Re: [WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM, <xorcist@sigaint.org> wrote:
No, this is Putin's baby. He's set it up so that if he can't have Ukraine, nobody will.
No, it is quite likely that the coup in Ukraine was instigated and organized by U.S. interests.
There are a lot of interests that would have good reason to do so.
Economic: Soros, Geithner, and pals have been looking to depress the Russian currency for years. At least back to 2008, that I am aware of. One can speculate why, the simplest reason is to make money themselves.
NATO: Yanukovych's government was Russian-leaning, while there were "Orange Revolution" leaning politicians, activists, and so on in Western Ukraine. Having Ukraine be Russian-leaning, and theoretically independent puts NATO in a difficult position. Poland and Romania are NATO members, with Ukraine right between them. For supply-line and airspace reasons, it is strongly desirable to NATO interests to bring Ukraine under the umbrella. This also provides another, angle of attack on Moscow.
Understand the situation: NATO is encircling Moscow. Estonia and Lativa to it's NW, Lithuania due-West, with Belarus as a buffer. Both countries are positioned to place rockets within 800km of Moscow. If Ukraine were to go NATO, it also would be able to position rockets or troops within 800km of Moscow from the SW, with no buffer. Assuming Russia is unconcerned about Lithuania, trusting Belarus to be able to intercept any aerial attacks, that still leaves the possibility for simultaneous attacks from two directions.
It is entirely unacceptable, from a purely strategic of view. These nations going to NATO represents an existential threat to Russia.
Putin's response, of "taking" Crimea, was quite measured, in my opinion. The Black Sea is of vital national interest. Were NATO able to get a carrier group into the to Black Sea, along with the other listed positions, it would be impossible to stop the capital from getting captured in an invasion.
Finally, your suggestion that Putin is somehow not letting the "poor Ukrainians" from exercising their rights is blinded. The fact is, there are BOTH strong pro-Western, and pro-Russian sides to Ukraine. This is not a recent development. The tensions have been there for several generations.
Whether you like it or not, it is Putin's job to protect his country and to prevent the very ABILITY for foreign nations to have that potential, regardless of whether or not you believe NATO has the will to do so. Regardless of the will, it should not be POSSIBLE from Russia's perspective.
That said, it is also arguably NATO's job to expand, and to position itself so that Russia joining NATO, becomes the only strategy left to the Russians.
This, of course, is called Empire
I staked out a stronger position than I actually hold, a hopefully forgivable mistake in response to Zenaan's black-and-white "Russia good, US evil" propagandizing. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:38:30PM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM, <xorcist@sigaint.org> wrote:
No, this is Putin's baby. He's set it up so that if he can't have Ukraine, nobody will.
No, it is quite likely that the coup in Ukraine was instigated and organized by U.S. interests. ... This, of course, is called Empire
I staked out a stronger position than I actually hold,
A wise, wise move to back down from your position, untenable as it was. Take a lesson from my own immense humility.
a hopefully forgivable mistake
That mistake is forgivable. As is reminding you of my humility.
in response to Zenaan's black-and-white "Russia good, US evil" propagandizing.
Misrepresentation. False generalisation. USA very bad, and a dying dragon. Russia a nation almost back on her feet, lead by a man of integrity and care for her people. "Russian" principles (principles of the "true Russian human" as opposed to "Russia the nation") are actually evident in not only the words, but also the deeds of the Russian power brokers - in particular internationally. The multi polar world is an inherently more stable world that an empire with a very small circle of "elites" at the helm. Your failure to bring empathy and depth of comprehension (in your words) of the despotism of the USA empire, is not so forgivable.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Ack, thank you Steve.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 18:47 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:38:30PM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM, <xorcist@sigaint.org> wrote:
No, this is Putin's baby. He's set it up so that if he can't have Ukraine, nobody will.
No, it is quite likely that the coup in Ukraine was instigated and organized by U.S. interests. ... This, of course, is called Empire
I staked out a stronger position than I actually hold,
A wise, wise move to back down from your position, untenable as it was.
Take a lesson from my own immense humility.
a hopefully forgivable mistake
That mistake is forgivable. As is reminding you of my humility.
in response to Zenaan's black-and-white "Russia good, US evil" propagandizing.
Misrepresentation. False generalisation.
USA very bad, and a dying dragon.
Russia a nation almost back on her feet, lead by a man of integrity and care for her people. "Russian" principles (principles of the "true Russian human" as opposed to "Russia the nation") are actually evident in not only the words, but also the deeds of the Russian power brokers - in particular internationally.
The multi polar world is an inherently more stable world that an empire with a very small circle of "elites" at the helm.
Your failure to bring empathy and depth of comprehension (in your words) of the despotism of the USA empire, is not so forgivable.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Ack, thank you Steve.
While I do enjoy Steve's messages and mostly agree with what he's written on this thread, if you'd bothered to read even the first line of the message I'd quoted, or if you were using a proper threaded mail reader, you would have seen that it was xorcist I was replying to, not Steve.
I staked out a stronger position than I actually hold, a hopefully forgivable mistake in response to Zenaan's black-and-white "Russia good, US evil" propagandizing. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
OK, I can understand that. Yes, there is a lot of ideological stuff like that here, it seems. I look at geopolitics from a merely strategic point of view, believing that the military planners and people in power tend to look at it in those terms rather than believing the bullshit that they tell the public. How could they? Many of them, no doubt, have contact with the media and have directed them what to say, in some way or another. I would add, however, that from what I can tell, Putin is out-classing the West at nearly every turn. If there are any politicians in the U.S. that have a chance of out-thinking the man, I haven't heard of them.
I staked out a stronger position than I actually hold, a hopefully forgivable mistake in response to Zenaan's black-and-white "Russia good, US evil" propagandizing. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
OK, I can understand that.
Yes, there is a lot of ideological stuff like that here, it seems. I look at geopolitics from a merely strategic point of view,
Another moral relativist?
believing that the military planners and people in power tend to look at it in those terms rather than believing the bullshit that they tell the public. How could they? Many of them, no doubt, have contact with the media and have directed them what to say, in some way or another.
I would add, however, that from what I can tell, Putin is out-classing the West at nearly every turn.
Easy to do. Western politicians are largely self interested opportunistic thugs. Most individual humans in The West with strong conscience and clear mind --avoid-- politics at all costs - and so we collectively continue to pay very high moral cost (society as a whole). I am hopeful that whoever succeeds Russia after Putin has similar foundations and principles of global balance of powers (at the very least).
If there are any politicians in the U.S. that have a chance of out-thinking the man, I haven't heard of them.
Because almost none of them hold to a moral foundation, or what they themselves perceive as right and wrong. Look at Bernie Sellout Sanders - a classic example - held some pro-statist "socialist" views etc, but sold out "for the greater good" or some bullshit. What a limp idiot!
I staked out a stronger position than I actually hold, a hopefully forgivable mistake in response to Zenaan's black-and-white "Russia good, US evil" propagandizing. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
OK, I can understand that.
Yes, there is a lot of ideological stuff like that here, it seems. I look at geopolitics from a merely strategic point of view,
Another moral relativist?
