Hansel

Yes! I love his music. c: I generally prefer his music from All Things Bright And Beautiful and prior to that, but his newer material is pretty good too. I have to say that his Ultraviolet EP is probably his weakest release so far in my opinion (It had some catchy stuff, but just felt a bit like a generic pop album), but I did really enjoy Beautiful Times, and his recent Tokyo single was fantastic. (Sekai No Owari are a really great band too.)

Does having parents from two different countries and a duel nationality mean I get to go twice?

Did I say that? When did I say that? Point to where I said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. No, of course I don't think murder is fine. I don't think it's fine because I think it's unethical and I have empathy. I base my code of ethics off my empathy. That's a different thing all together from good and evil. You can have ethics without believing in the notion of good and evil. I'm a living example of that, and there's plenty others like me. Some people kill even though they think it's unethical. Some people, who might even believe in good and evil, kill regardless. (again, do I really need to point out examples of this?) You don't need to be spiritual or religious to have ethics, and people can have ethics and believe in good and evil whilst also not being spiritual or religious. Spirituality, ethics, and good/evil are not mutually inclusive, and they're all subjective. This is why most people naturally gravitate towards forming societies and governments, so that large groups of ideally like-minded people with similar ethics and ideas can create a code of conduct which more-or-less follows what the majority of people feel is right and wrong. It'll never be perfect, because everyone's personal ethics are going to differ (hence why they're subjective, but a group of people living on the same land are likely going to be able to agree on core issues, such as unprovoked murder for example), but the benefits of a society that more or less works in favour of the people far outweigh the disadvantages. This is why the human race has excelled so much. Anarchy will never work, not just because it will create more violence (as there's no code of conduct to follow, and due to the subjective nature of ethics and good/evil, everyone will simply behave however they feel is right to them or simply whatever benefits them because there's no legal consequence), but also because it's human nature to form societies and to live together, meaning that anarchy will not last, and societies and hierarchy will naturally form. Saying that, this is also the reason why "one global civilisation ruled under one government" is unlikely to work. A group of people living on one side of the planet are likely going to want to follow a somewhat different code of conduct to the people living on the other side of the planet. This is because, as I said, ethics and morals and level of empathy and such are influenced by your nature as well as your surroundings. This is evident from the fact that there's literally hundreds, maybe thousands of different societies instead of just one.

Oh dear lord... I'm sorry, but I genuinely cannot take you seriously any more. Are you a troll? :') "real atheists" "True atheism is nihilism" A'ight. Cool. You have no idea what atheism is, do you? Also, you do realise that good and evil are entirely subjective, right? You do understand this? It depends entirely on where you come from, your upbringing, your religion or lack thereof, your nature, your mental stability... I could go on. What's evil to one person isn't to another. Do I REALLY need to give you examples of this? I'd honestly rather not.

> Challenges ideas "stop attacking me!" D: Dear lord, I don't have to believe in good and evil to not go around hurting people. I have this thing called "ethics" and "empathy" which go a long way when it comes to you know, not going around on a killing rampage. You whine about religion, but this is literally the exact same argument religious people use against secular people and atheists.

I've never even mentioned the word "soul", how could I lump it together with anything? I just said that spirituality and religion are not mutually exclusive, and that spiritual ideologies can contradict one another and result in violence just like any other ideology. And I don't believe in good and evil, so I'm not even sure where you're getting any of this from. I just love the fact that you get upset and almost rage quit because we're not taking your anarchism seriously enough and engaging in it properly (which is pretty hard to do when it's so idealistic and naive), but then when I offer some discourse (which I did originally after poking a bit of fun, but you ignored that), you completely ignore me again and use a boarder line ad hominem attack for not being spiritual, and then put a whole load of words in my mouth which I never even insinuated.

What the Hell are you talking about and why is any of this relevant to anything I've brought up? I don't think I've even mentioned the word "soul" once in any of my posts. Are you seriously trying to dismiss all of my points because you assume that I'm not spiritual enough?

