KotturheimBoard

Propaganda by deed wrote:

The problem is that since they have Google AdSense, Google obtain some of our data, and Google is known to sell this data to the same I mentioned before, with PRISM in their time, and that's a lie, that they only keep some data for only a few things.

You're clearly upset.

Aeken wrote:

And to solve that you make a nation with porn and spam our RMB, of all RMB's that probably care much more about your cause. WOW. Such a champion of our individual rights.

Much rebel

Very Snowden

Wow

Propaganda by deed wrote:

I have never said illuminati, I said that Nationstates have Google AdSense, Google collects data and sells it to them, in their privacy policy they are lying because they say they will store for some purposes but they don't say that, or don't know that, maybe Max Barry don't know, it doesn't care, but they are lied with this privacy.

Okay??? How bout you talk to him instead of us???

Arcturus Novus wrote:

Much rebel

Very Snowden

Wow

Omg u know it

Zottistan wrote:

Oh.

We have one of those guys.

Swell.

Yeah, it's a blast.

Propaganda by deed wrote:

I have never said illuminati, I said that Nationstates have Google AdSense, Google collects data and sells it to them, in their privacy policy they are lying because they say they will store for some purposes but they don't say that, or don't know that, maybe Max Barry don't know, it doesn't care, but they are lied with this privacy.

Tbh none of us really care...
Almost all of us have been on this site for at least a couple years. If you're trying to spark a heroic movement to overthrow the evil spies at google, then I'd suggest that you go somewhere other than a message board on an LGBT-centered region in a spoof political simulation forum.

Propaganda by deed wrote:

Pornographic flags doesn't matter really with the government, but governments had roles in that through the years about puritanism, and other agents like religions and the Church.

It's ok you don't like them, but forcing who have to remove them I consider the violation of an individual right, when I don't harm you. Imagine the society becomes offended because they don't like your flag and decides to remove it when it's influenced by culture, so that...

Now don't manipulate I didn't say that, I gave books on the posts, just research them, just try to enter Nationstates with a proxy, you can't I tried. Cookies give enterprises information we are not anonymous, didn't you know that?

What I'm getting from your posts is that you seem to be labouring under a basic ontological misunderstanding of the proper referent object of political thought. The hyper-abstracted "individual" as front-and-centre is a creation of libertarian political mythology. In actuality, humans are social creatures, embedded in a variety of communities and socio-cultural frameworks. The libertarian believes he can has a "right" to say or display whatever he wishes without restriction because there are no other "units" involved in the societal transaction. The mythologized abstracted individual in libertarian thought as the only locus of ethical/moral behaviour is symbolically - and this move can only ever be symbolic - stripped bare of community relationships and frameworks of reciprocal responsibilities. You are, when adopting this erroneous ontology, therefore methodologically predisposed to overplay the rights of one over the interests of the community and to neglect your responsibilities to them accordingly. To ward off a potential objection that I anticipate, recognizing the prominent role of the community as a referent object is not an argument for the repression of diversity and creation of "bricks in the wall"; on the contrary, a liberal communitarianism maximizes the liberty of socially-embedded citizens through active governmental measures to educate communities and prevent social exclusion. Wantonly disturbing others and violating rules for the sake of shock, however, is no component of liberty.

Propaganda by deed wrote:

Because in this region there are people who feel their chains, so I know someone could do a research, I think that people who feel it are more sensible and proper to do the research, because they are from our class, there are more of course, this is just a space. And yes, I'll try to contact him.

To the other with ironic words, I'll tell him that the only thing you can do is ridicule without refuting facts. It's called ad-hominen fallacy, goodbye.

Ouch. :(

Propaganda by deed wrote:

I'm not predisposed to overplay the rights of one over the interests of the community and to neglect my responsibilities to them because with photos or aspects I can't hurt them, they "offend" themselves due to their heritage of culture, I can act like this in some tribes, because there isn't that taboo, and I think breaking taboos is part of evolution. One thing is exploiting them for my selfishness and acting greedy economically, and other thing is the civil right of wearing whatever I want or putting in a flag whatever I want as expression.
I think the type of libertarianism that you are describing is capitalist instead of anarchist (collectivist) since they mix individual rights like this, and collective ones, there are communities that could accept that, others don't.
Anyway I liked you posted that, goodbye.

My concern is that it is not a "civil right" to offend for the sake of offending, it's a civil wrong. This is not about affirming core identity or fundamental authenticity but the social equivalent of capitalist "greed". It's a "just because" contravention, an objection to the very existence of community rules and the assertion of a right unqualified by responsibility.

So here's a question

Let's say a country is run by a gay monarchy... how would they be succeeded? Could they adopt a child and choose it to be their heir even though the child isn't blood-related?

Conoga wrote:

It would probably go to another family member. There's a few probably gay British kings.

Julius Caesar adopted his nephew, so I assume that's legit.

Propaganda by deed wrote:

I agree, if I were punching in the air every time and I find you and punch you, I shouldn't say that's my individual civil right, but imagine that I get offended because one of here is gay. I think the problem it's the interpretation of offensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwoqzb5R6vw

Not at all. You have the right to be offended, but speech trying to incite hatred or intolerance towards a group should be a punishable offence without the need for an active incitement to violence to qualify. Such behaviours promote prejudice and social exclusion which is contrary to the development of a progressive community run to maximize opportunities for a fulfilling and secure life for its members. No "absolute" rights, and rights always balanced with responsibilities.

Conoga wrote:

Caesar invented the system, he could do what he wanted with it. The rules of dynastic succession are more set, it's based on bloodline. I don't know. Maybe. There's no precedent, I don't think. I've never even heard of a monarch adopting a child.

Nowdays the rules are different, what with not having to have a male heir for (the majority of ?) European monarchies.