No. Moral relativists believe all moral codes of behavior are subjective, and intrinsically equivalent, and cannot be judged nor ranked. I hold no such opinion. If really pressed, I suppose I would say that I think that moral codes are, at their core, ..illusions.. but that isn't really the right word. I guess the word I'm looking for is "artifacts." Yes, I like that. Artifacts in the sense that morality appears due to a fundamental deficiency in our way of observing and thinking about the world: the difficulty in appreciating "the big picture." And the possibility for the double entendre in terms of an object made by a human being, and typically old and culturally normative, tickles my fancy for word play. And such artifacts can be disturbingly grotesque, and immensely beautiful. Yes. I think "artifact" is the perfect, actually. There is behavior. Some of it is destructive, some of it is beneficial. The difficulty is that people believe they can somehow be destructive to others, while benefiting themselves. They believe this is true, because they are unable to see the big picture. It is not possible to harm someone else, without harming oneself; try as you might, be as cunning as you dare, it is futile. When one sees this, one sees morality for what it is: a set of arbitrary, and usually senseless delusional notions, needed to compensate for a basic futility that people persist in engaging in. Morality is the marriage of a delusion, to a futility. The irony is that once perceived, the only sensible way to behave - regardless of the outcome, is to try to benefit as many people as possible, in all circumstances. A way of acting that most people would consider quite moral. It is similar, I think, to the people who get into the free will/determinism thing, and find that by really believing that their actions are pre-determined, they become 'courageous' enough to be spontaneous, and therefore, free. So, there is that. But that isn't even what I meant. What I meant is, I do not believe the influential decision makers and policy makers make a great concern for applying a moral code when making geopolitical decisions. Rather, they define aims, and try to find strategies to meet those aims. Some strategies they may reject, perhaps even on moral grounds, and will then pursue some other strategy. But, when there is only ONE workable strategy, regardless of the morality of it, it will get put in place. Because the important aspect is not morality, it is positioning. Therefore, in my analysis of geopolitical happenings, I try to leave moralizing, ideology, and even my own opinion, out of it.. or at least relegate it to a side bar, or after thought. As it has no bearing on "that world" it is superfluous, and even misleading, in analyzing it. It leads to ideological propaganda, and so on. Such things make it too easy to generalize about "The Americans" or "The Russians" .. speaking of cultures, rather than the powerful few who actually do this stuff. If you think Putin spends a great deal of time thinking of "combating the evil of the West" you may want to reconsider. I would suspect that Putin spends his time analyzing how to counter the aims of rival nations. He thinks of it, just in those terms.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:49:18AM -0000, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
I staked out a stronger position than I actually hold, a hopefully forgivable mistake in response to Zenaan's black-and-white "Russia good, US evil" propagandizing. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
OK, I can understand that.
Yes, there is a lot of ideological stuff like that here, it seems. I look at geopolitics from a merely strategic point of view,
Another moral relativist?
No.
So you say. Your words tell a bluntly different story. Since you say in one breath you are not a moral relativist, and in the next you say "I try to leave moralizing, ideology, and even my own opinion, out of it", you either cannot hold a consistent thought, or you speak with such contortions you betray a deep compromise within yourself.
Moral relativists believe all moral codes of behavior are subjective, and intrinsically equivalent, and cannot be judged nor ranked. I hold no such opinion.
Ok, so you can define it that way, and again, you say this does not apply to you. Let's continue ...
If really pressed, I suppose I would say that I think that moral codes are, at their core, ..illusions
Well dang! Straight off the bat as we say - your position "just ain't cricket" :)
.. but that isn't really the right word. I guess the word I'm looking for is "artifacts." Yes, I like that. Artifacts in the sense that morality appears due to a fundamental deficiency in our way of observing and thinking about the world: the difficulty in appreciating "the big picture." And the possibility for the double entendre in terms of an object made by a human being, and typically old and culturally normative, tickles my fancy for word play. And such artifacts can be disturbingly grotesque, and immensely beautiful. Yes. I think "artifact" is the perfect, actually.
If only Americans could actually stick to tickling their own "fancies". Alas, the CIA and MIC types run around the world ticking their fancy on other people's deaths, and on the overthrow of so many nations to replace their governments, all the while proclaiming the illusion to the world that "oh it was just a local revolution - don't bother yourself with the details now..." And you Americans then collectively swoop in, seize half the national currency on the cheap whilst selling "protection" in the form of USA military occupation, and double dip with "reconstruction" and "investment" contracts, locking up 95%+ of that nation's wealth. Some of the people of that nation get some jobs, a very few get cushy positions in the new national "reserve bank" and other institutions that the overlord puts in place. Yes, holding the position that morality be nothing but an "artifact" of the beastial nature that is "human", the almighty alphas prevailing over the majority betas, is the reason the USA empire has lost even the perception of having a moral standing, and is the foundation for the tyranny that the USA inflicts on the world. And from your TLA/USA point of view, this is business as usual. You know, the "big picture of the world" is so difficult for mere betas to comprehend, and besides, their morality is nothing but artifacts of their hopeless state of being betas, a mere clamouring for some skerrick of justice in the face of the natural born alphas. "Why, it's amazing I had not thought of that before myself."
There is behavior.
Nothing but mammals. Except for those rare superior alphas.
Some of it is destructive, some of it is beneficial. The difficulty is that people believe they can somehow be destructive to others, while benefiting themselves.
Not only do they believe so, they actually do benefit. Are you trying to say the slave owners of the American South did not actually benefit from their slave possessions? Tut tut... I expect better logic or you'll fail the class.
They believe this is true, because they are unable to see the big picture.
I guess they're barely betas then, these "ones" you speak of?
It is not possible to harm someone else, without harming oneself;
and again..
try as you might, be as cunning as you dare, it is futile.
Those Made in the USA bullets and bombs killing so many brown people and poor people in the world are really not benefitting the bullet and bomb manufacturers now? How touching ... how, truly enlightened ! I guess you must be Rosicrucian?
When one sees this,
I -believe-! I -see- the light! I am -saved- from the bullets, since it's really just the blokes pulling the triggers that are getting hurt at the same time I die. My life ends, but it's ultimately a good cause - to -teach- the one (the USA, CIA, NSA, DIA, DOD, USA MIC) pulling the trigger of the utter futility of pulling that trigger, the total lack of benefit to him, and the harm he causes himself whilst he kills me. Gee, thanks xorcist. I was really confused there about America's bullets and bombs for a bit, but you've really set me straight on all that... ...such a weight off my shoulders.
one sees morality for what it is: a set of arbitrary, and usually senseless delusional notions,
"Morality, just a relativistic, arbitrary notion invented by betas." Ahh, such a calm centeredness overcomes me from your enlightened wisdom, oh wise one!
needed to compensate for a basic futility that people persist in engaging in.
All those futile alphas futilely killing all those futile betas who futilely invent some arbitrary notions of morality, right and wrong, good and bad, to justify their untimely death at the hands of the inherently, fatalistically powerful and superior alphas. You know xorcist, thanks to you, I've really got this whole life and reality thing all worked out now... it's SUCH a relief!
Morality is the marriage of a delusion, to a futility.
And I'm also SO relieved to hear your "bigger picture" that us betas find so hard to begin to grasp, let alone even conceive of! Dunno where us betas would be without your wise alpha counsel! We are very grateful.
The irony
I'm listening carefully and closely now...
is that once perceived, the only sensible way to behave - regardless of the outcome, is to try to benefit as many people as possible, in all circumstances.
Ahh, so now that we betas have a clear understanding that our sufferance at the hands of the superior race of alphas is nothing but a self delusion of "morality" arising from our self induced marriage of our delusion to our futilities, we can get on with respecting the wise alphas and dutifully go about our lives putting down our guns and setting aside our futile concepts of right and wrong, and benefit as many as possible with our actions, especially benefitting those wise and understanding alphas who have a solid grasp of the "big picture". I'm really getting this program xorcist - truly enlightening!
A way of acting that most people would consider quite moral.
Yes, we shall set aside any rebellious, because that does not benefit the maximum number of people. We shall ne'er dare speak of overthrow of governments with which you are closely associated. And especially we shall not talk about systems of revolt against the almighty alphas and how to systemically shift the game. And we shall always be public in our strategic thinking and discussions to give the alphas the maximum possibility of bringing down their CIA et all operatives to support our programs for fundamental system change. Because we must, of course, benefit as many people as possible with every action, and always act proper and politically correctly.
It is similar, I think, to the people who get into the free will/determinism thing, and find that by really believing that their actions are pre-determined, they become 'courageous' enough to be spontaneous, and therefore, free.
"Fatalism is freedom". Yes xorcist, the Ministry of Truth is proud of you.
So, there is that. But that isn't even what I meant.
Oh we appreciate your efforts Massa.
What I meant is, I do not believe the influential decision makers and policy makers make a great concern for applying a moral code when making geopolitical decisions. Rather, they define aims, and try to find strategies to meet those aims.
Just as you recommend above. Since you're "not a moral relativist" or something, right, got it!
Some strategies they may reject, perhaps even on moral grounds, and will then pursue some other strategy. But, when there is only ONE workable strategy, regardless of the morality of it, it will get put in place. Because the important aspect is not morality, it is positioning.
Thus, evil. Thank you for clarifying the American position and systemic problem. For a while there you had me going - I thought you were disagreeing with me.
Therefore, in my analysis of geopolitical happenings, I try to leave moralizing, ideology, and even my own opinion, out of it.. or at least relegate it to a side bar, or after thought. As it has no bearing on "that world" it is superfluous, and even misleading, in analyzing it.
Yep, no point bringing right and wrong into geopolitical discussions. That would go right against the grain! Totally useless! You're onto it xorcist - the America empire is proud to have you in such wholehearted support. Really a medal should be coming your way. I'll recommend that to Hillary Clinton next time I'm chatting with her - she's evidently your type.