How is this relevant to anything I wrote?

> Ignores everything I wrote for the second time. > Nitpicks a semantic issue which is more or less irrelevant. > Assumes that spirituality and religion are mutually exclusive. > Assumes people won't fight over spiritual ideologies. > Assumes that spiritual ideas can't evolve into a religion. Cool.

Reasons violence can (and will) break out in an anarchistic society: - Land dispute - Resources - Difference of personal morals and ethics - Difference of spiritual ideologies - Mental illness - Racism - Bigotry - Because some people just want to - Power In a society like our own, not only do people KNOW that it is wrong to kill or take advantage of another person, but they know that there are consequences which are very likely to catch up with them (unlike in anarchy, where you're more likely to get away with murder). If you really think that this hypothetical anarchistic world won't have any of these issues, and if you really think there will be no more violence, then I'm sorry, but you're idealistic to the point of self delusion. The only way this would work how you want it to is if you re-write human nature.

I suppose that strictly speaking, anarchism doesn't fall under liberalism, in fact it is a separate political idology. However, you'll find that most anarchists tend to have "ultra liberal" ideas, and sometimes even identify to some degree as a Liberal. The two are not mutually exclusive, but there tends to be a lot overlap. Also, regarding the initial post: > Implying that I'm a Liberal.

... Anarchy is a far-left, ultra-liberal ideology. Pot kettle black.

WarLORD??? Sounds to me like a status only a society with a hierarchy would have. Can't have that in anarchy now, can we? But you said that in this hypothetical anarchistic world, people could still follow their own spirituality and ideologies, so people can still kill people for being gay if their ideology says that that's what they should do. Governments didn't create homophobia. It was ideologies (such as some religious ideologies, for example) that promoted those homophobic views, and those same views got injected or picked up by some governments/societies/powers. Ideologies like this can still exist (and will still exist) in an anarchistic world. At least now, we have many governments and societies actively working against homophobic agendas, and at least now, many societies impose consequences against homophobic attacks (and attacks in general).

[red pill intensifies] Word powers have killed people.Therefore, we must get rid of them and have a system that is the exact opposite. The world is black and white. There are no neuonces. If a system has provided us with countless of benefits and advancements, but has issues, we must abolish it instead of trying to fix it. m8, people go around killing each when they KNOW that there'll be consequences. Do you seriously think that's gonna magically go away in a world where they could actually get away with these things far more easily? Human beings have been killing each other long before politics and civilisation as we know it came about. > Until one "spiritual truth" contradicts another, of course. I think we all know what happens then. > Implying that everyone in the world is going to be able to get hold of their own land to farm on. I'm sure that in a world where every man is more or less for himself, they'll be NO CONFLICT WHAT-SO-EVER OVER LAND THAT YOU NEED IN ORDER TO FEED YOURSELF AND THEY'LL BE PLENTY TO GO AROUND. > Implying that everyone's gonna be good and empathetic enough to not turn this into a living nightmare, as well as take care of people in need.

JonTron InternetAristocrat (Before he deleted his channel) OneyNG I think those are my top three.

Haha. I always take the piss out of my Brummy friend's accents whenever I go up North. (Brummyland in in the North as far as I'm concerned) Biiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrmingham.

Re: British Accent. Yes. That one British accent everyone speaks.

[selfie intensifies] I look far too serious.

The final destination. We're actually all dead here.

Synthpop-ish Chiptune-ish bleepy bloopy thing. I dunno, I was frustrated so I did a thing and decided to share it two and a half weeks later. ... This is actually really awkward. :<

Sega Saturn Game Boy Colour PS2 XBox 360 PC Also had a NES, and a PS1, but my parents got rid of them. :okiedokielokie:

6.5/10

9/10 that was actually awesome.

'murica/10

I'm actually just talking about Blackgaze.