Mark Question wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
I've been playing verbal tennis with MQ since early August. I'm not sure if it is tolerance. But I am just fed up with making points, and him replying to other things, and when I deal with those he still refuses, or is unable to figure out what I am telling him. Either he is avoiding questions that challenge him; that he does not like; that he doe not understand; that he cannot answer; or whatever - I just don't care to go down the same road that I have with his doppleganger - Typist.
Life is too short.
If anyone else wants the argument with him then they are welcome; OR if he gets back to the point I'll answer him.
that sounds logical. i give you that. criticizing your self seems to be the pattern. mq with many faces like wootah, your self and a straw man? maybe its some kind of tolerance. if shooting own legs is some kind of tolerance too. One thing is for sure, the way Hitler and Breivik think fulfils their own person logic and is far from 'false' in any meaningful sense.
is that sentence fulfilling your logic? and typist is also far from 'false' in any meaningful sense? should we send "far from 'false'"-funeral flower messages to norway?
I'm not criticising myself. I'm criticising you you fucking moron.
But at least, after 3 weeks you finally got back on thread.
You are a prime example of fulfilling your own logic; a twisted one.
Hitler believed that it was the destiny of the German people to rule Europe; that they were a superior race and that he was going to prove it. Had he succeeded we would be living in a very different world. A world in which those things were self evidently true. Every action he took was the outward working of that philosophy. Nothing he did flew against those assumptions. Only a moron would dismiss him as false or evil - no one consciously does wrong. Hitler was no exception to the Socratic paradox.
None of this means that you have to agree with Hitler, Typist or Breivik. But what you do get from this is how to understand their ideas. This is a much better way to prevent them from happening again, than your trivial understanding which characterises them as false.
I don't think even you wake up one morning and say to yourself; " I think I am going to think falsely today!"
You can send flowers if you like. After all its not his fault if he is thinking false thoughts.
For me I choose to understand what the real problem is with him, and lock him away because he is determined to think in that way. As a determinist I'm interested in punishing the person, not the deed or the thought that generated it.