It leads to ideological propaganda, and so on.
Oh my god! You are SO right! All that discussion, or worse even, all that BELIEF in right and wrong, leads to just so much propaganda! My god, that's shocking! I'd never thought of it that way before. xorcist, you're a champion today. You are really lifting the discussion to a plane of spiritual enlightenment I'd not even dreamt of!! You are The Man!
Such things make it too easy to generalize about "The Americans" or "The Russians" .. speaking of cultures, rather than the powerful few who actually do this stuff.
May be you should stop generalising then? Just a thought... you wouldn't want to perpetrate the problems of your own propaganda now would you? (Oh don't get me wrong, we betas all bow in unison to "the powerful few" who "actually do this stuff" - and we're -grateful- for the opportunity to bow down, lord Massa!)
If you think Putin spends a great deal of time thinking of "combating the evil of the West" you may want to reconsider. I would suspect that Putin spends his time analyzing how to counter the aims of rival nations. He thinks of it, just in those terms.
What Putin thinks seems to be a bit of an obsession of yours. You might want to look at that... Anyway, I take it you believe Putin is a calculating sociopath. Glad to hear your enlightened objective, not-coloured-by-moral-relitvism "opinion". I bow low, Massa!
Since you say in one breath you are not a moral relativist, and in the next you say "I try to leave moralizing, ideology, and even my own opinion, out of it", you either cannot hold a consistent thought, or you speak with such contortions you betray a deep compromise within yourself.
I cannot imagine how terrible it must be, to hold any type of concept, and feel the need to force it on others, as you routinely do. I suspect that is why you feel that by me simply stating my opinion, that you asked for, that you feel that I'm trying to force it on you. Just because I don't moralize, or focus on ideology, doesn't mean I don't have beliefs in those areas. I just tend to keep that shit to myself. Until twats ask. It just means I don't feel the need to force them down people's throats, or, especially, to insult them, for having them. I insult twats for how they act, not what a twat believes. You asked for my opinion on such philosophical notions, so I gave it. If you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't try to claim that I'm forcing this stuff down your throat. Don't want to hear it? I don't want to type it. Stop fucking asking, then.
I bow low, Massa!
Because, it would seem, you have the pathological need to do so. I told juan to 'stand up' .. because I believe he can. I would tell you to rest in the dirt, like the worm you portray yourself to be, but that I wouldn't wish your presence on the worms. And I loved the bit about me working for the state, mate.. fucking brilliant. People that know me in RL would literally LOL at that. True story: when between jobs once, I got approached by a recruiter, for a major defense contractor. I went through the long interview process, was offered the job, and then riffed on the scene from Good Will Hunting when he turns down the NSA. Almost 4 months worth of BS with these guys, grueling interviews and the expense (while unemployed) to travel to meet them.. for one reason: my own personal satisfaction to see the stunned look on their twat faces. If believing those that disagree with you to be state agents makes you feel real important, go right ahead. But, it is just another delusion. This one, married to an imbecile.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:14:12PM -0000, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
Since you say in one breath you are not a moral relativist, and in the next you say "I try to leave moralizing, ideology, and even my own opinion, out of it", you either cannot hold a consistent thought, or you speak with such contortions you betray a deep compromise within yourself.
I cannot imagine how terrible it must be, to hold any type of concept, and feel the need to force it on others, as you routinely do.
Feeling oppressed today ? Free speech giving you the shivers lately ?
I suspect that is why you feel that by me simply stating my opinion, that you asked for, that you feel that I'm trying to force it on you.
And I thank you "xorcist" for providing such a plethora of details - it's far more than most bother with. A real exploration of your, mind. I asked if you're a moral relativist. You said no. Then you proceeded to describe in rather amazing detail and clarity, how you're a moral relativist. I applaud your honesty in the details. I really do, and I'll thank you again - honesty is (I believe) our only hope to any possibility of reaching a meeting of minds or anything anyone might consider "progress" in the conversation.. But I find myself rather perplexed - to me you exhibit a strange contradiction between "I'm not a moral relativist" and "having a moral position is just a deranged ideology". You are entirely welcome to your brain fart and ordinarily I would hope that you were -not- assuming I'm forcing this brain fart down your throat, but in this case any hope on my part seems ... I dunno, misplaced?
Just because I don't moralize, or focus on ideology, doesn't mean I don't have beliefs in those areas. I just tend to keep that shit to myself. Until twats ask.
It just means I don't feel the need to force them down people's throats, or, especially, to insult them, for having them. I insult twats for how they act, not what a twat believes.
You asked for my opinion on such philosophical notions, so I gave it. If you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't try to claim that I'm forcing this stuff down your throat.
Oh well, if that's what I did I apologize. I actually appreciate your exercise of free speech - the possibility of a meeting of minds is worth it, even if we do have a little fun along the way ;)
Don't want to hear it? I don't want to type it. Stop fucking asking, then.
Seriously, you did well in bringing your genuine philosophical viewpoint(s). When I say thanks, I'm serious. I do witness your genuine effort, and I appreciate that. I find you to display contradictions in the words you chose to use. I tried to point that out. It might have been a bit rough on my part so perhaps you can pick up the pieces for another day - you know, all's well in love and a vigorous conversation or some such? I understand why the NSA would have offered you a job. They require a certain bland moral relativism in those who build the tools of subterfuge and global spying. I'm sure they don't want any morally repugnant Snowdens working for them now... bloody betas scraping the barrell of life for a few straws of justice or something - horrible, simply horrible stuff!
I bow low, Massa!
Because, it would seem, you have the pathological need to do so. I told juan to 'stand up' .. because I believe he can. I would tell you to rest in the dirt, like the worm you portray yourself to be, but that I wouldn't wish your presence on the worms.
If they're moral relativists, neither would I!
And I loved the bit about me working for the state, mate.. fucking brilliant. People that know me in RL would literally LOL at that.
True story: when between jobs once, I got approached by a recruiter, for a major defense contractor. I went through the long interview process, was offered the job, and then riffed on the scene from Good Will Hunting when he turns down the NSA. Almost 4 months worth of BS with these guys, grueling interviews and the expense (while unemployed) to travel to meet them.. for one reason: my own personal satisfaction to see the stunned look on their twat faces.
Cool. Thanks for sharing.
If believing those that disagree with you to be state agents makes you feel real important, go right ahead.
Well, the job offer fits your profile... if I were a sociopath, I'd offer you a job too if your CV fit, although not after hearing your spent 4 months just to turn my fellow sociopaths down.
But, it is just another delusion. This one, married to an imbecile.
Come now, twas just a little question on my part - are you a moral relativist. Your words in response were rather contradictory and we had a little fun pointing that out. It wasn't all that bad now, was it? Listen, I'll give you a free lesson - from a superior one at that too, so worth double: learn to laugh at yourself. Life goes easier. Since I'm perfect, I don't get that opportunity, so you have the opportunity to enjoy that. You should feel sad for me.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:14:12PM -0000, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
Feeling oppressed today ? Free speech giving you the shivers lately ?
No, you're perfectly entitled to an opinion. But it seems stupid to me to me, to ask someone's opinion, and then take a self-righteous attack stance towards it. I don't mind, in the sense that it "hurts my feelings" or something. It is just stupid, unproductive, and is more of an ego-trip than any real attempt at a "meeting of the minds."
I asked if you're a moral relativist. You said no. Then you proceeded to describe in rather amazing detail and clarity, how you're a moral relativist.
I disagree. "Moral relativism" is the position that moral judgments are relative to a time, place, culture, etc. I do not hold this view. It is not that moral judgments are only meaningful given a relative frame of reference, it is that they are not meaningful at all because that frame of reference is bogus. One might well say I'm a moral objectivist, in that sense. I believe that moral judgments, if they are to be meaningful at all, must take into account the big picture. That is the only frame of reference worth considering, the difficulty of finding that perspective notwithstanding.
But I find myself rather perplexed - to me you exhibit a strange contradiction between "I'm not a moral relativist" and "having a moral position is just a deranged ideology".
My job, as I see it, for myself - is to find synthesis, in myself, for all those scary contradictions that people like you tend to want to avoid. You might say my view is this: the big picture is the only framework from which to make a moral judgment (is that objective? you decide). But, one must understand that as a human there is always a bigger perspective than what you can know. There is always a BIGGER picture, and in that way is relative to whatever smaller picture you've decided to content yourself with, because at some point you decided that a certain ideology was sufficient to explain the world.
