For those of you familiar with myers/briggs personality typology, I'm betting Satyr is an INTJ.
Satyr represents the philosophical Yang.. as opposed the Yin. Allow me to explain-
Utilizing our intellect, it is possible to generalize, abstract and amalgamate, more/less similar dynamic phenomena into a static noumena, always whilst generalizing, abstracting and amalgamating, more/less different dynamic phenomena into a static noumena. However, this is only true whilst discussing properties, not necessarily how properties are normally spatially and temporally combined (think bicycle, or dog). When we do this well, we are smart, when we do this poorly, we are stupid. There are some who believe the abstractions are more real than reality, that the mind organizes and generates reality (hmmm, mind gives birth to reality.. that sounds like a rather masculine position, don't you think?), and that we should rely primarily on the abstractions to make sense of the world, and conversely, always conversely, there are some who believe reality is more real than the abstractions, and that we should primarily rely on reality to make sense of the abstractions. Satyr is an empiricist, a materialist and a determinist. He believes phenomena is primary and noumena is secondary. He associates the opposite position with absolutism/nihilism, death, passivity and, feminity, of which there is an authoritarian abundance (so much for God and teleology) of in the universe. Satyr percieves order, life and his creed, his philosophy as rare, precious things, and in opposition to and rebellion with the norm, which is chaos, death and absolutism/nihilism (either I surrender to intellectual and physical death, or I strive for intellectual and physical completion, both are a returning to the intellectual and physical wombs).
The final product is a dichtomy, for example, warm/cool, or light/dark. Now, is there not something similar about warmth and light, and conversely, is there not something similar about cool and dark? Warmth and light are a presence, cool and dark are an absence. Another example, gravity/repulsion and love/strife. Gravity and love are positive, repulsion and strife are negative. It is possible to combine the dichotomies into one metadichotomy. This metadichtomy is.. Masculine and Feminine.. or Yang and Yin. The essence of Masculinity is.. presence and negativity, the essence of Feminity.. absence and positivity. The Masculine is more/less complete, or more easily completed (presence), so he keeps others (objects and especially subjects) at a distance (negativity), the Feminine is more/less incomplete, or less easily completed (absence), so she invites others (objects and especially subjects) to come in. It follows, the Masculine is conservative, and the Feminine is liberal.
The Masculine is more discriminating, it is difficult for him to let others in, so he favours quality over quantity, the Feminine is less discriminating, it is easy for her to let others in, so she favours quantity over quality. The male is independent, and less emotional, so he requires less civilization, civilization being a form of dependency. However, he is also more rational, and therefore more capable of inventing civilization.
Some other things I associate with the Masculine- the INTP (introvertion, intuition, thinking and percieving). Feminine (extroversion, sensing, feeling and judging). However, I'm not sure, in many ways, the ISTP seems to have the most masculine profile. I believe Karl Jung said the ESFJ is the most feminine, so the opposite would have to be masculine, no?
Some other things I associate with the Masculine, egoism, asceticism, spiritualism, hate, strength, freedom, activity, resistence, fire, air. The Feminine, altruism, hedonism, materialism, love, weakness, slavery, serfdom and bondage, passivity, acceptance, water, earth.
Although Satyr's philosophy is not so dogmatic as to deny or advocate the abolition of feminity, he wants to control it, dominate it. He wants to maximize the Masculine and minimize the feminine.
The society we live in now, is a society of Liliths (see Hebrew mythology) dominating other Liliths, Satyr despises them both, he wants to return to a more Masculine society, and he sees Greco Roman society as the epitome of the Yang (think of how the Spartans defeated 100000s of Persians [quantity] with only 300 hundred men [quality]), and Mussolini and Hitler as exemplary of the Yang, or at least more Yang, perhaps they didn't quite live up to their ideology, or their ideology had been corrupted or distorted somehow. A society where the egoistic, individualistic, strong, pround, free and independent would rule the the other. Liberty (positive and negative, though I see Satyr as favouring negative liberty over positive) would not be doled out to everyone, it would have to be earned, it would be reserved for those who are of the right race, sex (males), age (adults), class (the aryan/neopagan, warrior/priest class, not the bourgeoisie, the proletariat or slaves), creed and culture (Ayran/Hellenic) and religion (Masculine Paganism). The new elite would have maximum political rights and responsibilities, the old elite moderate political rights and responsibilities, the proletariat minimum political rights and responsibilities, and slaves, none.
