Forums

Can you smell her desperation?

Satyr wrote:

Can you smell her desperation?

Pony is very desperate to find who does my grocery list... that's what she's really after

That's an ILP internal affairs thread on how they "manage" their fraudulent ban... I'm out of it.

And Arc though amply well read is the very darkness in which roaches thrive...

whatever.

Fuck iambaboon, shit-Stain, Turd and the rest...

How about [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for an example of modern degeneracy, a taste of the good ol' Ass-Clown?

According to the past-me, if one objects to their twin sons doing anal and oral sex, taping it and putting it on internet, they are 'close-minded'.

Sadly, this is how I really used to think... very similar to iambaboon. A sort of opposite of the absolute order-nihilist (the Christian), the chaos-nihilist, denying all patterns and judgments in lack of an absolute one, thinking that they are thus all equal, dulling the judgment instead of refining, and sharpening it. From what I've seen of other people, this is a typical stage of personal evolution after the Christian --> Atheist transition... you could call it a Secular Humanist stage, and many are stuck in it.

To shortly revise my position, my response would be a tad bit different now.

First I would reflect on my life a little, mostly doing this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Then probably this

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Arbiter of Change wrote:

 Fuck iambaboon, shit-Stain, Turd and the rest...

But not literally, right?

Arbiter of Change wrote:

How about [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for an example of modern degeneracy, a taste of the good ol' Ass-Clown?

According to the past-me, if one objects to their twin sons doing anal and oral sex, taping it and putting it on internet, they are 'close-minded'.

Sadly, this is how I really used to think... very similar to iambaboon.

No, that is not the point I am making. But it doesn't surprise me that you keep fucking that part up.

My point is that folks can make arguments on both sides of an issue like this. And then, depending on the assumptions/premises they make, their arguments can both be deemed [by those who share them] to be rational.

What you and your ilk then do is to insist that only to the extent that either sides agrees with your own assumptions/premises regarding this behavior [and every other behavior] are they or are they not morons.

Everything devolves back to the assumption/premise that the manner in which you connect the dots between any particular human behavior and the very nature of the Objective World itself is the only frame of mind that earns you either a stroke or a spit in the face.

Indeed, I now see you as Satyr's heir apparent. I mean, really, how long can it be before his own outrage at this shit-stained world causes him to explode?

No, literally.  

I am not interested in engaging you anywhere until you learn some philosophical manners.

You came onto a forum to criticize its philosophy that you haven't read, and when people point out that you haven't read it you claim to know better than I do what I think, and that by 'you should read it' I meant 'You should agree with it'. So yes, fuck you you presumptuous asshole.

The only thing I ask you to agree with, is the objective world, facts about it. Yet you only agree with it selectively, you agree with the most obvious, specific, in-your-face parts that cannot be denied, such as somebody having a fucking abortion right in front of you.
But you deny evolution, and you deny general differences between males and females or races, thinking that about that part of reality, somehow all can have equally valid opinions.

If somebody is mentally deluded and thinks Mary isn't having an abortion, when the technician is pulling out a fucking dead fetus, I think you would agree that he is not 'one of us' (sane people). Analogously, if you deny evolution and that there exist general differences between men and women, and races, you are also not 'one of us' (non-chimps) to the extent that any further conversation with you is most likely futile. You will either learn on your own, or not at all. If I hear right, you are old, so most probably not at all.

The 'Chimp Talk' thread is there for all to see, along with all of our posts. I've spent enough time arguing my positions. You can go back to declaring your victory.

Up until recently I was unaware of the method of discrediting a proposition, a theory that involves mentioning that there are other competing theories, and so discredit Evolution by reminding the world that there are many other competing theories about how species and how they come about.

I wish I could figure out a way of determining which theory is more probable and which is delusional....
Oh, I know....an authority has to tell me.
Until then I remain unconvinced.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

 I am not interested in engaging you anywhere until you learn some philosophical manners.

And yet you demonstrate this by engaging me now.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

 You came onto a forum to criticize its philosophy that you haven't read, and when people point out that you haven't read it you claim to know better than I do what I think, and that by 'you should read it' I meant 'You should agree with it'. So yes, fuck you you presumptuous asshole.

You keep saying this as though it were true. But I have read any number of Satyr's lectures. In fact, I have read every post of his [through lecture 28] on the Nihilist thread.