I find you to display contradictions in the words you chose to use. I tried to point that out.
You find this to be a bad thing. I do not.
Well, the job offer fits your profile... if I were a sociopath, I'd offer you a job too if your CV fit, although not after hearing your spent 4 months just to turn my fellow sociopaths down.
And your penchant for being first with the insults and personal attacks undermines your "meeting of the minds" bullshit too. You think you see me. But you can't: you can't even see past complementary notions, instead getting blocked by your concept of "contradiction." And, for the record, the men I met with didn't strike me as sociopaths. Rather, they struck me simply as men dedicated to an ideology.
Come now, twas just a little question on my part - are you a moral relativist. Your words in response were rather contradictory and we had a little fun pointing that out.
No. You had fun in putting words in my mouth to make your assumptions fit, wildly misconstruing what I've said. I've never called anyone here a "beta" .. nor included myself as an "alpha" for example. But it makes it convenient for you launch attacks.
Listen, I'll give you a free lesson - from a superior one at that too, so worth double: learn to laugh at yourself.
<chuckle> Coming from a propagandizing ideologue that takes everything so seriously and can't have fun with a few complementary ideas and sees only contradiction? That is rich. Has it occurred to you that part of my seeming contradictions are a way to have fun, and poke fun not only at myself, but the entire pursuit of such so-called philosophizing and questions about "moral relativity?" In point of fact, laughing at yourself is the surest way to remember that your woefully limited, tiny, human perspective isn't the big picture. It is a great tonic against ideology. So why then, are you such an ideologue? You want me to own being a moral relativist? I disagree, but I can understand how someone might think that. I think this is a misconception, naturally. But I'm perfectly willing to admit I may be wrong. Obviously, like anyone else, I don't think I'm wrong. If I did, I'd adopt a new position that is different, and then I'd be right. So I still wouldn't be wrong. Everyone does this sort of thing. In that sense, no one is ever wrong in their own mind. Which is exactly what makes all of this nonsense pointless. State your opinion. Listen to an opinion. Ask questions. Answer questions. Criticisms, attempts to disprove, and so on.. it's rather childish. It's unproductive. And yes, like many childish, unproductive things, it can be play and rather fun. And it can also be repetitious, and annoying. But ideologues aren't playful, and aren't having fun. They take it seriously. Because their ideology is the truth. So how about you own being a propagandizing ideologue, or at least understand that people will see you that way? Is that a fair enough "meeting of the minds?"
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:44:56PM -0000, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:14:12PM -0000, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
Feeling oppressed today ? Free speech giving you the shivers lately ?
No, you're perfectly entitled to an opinion. But it seems stupid to me to me, to ask someone's opinion, and then take a self-righteous attack stance towards it.
I don't mind, in the sense that it "hurts my feelings" or something. It is just stupid, unproductive, and is more of an ego-trip than any real attempt at a "meeting of the minds."
I asked if you're a moral relativist. You said no. Then you proceeded to describe in rather amazing detail and clarity, how you're a moral relativist.
I disagree. "Moral relativism" is the position that moral judgments are relative to a time, place, culture, etc.
I do not hold this view. It is not that moral judgments are only meaningful given a relative frame of reference, it is that they are not meaningful at all because that frame of reference is bogus.
One might well say I'm a moral objectivist, in that sense. I believe that moral judgments, if they are to be meaningful at all, must take into account the big picture. That is the only frame of reference worth considering, the difficulty of finding that perspective notwithstanding.
But I find myself rather perplexed - to me you exhibit a strange contradiction between "I'm not a moral relativist" and "having a moral position is just a deranged ideology".
My job, as I see it, for myself - is to find synthesis, in myself, for all those scary contradictions that people like you tend to want to avoid.
You might say my view is this: the big picture is the only framework from which to make a moral judgment (is that objective? you decide). But, one must understand that as a human there is always a bigger perspective than what you can know. There is always a BIGGER picture, and in that way is relative to whatever smaller picture you've decided to content yourself with, because at some point you decided that a certain ideology was sufficient to explain the world.
I find you to display contradictions in the words you chose to use. I tried to point that out.
You find this to be a bad thing. I do not.
Well, the job offer fits your profile... if I were a sociopath, I'd offer you a job too if your CV fit, although not after hearing your spent 4 months just to turn my fellow sociopaths down.
And your penchant for being first with the insults and personal attacks undermines your "meeting of the minds" bullshit too.
You think you see me. But you can't: you can't even see past complementary notions, instead getting blocked by your concept of "contradiction."
And, for the record, the men I met with didn't strike me as sociopaths. Rather, they struck me simply as men dedicated to an ideology.
Come now, twas just a little question on my part - are you a moral relativist. Your words in response were rather contradictory and we had a little fun pointing that out.
No. You had fun in putting words in my mouth to make your assumptions fit, wildly misconstruing what I've said. I've never called anyone here a "beta" .. nor included myself as an "alpha" for example. But it makes it convenient for you launch attacks.
Listen, I'll give you a free lesson - from a superior one at that too, so worth double: learn to laugh at yourself.
<chuckle> Coming from a propagandizing ideologue that takes everything so seriously and can't have fun with a few complementary ideas and sees only contradiction? That is rich.
Has it occurred to you that part of my seeming contradictions are a way to have fun, and poke fun not only at myself, but the entire pursuit of such so-called philosophizing and questions about "moral relativity?"
In point of fact, laughing at yourself is the surest way to remember that your woefully limited, tiny, human perspective isn't the big picture. It is a great tonic against ideology. So why then, are you such an ideologue?
You want me to own being a moral relativist? I disagree, but I can understand how someone might think that. I think this is a misconception, naturally. But I'm perfectly willing to admit I may be wrong. Obviously, like anyone else, I don't think I'm wrong. If I did, I'd adopt a new position that is different, and then I'd be right. So I still wouldn't be wrong. Everyone does this sort of thing. In that sense, no one is ever wrong in their own mind. Which is exactly what makes all of this nonsense pointless.
State your opinion. Listen to an opinion. Ask questions. Answer questions. Criticisms, attempts to disprove, and so on.. it's rather childish. It's unproductive. And yes, like many childish, unproductive things, it can be play and rather fun. And it can also be repetitious, and annoying.
But ideologues aren't playful, and aren't having fun. They take it seriously. Because their ideology is the truth.
So how about you own being a propagandizing ideologue, or at least understand that people will see you that way?
Is that a fair enough "meeting of the minds?"
Indeed, that is absolutely fair enough. I'll keep working to cast out ideologies and propaganda. Well spotted, xorcist.
I'll leave out your contortions of things I've said, willful ignorance of what I meant, and your attacks. They aren't worth the time. There were, however, two useful morsels in amongst the mess, otherwise:
Are you trying to say the slave owners of the American South did not actually benefit from their slave possessions?
Big picture: the harm they did led to a civil war which enabled their federal government in a power grab. Small scale perspective? Yeah, they benefited. Larger scale? No, they lost a great deal, and the American south went from being wealthy to being poor. Thanks for the wonderful example, in fact.
Anyway, I take it you believe Putin is a calculating sociopath. Glad to hear your enlightened objective, not-coloured-by-moral-relitvism "opinion".
Another perfect example of you putting words in my mouth, and then running with it "as my enlightened opinion" .. I don't think Putin is a sociopath. I don't think Hillary is a sociopath. I have no way to judge since I've never met either of them. I only have media which propagandizing ideologues have spun one way or the other to try to make me think one thing or the other. Knowing that, I know that I know nothing of the truth of the matter. Nor do you. But your ideology makes you think you do. But, even if Putin is truly, a kind, caring man.. what does that have to do with not being an ideologue, worrying about the "evil of the West", or being able to sit down, and play a position on the chess board? Nothing, of course. Nothing at all. He can do those things, and not be a sociopath. He can work in his country's best interests - i.e. do his job, without getting distracted by that. You can't stay on topic, on thread you started (if I'm not mistaken), without going into notions of moral relativity and philosophy and good vs. evil and all sorts of irrelevant shit. Because you're an ideologue. Putin, is not.
On Sep 27, 2016, at 12:02 PM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
I'll leave out your contortions of things I've said, willful ignorance of what I meant, and your attacks. They aren't worth the time. There were, however, two useful morsels in amongst the mess, otherwise:
Are you trying to say the slave owners of the American South did not actually benefit from their slave possessions?
