Civil Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Civil Rights

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Walker wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:12 pm
Science Fan wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:49 pm Gustav, you have no answers. You have lies and delusions, but no answers. You reject the most basic findings of science, the most researched aspects of history, and you shove them aside to endorse made-up delusional claims of uneducated people who prance around social media 24/7 spreading hate.

I would no more rely on information from you than I would rely on information from David Icke.
The point is to make a cogent, intelligent, and convincing argument that is so persuasive that even a highly intelligent, critical mind such as Gustav’s can see the world in a wholly new way. This is the point of the discussion. Personal regard for the current position of the purported principle, whether that regard is negative or affirmative, is irrelevant other than as a clue of doorways to persuade, chinks in the wall. But that is a highly limited approach, especially when appealing to a greater intelligence, for it assumes much that has already been considered in the construction of the held and fortified position. Better to come sailing in from left field, the dada way, and if you have a great arm you can throw from right field to third base on a fairly tight parabola, right on the money, no relays. Personal insults and opinions? Unless you are someone of fame, authority, or wealth they are so many stones tossed at the ankles of castle walls.
That is the danger of 'philosophy'. Some people are just good at making the irrational sound rational to those who are gullible, not very bright, uneducated, or unable to think critically. The only 'point' in arguing with someone like Gustav is to expose his lies and agenda to anyone who might otherwise be swayed by them. The man himself is never going to change his position.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Science Fan »

Just to show what a great humanitarian I am, I agree with Veg's last post about Gustav. Veg actually nailed it.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

VT wrote:That is the danger of 'philosophy'. Some people are just good at making the irrational sound rational to those who are gullible, not very bright, uneducated, or unable to think critically. The only 'point' in arguing with someone like Gustav is to expose his lies and agenda to anyone who might otherwise be swayed by them. The man himself is never going to change his position.
That is the danger of any sort of statement or proposition that can be made. And it is true that many positions are articulated, in many different media, philosophy included, which are well-written, logically-ordered, and persuasive at least to some, but which we do not accept as true. It is true, at least often, that the gullible can be fooled (since by definition they are foolable). And some part of that may be because they are not 'bright'. In some contexts their level of education, or their field of education, may affect how they receive a presentation and it stands to reason that a clever or sophistic argument could win them over. But this is not absolutely sure. Sometimes the not-too-bright see quite easily through a faulty proposition; and sometimes those without 'proper education' can actually reason more honestly because they see, perhaps, more 'basically' and are not fooled by sophistic trickery.

But the claim --- merely as a claim --- that I am dealing in lies is a calumny, and in itself is a form of sophistry and deception! Just saying something, and insinuating bad intent, and attempting to influence others on that basis, is underhanded and deceptive. Further, to say that I am never going to change my position is obviously a statement that VT cannot make. It is another level of calumny and an attempt to denigrate my intellectual and reasoning abilities.

So, I turn the lens of examination around and suggest that the two of you examine your own position, your own method, your own predicates, and also you own intentions.

An 'agenda' is 'a program of things to be done or considered'. And I surely have an agenda! That agenda is to examine the grammar upon which our worldview is constructed and to come to see and understand the different components of it. It is a uniquely difficult work because it does involve, as I say, turning the lens of examination around.

I have already explained in other posts exactly where my differences lie in respect to the issue and issues to which VT and SF refer. The place to deal with that is in those threads where it can be discussed. I do not think these topics should be brought in to every thread simply because --- as it would appear --- these two persons wish to calumnify my contributions. Still, I will answer every and any reasonable and good-faith question that bear on those and any other questions.

And when these things are brought up, as here, I will, as here, address them point by point.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

This is a platform for discussing ideas, Science Fan, and I have absolutely no problem that you write whatever you wish to write, on any topic and theme, and I encourage you to respond in any way you desire to anything I write. I do hope that you will modify and also improve your argument-style, and I also hope that you will choose to become more honest in the way you deal with opposition. But I make no demands of any sort on you or on anyone. You are absolutely free and sovereign. Have fun and make the best use of your time!
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Civil Rights

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:31 pm
VT wrote:That is the danger of 'philosophy'. Some people are just good at making the irrational sound rational to those who are gullible, not very bright, uneducated, or unable to think critically. The only 'point' in arguing with someone like Gustav is to expose his lies and agenda to anyone who might otherwise be swayed by them. The man himself is never going to change his position.
That is the danger of any sort of statement or proposition that can be made. And it is true that many positions are articulated, in many different media, philosophy included, which are well-written, logically-ordered, and persuasive at least to some, but which we do not accept as true. It is true, at least often, that the gullible can be fooled (since by definition they are foolable). And some part of that may be because they are not 'bright'. In some contexts their level of education, or their field of education, may affect how they receive a presentation and it stands to reason that a clever or sophistic argument could win them over. But this is not absolutely sure. Sometimes the not-too-bright see quite easily through a faulty proposition; and sometimes those without 'proper education' can actually reason more honestly because they see, perhaps, more 'basically' and are not fooled by sophistic trickery.

