Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

The tactics are all on your side: "Alas, Harry, you poor, emotionally misguided victim of sentimental misunderstanding. Allow me, a man of dispassionate reason, to explain to you your error."

This is an unfair paraphrase. It is an act of deliberate mis-statement. It takes a statement I did make and twists it and spins it unwholesomely.

It is true however that I do see the Left-Progressive views as being presented through terms of moral authority and *righteousness*, and also as being expressed through hot emotionalism. And it is also true that time and again, when you and I have conversed, you always end up upset with me.

If I am dispassionate I have earned it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I spent the formative first ten years of my life in South Africa with the guidance of a thoughtful, understanding, compassionate family, but maybe you can convince me that we all misunderstood the whole situation. Maybe you know something that those of us living there didn't. Again: the floor's yours. Convince me. Convince the rest of my family.

Now you have presented an even more formidable barrier. You are saying that now I have to argue against thoughtfulness, understanding, and compassion not only abstractly but as these traits were evident in your family. And you set it up that I now have to present a case in terms of you-plural having ‘misunderstood’ the real truth.

Obviously, the task is impossible. And this is therefore a supreme use of a thwarting tactic.

Here is the post I wrote. It contains a range of idea. If possible please start over.

[Harry Baird]

You didn't present any issues. You only vaguely alluded to them. I challenged you to present your views explicitly. You ignored my challenge. It still stands.

This is tactic on your part. If you wish to thwart any developing conversation you certainly have the power to do so. My policy is not to stop someone when they take such a tack. The refusal to allow an examination of the issues, in a very heated and controversial area, is your prerogative. To continue, and you do not wish to continue, you will have to go back to the first post I made on the topic and start over. Drop the gaslighting accusation and work, as you certainly are capable, point by point through what I fairly and squarely presented. I took the floor and presented an opening statement then. There is not need for me to do it again.

I read carefully. You offered nothing substantial in relation to the affirmation I presented: that "South Africa [...] was itself an exploitative colonial project."

It is apparent that you wish to demur from that affirmation. It is not apparent on what basis and why. Your "first post [...] on the topic" was devoid of engagement with that affirmation, whilst apparently wishing to present itself as substantive engagement.

Here are the loose associations which (at best) I got from that post of yours, which utterly fail to amount to anything substantial at all with respect to whatever-the-hell it is you reject about my affirmation about South Africa:

"Paternal immigration from Denmark to South Africa. Whitey got t' go. Robert Bork. Richard Weaver. René Guénon. Julius Evola. Alt-Right. Fascism. Decadence. Confronting the establishment. My liberal informing. California Radicalism. Absorbed ideas. The wrong side of history. Sublimations of Christian-Progressivism. Harry's internalised views [you, Alexis, of course, are immune to such a thing]. The 'undermining' and 'burrowing' of traditions."

OK, so, with all of that irrelevant bullshit out of the way, we finally arrive at your explicit contestation of my affirmation. You write in this respect that "From a conventional historical perspective this statement cannot be right", and you go on to contend that to be seen as correct it "requires" this and that, including "historical revisionism", but you never state what those requirements are, how they are not met, nor what the "revisionism" is, nor even what the "unrevised" history is. You go on to allude to a "countermanding" view which "turn[s] against" my affirmation, but, again, you leave this "countermanding" view utterly undescribed and unexplicated.

Go on, then. Explain your position. Explain what you see as the "unrevised" history of South Africa. Explain your "countermanding" view, and what justifies it. Do the fucking work, dude, because, right now, you're coming across as merely a two-bit hustler, with nothing concrete to offer. "I, uh, I have a countermanding view. And, uh, René Guénon. So, therefore, South Africa was never a colony. Stop being so sentimental!"

Get real. Come up with something serious. In what sense was South Africa not an exploitative colonial project? Who backs you on that? In what way is it rational? Why? What is the basis of your claim?

Stop pretending to grapple with serious issues and actually get serious enough to put your actual views on the line.

[FlashDangerpants]

That is you calling me a liar again.

Again, you convert a statement about what you did, to a statement about what you are.

Then you take umbrage, allege slander, and try to claim the high ground.

Nope, no good. Too transparent.

Dude. Quit while you're way, way behind, to avoid digging yourself even deeper into a hole of your own making.

Every Sunday after church Immanuel Can holds court with his admiring audience, there to recount the week's adventures in his grand fight against Satan. This contest he conducts by simultaneously containing the arguments of 20 or more heathens at once, parrying until he can despatch the foe with an elegant counterthrust, like Zorro telling the fat and Satanic Tillingborn "hah, and now you have shown your own argument to be false!". If nobody in the audience questions him about it, then there's nothing tragic about arguing that it's importantly different to say somebody lied than to say they are a liar.

You and I aren't the audience that counts, and that Sunday telling is everything. There's no bedrock of healthy pride for him to excavate to, no rock bottom where he realises that this shameless debasement he undergoes is unworthy of a morally decent man. He has invested everything into the sin of pride that's all about wowing those idiots who think his tales are true.

Except it's most probable that nobody in his church is fooled either. So it's debasement all the way down for mister Can.

[Harry Baird]

Harry, I am a Pantheist/Panentheist - God has EVERYTHING to do with the spreading of good intention, ethics and democracy (via the British system).

Ah, so, then, God must also have everything to do with the spreading of bad intentions, immorality, cancer, and psychopathy, since they, too, are encompassed by panentheism. In other words, God has everything to do with everything outside of the British system too. Thus, there is nothing especially divine in the British system.