Big picture: the harm they did led to a civil war which enabled their federal government in a power grab.
Small scale perspective? Yeah, they benefited. Larger scale? No, they lost a great deal, and the American south went from being wealthy to being poor.
Thanks for the wonderful example, in fact.
Hmm.. if you really look at “the big picture” here, and imagine an America that never had African slaves, I doubt the south would’ve had any substantial wealth to lose. Certainly nothing like it was. The USA was able to progress very quickly on the back of slave labor. Fucking country was built on the back of slavery. Who knows what would would have happened in North America if there had never been the (despicable) expedient of cheap, African slaves…. But these are all just games in alternate history at this point. You can take the magnifying glass for the “big picture” as close or as far away as you want, I suppose… John
Hmm.. if you really look at the big picture here, and imagine an America that never had African slaves, I doubt the south wouldve had any substantial wealth to lose. Certainly nothing like it was.
I find it difficult to imagine an America without slaves without also imagining a British Empire for whom the sun may have never set. Truly. The harm done to slaves, and to Native Americans, can be seen as a cause in the ultimate dissolution of the British Empire, the nation which is most largely responsible instituting the practice in North America. The continuance of it, led to economic prosperity in the States, and also civil war, and a recession that was termed the Great Depression, until that term was recycled for use to refer to the recession of the 1930s. But you're right, and I'm not looking to play games with alternate history. The point that I was making is that the harm you do will result in negative consequences for yourself.. this operates at a personal level, social level, and yes.. a historical level. I find it obvious, and I suspect the Indian people did as well, and that this observation was the seed for their idea of karma. A notion that expands this basic observation into the unobservable "spiritual realms", with all the hokum and hand-waving that necessarily entails.
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:02:27 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
Big picture: the harm they did led to a civil war which enabled their federal government in a power grab.
Wrong as usual.
Small scale perspective? Yeah, they benefited.
So, they benefited - slavery was good for them.
Larger scale? No, they lost a great deal,
Generations of slave owners didn't lose a thing.
and the American south went from being wealthy to being poor.
So 'the south' was wealth under slavery? And I guess the wealthiest people were the million of slaves? Have you tried thinking before typing?
Thanks for the wonderful example, in fact.
Yes, wonderful example of your ability to say the most stupid things. Back to your first sentence. Slavery was 'bad' because it led to a 'power grab' - Amazing proof-by-circular-logic eh? And why are 'power grabs' bad?
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:02:27 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
Big picture: the harm they did led to a civil war which enabled their federal government in a power grab.
Wrong as usual.
I knew you wouldn't be able to stay away from the sweet, sweet lovin' very long Juan. Some loves are meant to last. See? No tragedy. Breakups don't have to last forever.
Small scale perspective? Yeah, they benefited.
So, they benefited - slavery was good for them.
Yeah. The Dumbfuck perspective. I murder you to get a watch. I benefit, in the sense I have a watch now. I don't benefit in the sense that I now have to watch my ass for cops, murder charges, and so on. Perspective. As I've said repeatedly on this topic: what you consider a positive or a negative is based largely on the perspective, point of view, and most importantly the ramifications that you're looking at.
Larger scale? No, they lost a great deal,
Generations of slave owners didn't lose a thing.
Well, if you're looking at it in a purely monetary fashion, you may be right. When one takes in the other facets it may not be so clear. Does abusing slaves daily make you the type of person likely to abuse their children? People say this of mistreatment of animals, for example. Seems likely. You might classify this as a lose of humanity, type of thing. That is certainly a type of damage to them. Then there is the long-term financial impact. Most wealthy types don't just wish to see themselves get wealthy, individually, they seek to establish a dynasty. They want to put their children, and grandchildren, into positions of power. This was certainly compromised. There are a lot of ways in which the slave owners were harmed. And, to be clear: I make, and have made, no claims that the harm will be equal, or proportional. It is certainly possible to harm someone more than one is harmed yourself. But there is harm.
and the American south went from being wealthy to being poor.
So 'the south' was wealth under slavery? And I guess the wealthiest people were the million of slaves? Have you tried thinking before typing?
Oh c'mon .. you know what I meant, tiger. The only people able to vote, the only ones who legally counted in any respect, were the white, land-owning, males. They held a great deal of wealth, proportionally, across America as I understand it. That is no longer the case.
Back to your first sentence. Slavery was 'bad' because it led to a 'power grab' - Amazing proof-by-circular-logic eh? And why are 'power grabs' bad?
Indeed. Too bad you lack the ability to see the use of so-called circular logic. Still struggling with 7+10=5, I take it? Take your time. As for the 'power grab' considering that a great deal of the schism was centered around state's rights, its obvious that the southerners, then - as now - considered that a type of harm. Which is another point, in itself. Harm is relative, in the sense that the same action applied to one may not be considered harm by another. BSDM being the obvious example, but it applies in other areas as well. Not that this has anything to do with slavery, but it does have to do with the perceptions of harm; vis-a-vis a "strong" vs. "weak" federal government.
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:40:30 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
I knew you wouldn't be able to stay away from the sweet, sweet lovin' very long Juan. Some loves are meant to last.
I just routinely counter the garbage that people like you routinely vomit. Don't think your are special. Having pointed all the mistakes in your mental vomit, I'm back to the no "margaritas ante porcos" policy.
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:40:30 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
I knew you wouldn't be able to stay away from the sweet, sweet lovin' very long Juan. Some loves are meant to last.
I just routinely counter the garbage that people like you routinely vomit. Don't think your are special. Having pointed all the mistakes in your mental vomit, I'm back to the no "margaritas ante porcos" policy.
That's OK. I don't mind if you sleep around, sweetheart. And I love a man that can whisper sweetly in Spanish to me. I'll have a margarita with you any day, sugar tits.
Gross fags! -------- Original Message -------- On Sep 28, 2016, 1:59 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:54:02 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
"margaritas ante porcos".
Spanish
quoted for self-parody value.
So, uh.. what about that drink baby? And afterwards, I promise to be gentle.
Oh how I do love these teenage boys and their constant hard-on for a fuck fest.
Gross fags!
-------- Original Message -------- On Sep 28, 2016, 1:59 PM, wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:54:02 -0000
xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
"margaritas ante porcos".
Spanish
quoted for self-parody value.
So, uh.. what about that drink baby?
And afterwards, I promise to be gentle.
On Sep 28, 2016 6:14 PM, <xorcist@sigaint.org> wrote:
Oh how I do love these teenage boys and their constant hard-on for a fuck
fest.
Gross fags!
Baby, the prejudiced troll is just feeling envy. You know, one thread with so much love among Alex, Zen and Steve, you and Juan... Awww, John and I certainly approve so much affection! + 100 <3 http://youtu.be/58T0NlhNweA
On Sep 28, 2016 5:54 PM, <xorcist@sigaint.org> wrote:
And I love a man that can whisper sweetly in Spanish to me. I'll have a
margarita with you any day, sugar tits. Err... Sorry for disappointing you, darling. Our sweet Juan wasn't being romantic and inviting you to drink margaritas with him... :-/ "margaritas ante porcos" - Pearls before swine. [Don't throw] pearls before swine. Based on the verse found in the Bible; Matthew 7:6 in which it is written: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" [tear you into pieces]. A caution against offering the uncultured anything of quality; or, a caution against presenting anything to those who have no appreciation for the value of the product that has been created.
On Sep 28, 2016 5:54 PM, <xorcist@sigaint.org> wrote:
And I love a man that can whisper sweetly in Spanish to me. I'll have a
margarita with you any day, sugar tits.
Err... Sorry for disappointing you, darling. Our sweet Juan wasn't being romantic and inviting you to drink margaritas with him... :-/
Oh, I know. I was following his lead in being willfully obtuse and missing the point on purpose. I figured he'd appreciate it. Maybe should have gone with my first instinct. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbad22CKlB4
On Sep 28, 2016 6:39 PM, <xorcist@sigaint.org> wrote:
Oh, I know. I was following his lead in being willfully obtuse and
missing the point on purpose. I figured he'd appreciate it. Maybe should have gone with my first instinct.
Oh, poor little broken heart... </3 http://youtu.be/JIrm0dHbCDU
Oh, poor little broken heart... </3
How wonderfully apropos! First time I went to a strip club as a kid, I remember one of the dancers doing a routine to this song. ha! no accounting for coincidence, I guess.