But the claim --- merely as a claim --- that I am dealing in lies is a calumny, and in itself is a form of sophistry and deception! Just saying something, and insinuating bad intent, and attempting to influence others on that basis, is underhanded and deceptive. Further, to say that I am never going to change my position is obviously a statement that VT cannot make. It is another level of calumny and an attempt to denigrate my intellectual and reasoning abilities.

So, I turn the lens of examination around and suggest that the two of you examine your own position, your own method, your own predicates, and also you own intentions.

An 'agenda' is 'a program of things to be done or considered'. And I surely have an agenda! That agenda is to examine the grammar upon which our worldview is constructed and to come to see and understand the different components of it. It is a uniquely difficult work because it does involve, as I say, turning the lens of examination around.

I have already explained in other posts exactly where my differences lie in respect to the issue and issues to which VT and SF refer. The place to deal with that is in those threads where it can be discussed. I do not think these topics should be brought in to every thread simply because --- as it would appear --- these two persons wish to calumnify my contributions. Still, I will answer every and any reasonable and good-faith question that bear on those and any other questions.

And when these things are brought up, as here, I will, as here, address them point by point.
Well, you've been on here spewing the same guff for several years after being debunked umpteen times. I think that is a fairly good indicator of a mind set in cement.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Richard Weaver, in a talk on rhetoric and persuasion, wrote:Let’s inspect a few examples. One of the commonest tricks of the propagandist in any age is name-calling. If he desires us to accept something, he applies a good name to it; if he desires us to reject it, applies an evil one. Name-calling is nothing more on earth but the arguments of damnation because the name is employed to define the thing. Or to put it in a class, if the name applied is a true one, then the argument must be viewed as honest, but the propagandist applies a name which is speciously good. That is to say, it looks good to the uncritical but actually, it is not.
The transcription of the talk is here. If you and the Most Esteemed Science Fan were to read it I believe that you would gain from it a great deal.

In no sense, and in no part of the long *discussion* on the thread examining the Alt-Right and the Nouvelle Droite in Europe, was any part or aspect of my presentation or any argument I myself made 'debunked'. I suggest that you allow yourself to fall into a dangerous trap when you equate 'successful name-calling' with successful debunking.

The reason you do this, and the reason this happens within you, is because your mind and your concepts are disordered. I suggest that there are reasons why your thinking-processes are disordered and that, in examining what you say, these reasons can be discovered. And when one discovers them they can be fairly described, and when fairly described they can be seen as what they are: arguments that have more in common with propaganda-techniques than with upright rational argumentation. When that is seen and understood I further suggest that such *argumentation* can be seen for what it is: destructiveness to sound intellect and intellectual process. When the emotions contaminate the intellect, and the emotions are topsy-turvy and distorted in themselves, the result in argument and in argument-products will generally always be bad.

The core of the *arguments* brought forward by both you and Science Fan are based strictly --- strictly! --- in name-calling. It is also based on deliberate distortion of what a person says and the twisting of it, the restating of it, in other terms. It is a form of lying therefor. And based on the distortion and the lie you 'name-call' in the hope, I suppose, that this will function sufficiently as an argument and win people over to your side. This should be seen as a propaganda-technique and not one appropriate to decent and honest discourse.

Time and again I suggest --- politely --- that you-plural perform a little critical self-analysis and 'turn the lens of examination around' to focus on yourselves. This will prove useful, I suggest, because you seem to have allowed low-level and even devious techniques more proper to sophistry and to propaganda and manipulative public-relations to dominate your own minds and reasoning ability. We must notice when theis happens to us and we must purify ourselves of these wretched habits.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Science Fan »

Gustav, you still spouting on and on about your so-called white supremacy, Jew-hatred, and science-denial conspiracy theories? I've already seen the postings of the two white supremacists you referred to as being the royalty of the white-supremacist movement, and their posts and statements were no different from the average knuckle-dragging white supremacist on social media.

Why don't you pick up a real book and read it so you can learn something real, as opposed to wasting your time, and everyone else's time, by promoting pure bullshit on steroids?

You claim to be interested in the Holocaust? Okay then, name a single book you read about the Holocaust that was published by a major university as opposed to a hate-organization? I doubt you can name one, and be truthful about it. Your information sources are simply whacked out, not reliable, and that's why you don't know anything of actual value to others who do not share your hatred of colored people, Jews, etc.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Walker »

Minneapolis installs SHARIA HOTLINES for Muslims to Report ‘islamophobia’
http://pamelageller.com/2017/06/minneap ... obia.html/

When words become a hate crime, then words violate civil rights.
Criminalizing speech overrides freedom of speech, in such a situation.
Creeping Conundrum.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Civil Rights

Post by Walker »

Science Fan wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:19 pm Why don't you pick up a real book and read it so you can learn something real ...
That's actually pretty funny.
Post Reply