Compartmentalization

Do you value animal life? Do you value human life? What are your opinions on this? I want to know what you think.

What is your point? Do you value the life of the sheep and human or don't you?

How does an individual earn it's value? What makes you decide that an individual is valueable?

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you advocate that man go and become a slave to our instincts? One minute you post advocating freedom and I agree with you, then in the same post you say that man can never escape the corporeal "simple" existance of instinctual slavery.

We developed and evolved higher level brain capacity for a reason. Maybe you lack that ability in yourself and so you call it compartmentalization, when in reality it's just a capability you lack.

YOU are a slave to your instincts, YOU think in this way. Do not be confused, not everyone in this world thinks as you do or behaves as you will. Some of us have virtues that we hold so high that we ignore our instincts, and sometimes even our feelings to follow through with our commitments and responsibilities. Do you understand commitment and responsibility? Do you understand what it means to have honor and integrity?

Sometimes to have these properties, a man must ignore his instinct, ignore the little voice in his head that tells him to rebel, break the rules, and give up all discipline. We ignore that voice in our head because we believe that there are things worth sacrificing for.

What are you willing to sacrifice for? There must be something you care about enough, that will allow you to form a sense of commitment to it, either an ideal, or an instutition, or a people and religion but there must be something you'd accept and commit to.

If you are not commited to anything at all, then yes you can act wild, and simple. You can obey your instincts, and say to hell with morality, to hell with integrity, to hell with rules, religion, orthodoxy, fairness, ethics and anything else which you instinctively dislike.

The problem with following this hedonistic way of life is, it's often wrong. More often than not, your instincts will be wrong, and while you will win in the short term, you'll lose in the long term. The rules exist so that you and all of us can win in the long term. The rules exist to protect the future, to protect OUR future, by setting a structure in place which can outlast all individuals. If we were to live like you, we would have no way to maintain a future, it would literally be every man, woman, child, for his or herself, in a war of all against all. This is what we call social darwinism, and this is where your hedonist ideology leads to. The lack of morality leads to chaos which expresses itself in the war of all against all.

Humans require structure to survive. We cannot survive very long in the world as you define it. It might be more fun for you, you might enjoy living in that sort of chaos, because you won't have to pretend anymore, you won't have to pretend to be politically correct, you won't have to pretend to be polite, or pretend to obey orders and respect authority, you won't have to respect anyone and will be in absolute and complete freedom.

You'll be able to be as vulgar and as morally insane as you wish to be. You'll be able to do anything you want to anyone, because theres no need for laws. In your world, everyone will have to watch their own back, carry a gun, and live like a gangster. It will literally become the wild west in a matter of days. People will start to shoot each other over petty arguements, and no one will be able to trust anyone because there will be no moral standards to define right from wrong, or good from evil.

If that's the world you want, go ahead, create that world. You'll only make your life harder, you'll only make the world more competitive for you, because while you think you'll thrive in that environment, many other people will thrive in it even better because many others will create structure in chaos and discover new rules, once again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a perfect example of the kind of thinking I want to highlight. Everyone take a good look.

The redness is the flower?
The orangeness is the orange?

What a simple world!

The greeness is the money?
The yellowness is the bananna?
The blueness is the sky?

There is a name for this, eye candy!

Someone give this guy a nice shiny object to play with. How about a stone? Maybe some gold?
How about I trade you a bag filled with nice shiny objects? All your favorite colors, including the redness of the rose? Eye candy.

It's porn of the eye. And I guess some people have a color fetish.

A spiritual interpretation, the belief that the essence of an entity is in it's color, would be sorta like saying the height and weight of an entity is it's power. It's never been that simple. Elephants weigh a lot more than humans, but humans somehow have more power. Does it mean we have bigger souls?

Taken to the conclusion. The color of the roses soul is red. Thus, the red rose has a red soul. Therefore it is a red, not a rose.

See?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And the incredible extent to which those TOOLS have been developed, is a product of civilization, it is evidence showing why humanity is so different, so unique when compared with the rest of natures kingdom. Remember this concept, for its integral to your propositions flaws.

In light of the thread up till this point, I will show you exactly why it is your core idea fails and show you in as concise and succinct a manner as possible, while not compromising clarity.

The issue I take with your original posts is as follows:
------------------------

Your post disparages the politically correct mindset and the ideal behind it, you say it is stupid and its reasoning is not consistant.

In short, you say it is Compartmentalizing.

The question you asked me, that is most suitable for showing that your proposition of compartmentalization as an explanation here, is flawed, is this one:

What you imply with this question, is that if you judge in this manner, you are compartmentalizing, you are using two different rational standards for the two situations.