On Sep 28, 2016 7:07 PM, <xorcist@sigaint.org> wrote:
How wonderfully apropos! First time I went to a strip club as a kid, I
remember one of the dancers doing a routine to this song. Strange Love in a strip club? Bah, too weak... Try this one: https://vimeo.com/3554226 (+18) Intense sex, pretty hot. And it was suggestion of another cypherpunk, haha!! Loved it! ;)
Try this one: https://vimeo.com/3554226 (+18)
Oh the horrors in the corners of the universe... lol. All societies and events perhaps not unexpected to develop over one way missions and millenia to propagate unconstrained and unregulated into the many greenfields of the universe... https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/09/28/1540239/elon-musk-first-humans-w... ...welcome to the new puritanical hotness. (ala puritans to greenfield america to practice freely story, blah blah.) Don't like your current environment?... just saddle up your rockets and go. ((fuck this list is off topic, ha))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/28/2016 09:03 PM, grarpamp wrote:
Try this one: https://vimeo.com/3554226 (+18)
Oh the horrors in the corners of the universe... lol. All societies and events perhaps not unexpected to develop over one way missions and millenia to propagate unconstrained and unregulated into the many greenfields of the universe...
https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/09/28/1540239/elon-musk-first-hu mans-who-journey-to-mars-must-be-prepared-to-die
...welcome to the new puritanical hotness. (ala puritans to greenfield america to practice freely story, blah blah.) Don't like your current environment?... just saddle up your rockets and go.
((fuck this list is off topic, ha))
What the hell, as long as we are already out here at L5... Be not led astray by false prophesies of a Martian Odyssey! Look rather to the Earth's dusty little twin as a potential destination for multi-year mission packages. Very soon we will have the technology... built for a Mars mission but it will most likely be used in our own backyard first. http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html Helium III: Very rare on Earth, common as dirt on the Moon. Grabbing enough of this very special isotope to build a fleet of commercial reactors and fuel them would be a potential history changer and an epic Bull Move. But if we tell the world we're going back to the Moon, everyone will figure out why and start crash programs of their own, so... Mars it is, for as long as possible before "diverting and redesigning" the mission. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX7HgnAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqmlMIAKfK+mBtmTrzYHyZ+j20700a RElnm5rEHwVZxEmLYIQm9A58nVh6UTFoc9+bsJjdfeXvBaXLC4epCGiT0Nmn3uSP ktRCxYkP2qn+OSHrzxwZKHkfVPBxOGufM2ur+OTbMec8Yb5D0QE/HBSuu+CWI3dr vPk6uQvp/TO2UOh1cCfrgnKJANJxOxF8aYbyETNiZ9mPCY16/GOUhnduRZoC/C34 bwEyjTE7sH3h4UZ681fyfalFmIvb+EZ/MJbOw6Cn58bgEgtPjUAogoYI/t42sPrq 4LICD/1FgsaW22/AlzqIYkgzSQgi/KS06igPJMbYvX8xGx2o99rHZuiOWwO1i6E= =04A2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:39:38 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
Oh, I know. I was following his lead in being willfully obtuse
Carry on. Your amoral slavery ramblings are such a fine example of 'enlightented' mental vomits, I mean 'buddhist' 'philosohical' 'thought' You're both retarded and intellectually dishonest. A piece of shit IOW =)
and missing the point on purpose. I figured he'd appreciate it. Maybe should have gone with my first instinct.
Carry on. Your amoral slavery ramblings are such a fine example of 'enlightented' mental vomits, I mean 'buddhist' 'philosohical' 'thought'
You're both retarded and intellectually dishonest. A piece of shit IOW =)
Does this mean we're breaking up again? Never claimed I was enlightened, big boy. Most of it, I only get on an intellectual level. A little of it, after a great amount of work, I understand intuitively. It's a process. Never claimed I was Buddhist. I've studied Buddhism, as I have psychology, and mathematics. I'm not a psychologist, nor mathematician, either. For that matter, I've gotten laid, but I'm not a porn star.. but hey, we can work on that, right sweetie? But none of this really matters, honey. I've already come to understand that you're deathly afraid of sharing any real opinions, much less experiences that you might base them on. One day you'll grow up to be a big boy, and then we can have some real fun, once you're not jail bait. toodooloo, sweetums.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:31:34 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
Carry on. Your amoral slavery ramblings are such a fine example of 'enlightented' mental vomits, I mean 'buddhist' 'philosohical' 'thought'
You're both retarded and intellectually dishonest. A piece of shit IOW =)
Does this mean we're breaking up again?
"När inte de levande kunna hjälpa oss, måste vi hjälpa oss själva"
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:31:34 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
Carry on. Your amoral slavery ramblings are such a fine example of 'enlightented' mental vomits, I mean 'buddhist' 'philosohical' 'thought'
You're both retarded and intellectually dishonest. A piece of shit IOW =)
Does this mean we're breaking up again?
"När inte de levande kunna hjälpa oss, måste vi hjälpa oss själva"
Well, OK, I'll do bare back.. but I want proof you test clean first.
Settle down guizz sea sea getting all hot and bothered -------- Original Message -------- On Sep 28, 2016, 9:57 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:31:34 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
Carry on. Your amoral slavery ramblings are such a fine example of 'enlightented' mental vomits, I mean 'buddhist' 'philosohical' 'thought'
You're both retarded and intellectually dishonest. A piece of shit IOW =)
Does this mean we're breaking up again?
"När inte de levande kunna hjälpa oss, måste vi hjälpa oss själva"
Well, OK, I'll do bare back.. but I want proof you test clean first.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 04:57:37 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:31:34 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
Carry on. Your amoral slavery ramblings are such a fine example of 'enlightented' mental vomits, I mean 'buddhist' 'philosohical' 'thought'
You're both retarded and intellectually dishonest. A piece of shit IOW =)
Does this mean we're breaking up again?
"När inte de levande kunna hjälpa oss, måste vi hjälpa oss själva"
Well, OK, I'll do bare back.. but I want proof you test clean first.
I don't know what you're talking about. Then again, neither do you. What was your last display of buddhist stupidity? Ah yes, "bluecore". Oh, and you wouldn't work for BAE...except when they fight 'opressive governments' perhaps...
I don't know what you're talking about. Then again, neither do you.
What can I say, you get me so flustered, its tough to think with you around, hot pants.
What was your last display of buddhist stupidity? Ah yes, "bluecore". Oh, and you wouldn't work for BAE...except when they fight 'opressive governments' perhaps...
<snicker> Linear thinkers are so predictable. You really should spend some time on 7+10=5. It would pay off more. And BAE doesn't fight anyone. They simply supply to those who do. And I don't work with, or get involved with militaries, their suppliers, or their flunkies. I do, however, contract with a variety of firms, from time to time. Sometimes in less than prestigious industries, like marketing. Sometimes, far more interesting areas. You can hold that against me, if you choose, but I'd expect something different from a good Adam Smith libertarian. Then again, we both know you don't believe that. You're too wet pants scared to believe in anything. That's OK honey, I'll rock you to sleep and sing you a lullaby. toodles.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:26 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
I don't know what you're talking about. Then again, neither do you.
What can I say, you get me so flustered, its tough to think with you around, hot pants.
What was your last display of buddhist stupidity? Ah yes, "bluecore". Oh, and you wouldn't work for BAE...except when they fight 'opressive governments' perhaps...
<snicker>
Linear thinkers are so predictable. You really should spend some time on 7+10=5. It would pay off more.
mate, you can't seriously expect me to play along with your striking lack of basic intellectual honesty =) You can't seriously expect me to take your retarded, I mean, 'mentally-superior-therefore-inconsistent' ramblings even half seriously...
And BAE doesn't fight anyone. They simply supply to those who do. And I don't work with, or get involved with militaries, their suppliers, or their flunkies.
I do, however, contract with a variety of firms, from time to time.
mate, as far as I'm concerned, you are just a cheap liar, exactly like your idol derren brown. So I take whatever you post as mild entertainment...once in a while.
Sometimes in less than prestigious industries, like marketing. Sometimes, far more interesting areas.
You can hold that against me, if you choose, but I'd expect something different from a good Adam Smith libertarian. Then again, we both know you don't believe that.
What is that you know I don't believe?
