I did not miss ur point its just that I outlined why your point is not in fact the point u believe it to be.
The wolves don’t have a state enforcing those rules. only the wolves are subject to those rules they made up.
The wolves have a pack that enforce those borders against other wolves. U have a nation that enforces those borders against other people. Same thing. Only the humans are subject to those rules.
Meanwhile, some humans made up human borders, and force all humans to abide by those rules. I never consented to those boundaries, yet the state will use violence to enforce them.
Some wolves made up those borders and force all other wolves to abide by those borders. Most wolves never consented to those borders yet a pack of wolves will use violence to enforce that border upon other wolfs> .
Furthermore, human made borders do often include infrastructure like fences and walls that will stop other animals from traveling freely.
That’s a pointless distinction that only works as well as you are willing to maintain the parallel of human seeking to cross a border as another species to those that are enforcing the border. Given that almost all animals that are not subject to the wolves borders are lesser species than the wolves that’s a wildly telling statement about how you view people seeking to cross your borders.
No idea why you are being so intentionally stubborn.
A handful of wolves set up those rules and are the ones who enforce those rules against wolves.
They do not build a state that forces all creatures, even the ones who were not involved in those decisions to follow those rules. Or makes the forest critters pay taxes to finance the violence that upholds said borders.
The Wolves borders are more akin to you and your neighbours respecting each other houses, it is rude to come in uninvited into someone’s house. You don’t violate those rules because it would upset your neighbours and bring social consequences of them being upset.
The human example would be the same example but in a police state, where besides social consequences, you have to fear the state using violence against you if you violate those rules. Not ones agreed upon by your neighbours, but by power structures beyond your control.
Not agreeing with you is not called being stubborn its called a different perspective. You will find that almost everyone in the world has a different one and ur underhanded frame shifting techniques to changes those perspectives doesn’t work on everyone.
I have given a clear argument for why ur implication of all animals is a stupid comparison either provide an argument against said points or shut up with that point.
So what if all my neighbours and I get together and make a decision that we don’t want people from the neighbourhood over coming into our neighbourhood let’s calk the group of neighbours and I a pack A and call the neighbourhood over pack B. Then pack A patrols our neighbourhood to ensure pack B doesn’t come into our neighbourhood. Ohh shit that’s literally what the fucking wolves are doing.
Rules, morality, the law all if it doesn’t actually exist its all a fucking social construct upheld by he who holds the monopoly in violence. The state holds the monopoly on violence it has that monopoly on violence because it was given to them by a majority of the population of a nation (that’s called democracy). If you don’t like it you can campaign to change it or become the monopoly on violence and go do a coup (good luck with that). The monopoly of violence is the only law that actually exists and it is the very same law that governs us as what governs wolves. We are just smart monkeys who have abstracted this violence away and hidden it behind a facade of rules and laws and moral arguments.
You pay tax cos failing to do so will result in violence upon you at the hands of those who demand tax. You by accepting the social contract have consented to play by the rules so that the violence may be enacted against those that may threaten you. The state will use ur tax to enact violence against people coming into ur house and fucking up ur shit just that ur house happens to also include the entire society cos u don’t live in an isolated environment outside of everyone else in ur society.
No I just wanted to bait you into dismissing the social contract by saying its forced upon us by the state and not something i had any choice in consenting to.
Thus by your very own logic I would be perfectly justified in walking over to ur house breaking the social contract and shooting u in the face. I’m obviously not gonna do that cos the social contract forced upon me which ur taxes are funding against ur will goes to ensuring that I would spend the rest of my life in jail if I where to do such a thing.
This forces u into 1 of 2 positions either the social contract is valid and ur whole point is moot (stfu) or u think that just murdering someone for disagreeing on the internet is a valid response.
And u can’t say u wanna keep some parts of the social contract but not others. U get ur chance to renegotiate the contract every couple years when u have an election.
Again, you fail to see the massive difference between a social contract you consent to with social consequences, and one that is forced on you by the state with violence consequences.
Like looking at anarchist Chiapas, and Nazi Germany, and say. Both have social contracts, they are the same thing.
I did not miss ur point its just that I outlined why your point is not in fact the point u believe it to be.