I think you are wrong. I think that to do so is NOT compartmentalizing and that there is ONE rational standard that underlies both judgements in each situation, and I will explain why..

NOTE: In making the above statement, I assume that by the word 'Superficial' you are speaking in a relative, comparitive manner, i.e. Colour is LESS relevant, rather than it is NOT relevant. The difference may seem small, nevertheless, it is FUNDAMENTAL, to your argument and to how I answer it.

I must point out that you asked this question:

And this question:

Both of which imply that you were not speaking relatively, that you were actually supposing that the politically correct ideal is that colour is flatly irrelevant where judgement of humans is concerned.

If this is the case, then I must first point out your premise here is wrong: The purpose of the politically correct ideal here, is not to remove the significance of a sense altogether, its to put this sense in its proper perspective, with respect to modern knowledge of the mind. From my original post and throught the thread, I have pointed out that it is not flatly irrelevant, that I do not treat it as flatly irrelevant and have gone to great lengths to emphasize this fact.

Your equivocating "meaning nothing" with "superficial" caused these specific confusions, so here I will tie this definition down to the ground for the remainder of this discussion.

You later said this:

I will accept then, that despite your earlier words, you weren't implying that it meant NOTHING and I will then treat your argument as valid, lest you complain that I am dodging the issue on a technicality.

In accepting this, I trust you will not dodge arguments by requesting anymore obtuse clarifications of common definitions such as your:

After which I went through the entire damned unity of being thing, just so you couldn't pull that again.

Now... we can continue onto the core discussion without any ambiguous definition obsfucating the issue:

In answering this the first time, my mistake was to assume that you considered what you perceived as compartmentalization, as BAD, and I addressed what I saw as the essence of the problem, in terms of good and bad.

Apparently this was unjustified, because you claim that:

I accepted this and accept this then as error on my part, in spite of the fact that for the last 9 pages you've complained nearly non-stop about what you perceive as compartmentalization, and its practioners; stupids, morons, imbeciles and the 'weakness-combined' that you call'civilized pretense' that 'suppresses' you - you say all this stupidity has made you frustrated, mad, tired and that it was a mistake for you to return to sciforums because of it and that you would be leaving because of it...

If this is evidence that you 'like modern man this way.' Then I don't know what to say, except that it seems suffering is a masochistic pleasure for you, rather than platonic reason as your Asceticism post suggests.

For the sake of this argument, I will accept it and stick with other terms.

In view of some evidently incompetent memories, I will repeat the core issue in this discussion:

--------------

What you imply with this question, is that if you judge in this manner, you are compartmentalizing, you are using two different rational standards for the two situations.

I think you are wrong. I think that to do so is NOT compartmentalizing and that there is ONE rational standard that underlies both judgements in each situation and I will explain why...
---------------

What you fail to understand, what you miss in comprehending why people may consider colour LESS relevant in the case of other humans than they may do in the case of animals and rocks and do so without compartmentalization, is this:

In the modern, human, social, CIVILIZED environment, humans are CONSCIOUSLY COOPERATING WITH ONE ANOTHER.. There are SOME cases where humans and animals consciously cooperate, the vast majority are not doing so.

With conscious cooperation - acting through reason to achieve cooperation - in order to practically judge one another as accurately as possible and practical in the current moment of time, each person primarily interacts with the most RELEVANT part of the other; the foundation (not a 'magical' foundation, remember) of human behaviour.

That foundation, as modern man has learned, is the mind, specifically the brain, which is fully inside the body and thus not directly observable. What we then use to judge, are those changing behavioural actions, gestures, words, etc.. that give useful information about (and more useful than usual in this case of cooperation) what a person is thinking.

By comparison, skin colour is NOT one of those behavioural actions and is thus far less relevant an element in judgement. One example of skin colours' limited uses in momentary judgement: It MAY give you a typecast or template, by which to interpret those behavioral actions, particularly such as language, which vary according to the environment and so indirectly, you're aquiring information about it; Even so, it is FAR more effective to discern this from the symbols and words themselves, due to their direct relevance to the moment, here, now and not with the persons past - not to mention that if your typecast associated with skin colour is incorrect, it will inaccurately prejudice your interpretation hereafter, unless you realise your error.

In the case of animals, rocks.. The lack of conscious cooperation (among other missing human attributes), makes the theory of mind (absent in the case of rocks, fruit, hence the massively different treatment and the stupidity of your examples) interaction FAR less effective, it means that one usually will rely more on external appearance and so colour is one of many things made much more relevant..

This is fundamentally, practical. This practicality, is a single, rational standard. There is no 'compartmentalization' here, there is only the practicality, THROUGH which we logically deal with the many varying combinations of sensation and knowledge in varying situations.

