Missing Thread

[Nick_A]

Yet when I look at philosophy forums there's still plenty of philosophy discussed. Hardly false advertising.

However, when one calls the dinner's hostess a "liar" (amongst multiple other epithets and ad hominems) then, if one is realistic, then one might not be surprised to find that one is no longer invited to dinner.

Wouldn't one agree?

No, you are a liar. What you've said about me isn't true. Your trouble is you equate the purpose of philosophy with political philosophy. You think your attacks on Trump and the great ideas given to the world by those like Plato are philosophical. They are not and you have no idea why.

IMO it is an important distinction those like you oppose. That is why I will start a thread on the difference for those still open to the distinction. The sad part is that those like you will never understand it. Blind denial will prevent it and only serve the degeneration of philosophy.

Thank you for making clear why you will never be invited back, just in case anyone wasn't already aware.

Bye! Have fun with your American politics and anti science agendas.

There is nothing worth coming back to anything governed by those like you intent on destroying the purpose of philosophy. There is no sense in it.

[Nick_A]

Political Philosophy
How should society be organised, if at all?
Moderators: AMod, iMod

In all fairness the heading for the Political Philosophy board should be changed to read.

Excluding the American constitution and the ideal of freedom, how should society be organized if at all?

Are you really trying to piss me off?

You are welcome to discuss the philosophical consequences of written and unwritten constitutions using the American constitution as an example. You are welcome to discuss the philosophical consequences of the American constitution and the ideal of freedom as it has been applied to your society or could be applied to another's society. In fact you are welcome to discuss any philosophical aspect of your constitution but what you are not welcome to do is use your political interpretation of it to play politics with your countrymen on this forum. As in all fairness you should be doing this on a politics forum and preferably an American one.

AMod.

I don't play politics since I know what it has become.

strong minds discuss ideas Average minds discuss events weak minds discuss people?

I'm not sure who said this first but it is very meaningful. I prefer to discuss ideas unless being openly and falsely attacked by those like Greta. If you want to accuse anyone accuse Greta. She is the one obsessed with Trump. Weak minds make the most efficient spirit killers. Real philosophy invites a person to rise above attacking people in pursuit of the human need for the experience of meaning.

The Alinsky thread was about an acquired opposition to the idea of freedom. If anyone wants to lower it into attacking Trump or anyone else, it isn't the fault of the topic but just the inability to discuss on the level of ideas including the question if human being left to its own devices is capable of freedom or must it inevitably descend into some form of statist slavery? Let the Greta types play politics. I prefer the pursuit of the purpose of philosophy including understanding what prevents it.

[Greta]

No, you are a liar. What you've said about me isn't true. Your trouble is you equate the purpose of philosophy with political philosophy. You think your attacks on Trump and the great ideas given to the world by those like Plato are philosophical. They are not and you have no idea why.

IMO it is an important distinction those like you oppose. That is why I will start a thread on the difference for those still open to the distinction. The sad part is that those like you will never understand it. Blind denial will prevent it and only serve the degeneration of philosophy.

Thank you for making clear why you will never be invited back, just in case anyone wasn't already aware.

Bye! Have fun with your American politics and anti science agendas.

There is nothing worth coming back to anything governed by those like you intent on destroying the purpose of philosophy. There is no sense in it.

Cool.

[commonsense]

We all really need to get over ourselves.

We also need to ask more questions about a post instead of posting obstinate rebuttals.

[FlashDangerpants]

Look at what is happening in America. The radical violent left is perpetrating crimes against innocent people so as to intimidate them. It is acceptable. Yet if a conservative tells a typical stereotyping joke you'll never hear the end of it. Why? IMO understanding why is very revealing.

Excellent work Nick, you really proved you can resist vomiting those American culture wars everywhere you write.

Why be superficial? An open minded person with an interest in philosophy sees a basic contradiction spawned by hypocrisy. The philosophic mind as opposed to the indoctrinated seeks to understand the big picture - the why of it as it relates to the human condition. The indoctrinated person is only concerned with the duality of their agenda.

Agendas are singular so fuck knows what "the duality of their agenda" is supposed to mean, stop being such a ridiculous pseud, you witless cretin.

Your utterly singular (and tediously repetitive) agenda has nothing to do with investigating anything at all, it is entirely directed at promulgating your relentless hatred of all who don't agree with you, without the courtesy of ever putting together a viable description of your opponents' errors. It is totally unafflicted by openness of mind, and is dependent on your wilful inability to even notice your own rampant hypocrisy. Any philosophical words that you throw into the mix, especially your refrences to Plato, are just ornamentation misused by one grunting halfwit for the purpose of misdirecting others.

[Nick_A]

Excellent work Nick, you really proved you can resist vomiting those American culture wars everywhere you write.

Why be superficial? An open minded person with an interest in philosophy sees a basic contradiction spawned by hypocrisy. The philosophic mind as opposed to the indoctrinated seeks to understand the big picture - the why of it as it relates to the human condition. The indoctrinated person is only concerned with the duality of their agenda.

Agendas are singular so fuck knows what "the duality of their agenda" is supposed to mean, stop being such a ridiculous pseud, you witless cretin.

Your utterly singular (and tediously repetitive) agenda has nothing to do with investigating anything at all, it is entirely directed at promulgating your relentless hatred of all who don't agree with you, without the courtesy of ever putting together a viable description of your opponents' errors. It is totally unafflicted by openness of mind, and is dependent on your wilful inability to even notice your own rampant hypocrisy. Any philosophical words that you throw into the mix, especially your refrences to Plato, are just ornamentation misused by one grunting halfwit for the purpose of misdirecting others.