You're too wet pants scared to believe in anything. That's OK honey, I'll rock you to sleep and sing you a lullaby.
toodles.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:26 -0000
mate, you can't seriously expect me to play along with your striking lack of basic intellectual honesty =)
I don't expect anyone, to do anything. Except die. That we all have in common, at least thus far. As far as 'intellectual honesty' goes, well isn't that rich. A large part of intellectual honesty is not allowing one's personal beliefs to get in the way, and to remain unbiased. It's obvious that you do not do this. You have a belief in rationality, especially the idea that rationality forms some type of foundational core of the humans, and that has gotten in the way of our discussion. If you were really intellectually honest, you'd leave your rationality at the door.
mate, as far as I'm concerned, you are just a cheap liar, exactly like your idol derren brown. So I take whatever you post as mild entertainment...once in a while.
You know, its amusing to me how much you belabor Brown, it really is.. because he is no idol of mine. I'm loathe to give away the game here, but in fact, I hadn't been thinking about his work at all, until I went on Youtube to try to find an entirely different video of a mugging I had seen, and found his wallet video. So I posted it. But its good you find entertainment. I'm glad. That is the first positive thing you've managed to muster. So, I'm happy to have helped you.
What is that you know I don't believe?
I know you don't believe that 7+10=5.
On 09/29/2016 12:29 AM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:26 -0000
mate, you can't seriously expect me to play along with your striking lack of basic intellectual honesty =)
I don't expect anyone, to do anything. Except die. That we all have in common, at least thus far.
What is dead may never die ;) <SNIP>
On Sep 29, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 09/29/2016 12:29 AM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:26 -0000
mate, you can't seriously expect me to play along with your striking lack of basic intellectual honesty =)
I don't expect anyone, to do anything. Except die. That we all have in common, at least thus far.
What is dead may never die ;)
<SNIP>
And what is yet to be written (by old rich author) may never be finished ;) But at least we have hbo.. John
On 09/29/2016 06:38 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Sep 29, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 09/29/2016 12:29 AM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:26 -0000
mate, you can't seriously expect me to play along with your striking lack of basic intellectual honesty =)
I don't expect anyone, to do anything. Except die. That we all have in common, at least thus far.
What is dead may never die ;)
<SNIP>
And what is yet to be written (by old rich author) may never be finished ;)
It's funny. I've tried reading the books, and find them tedious :( I much prefer Richard Morgan's "A Land Fit for Heroes" trilogy.
But at least we have hbo..
And torrents ;)
John
On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 09/29/2016 06:38 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Sep 29, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 09/29/2016 12:29 AM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:26 -0000
mate, you can't seriously expect me to play along with your striking lack of basic intellectual honesty =)
I don't expect anyone, to do anything. Except die. That we all have in common, at least thus far.
What is dead may never die ;)
<SNIP>
And what is yet to be written (by old rich author) may never be finished ;)
It's funny. I've tried reading the books, and find them tedious :( I much prefer Richard Morgan's "A Land Fit for Heroes" trilogy.
I've read the first one a long time ago. I actually prefer the show over the book, in a rare reversal... Morgan's stuff is great... the little twist that the gods are actually the envoys from the Kovacs books was nice ;) My favorite Morgan book is still 13 (or Black Man as it originally came out in the UK)
But at least we have hbo..
And torrents ;)
And kodi ! John
On 09/29/2016 05:17 PM, John Newman wrote:
On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 09/29/2016 06:38 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Sep 29, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 09/29/2016 12:29 AM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:36:26 -0000
mate, you can't seriously expect me to play along with your striking lack of basic intellectual honesty =)
I don't expect anyone, to do anything. Except die. That we all have in common, at least thus far.
What is dead may never die ;)
<SNIP>
And what is yet to be written (by old rich author) may never be finished ;)
It's funny. I've tried reading the books, and find them tedious :( I much prefer Richard Morgan's "A Land Fit for Heroes" trilogy.
I've read the first one a long time ago. I actually prefer the show over the book, in a rare reversal...
Morgan's stuff is great... the little twist that the gods are actually the envoys from the Kovacs books was nice ;)
Yeah, and the space-tearing weapons of the Martians and their enemies. But damn, there's maybe a million years of intervening story, which he sketches out in fragments. I do wish that he'd tell it. But then, I grew up on Anderson, Heinlein and Zelazny :)
My favorite Morgan book is still 13 (or Black Man as it originally came out in the UK)
I read the Kovacs trilogy first, and they're still my favorites. I do like everything that he's written, however. The genetically engineered characters in 13 are a lot like Envoys, and he explores many of the same issues.
But at least we have hbo..
And torrents ;)
And kodi !
John
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 18:34:35 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
[Don't throw] pearls before swine. Based on the verse found in the Bible;]
My take is that it's a traditional latin proverb. If anything the fucking jew-kkkristians stole it. http://jesusneverexisted.com/
On Sep 28, 2016 8:02 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
My take is that it's a traditional latin proverb. If anything the
fucking jew-kkkristians stole it.
My love, you don't have faith, tsk tsk... Did you watch the "Fist of Jesus" movie? You will love it! Jesus and Zombies in Spanish! <3 http://youtu.be/GuKV2Z3eYTY (subtitles in English) Jesus existed and had several problems with zombies and all that resuscitation thing, Juan. Unfortunately, he created some politicians, aka "evil zombies", in the process... :( He should make just the water and wine magic, meh! :(
On Sep 28, 2016 10:25 PM, "grarpamp" <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
My love, you don't have faith, tsk tsk... Did you watch the "Fist of
Jesus"
Esta filma es "Los Pescados de Jesus" :)
Did you already watch "Kung Fury", my love? "Hackerman" is more powerful than Jesus using fishes to fight against zombies, hahaha!!! ;D http://youtu.be/bS5P_LAqiVg Kung Fury is an over-the-top 80’s action comedy that was crowd funded through Kickstarter. It features Kung Fury, a Kung Fu renegade cop who travels back in time to kill his Nemesis, Hitler. The film features nazis, dinosaurs, vikings and cheesy one-liners.
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
I knew you wouldn't be able to stay away from the sweet, sweet lovin' very long Juan. Some loves are meant to last.
* I just routinely counter the garbage that people like you routinely vomit. *Don't think your are special. Having pointed all the mistakes in your mental vomit, *I'm back to the no "margaritas ante porcos" policy.* Great knock-out, Juan! This should be periodically quoted to all the shitbags on this list!
* I just routinely counter the garbage that people like you routinely vomit. *Don't think your are special. Having pointed all the mistakes in your mental vomit, *I'm back to the no "margaritas ante porcos" policy.*
Great knock-out, Juan! This should be periodically quoted to all the shitbags on this list!
HEY! Go find your own sailor to flirt with, slut! But you're right, Juanita sure did knock me out. What stamina! I haven't been fucked like that since middle school! Grrr.. you go tiger!
On Sep 29, 2016 12:32 AM, <xorcist@sigaint.org> wrote:
Great knock-out, Juan! This should be periodically quoted to all the shitbags on this list!
HEY! Go find your own sailor to flirt with, slut!
Nah, don't feel jealous, dear. Everybody knows Zen is Alex's true love. He probably would flirt with Putin too, but not with Juan.
But you're right, Juanita sure did knock me out. What stamina! I haven't been fucked like that since middle school! Grrr.. you go tiger!
On 09/26/2016 08:59 PM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
I staked out a stronger position than I actually hold, a hopefully forgivable mistake in response to Zenaan's black-and-white "Russia good, US evil" propagandizing. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
OK, I can understand that.
:)
Yes, there is a lot of ideological stuff like that here, it seems. I look at geopolitics from a merely strategic point of view, believing that the military planners and people in power tend to look at it in those terms rather than believing the bullshit that they tell the public. How could they? Many of them, no doubt, have contact with the media and have directed them what to say, in some way or another.
Right, to understand people, you need to see things as they might. But that doesn't mean that you agree with what they say and do. And it doesn't even mean that you are willing to take a position about them. Sometimes, there's just no point, because there's nothing useful about it. You just do what you're committed to, based on your own principles and values.
I would add, however, that from what I can tell, Putin is out-classing the West at nearly every turn. If there are any politicians in the U.S. that have a chance of out-thinking the man, I haven't heard of them.
I have no clue about that. He might just have good advisors. Or maybe he and US leaders all work for the same people, and are just playing their assigned roles. It's really very hard for outsiders to know.
Right, to understand people, you need to see things as they might.
Of course!
But that doesn't mean that you agree with what they say and do.