Satyr resists decadence, dependency and associates them with feminity. I thin for him, a man should only be as dependent on others and technology as required to survive, and perserve himself and his family, indulging in too much civilization makes one weak, pathetic, robs one of their virility, their vitality, makes them vulnerable to attack, atrophies, weakens their spirit, makes them unhealthy, but at the same time, he recognizes the need for civilization, as humans must have some degree of it in order to survive and not have their flesh or spirit assimilated by another, more civilized race, but I think for Satyr, civilization is partially a necessary evil, and should be minimized, those who excessively altruistic, hedonistic and materialistic, excessively mentally, emotionally and physically dependent on machines and society, who are pampered, spoiled, are fit for slavery.
Satyr goes so far as to associate the feminine itself with death, though I'm inclined to think we need the feminine to survive, but I think so is he, but the femine is secondary in his mind, and should be subjugated and subordinated whenever possible.
Also, he's probably a Hellenistic Nationalist, being Greek, who wants to unite southern Italy, Greece and Turkey into a single unit.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37108 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The last part is a bit of an oversimplification. i see value in blood and bloodlines and blood ties, but I also recognize that certain qualities appear within all heritages. I wish to unite them under one banner with a clear motive and a clear division of loyalties.
Nationalism is a earthly quality, of the mother earth. I wish to be supranational. Genes give birth to memes and so memes can be adopted, they can impregnate alien cultures and turn them into an honorary genetic bloodline.
The ancient Greeks separated men into Hellenes and Barbarians. To be Greek, although tied to the geography and the family trees, was also accessible via paidiea: education. One who thinks Greek, and speaks Greek and adheres the Greek attitude, is Greek...he would does not, and this includes modern day Greeks, or so called Greeks, is a Barbarian.
Nietzsche, Evola, were quintessentially Greek. The former went so far as to openly show his admiration and preference. Do not forget who his biggest influence was: Heraclitus.
Isn't a hedonist and materialist one and the same?
Hedonist - Someone motivated by desires for sensual pleasures. Materialist - Someone with great regard for material possessions.
And how is one fit for slavery by practicing altruism? On the contrary, he/she would be the one enslaving. Government welfare would be a good example of this.
Genes give birth to memes and so memes can be adopted, they can impregnate alien cultures and turn them into an honorary genetic bloodline.
But they will never be anything more than mimics, pale imitations of nobility and refinement as all behaviors and traits are the expression of an underlying and determining physical structure.
He crawls out of his barrel, masturbates in the town square, and growls at the passers by because he sees their indignation as hypocritical because all their goings about are little more than a more acceptable way of getting their own nut.
It's nasty and offensive. But if you look past that and have the intellectual curiosity to look at what is actually going on inside the barrel, you begin to see, whether you agree with everything he says or not, a man that is clearly sincere about what he is doing.
Isn't a hedonist and materialist one and the same?
Hedonist - Someone motivated by desires for sensual pleasures. Materialist - Someone with great regard for material possessions.
And how is one fit for slavery by practicing altruism? On the contrary, he/she would be the one enslaving. Government welfare would be a good example of this.
Actually, a strong safety net frees us from an over-dependency on corporate power. Ultimately, the very feminism that Satyr is opposed to is the fear that the Matriarchal aspect of our evolution will make the phallic/masculine aspect of Capitalism its bitch.
Satyr, being a disciple of evolutionary psychology, and a glass half empty kind of guy, sees what has recently happened to society, the feminisation of man, as some kind of digression from the natural order of things. But what he is incapable of seeing is that it may be the perfectly natural adaption to the situation given us through evolution, that our given situation no longer requires the thick necked, knuckle dragging primate that got us to this point, but rather the effeminate cognitive man that is more adapt at dealing with our present situation, the man backed by the very situation he has thought to create: the welfare state, the man created through the very genetic filter of woman he described.
The problem with the argument that it is natural for some people to dominate is that it is, by that very logic, perfectly natural for individuals with less power to pool their power and dominate those with power.
Actually, a strong safety net frees us from an over-dependency on corporate power. Ultimately, the very feminism that Satyr is opposed to is the fear that the Matriarchal aspect of our evolution will make the phallic/masculine aspect of Capitalism its bitch.
You do know Capitalism is a voluntarily transaction between two consenting adults? The key word being voluntary. If someone is "dependent on Corporate power", it's out of his/her own free will - a consequence to the choices that were made.
