[WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:44:56PM -0000, xorcist at sigaint.org wrote:
> > 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?"

Indeed, that is absolutely fair enough.

I'll keep working to cast out ideologies and propaganda. Well
spotted, xorcist.