for men's lowest passions. Now I wonder /why/ this is

This thread has been locked for, despite two warnings, repeated rule 3, 4, and 5 violations. >Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. >You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. >Don't respond with aggression to perceived flames or trolls (or at all.)