The wolves have a pack that enforce those borders against other wolves. U have a nation that enforces those borders against other people. Same thing. Only the humans are subject to those rules.
Some wolves made up those borders and force all other wolves to abide by those borders. Most wolves never consented to those borders yet a pack of wolves will use violence to enforce that border upon other wolfs> .
Furthermore, human made borders do often include infrastructure like fences and walls that will stop other animals from traveling freely.
That’s a pointless distinction that only works as well as you are willing to maintain the parallel of human seeking to cross a border as another species to those that are enforcing the border. Given that almost all animals that are not subject to the wolves borders are lesser species than the wolves that’s a wildly telling statement about how you view people seeking to cross your borders.
No idea why you are being so intentionally stubborn.
A handful of wolves set up those rules and are the ones who enforce those rules against wolves.
They do not build a state that forces all creatures, even the ones who were not involved in those decisions to follow those rules. Or makes the forest critters pay taxes to finance the violence that upholds said borders.
The Wolves borders are more akin to you and your neighbours respecting each other houses, it is rude to come in uninvited into someone’s house. You don’t violate those rules because it would upset your neighbours and bring social consequences of them being upset.
The human example would be the same example but in a police state, where besides social consequences, you have to fear the state using violence against you if you violate those rules. Not ones agreed upon by your neighbours, but by power structures beyond your control.
Not agreeing with you is not called being stubborn its called a different perspective. You will find that almost everyone in the world has a different one and ur underhanded frame shifting techniques to changes those perspectives doesn’t work on everyone.
I have given a clear argument for why ur implication of all animals is a stupid comparison either provide an argument against said points or shut up with that point.
So what if all my neighbours and I get together and make a decision that we don’t want people from the neighbourhood over coming into our neighbourhood let’s calk the group of neighbours and I a pack A and call the neighbourhood over pack B. Then pack A patrols our neighbourhood to ensure pack B doesn’t come into our neighbourhood. Ohh shit that’s literally what the fucking wolves are doing.
Rules, morality, the law all if it doesn’t actually exist its all a fucking social construct upheld by he who holds the monopoly in violence. The state holds the monopoly on violence it has that monopoly on violence because it was given to them by a majority of the population of a nation (that’s called democracy). If you don’t like it you can campaign to change it or become the monopoly on violence and go do a coup (good luck with that). The monopoly of violence is the only law that actually exists and it is the very same law that governs us as what governs wolves. We are just smart monkeys who have abstracted this violence away and hidden it behind a facade of rules and laws and moral arguments.
You pay tax cos failing to do so will result in violence upon you at the hands of those who demand tax. You by accepting the social contract have consented to play by the rules so that the violence may be enacted against those that may threaten you. The state will use ur tax to enact violence against people coming into ur house and fucking up ur shit just that ur house happens to also include the entire society cos u don’t live in an isolated environment outside of everyone else in ur society.
you fail to see the difference between a social contract, made by equals. And a “social contract” forced on you by a state.
That’s like unable to see the difference between Chiapas and Nazi Germany.
No I just wanted to bait you into dismissing the social contract by saying its forced upon us by the state and not something i had any choice in consenting to.
Thus by your very own logic I would be perfectly justified in walking over to ur house breaking the social contract and shooting u in the face. I’m obviously not gonna do that cos the social contract forced upon me which ur taxes are funding against ur will goes to ensuring that I would spend the rest of my life in jail if I where to do such a thing.
This forces u into 1 of 2 positions either the social contract is valid and ur whole point is moot (stfu) or u think that just murdering someone for disagreeing on the internet is a valid response.
And u can’t say u wanna keep some parts of the social contract but not others. U get ur chance to renegotiate the contract every couple years when u have an election.
Again, you fail to see the massive difference between a social contract you consent to with social consequences, and one that is forced on you by the state with violence consequences.
Like looking at anarchist Chiapas, and Nazi Germany, and say. Both have social contracts, they are the same thing.
Look man ur clearly not intelligent enough to actually engage my points. I wish you luck with your house brick IQ.
If you lack the ability to be understood, and like the ability to understand others, maybe others people are not at fault.