Instead of letting one fail and suffer the consequences, the government intervenes and rewards failure with welfare, civil rights, social promotion, affirmative action, all at the taxpayers expense. This in turn preserves maladaptive people and enslaves them forever by killing the incentive to earn something through hard work since everything is free now. This is why you see welfare rats who are 3rd-4th generation bred, and they keep pumping out more and more kids because money is no longer a problem. At the same time, to achieve this goal, the government punishes the powerful and wealthy by using their monopoly on force to steal most of what was rightfully earned from those who are highly adaptive.
Here you have a government that used altruism to enslave the masses. As of 2011, 48.5% of Americans are on welfare with tax exemption. Guess who is stuck with the bills? You have quantity, but no quality.
This about sums it up. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
mindern, if you are into completely free and deregulated capitalism, you should move to Malasia.
Malaysia is not a completely free and deregulated market, not even close. The fact is there has never been a free and deregulated market anywhere. There was/is always government intervention (regulations) & welfare programs. A truly free market would leave the law of supply and demand to handle everything.
If you actually want to use an example that sooner resembles free market capitalism, then that would be Hong Kong and Singapore. It's still far from true free market capitalism, but it's currently the closest to it.
Here; this is how economic freedom is judged. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I'm actually still pretty good here in the U.S. In this country if you solely earn your wealth off of capital gains then you fall on the 0% tax bracket. So I don't pay a income, payroll and sales tax. I only pay a property tax once a year. Financial markets are still pretty much unregulated.
apaosha Daeva
Gender : Posts : 1846 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 37 Location : Ireland
The problem with the argument that it is natural for some people to dominate is that it is, by that very logic, perfectly natural for individuals with less power to pool their power and dominate those with power.
Ayn Rand is perfect nonsense.
Of course. A slave morality is simply will to power for the weak. A morality of resentment. A morality of limitations.
Alas if one of the sheep should decide to stand above the herd...
You will not feel pride! You will humble yourself before the degenerate. You will not feel greed! You will give the product of your labour to your fellow sheep. You will not be selfish! You are only one; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
A slave doctrine, like socialism, exists to protect the weak from their masters. So many rules, so many limitations. So many punishments for any infraction.
Is there anything worse than the tyranny of a slave?
D63, you're twice my age but you're still a delerious manchild. You're still dreaming of that communist utopia that I never valued.
mindern, if you are into completely free and deregulated capitalism, you should move to Malasia.
Malaysia has an Islamic government that gives cheap mortgages, loans and other benefits to the indigenous inhabitants at the expense of the Chinese and Indian migrants.
Quote :
In the 1970s, the Malaysian government implemented policies which The Economist called "racially discriminatory" designed to favour bumiputras (including affirmative action in public education) to create opportunities, and to defuse inter-ethnic tensions following the extended violence against Chinese Malaysians in the May 13 Incident in 1969.[1] These policies have succeeded in creating a significant urban Malay middle class. They have been less effective in eradicating poverty among rural communities. Some analysts have noted a backlash of resentment from excluded groups, in particular the sizeable indigenous non-Muslim Orang Asli, Chinese and Indian Malaysian minorities.
In fact, the idea that Malaysia is a perfect free market is laughable.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37108 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
There is no such thing as a completely "free" and deregulated system.
Capitalism is anarchy with limits. The diehard capitalist wants the freedom to exploit others within the system but also wants a police force roaming the streets and his investments guaranteed by a federal government.
d63tark wrote:
I tend to think of him as a modern day Diogenes:
He crawls out of his barrel, masturbates in the town square, and growls at the passers by because he sees their indignation as hypocritical because all their goings about are little more than a more acceptable way of getting their own nut.
It's nasty and offensive. But if you look past that and have the intellectual curiosity to look at what is actually going on inside the barrel, you begin to see, whether you agree with everything he says or not, a man that is clearly sincere about what he is doing.
If you truly think I'm an ascetic like Diogenes then you have no clue what I am saying. Hedonism and pleasure and comfort is not rejected by me.
Reread eyesinthedark's analysis.
d63tark wrote:
Satyr, being a disciple of evolutionary psychology, and a glass half empty kind of guy, sees what has recently happened to society, the feminisation of man, as some kind of digression from the natural order of things. But what he is incapable of seeing is that it may be the perfectly natural adaption to the situation given us through evolution, that our given situation no longer requires the thick necked, knuckle dragging primate that got us to this point, but rather the effeminate cognitive man that is more adapt at dealing with our present situation, the man backed by the very situation he has thought to create: the welfare state, the man created through the very genetic filter of woman he described.
What you fail to understand is that I only describe a situation. If you like what is happening then please do not trouble yourself.
