h a l f b a k e r yExperiencing technical difficulties since 1999
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
War-Ranty
100% Unconditional social conflict contract. | |
The War-Ranty is a scroll with a wax seal. Unlike a typical warranty which is a type of legal contract, this rather long scroll contains a near indecipherable rant that at times raves. Not a legal document by any means, the War-Ranty is a guarantee by at least one party for perpetually ongoing and
increasingly irrational hostilities against another individual, group, inanimate object, set of regulations, unknown persecutors, or anything or anyone else one might feel pertains to its innumerable but often indefinite and poorly articulated clauses.
[link]
|
| |
Excellent; I'll take three. [+] |
|
| |
Would this idea exist if it were not for the pun? |
|
| |
Now who's doing philosophy? |
|
| |
It's only philosophy if I say I'm doing philosophy. At
least, that's my philosophy. |
|
| |
It's when you like it for sure. |
|
| |
Here's a thing: bring the typical process associated with the early stages of litigation to the setting of parameters for class / national / neighbour / on drugs warfare by requiring any declaration of hostilities to be accompanied by a settled social conflict contract between the parties. In litigation, the parties are expected to agree in advance on the areas that are not in dispute, and then outline the areas that are in dispute, the latter being the areas that the court is expected to rule upon. The social conflict contract would be an agreement to disagree about specific, well defined items, and to undertake the conflict re those specific items using various means and methods (but without the ability to contract out of the Geneva Convention). The advantage of this process is that is involves the prospective combatants defining what they do agree on so that they have a fence around what they don't agree on. |
|
| |
That would actually be not such a bad idea. The contemporary problem is that states use hostilities to totalize combatants inside powerful discourses such as terrorism, anarchism, criminality etc. and use these to marginalize the entire enemy ideology. Whereas the concept of social contract outlines what kinds of disagreement are valid in society and the legitimate ways to deal with them, a foreseeable social conflict contract (SCC) would legitimize conflicts that are contrary to the social contract and the recognized ways of dealing with problems. However, it would recognize that approved means such as lobbying, writing your representative, petitioning, "writing the best damned article" etc. are not within the scope of all possible disagreements. So as per your conditions an anarchist group for example would require social conflict contract as they would likely not participate in any of the state sanctioned avenues for resolution, so the SCC would be an 'agreement to disagree' about those terms so a fight-club style anarcho-primitivist revolution can be avoided, and the terms by which parties can resolve such as ending consumerism will be contained within a more reasonable set of discourses. So the war-ranty as social conflict contract would be a contract of total disagreement, but some of the terms would be within areas that both parties cannot agree to disagree on, and some that they can agree to disagree on. |
|
| |
Consider the following combinations: agree to agree, agree to disagree, disagree to agree, disagree to disagree. The first means complete agreement, the second means no agreement but accepting difference, the third means a genuine conflict, and the fourth means the issue is not on the table and is not tolerable by either party. That last one would be the conflict between anarchists and statists. |
|
| |
This idea should have progressed for another several
tens of thousand words becoming progressively more
angry, irrational, and vexatious until it should have
ended in a
wordless screech. |
|
| |
You've more focused on a single object called voice that causes worldview distortion. |
|
| |
Had you not been so distracted by your possibly most eternal mind form, you might have said that the War-Ranty or social conflict contract or SCC, regulates a social relation between parties creating a jocular or jungle level conflict where a serious disagreement becomes near institutionalized inside a funny idea, but the serious nature allows the conflict to continue despite a harmony that is produced by affirmational indication of a thematic subnarration by a localized contract level social relation in a very specific set of formalized social exchanges. This refers to the industrial domain primarily inside a clerical bureaucratic pastoralization of effective communicative actors and an ego-economic relationship to profitable exchange. The War-Ranty acts as a sarcastic exchange token, the wax seal having structural wiring with wire sharp pointed saw tooth outer edge. But rather represents a witticism in a conflictual disagreement in a clerical setting. The scroll is merely a spring loaded launching device. |
|
| |
//where a serious disagreement becomes near institutionalized inside a funny idea |
|
| |
For example, the current eastern Ukraine dispute, but done entirely with Ukrainian mimes facing off Russian mimes? |
|
| |
I will refrain from saying, that's kind of one to avoid, a bit of a mimefield. |
|
| |
That joke is just who Nazis are, and how so many people are everywhere, but some people want to fight for it more and others just want to be jocular at a passive aggressive joke level. Jungle Nazis are hard to see because its hidden in absurdity. Usually inside an anarcho-primitivist front because that's the diametric opposite. |
|
| |
The complete War-Ranty package includes rotating pin ejector scroll, ignitable wire frame wax seal, extended SCC litigation clauses illustrated by wire frame tables and charts all indicating the very sharp points on the War-Ranty seal of disapproval. The particular specifications are outlined towards their practical value in generating sublevel jungle noise communications on an extended laughter track only detectable by log range information technology processors in an institutionalized historical global battle syndrome. |
|
| |
//You've more focused on a single object called
voice that causes worldview distortion// Now I'm
blushing |
|
| |