No, instead, what continues to piss you off, is that, after reading them, I still do not share his point of view. You know, the way that you do.

Good doggie.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

 The only thing I ask you to agree with, is the objective world, facts about it. Yet you only agree with it selectively, you agree with the most obvious, specific, in-your-face parts that cannot be denied, such as somebody having a fucking abortion right in front of you.

With respect to human sexuality, pregnancy and abortion, there is an objective reality that I have absolutely no compunction whatsoever in embracing. The biological facts here clearly transcend "subjective opinion".

But where is the equivalent with regards to our reaction to abortion when different folks express conflicting points of view in regard to the morality of it? Or regarding the extent to which one's "ideals" here either are or are not in sync with the "objective world".

You are the one who keeps insisting that the rational mind makes no distinction here.

But, to the best of my recollection, you have not even expressed your own political prejudice yet.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

 But you deny evolution, and you deny general differences between males and females or races, thinking that about that part of reality, somehow all can have equally valid opinions.

More bullshit. When have I ever denied that, biologically, genetically there are not important differences between men and women? For one thing, men cannot become pregnant, right? Indeed, that's what prompted Gloria Steinem [or was it Florynce Kennedy] to speculate that, "if men could become pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament".

Instead, my point is to note that here [at KT] it is basically understood that, whatever Satyr has dictated to you regarding gender differences, must be what you dictate to me. In other words, if you wish to retain your Good Doggie status.

[Stroke him really good this time, Satyr.]

He does not deny evolution, but he denies the logical consequences of it on an emotional, political basis.

Inferior and superior is not always easy to discern, but in some, more extreme cases, it is.

So when he linked me to that example of special olympics, I said those people should have been aborted - their genes can be determined to be inferior, and thus they are only taking the place of, possibly, more healthy children. It only logically follows from the theory of evolution, which I understand that he accepts, that they should have been aborted.

Yet he wrote off my suggestion as bigotry - a politically motivated bias, which is ironic because HE is the one holding a political position which makes him biased and thus causes him to label my own position as 'bigoted' and his, I guess, is 'enlightened', 'modern', 'progressive' and so on.

Then he told me something along the lines of, 'how could I possibly say something so horrible to the parents in their face' - an appeal to emotion.

How can one be so retarded... to accept evolution means to accept that there is superior and inferior, and the retard is arguing for the preservation of what is inferior... can the implicit admission that one is a stupid, sheltered retard be any more apparent?

He claims that the fact there is different opinions matter, and cannot be disregarded because all are situated in dasein and cause political conflicts, yet when somebody disagrees with him about something that he considers obvious, a fact, he is more than willing to disregard the different opinion.

And he still hasn't began criticizing Satyr's actual positions and philosophy.

The Modern believes that by having an opinion, no matter its quality and intent, it deserves respect, and consideration, or, at least, to be humoured.

The Modern thinks changing your mind, or disagreeing with another, no matter what he is saying, is "free-thinking."

The Modern thinks that all is equally subjective, and that there is no mind which is superior in that it approaches objectivity by eliminating personal tastes, self-interests, emotions, from his analysis.

The Modern thinks that without a god, some external authority, some popularity standard, some voting mechanism, there is no way to decide what is more and what is less probable...or he prefers it that way because then his own simplicity can find a place, and can be defended as a "right".

The Modern thinks that conflict is bad, and so he seeks to get rid of it with some kind of political agreement - a "civilized" dialogue resulting in compromises, failing to appreciate human nature and the inevitable outcome of such a Democratic process: mediocrity.

The Modern, seeped in subjectivity, cannot think outside its premises, and so it assumes that the "I say so" can be softened to a "We say so".
From god's decrees to the populist decrees of communism we come to the humanitarian decrees, delivered through institutions, or institutionally sanctioned individuals.
Church, State, Expert.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I believe that syndrome is connected with an underlying and hidden hysteria.

Its logical sense that the other side of the perpetual Victim and Persecution complex that fuelled the hyper-hysterical feminist movement and the typical communist mindset is the nauseating rainbow positivity. Spinoza was the first explicit symptom of it in the philosophical field.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

 He does not deny evolution, but he denies the logical consequences of it on an emotional, political basis.

Inferior and superior is not always easy to discern, but in some, more extreme cases, it is.

So when he linked me to that example of special olympics, I said those people should have been aborted - their genes can be determined to be inferior, and thus they are only taking the place of, possibly, more healthy children. It only logically follows from the theory of evolution, which I understand that he accepts, that they should have been aborted.