The difference between what is happening and evolution is this: Man's intervention. That you consider anything that criticizes this as "knuckle-dragging" only points to your linear understanding of evolution where the past is always inferior to the future.
If getting it up your arse, boy, is your idea of progress and the "glass half full" then indulge away and tell us all about how advanced you are.
Actually, a strong safety net frees us from an over-dependency on corporate power. Ultimately, the very feminism that Satyr is opposed to is the fear that the Matriarchal aspect of our evolution will make the phallic/masculine aspect of Capitalism its bitch.
You do know Capitalism is a voluntarily transaction between two consenting adults? The key word being voluntary. If someone is "dependent on Corporate power", it's out of his/her own free will - a consequence to the choices that were made.
Instead of letting one fail and suffer the consequences, the government intervenes and rewards failure with welfare, civil rights, social promotion, affirmative action, all at the taxpayers expense. This in turn preserves maladaptive people and enslaves them forever by killing the incentive to earn something through hard work since everything is free now. This is why you see welfare rats who are 3rd-4th generation bred, and they keep pumping out more and more kids because money is no longer a problem. At the same time, to achieve this goal, the government punishes the powerful and wealthy by using their monopoly on force to steal most of what was rightfully earned from those who are highly adaptive.
Here you have a government that used altruism to enslave the masses. As of 2011, 48.5% of Americans are on welfare with tax exemption. Guess who is stuck with the bills? You have quantity, but no quality.
This about sums it up. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Utter nonsense, Mindern. The idea of the safety net is not to reward failure. It is to maintain a minimal standard of living for those who are temporarily thrown out of the system of Capitalism. The primary point is to keep us from being slaves to corporate power, of keeping us from getting to the point that we will have to suck corporate dick to get something to eat.
And yes it is an agreement, a human construct. And by virtue of that fact, if the agreement fails to satisfy all parties involved, it can be dissolved.
Of course. A slave morality is simply will to power for the weak. A morality of resentment. A morality of limitations.
Alas if one of the sheep should decide to stand above the herd...
You will not feel pride! You will humble yourself before the degenerate. You will not feel greed! You will give the product of your labour to your fellow sheep. You will not be selfish! You are only one; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
A slave doctrine, like socialism, exists to protect the weak from their masters. So many rules, so many limitations. So many punishments for any infraction.
Is there anything worse than the tyranny of a slave?
D63, you're twice my age but you're still a delerious manchild. You're still dreaming of that communist utopia that I never valued.
No, actually you are. You can call it whatever you want: slave morality, a morality of resentment, etc.. But ultimately power is where power is.
And seems strange for you to accuse me of being a delirious man child given the string of platitudes and cliches you used to support your argument.
And yes there is something worse than the tyranny of a slave: the tyranny of a master.
Really? At what point did man doing what man does become not part of the process of becoming what man is. This argument only points to your one dimensional understanding of the situation.
Yes, as your argument exposes yours.
Here it is for about the one-thousandth time: All is natural. The difference between artificial and natural is merely a tool to distinguish the point where man becomes a more important agent than any other which preexisted or functions independently from man's intentions. In other words it is the ambiguous point where man's activities begin to affect man himself more than all the previous processes which existed before man emerged and before man had the wherewithal to intervened so drastically. The most glaring results is pollution...bot of the material and the genetic kind.
Ergo, and in short, a child suffering from down-syndrome can grow to father a child, which will eventually use d63tark as its internet moniker, and this is possible only when man intervenes upon nature's culling methods, thusly affecting his later genetic pool...running it to the ground, then necessitating the exertions of huge amounts of energies towards chemical and medical corrections to the predicaments man has placed himself in. Coupled with about a million other similar interventions and you get Bauddrillar'd Simulations and Simulacrum. At some point man begins to live in his own fabrications and reality becomes a human delusion, self-perpetuating, self-referential, self-supporting. Man is cocooned and sheltered and living within his own fantasies.
d63tark wrote:
So you’re basically arguing that it is better to get corporate dick stuck up your ass than government?
It is interesting that when thinking of economics the institutionalized, dolt, cannot think outside Keynesian or Hayekean manmade conflicts.
In nature there is no such dilemma but within human systems governed by human constructs, referencing human abstractions, like money, the argument becomes one of more or less regulations. In other words it becomes a matter of allowing or not a specialist to decide what is best for the people or to allow the system to self-regulate. In both case sit is the people who are called upon to balance the sheets. In the Capitalistic case the theory runs thusly: Allow rampant greed and the forces of nature to take over, but...and this is the crucial point, safeguard the delusion of ownership and protect those that own stuff from those that do not. So, the laws of nature are thrown about the window when it seems convenient.