Of course not! :) .. the way far-out example I usually give to this is someone like a serial killer. If they were sexually, physically, and mentally abused by their mother for years, and then she dies before he's had a chance to confront her in any way, it is easy to see how someone might feel a deep hatred and intense, driving compulsion -- an incredible hunger -- that can only be sated by killing prostitutes that happen to look vaguely like his mother did. I can understand compulsions. Hungers. I can understand that, left to his own devices, it is impossible for him to resist that urge for long. None of that understanding means that I think they shouldn't be locked up, of course. But neither am I so swift at judging him in the emotional way that people do, calling him a monster. He's not a monster. He's a human being. One that was broken before he knew how to talk, probably. Not that I'm above finding people monstrous.
And it doesn't even mean that you are willing to take a position about them. Sometimes, there's just no point, because there's nothing useful about it. You just do what you're committed to, based on your own principles and values.
Indeed. I tend to look at things in terms of, what can we work together on, rather than what can we fight/argue about. I'm not interested, at all, in "converting" a die-hard National party type to my way of thinking. Nor am I interested in destroying someone's religious faith. They are entitled to their beliefs. I don't need them to agree with me to validate my own. To me, its rather like being the type of asshole that needs to get into bar fights and all that nonsense. Just a deeply frustrated person looking to prove themselves. To the extent that a good, Church-going Christian and I can work together to DO something we both want to do, I'm happy. I'll even make small changes to my behavior to accommodate their sensibilities, if needed. I'd certainly have no issue with not swearing, for example. Other things I wouldn't change..for example there are some people.. women, and homosexual men.. that I give hugs to when I greet them. Hell, I like to THINK that I'd be OK with working with a Nazi who wanted to do something positive too.
I have no clue about that. He might just have good advisors. Or maybe he and US leaders all work for the same people, and are just playing their assigned roles. It's really very hard for outsiders to know.
That is an excellent point. In his defense, I'd just say that from what I've seen of him, in unscripted exchanges, he seems far more erudite, and together than any Western politician I'm familiar with. Not that I'm a student of such things, so I could certainly be out of my depth on that.
On 09/26/2016 11:32 PM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote: Maybe fix your mail client to attribute quotes?
Right, to understand people, you need to see things as they might.
Of course!
But that doesn't mean that you agree with what they say and do.
Of course not! :) .. the way far-out example I usually give to this is someone like a serial killer. If they were sexually, physically, and mentally abused by their mother for years, and then she dies before he's had a chance to confront her in any way, it is easy to see how someone might feel a deep hatred and intense, driving compulsion -- an incredible hunger -- that can only be sated by killing prostitutes that happen to look vaguely like his mother did.
Well, we all have shit like that going on, albeit far more subtle ;) In _Foundations of Psychohistory_, Lloyd Demause discusses the evolution of child-rearing methods in recent centuries, and explores implications for economics, politics, etc. Behavior of societies collectively reflects their members' childhoods.
I can understand compulsions. Hungers. I can understand that, left to his own devices, it is impossible for him to resist that urge for long.
None of that understanding means that I think they shouldn't be locked up, of course.
For sure, after due process.
But neither am I so swift at judging him in the emotional way that people do, calling him a monster. He's not a monster. He's a human being. One that was broken before he knew how to talk, probably.
We're all broken, in one way or another.
Not that I'm above finding people monstrous.
And it doesn't even mean that you are willing to take a position about them. Sometimes, there's just no point, because there's nothing useful about it. You just do what you're committed to, based on your own principles and values.
Indeed. I tend to look at things in terms of, what can we work together on, rather than what can we fight/argue about. I'm not interested, at all, in "converting" a die-hard National party type to my way of thinking. Nor am I interested in destroying someone's religious faith. They are entitled to their beliefs. I don't need them to agree with me to validate my own.
Sometimes, when I'm finding myself disagreeing with others, I get that we're just using different language, or different frameworks, to say the same thing. Or maybe it's just that we don't have a clue, really ;)
To me, its rather like being the type of asshole that needs to get into bar fights and all that nonsense. Just a deeply frustrated person looking to prove themselves.
Some claim that it's all just good fun ;)
To the extent that a good, Church-going Christian and I can work together to DO something we both want to do, I'm happy. I'll even make small changes to my behavior to accommodate their sensibilities, if needed. I'd certainly have no issue with not swearing, for example. Other things I wouldn't change..for example there are some people.. women, and homosexual men.. that I give hugs to when I greet them.
Right, and they don't harp on the damned goin' to Hell thing ;)
Hell, I like to THINK that I'd be OK with working with a Nazi who wanted to do something positive too.
Nazis are not uncommon in privacy/anonymity circles. Just sayin'.
I have no clue about that. He might just have good advisors. Or maybe he and US leaders all work for the same people, and are just playing their assigned roles. It's really very hard for outsiders to know.
That is an excellent point. In his defense, I'd just say that from what I've seen of him, in unscripted exchanges, he seems far more erudite, and together than any Western politician I'm familiar with. Not that I'm a student of such things, so I could certainly be out of my depth on that.
Well, Kissinger likes him ;)
Maybe fix your mail client to attribute quotes?
Alas, the webmail client here doesn't seem to be that flexible.
Well, we all have shit like that going on, albeit far more subtle ;)
In _Foundations of Psychohistory_, Lloyd Demause discusses the evolution of child-rearing methods in recent centuries, and explores implications for economics, politics, etc. Behavior of societies collectively reflects their members' childhoods.
I haven't read that. Seems like it would be interesting, however. I stayed on a commune, some years back. I met a young woman, who was 19 when she moved to the commune, with her (at the time) new born son. She was 27, and finishing up a masters in biotech. She had decided that an unplanned pregnancy wasn't going to make her give up her dreams, and found a way to make it all work by having the commune help provide the day-care while she was at school, and helping to provide labor to the commune in the evenings. The boy was amazing. I often watched him, fascinated, at how he seemed perfectly nimble. He could play with children, be silly, and altogether a normal kid -- and take a break from running around to come talk to the adults and engage in quite sophisticated conversation for his age. I often think of them when people bring up such notions, that how people are raised at a micro-level will have macro-level effects. I tend to agree, but haven't seen a systematic treatment of the subject. I'll try to find that book. It would be interesting. I would add that 'educational' institutions play a large role, as well.. but in modern society, they are equally a part of the child-rearing. Some might say more so than parents.
We're all broken, in one way or another.
Well yes, and some to a 'greater' or 'lesser' degree.
Sometimes, when I'm finding myself disagreeing with others, I get that we're just using different language, or different frameworks, to say the same thing. Or maybe it's just that we don't have a clue, really ;)
I tend to take the later perspective. I find most human endeavor to be marked by the folly of believing it to be something other than human endeavor. So, the religious will claim its the truth of the spiritual world. So the mathematicians have some odd neo-Platonic view that they are "discovering" new things, rather than merely playing abstract word games to describe patterns. The pattern doesn't exist, things that (seem) to fit the pattern do.
To me, its rather like being the type of asshole that needs to get into bar fights and all that nonsense. Just a deeply frustrated person looking to prove themselves.
Some claim that it's all just good fun ;)
Yes, the assholes looking to prove themselves. I've never been sympathetic to that point of view, so much.
Right, and they don't harp on the damned goin' to Hell thing ;)
I can even deal with that, so long as they can deal with me joshing about rather spending time with strippers and rockstars in the basement than the boring pious doing bible study upstairs.
Hell, I like to THINK that I'd be OK with working with a Nazi who wanted to do something positive too.
Nazis are not uncommon in privacy/anonymity circles. Just sayin'.
Well, I wasn't even thinking just those circles. It's conceivable a Nazi might want to, say, I don't know.. honestly I've having trouble coming up with a realistic example because of the whole Nazi thing. But, I like to think I could set aside my distaste for that ideology and look at what the person does, practically, more so than what nonsense they "believe." Because, in my view, all belief is nonsense. Including the belief that belief is nonsense. I'm sure there are beliefs worthwhile, I'm just not convinced humans have a way to know for sure what they are. It's all just people talking out of their asses. I tend to look at, well on the average what does belief X encourage its adherents to DO. Nazism gets a low grade by that standard. But a Nazi who DOESN'T DO things I find egregious? I like to think I can not be prejudiced against nonsense at that point.
Well, Kissinger likes him ;)
Now that you mention it, that may be another useful metric for giving someone/something a low grade.
participants (11)
-
Cecilia Tanaka -
grarpamp -
John Newman -
juan -
Mirimir -
rooty -
Sean Lynch -
Steve Kinney -
xorcist＠sigaint.org -
Zenaan Harkness -
Александр