[tillingborn]

Again, you convert a statement about what you did...

Let's establish some facts. Are you the Immanuel Can who responded to this:

The outlets that use 'legacy media' in this way are your Pravda news.

with this?

Yes, they are.

[iambiguous]

Good luck with that atheist dumb arse.




Yep, atheist dumb arse so what the fuck are you doing here since you have worked out how intellectually weak you are?

See what I mean?!

Note to the folks at Philosophy Now:

I'll bet that never in a million years when you created this forum could you have possibly imagined it bursting at the seams with "minds" of this sort?

Perhaps you should just throw in the towel and sell it to Elon Musk. Or the Vatican?

What makes you think that you are in any way intellectually superior to me?

It says so in the Bible.



Note to IC:

I forgot the chapter and verse. Help him out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

….

You win. Way too much emotionalism. And extremely bad-faith paraphrasing coupled with insults.

Do the fucking work, dude, because, right now, you're coming across as merely a two-bit hustler, with nothing concrete to offer.

How do you describe how you are coming across?

[Harry Baird]

….

You win. Way too much emotionalism. And extremely bad-faith paraphrasing coupled with insults.

I'll accept the win, but it's a hollow victory. I was hoping to inspire you to say something concrete and meaningful. If mine is a revisionist history of South Africa, then what, in your view, is the unrevised history?

It's all too cheap and easy to cry "You're too emotional. Stop insulting me!" It's a lot more demanding to actually answer that serious question.

If you remain unable to explain what was wrong with my affirmation that South Africa was an exploitative colonial project, then you ought to walk back your rejection of that affirmation, and to apologise for the false imputation you've laid upon me with respect to it.

[Immanuel Can]

Again, you convert a statement about what you did...

Let's establish some facts.

Well, I have. It's clear you wish to misrepresent, to exaggerate, to distort, and to posture toward the alleged moral high ground.

I'm quite sure you know very well I have not called you a "liar," and I can see that you can't produce a single quotation including that particular indictment. So there's one hard fact. No doubt, you will object that I have accused you of deliberate misreading, but the truth that that is what you have done is evident from what you've written: you can hardly protest.

However, I'm made pensive by your continual reversion to the allegation of me "calling your a liar", though...and I'm convinced there's a kind of game of wordplay and striking postures afoot with you, the goal of which I am unable to imagine. I don't think it sounds like much fun, though.

I'm sorry...I'm just not that interested. Carry on as you see fit. Count me out.

[attofishpi]

Harry, I am a Pantheist/Panentheist - God has EVERYTHING to do with the spreading of good intention, ethics and democracy (via the British system).

Ah, so, then, God must also have everything to do with the spreading of bad intentions, immorality, cancer, and psychopathy, since they, too, are encompassed by panentheism. In other words, God has everything to do with everything outside of the British system too. Thus, there is nothing especially divine in the British system.

Apart from the great souls that operate through it.

Britain (spurring freedom of democracy)
...|...
formed
...|...
Canada---USA---New Zealand---Australia..etc.
...|...
India---Hong Kong---Singapore...etc.
...|...USA-->Japan/Philipinnes


My question of you remains: Right now, is the world a safer place to raise a family away from tyranny because of Britain?

All you need to do is answer the question Harry:- Yes or No

[attofishpi]

See what I mean?!

Note to the folks at Philosophy Now:

I'll bet that never in a million years when you created this forum could you have possibly imagined it bursting at the seams with "minds" of this sort?

Perhaps you should just throw in the towel and sell it to Elon Musk. Or the Vatican?

What makes you think that you are in any way intellectually superior to me?

It says so in the Bible.

Shall I rest my case as to how daft U are? (and without wit)

[iambiguous]

Shall I rest my case as to how daft U are? (and without wit)

I'll bet you don't have an ironic bone in your body!

If you get my drift.

[attofishpi]

Shall I rest my case as to how daft U are? (and without wit)

I'll bet you don't have an ironic bone in your body!

If you get my drift.

Since your drift is like a soggy foggy wind from a fart of an old man...then alas, no.

[Harry Baird]

Harry, I am a Pantheist/Panentheist - God has EVERYTHING to do with the spreading of good intention, ethics and democracy (via the British system).

Ah, so, then, God must also have everything to do with the spreading of bad intentions, immorality, cancer, and psychopathy, since they, too, are encompassed by panentheism. In other words, God has everything to do with everything outside of the British system too. Thus, there is nothing especially divine in the British system.

Apart from the great souls that operate through it.

Britain (spurring freedom of democracy)
...|...
formed
...|...
Canada---USA---New Zealand---Australia..etc.
...|...
India---Hong Kong---Singapore...etc.
...|...USA-->Japan/Philipinnes


My question of you remains: Right now, is the world a safer place to raise a family away from tyranny because of Britain?

All you need to do is answer the question Harry:- Yes or No

The answer is: no, of course not, precisely because of your helpful textual diagram. All of those countries were invaded, if not by Britain, then by other European nations, on the basis of imperialism and colonisalism. Rather than "spurring" democracy, invasion is undemocratic, and, yes, tyrannical. The indigenous peoples of this world are in far more danger than they would have been without European invasion/colonisation/imperialism.

I'm not sure why this is so (superficially) contested. Again: surely, you're having a laugh.