My point though is that there are arguments made by others that are conflicted:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But Arbs point is always the same: "fuck them if they don't share my point of view!!"

Why? Because his point of view necessarily reflects the ideal, superior judgment. Why? because his point of view is the most rational [or the only rational] manner in which to think about these things. Why? Because it's what Satyr thinks.

And from his superior perch he and he alone is able to distinguish between the truly "healthy" babies and the truly "unhealthy" babies. Which babies should live and which babies should die? Which affliction sends them to the nursery and which affliction gets them shredded?

Ask Him. Then he'll ask Satyr. Then we'll all know which babies are in tune with the Objective World and which babies are not.

But then we get to the part where the baby is healthy but in order to bring it to term we have to force the pregnant woman to give birth.

Is that necessarily moral? Is that necessarily in sync with the Objective World?

Ask him.

Does it make any difference if the baby is black?

Ask him.

Does it make any different if the parents of the baby are Jewish, or "ethnic" or homosexuals or "liberals" or Marxists?

Ask him.

Is he bigoted in this regard?

Arbiter of Change wrote:

 Then he told me something along the lines of, 'how could I possibly say something so horrible to the parents in their face' - an appeal to emotion.

Right, as though in post after post after post his own emotions don't propel him to espouse one point of view rather than another. This is analogous to the reactionaries complaining about the liberals being "politically correct". As though the liberals can't note exactly the same thing regarding the reactionary dogmas.

As though human emotion is entirely irrelevant with respect to how we react to the world around us. As though the reptilian brain can be completely shunted aside in discussing something like abortion in order to make way for the purely rational objectivist tenets, principles, maxims, precepts.

Either that that or ironically the reptilian brain can be embraced wholeheartedly as the crucial factor in supporting their own rendition of the Objective World. Either way: heads they win, tails you lose.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

 He claims that the fact there is different opinions matter, and cannot be disregarded because all are situated in dasein and cause political conflicts, yet when somebody disagrees with him about something that he considers obvious, a fact, he is more than willing to disregard the different opinion.

Yes, given the manner in which I have acquired a political agenda existentially, I react as I do to those who share a different opinion. And these frames of mind can become rather deep-seated over the years. But that does not negate the point I am making here:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

So, let him cite an example of a value judgment that he embraces and explain to us how it is not embedded in the argument I make here. How in fact he was able to make that leap to a "superior judgment" such that dasein and conflicting goods are rendered moot.

Nightmare wrote:

Babe, seriously, just let it go.

About 95 percent of your posts have been dedicated to this petty ordeal.

You have passion, there is no doubt about that, Lys. Sublimate this energy into a thread, an educational thread, like the Chivalry one.

You are wasting your time and energy on banality.

This is a philosophy forum, Lys...not twitter, nor facebook...not Jerry Springer.

We want to see you make more posts, like the one you made about Medusa.

I'm telling you this, not to pull your hair; but because I care, we care ( the serious members of KTS ) about you and know you could be focusing on something much better.

This may not sink in right away, but perhaps when you awake from a good sleep, once the hissing snakes silence, you will realize what I am saying here.

Indeed, that's exactly what I have been pointing out to her of late. Why waste your time with this shit [not that it can't be "fun"] when you can take philosophy so much more seriously.

At the very least we can discuss just what it might mean to take philosophy seriously.

Why don't you and I show her?

You choose the issue and we can discuss the extent to which, using the tools of philosophy, we can get to the bottom of it.

Out in the world as it were. The world of values and ideals that ever seem to come into conflict. That's always been my own personal favorite.

"Babe"?

Oh yeah, I forgot.  

The retard still doesn't express his disagreement with the theory of evolution itself, yet he condemns and rejects it when it (its judgment of what's superior and inferior) when it fits him.

But I am only a kid... what do I know. Satyyyrr... Which one of these babies is more healthy? I would not want to be a bigot and judge based on appearance... so I must ask for the superior judgment of another, because that is what I always do before writing a post, send a message and ask various KT members what they think, so that I know what to write...

I can choose for only one of these to live... which one? Might as well flip a coin... no objective way to decide...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Neither if we are going to hold a superiority contest; this one for sure:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Kneel-maid wrote:

"He was never celebrated there and I think there was a certain amount of resentment directed towards him."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Forums are about "celebrating" people...