In the Socialistic case it is the people with their vote who know best. In this case marketing is greed towards manipulating the masses not only o purchase goods but to purchase hopes or ideas, offering the the comfort of thinking they are doing so freely.
By far the worse from these delusion sis the second. I say the second because on top of being stupid the modern day liberal is also a hypocrite.
Actually, a strong safety net frees us from an over-dependency on corporate power. Ultimately, the very feminism that Satyr is opposed to is the fear that the Matriarchal aspect of our evolution will make the phallic/masculine aspect of Capitalism its bitch.
You do know Capitalism is a voluntarily transaction between two consenting adults? The key word being voluntary. If someone is "dependent on Corporate power", it's out of his/her own free will - a consequence to the choices that were made.
Instead of letting one fail and suffer the consequences, the government intervenes and rewards failure with welfare, civil rights, social promotion, affirmative action, all at the taxpayers expense. This in turn preserves maladaptive people and enslaves them forever by killing the incentive to earn something through hard work since everything is free now. This is why you see welfare rats who are 3rd-4th generation bred, and they keep pumping out more and more kids because money is no longer a problem. At the same time, to achieve this goal, the government punishes the powerful and wealthy by using their monopoly on force to steal most of what was rightfully earned from those who are highly adaptive.
Here you have a government that used altruism to enslave the masses. As of 2011, 48.5% of Americans are on welfare with tax exemption. Guess who is stuck with the bills? You have quantity, but no quality.
This about sums it up. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Utter nonsense, Mindern. The idea of the safety net is not to reward failure. It is to maintain a minimal standard of living for those who are temporarily thrown out of the system of Capitalism. The primary point is to keep us from being slaves to corporate power, of keeping us from getting to the point that we will have to suck corporate dick to get something to eat.
And yes it is an agreement, a human construct. And by virtue of that fact, if the agreement fails to satisfy all parties involved, it can be dissolved.
Now that said, some of things people do are despicable and only add to their problems and cannot be rewarded:
You're living in a shit-hole shack built on a garbage heap. You barely have enough to eat and water to drink yourself. But your only answer to this is to bring a child into the world to share your misery. The next thing you know, we have the christian children's fund giving us images of sad eyed children and asking us to give. And, of course, as Zizek points out, this comes with the underlying message of do not politicize this, just give. Do not ask any questions about the political or economic situation that put these children in their situation in the first place. Nor should we question the stupidity of the parents since it was the fucking Christians that came in to save the situation after their gag order on birth control and abortion created the situation in the first place.
But equally despicable to me is the Duggers. At a time when we are approaching a population level that WILL be unsustainable by the earth's resources, I'm suppose to get a warm and fuzzy feeling about a couple of irresponsible morons that wanted that many children. As far as I'm concerned, these stupid fuckers should be penalized to such an extent that they are forced to sit by and watch their children live on fucking rice. I really don't give a fuck whether they can pay for them or not.
And as far as I'm concerned, the octi-mom warrants the same sentiment.
So let's be very clear on how repulsed I am as concerns abuses of the system. I, for instance, have no pity for a woman that will keep pumping out children to keep their welfare benefits going. I have no pity for Mexicans that will give their wives more than 2 children in order to keep them barefoot and pregnant while they fuck whores and turn to America to solve their problems. I think Mexico needs to solve their own fucking problems. I have no pity for anyone who is not out to do the right and responsible thing. And I cannot help those who will not help themselves.
The point is that before you guys approach me with all these cliches based on what you think a progressive or Liberal is, you might want to actually inquire into what it is I actually think.
Utter nonsense, Mindern. The idea of the safety net is not to reward failure. It is to maintain a minimal standard of living for those who are temporarily thrown out of the system of Capitalism. The primary point is to keep us from being slaves to corporate power, of keeping us from getting to the point that we will have to suck corporate dick to get something to eat.
And yes it is an agreement, a human construct. And by virtue of that fact, if the agreement fails to satisfy all parties involved, it can be dissolved.
But those who fail at life are now sucking government dick, and the government gets its tax dollars from the working class, which includes Corporate, so they're actually sucking Corporate dick anyway. Thanks for proving my point that altruism is masculinity since it enslaves rather then is fit for slavery.
Also, you cannot dissolve a contract after you signed it. You should have read it before you signed.
Really? At what point did man doing what man does become not part of the process of becoming what man is. This argument only points to your one dimensional understanding of the situation.
