[WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:14:12PM -0000, xorcist at 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?"