John 18:

38“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. 39But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”

40They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.

If you had been in the mob at the time you would have been shouting "give us Barabbas." If someone asked you why you would have replied "who cares, he is one of us."

You are a product of indoctrination so whatever rocks the boat must be condemned. Reason be damned. It is the way of the educated secular progressive. fortunately there are those not so afflicted.

[FlashDangerpants]

Why be superficial? An open minded person with an interest in philosophy sees a basic contradiction spawned by hypocrisy. The philosophic mind as opposed to the indoctrinated seeks to understand the big picture - the why of it as it relates to the human condition. The indoctrinated person is only concerned with the duality of their agenda.

Agendas are singular so fuck knows what "the duality of their agenda" is supposed to mean, stop being such a ridiculous pseud, you witless cretin.

Your utterly singular (and tediously repetitive) agenda has nothing to do with investigating anything at all, it is entirely directed at promulgating your relentless hatred of all who don't agree with you, without the courtesy of ever putting together a viable description of your opponents' errors. It is totally unafflicted by openness of mind, and is dependent on your wilful inability to even notice your own rampant hypocrisy. Any philosophical words that you throw into the mix, especially your refrences to Plato, are just ornamentation misused by one grunting halfwit for the purpose of misdirecting others.

John 18:

38“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. 39But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”

40They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.

If you had been in the mob at the time you would have been shouting "give us Barabbas." If someone asked you why you would have replied "who cares, he is one of us."

You are a product of indoctrination so whatever rocks the boat must be condemned. Reason be damned. It is the way of the educated secular progressive. fortunately there are those not so afflicted.

That makes absolutely no fucking sense. You are utterly stupid, everything you write is compete fucking drivel.

[Nick_A]

Agendas are singular so fuck knows what "the duality of their agenda" is supposed to mean, stop being such a ridiculous pseud, you witless cretin.

Your utterly singular (and tediously repetitive) agenda has nothing to do with investigating anything at all, it is entirely directed at promulgating your relentless hatred of all who don't agree with you, without the courtesy of ever putting together a viable description of your opponents' errors. It is totally unafflicted by openness of mind, and is dependent on your wilful inability to even notice your own rampant hypocrisy. Any philosophical words that you throw into the mix, especially your refrences to Plato, are just ornamentation misused by one grunting halfwit for the purpose of misdirecting others.

John 18:

38“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. 39But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”

40They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.

If you had been in the mob at the time you would have been shouting "give us Barabbas." If someone asked you why you would have replied "who cares, he is one of us."

You are a product of indoctrination so whatever rocks the boat must be condemned. Reason be damned. It is the way of the educated secular progressive. fortunately there are those not so afflicted.

That makes absolutely no fucking sense. You are utterly stupid, everything you write is compete fucking drivel.

You're getting good at condemnation. You must be taking lessons from Greta.

[Walker]

That makes absolutely no fucking sense. You are utterly stupid, everything you write is compete fucking drivel.

You're getting good at condemnation. You must be taking lessons from Greta.

* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

http://www.varight.com/alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals/

[FlashDangerpants]

That set of rules for radicals looks like your own battle plan to be fair.

"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
"Never go outside the expertise of your people."
"Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
"Keep the pressure on."
"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside"
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

It's also a list of bollocks for idiots. But you should pay attention to the tactic that drags on too long one...

[Walker]

That set of rules for radicals looks like your own battle plan to be fair.

A fair Alinskyite? That's an oxymoron.

The second is the 12 “Rules” for implementation of this plan. The tactics or “rules” work equally as well on the left to fight the plan, which is in it’s final stages of implementation.
http://www.varight.com/alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals/

[Walker]

It's also a list of bollocks for idiots. But you should pay attention to the tactic that drags on too long one...

You are utterly stupid, everything you write is compete fucking drivel.

Hmmm. How's that mirror look?

[TimeSeeker]

In the game of opinions the principle of charity gets brought up very often. So how does one apply that principle in practice?

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation

The strongest possible interpretation of my statements (be it words OR actions) is that I am standing up for MY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (looking after my own interests if you will). I am participating in democracy! I am PLAYING the GAME OF POLITICS. All the time!

The strongest possible interpretation is that I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS! Which is to understand that it doesn’t and WHY it doesn’t!

Because principle of charity - I am ASSUMING that you are far smarter, far more calculating, far more strategic/tactical AND far more Machiavellian than I am! So I am ASSUMING that you are trying to WIN at the GAME OF POLITICS.

I KNOW that the is-ought gap cannot be bridged with logic. Because I am charitable I ASSUME you know this too. Therefore I ASSUME that you KNOW that all arguments can be reduced down to 'I want X'. Desire! Because I am charitable I ASSUME that you KNOW that a 'good argument' is just an euphemism for "elaborate rationalisation for one's desires". The purpose of arguments is to HYPNOTISE OTHER PEOPLE into agreeing with you!

And since your desires are detrimental to my desires I am ASSUMING you too are PLAYING THE GAME OF POLITICS. Because that IS what I am doing - as best as I can!

What are YOU doing? Philosophising? Shame Maybe I was too charitable with the principle of charity? Perhaps you want me to PRETEND TO BE CHARITABLE by exercising the principle of pity?

The will to power is all there is. Might makes right.

[Arising_uk]

...

The will to power is all there is. Might makes right.

Then why bother arguing?

[henry quirk]

Cuz it's fuckin' FUN.