Yes, as your argument exposes yours.
Here it is for about the one-thousandth time: All is natural. The difference between artificial and natural is merely a tool to distinguish the point where man becomes a more important agent than any other which preexisted or functions independently from man's intentions. In other words it is the ambiguous point where man's activities begin to affect man himself more than all the previous processes which existed before man emerged and before man had the wherewithal to intervened so drastically. The most glaring results is pollution...bot of the material and the genetic kind.
Ergo, and in short, a child suffering from down-syndrome can grow to father a child, which will eventually use d63tark as its internet moniker, and this is possible only when man intervenes upon nature's culling methods, thusly affecting his later genetic pool...running it to the ground, then necessitating the exertions of huge amounts of energies towards chemical and medical corrections to the predicaments man has placed himself in. Coupled with about a million other similar interventions and you get Bauddrillar'd Simulations and Simulacrum. At some point man begins to live in his own fabrications and reality becomes a human delusion, self-perpetuating, self-referential, self-supporting. Man is cocooned and sheltered and living within his own fantasies.
d63tark wrote:
So you’re basically arguing that it is better to get corporate dick stuck up your ass than government?
It is interesting that when thinking of economics the institutionalized, dolt, cannot think outside Keynesian or Hayekean manmade conflicts.
In nature there is no such dilemma but within human systems governed by human constructs, referencing human abstractions, like money, the argument becomes one of more or less regulations. In other words it becomes a matter of allowing or not a specialist to decide what is best for the people or to allow the system to self-regulate. In both case sit is the people who are called upon to balance the sheets. In the Capitalistic case the theory runs thusly: Allow rampant greed and the forces of nature to take over, but...and this is the crucial point, safeguard the delusion of ownership and protect those that own stuff from those that do not. So, the laws of nature are thrown about the window when it seems convenient.
In the Socialistic case it is the people with their vote who know best. In this case marketing is greed towards manipulating the masses not only o purchase goods but to purchase hopes or ideas, offering the the comfort of thinking they are doing so freely.
By far the worse from these delusion sis the second. I say the second because on top of being stupid the modern day liberal is also a hypocrite.
Once again, the kind of articulated response I have come to expect from you, Satyr.
Furthermore, I would argue that primary difference lies in one of perspective.
For instance, I would argue that it is the conservative that is an idiot because they, ultimately, out of self interest, are leading to our own self destruction.
Now as to how this reflects on you is beyond me since you seem to be all over the place. Nevertheless, you need to be real careful about assessing what I'm about based on your own mental concepts about what a liberal or progressive is. Much as I have found myself to be wrong about you based on what I think a conservative or libertarian is, you will only find yourself going down the wrong road.
That said, I think we both need to admit that we have found our level in each other -an ultimately productive one. And from MY perspective: I'm quite flattered by it.
In nature there is no such dilemma but within human systems governed by human constructs, referencing human abstractions, like money, the argument becomes one of more or less regulations. In other words it becomes a matter of allowing or not a specialist to decide what is best for the people or to allow the system to self-regulate. In both case sit is the people who are called upon to balance the sheets. In the Capitalistic case the theory runs thusly: Allow rampant greed and the forces of nature to take over, but...and this is the crucial point, safeguard the delusion of ownership and protect those that own stuff from those that do not. So, the laws of nature are thrown about the window when it seems convenient.
That's not all of it. You only covered a certain group of Capitalists. Those that still advocate for some form of government are called crony capitalists.
There is another group that disregards these systems all together. They're called anachro-capitalists. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] No government at all.
Last edited by mindern on Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Utter nonsense, Mindern. The idea of the safety net is not to reward failure. It is to maintain a minimal standard of living for those who are temporarily thrown out of the system of Capitalism. The primary point is to keep us from being slaves to corporate power, of keeping us from getting to the point that we will have to suck corporate dick to get something to eat.
And yes it is an agreement, a human construct. And by virtue of that fact, if the agreement fails to satisfy all parties involved, it can be dissolved.
But those who fail at life are now sucking government dick, and the government gets its tax dollars from the working class, which includes Corporate, so they're actually sucking Corporate dick anyway. Thanks for proving my point that altruism is masculinity since it enslaves rather then is fit for slavery.
Also, you cannot dissolve a contract after you signed it. You should have read it before you signed.
So those who are being laid off due to jobs being outsourced have somehow failed at life?
And as clever as your little twist on my reasoning might seem (to you at least), you're still clearly a moron. What exactly did you expect to accomplish with this?