You can imagine and conclude what that bipolar is just with that statement...

And as if Kneel-Maid wasn't the first one to threaten him with a lawsuit and shut his future in jail for a grave joke when she went crazy on the forum and accusing all of conspiring to "silence her"... the She-Neo, the crusader Messenger of truth on behalf of her lord and god and she calls the other messenger...

hilarious.

ILP is a full blown asylum.

camus666 wrote:

Indeed, that's exactly what I have been pointing out to her of late. Why waste your time with this shit [not that it can't be "fun"] when you can take philosophy so much more seriously.

At the very least we can discuss just what it might mean to take philosophy seriously.

Can you show us how it's done?

Do not expect a response, friend. He is infected by a mental virus, and belongs to the "Culture of Critique".
The all-levelling power of negativity.  
If not absolute, if not one, then imperfect, nil.

These psychologies are only interested in critique of anything that threatens their comfort zones; their uniformity of parity.
They have no alternatives, because they are simply trying to find and exploit cracks to bring things down to their level, to that flat level of equality, where they think paradise lies.
A world of rational compromises, mutual concessions, shared work, common principles, motives, goals, morals - a hive mind.

It's the dialectic of parity, where the compromises are attained when the inferior one is raised to the place of imitated, faked, dignity and respect, and the superior one is lowered to that median - the two finding communion and unity in shared mediocrity.
A Democracy of dullness, and unspoken duplicity.  

You know, like the "real world"...his "down to earth" politics of competing values.
Everything decided with votes, and negotiations.

Everything outside of this, is authoritarian, fascist, objectivist.

Don't worry about him.
He's a clown.
Nobody pays much attention to him - not even his own on ILP.
He gloats, declares victory, taunts, pats himself no the back, but he's harmless.
If you ever see him post something with substance, and not his usual sentences, which he colours to make them stand out, as if these were powerfully profound arguments, let me know.
Until then tolerate the poor thing, as you would a mosquito.

I'm familiar with his body of work.

I would like him to explain how serious philosophy is done.

And how does one solve a problem that has been brought 'down to earth'?
What's the procedure to follow?

I don't think that he has written it down in all the years of posting.

It's all in his subjective mind, where it feels genius.
But to expose it, now that's risk he's not ready to take.
If he did, his "uniquely" self-referential value will disintegrate to a uniformity, and no amount of evasion and linguistic paradoxes would help him escape.

So sweet when a man-child, who up until recently bragged about things a teenager would, now pretends to be "adult" and above all the childishness.
Another way for the thirty+ year old boy to avoid proving the lies he uses to imply he is something he is, in reality, the opposite of.
It's another trick after his old ones became obvious. a way of preserving his self-image, without having to show anything for it.

Now that referencing obscure sources to pretend he's outside the mainstream, and too advanced to discuss the popular intellectuals, he discovers a new ruse to achieve the same goal.
A man-child who brags about having sex, and drugging females, and who in his middle age still thinks doing drugs is novel and cool, like any naive, shallow adolescent does, is giving out lessons on maturity.
An unimpressive example of American decadence, stuck in hip-hop culture, and the hustler mentality of desperate fatherless slaves, is now using his age as a cover for his infantile psychology.

Can't wait for his next reinvention.


So adorable, when a bum  wants us to know that he's way beyond "philosophy" after reading a single author, without quoting the exact passage that made him feel like philosophy was worthless so we can join him in his cynical freedom.

When a moron goes to famous intellectuals to fill in the gap of a absent, weak, father, and uses philosophy to jerk-off, it's inevitable that after a few years of spilling his seed he would grow tired and feel drained.

Such a bum, to be honest, never really gave a shit about seeing the world, as it is, but only cared about finding in philosophy some secret to exploit it.
When his own word-games appeared empty and worthless to him, he blamed it, as he always does, on the others.
But a bum remains a bum, and living on the streets, outside a stable environment, has become a habit.
From one intellectual he moved to another, and then to another, until he became tired of moving, with a destination in mind and simply wanted to roam aimlessly, lost, exotic destinations swimming in his mind.


If we dig into ILP culture, you will find more American examples of Nihilism and Modern decay.
The turds and the laughing, and a few who want to find their way out.

God, total destruction and anarchy, whatever the dream is, cynicism and mockery works.