At least Satyr tries to keep his arguments within the context of reality as compared to the pure language game you're involved in here.
And how are we sucking government dick by using the benefits available, that is as compared to the freedoms we will give up in order to keep a job?
You need to stop watching Fox news and actually start thinking for yourself.
So those who are being laid off due to jobs being outsourced have somehow failed at life?
No, they're successful at life for being laid off. Congratulate them for failing to adapt to the environment. Praise them for being the parasites they're upon society.
You're just proving my point that altruism creates dependency which is enslavement. That's masculinity, not femininity.
Blacks have been voting Democrat ever since welfare was offered. Hispanics joined in later on. Any modern day politician who wants the black and Hispanic vote just has to promise to keep and expand welfare.
Last edited by mindern on Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
In nature there is no such dilemma but within human systems governed by human constructs, referencing human abstractions, like money, the argument becomes one of more or less regulations. In other words it becomes a matter of allowing or not a specialist to decide what is best for the people or to allow the system to self-regulate. In both case sit is the people who are called upon to balance the sheets. In the Capitalistic case the theory runs thusly: Allow rampant greed and the forces of nature to take over, but...and this is the crucial point, safeguard the delusion of ownership and protect those that own stuff from those that do not. So, the laws of nature are thrown about the window when it seems convenient.
That's not all of it. You only covered a certain group of Capitalists. Those that still advocate for some form of government are called crony capitalists.
There is another group that disregards these systems all together. They're called anachro-capitalists. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] No government at all.
You do realize, Eyes, that Marx's goal with communism was the elimination of the need for government? Granted, it was a little over optimistic. But isn't equally overoptimistic for a small group of people to think they will flourish at the expense of everyone else and not need government to protect their interests?
So those who are being laid off due to jobs being outsourced have somehow failed at life?
No, they're successful at life for being laid off. Congratulate them for failing to adapt to the environment. Praise them for being the parasites they're upon society.
You're just proving my point that altruism creates dependency which is enslavement. That's masculinity, not femininity.
Blacks have been voting Democrat ever since welfare was offered. Hispanics joined in later on. Any modern day politician who wants the black and Hispanic vote just has to promise to keep and expand welfare.
Mindern, I think you're basing your argument on a lot of cliches. I mean who the hell is praising anyone for being on government benefits?
I just think you would do yourself a great service by at least looking to Satyr's example and be a little more articulate about what you're doing.
I mean we all have to work with our mental concepts which cannot exactly mirror the world, but can only be used as tools to understand it. As Deluez and Guattarri point out concerning the book: it cannot mirror the world, but form a rhizome with it. So in that sense, you're no worse off than the rest of us. But at some point or another, you have got to at least try to work past your own personal perspective on the world.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37108 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Now as to how this reflects on you is beyond me since you seem to be all over the place.
I've said it many times before: I'm an elitist. I do not care what government or system is ruling...for I choose to exist outside its premises and to be parasitical upon its weaknesses and delusions. I do not wish to change anything because I consider it an environment, like a forest, or a jungle, within which I strive, just as I would within any environment, to congregate and organize my own kind and to survive and to flourish.
You, and your kind, are more numerous and are to be considered cattle, or animals, beasts, with which we coexist...feeding on them and being threatened by them.
But if a social system on a grander scale is what you seek then I would point you to Timocracy, the precursor to Democracy. More my style.
d63tark wrote:
Nevertheless, you need to be real careful about assessing what I'm about based on your own mental concepts about what a liberal or progressive is. Much as I have found myself to be wrong about you based on what I think a conservative or libertarian is, you will only find yourself going down the wrong road.
Really? I would want you to continue to assess me in exactly the ways that you have.
d63tark wrote:
That said, I think we both need to admit that we have found our level in each other -an ultimately productive one.
I have found no such "level" in you. You are simple. But I can understand why you would think what you do. Perhaps my hospitality, in trying to offer you a safe place to express your views, has been misconstrued as respect or as me finding an equal in you. I will remind you of my principles....reciprocity....and of the fact that politeness is what a good host offers to his guests if they do not piss in his kitchen sink and try to fuck his wife.
I tolerate vulgarity and insult for the simple reason that I find hypocrisy even more disgusting than a few degrading remarks...but trust me, I am holding back out of courtesy, wanting you to engage with others here; not wanting to turn you away as I did The Joker. In other words I do not give a shit how stupid you are or how ridiculous your views are, just as long as you express them in interesting and honest ways and they remain on a level where they do not become so mind-boggling retarded that I cannot stand the stench of them for long. You are doing fine. So, unless you start telling me that Jesus is your savior and that the rapture will occur soon, or something on that level of stupidity, you have nothing to worry about.
d63tark wrote:
And from MY perspective: I'm quite flattered by it.
Mindern, I think you're basing your argument on a lot of cliches. I mean who the hell is praising anyone for being on government benefits?
I just think you would do yourself a great service by at least looking to Satyr's example and be a little more articulate about what you're doing.
I mean we all have to work with our mental concepts which cannot exactly mirror the world, but can only be used as tools to understand it. As Deluez and Guattarri point out concerning the book: it cannot mirror the world, but form a rhizome with it. So in that sense, you're no worse off than the rest of us. But at some point or another, you have got to at least try to work past your own personal perspective on the world.
Lets see...you accuse me of using cliches and you follow up by telling me to get past my personal perspectives on the world. Is there an end to your hypocrisy?
I asked a simple question. Are you going to answer it or give me more excuses about why deadbeats should get a free lunch?
How is one fit for slavery when practicing altruism?
In nature there is no such dilemma but within human systems governed by human constructs, referencing human abstractions, like money, the argument becomes one of more or less regulations. In other words it becomes a matter of allowing or not a specialist to decide what is best for the people or to allow the system to self-regulate. In both case sit is the people who are called upon to balance the sheets. In the Capitalistic case the theory runs thusly: Allow rampant greed and the forces of nature to take over, but...and this is the crucial point, safeguard the delusion of ownership and protect those that own stuff from those that do not. So, the laws of nature are thrown about the window when it seems convenient.
That's not all of it. You only covered a certain group of Capitalists. Those that still advocate for some form of government are called crony capitalists.
There is another group that disregards these systems all together. They're called anachro-capitalists. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] No government at all.
That said, this is one of those points at which Satyr proves himself to be sincere and quite impressive. He has rightly recognized that the kind of wealth that can be accumulated now is the product of recent developments in our social infra-structure. The problem, for me, lies in the distinction between natural and un-natural. I'm not sure it exists; and Satyr has conceded as much.
That said, this gives me an opportunity to clear up a falling out me and Satyr had as concerns the naturalistic fallacy. The thing we need to understand about the criticism is that is an informal fallacy; and like most informal fallacies, it's always mixed in its application. And some applications of it are a little stronger than others. For instance, I would argue that the red herring is one the stronger applications in that it directs the whole thing from the actual argument. Ad hominems, on the other hand, tend to be a little weaker, especially the circumstantial Ad Hominem, since you do have to consider the motivations of the person making an argument.
The appeal to authority is probably one of the weakest since we all have to do so to back our arguments and none of us can be an authority in every one of the particulars of our arguments. And the naturalistic fallacy is little more than an informal fallacy of an appeal to the authority of nature. Therefore, the best it can argue is that an argument is not necessarily right because it happens to be in sync with nature. But still, we all have to turn to the argument that something is right because it is in harmony with our nature. It's kind of hard to avoid. In other words, despite the valid application of the naturalistic fallacy, it would be silly to argue that we have no right to appeal to the authority of nature.
Last edited by d63tark on Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mindern, I think you're basing your argument on a lot of cliches. I mean who the hell is praising anyone for being on government benefits?
I just think you would do yourself a great service by at least looking to Satyr's example and be a little more articulate about what you're doing.
I mean we all have to work with our mental concepts which cannot exactly mirror the world, but can only be used as tools to understand it. As Deluez and Guattarri point out concerning the book: it cannot mirror the world, but form a rhizome with it. So in that sense, you're no worse off than the rest of us. But at some point or another, you have got to at least try to work past your own personal perspective on the world.
Lets see...you accuse me of using cliches and you follow up by telling me to get past my personal perspectives on the world. Is there an end to your hypocrisy?
I asked a simple question. Are you going to answer it or give me more excuses about why deadbeats should get a free lunch?
How is one fit for slavery when practicing altruism?
First of all, I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply pointed out what was right in front my nose, dipshit.
And you will actually need to point out how I'm being hypocritical rather than just telling me I am.
Nor do I recall at any point in this discourse that deadbeats should get a free lunch. Even though I'm a little reluctant to sit by and watch them starve to death -that is since, despite my best efforts, I could easily end up in their situation as well.
The last question makes absolutely no sense to me.
Like most republicans, you remind me of a teenager who has just got busted for something or an Austin Powers movie:
You turn to the scattershot approach of mindlessly throwing everything on the table hoping that something will hit.