God knows that ILP is a real community with some sweet well intentioned people. But damn, the idiots have infested the place. And the admin does nothing to get rid of the fuckers.

Cause why would an admin dispel its own?

Flakie wrote:

God knows that ILP is a real community with some sweet well intentioned people. But damn, the idiots have infested the place. And the admin does nothing to get rid of the fuckers.

This is what happens when you have an open-house policy, and your only interest is in the numbers - popularity, quantity rather than quality.

In every group the members are reduced down/up to the group's median.
The weakest, stupidest, infect the group's dynamics, and concessions are made to accommodate them.

Put one retard in a room full of intellectuals, and enforce a policy of Democratic all-inclusive, which all must abide by, and see how fast the group is reduced to inanities.
Put a cripple in a group of marathon runners, and enforce a rule where nobody is left behind, and respect for all, no matter what is paramount...and see how fast the group finishes the run.

I told this to Faust, when the dumb fuck was still around. He had the idea that ILP was like a bar scene: everyone there to have fun.
Then why the pretense that ILP is about philosophy and not about socializing, networking, venting, bragging, flirting?
You know, another typical night out in any modern city bar scene.

All ti takes is one clown to turn every gathering into a circus. then other clowns hear about the circus and how fun and tolerant it is of clowns, and in no time you have juggling acts, and red noses, and baggy pants, and clowns acting like clowns everywhere.

Quote :

Cause why would an admin dispel its own?

I don't know. Integrity.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the world is full of all sorts of people. And those who are not intellectually 'gifted' have value and they can expected to be treated with dignity and respect.
But why should their opinions be considered valuable?

I'm an elitist swine, it seems.

When a physically inferior male enters the octagon, should he expect the others to pull their punches so as to not hurt him, so as to not take advantage of his feebleness?
Did they go looking for the feeble man, and did they drag him to the arena?
No, he came by his own volition, perhaps deluded enough to feel untested confidence, because he has never experienced a real fight before.
Perhaps he went there wanting to pretend he is what he is not, and then cried when someone punched him in the face for real, claiming it was brutal, unfair, uncivilized.

If the other fighters accommodate him, in the name of morality, or some Democratic ethos, some sympathetic principle, what will happen?
Will all benefit by this feeble man's participation?
No, the fights will become a joke, a childish wresting match where all are having fun but nobody is becoming better, stronger.

And if this one feeble man is accommodated, and other feeble men hear about how kind the fighter in that octagon are, and how nobody really gets hurt there, will they not rush to include themselves, wanting to pretend they are no longer feeble to their neighbours?
Then what?
The octagon has become a crib where babies play war.

All you need, really, is for a Modern female to be present.
The fighting becomes fucking, eating, drinking, smoking pot, and all rejoice the opium den's wonders, wanting to never leave its premises.

But how long can muscles and bones, evolved in more stressful times, for more stressful times, endure the decadence.
How long before muscle atrophies and bone becomes brittle with narcotics?

All you need is a woman's appeal to a child's fears, and its innate desire to continue playing.
All you need is the approval of decadence, and retardation.

Satyr wrote:

This is what happens when you have an open-house policy, and your only interest is in the numbers - popularity, quantity rather than quality.

When I was interested in joining a philosophy forum, I looked around...
PhilosophyForums was full of pretentious academics.
PhilosophyNow was full of morons.
ILP had some members who were genuinely interested in philosophy, or so it seemed to me.

Since then, the site has changed. There is little of value left.

The problem is Carleas.

His interests, intentions and political leanings have been made more than evident by now.
His idea of "philosophy" is a reflection of the democratic political body: the senate, the house of representatives.
All get to speak, we take a vote, we all leave agreeing to disagree, and tolerant of the majority's judgment....and popularity is how he gauges his success, his quality measured by quantity.
Philosophy for the sake of philosophy: a pastime, a hobby, mind-candy - all sweet, and pleasant, and stress relieving, when you play with it using your tongue, and no nutritional value in the end.

His principles are Modern, typical, uniforming, dull.
He's a populist.

What seriousness can survive that level of organized cynicism and conformity to the status quo?
The ILP forum, like many forums, and clubs, is a getaway. Somewhere a Modern can go to for a few hours, relieve his repressed energies, feel refreshed by the expression of his suppressed instincts, and then return to his "real" life agreeing with all, if not overtly then by remaining silent.

Any time things become serious, threatening his exit, he rebels.