That is the core and that answer is specifically relevant to this topic and your questions. I trust that there is no confusion and that it answers them fully.

--------------------------------------

Now, as to you, your ideas and your inability to comprehend this. (And too, your lackeys-by-default that are seemingly drawn to your civil discontent, but whom are worse still for lack of any grace-saving perspicacity of their own)

Why do you try to argue against this ideal?

Do you think that conscious cooperation doesn't really exist or is practically unreliable?

As illustration of how irrelevant this baseless insistence of yours is that civlization is just a pretense; Even WERE civilization built on peoples inner pretense, there would STILL be conscious cooperation, still reasoning interaction due to neccessity. You have admitted this and indeed practise this yourself.

As for the concepts reliability.. Don't try tell me - while here, using the internet, a computer, a forum, presumably in a building, writing words, citing civilized knowledge from your civilized education, before or after you eat, drink, sleep, exploiting any number of civilizations products in doing so - don't try to tell me that conscious cooperation is PRACTICALLY unreliable and that civilization is only a pretense!

The world-economy, that great game of competition which drives civilization, can only be played because enough people CONSCIOUSLY COOPERATE in order to play it. Both within and without this arena its obvious one could cite billions of examples of people conscious cooperating..

You pick on the duller people whom follow, or try to, the politically correct ideal out of practicality.. You delight in making fools of their minds, because they're slower than yours and so bluster, bluff.. And yet, though they may not be smart enough to understand its foundations and its reasons, yet they are trying to consciously cooperate with civilization, because to do so IS an effective, efficient means of living.

Despite this, having made them look silly with your words and theirs, you then stand up and say "Here is a good example of the civilized mind" in true propagandistic form.

I can equally well propagandize the issue in my favour by pointing out that the best examples of civilized minds are those leaders, innovators, thinkers, doers, past and present, of every walk of life, those men and women of enormous influence in their time, whom by their honest work in advancing civilization, etched their names into human history. Appealing to reptuations, however, is not an intelligent means of argument, so I will use this only to show up this tactic of yours that you use so often.

So let me emphasize this: Even the 'stupid' people who try to live by the politically correct ideals that they don't fundamentally understand, have not compartmentalized, they're acting out of a desire to live a civilized life, out of an aspiration to live the way they want to - and thus, by the reason that necessecitates doing so. It is YOU who have CREATED the compartments, the categories in which you separate their actions from their essential foundations. It is YOU whom separate appearance from essence.

What shows you up as a fraud, what exposes you above all else, is how by your own definition, you COMPARTMENTALIZE, your very own life.

This is the most brilliant example of the very division you are lambasting, you've divided your life into that of submissive, consciously cooperative, civilized pretense and that of contemptuous, consciously non-cooperative anti-civilization ideals and yet despit the latter, you continue to procure the services of the very civilization you attack!

Here are some of your own words to rub this in:

It is incredible that later on you begin deriding NECESSITY itself! What action in life is NOT necessary? To do something that you CONSIDER frivolous and 'not necessary' it is NECESSARY for your to enact it! Every level of movement involved with your demonstration of what is 'not necessary' ... is NECESSARY, to its demonstration!

It may be incredible and fundamentally stupid, however it is obvious why you do it:

Civilization is the NECESSARY foundation by which you are able to live this style of life. Damn, that knowledge must really REALLY irk you; the very thing you loathe as necessary for your continuing standard of existence. Yet more of your own words:

If you were totally separate from civilization, were you speaking to me as some sort of 'wild man' in the wilderness without any adornments of civilization you might have some sort of credibility, at least.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortuantely, though you'd hardly admit it) for you, you're not. And so finally, you don't have a point. Your argument is clearly shown up as spurious, furthermore; hypocritical and finally amounts to nothing more than a glorified complaint.

Thats all you've got left: complaints. You don't want to contribute to civilzation, but you're FORCED to, aww, poor boy. Sorry about your feelings. Oh wait, feelings aren't in the spirit of your asceticism are they? Hmm..

So why are you complaining? Why are you even here? If you really had any genuine intentions to follow through with your compartmentalized ideals, you'd not be partaking in this 'civilized pretense' of a discussion, or indeed have registered on this forum. After all, its only that NECESSITY thing thats holding you back. Gosh darn the necessity for a blog, a computer, classical literature and the philosophies of one of the greatest civilizations in all history.

It is truly stunning that somebody so civilized as yourself can so completely miss the point. It appears that the genuine reasons behind your ideals, are that you don't LIKE civilization, you don't LIKE necessity, you don't LIKE the reality you find on your doorstep or since you disapprove of civilized living, maybe you don't even LIKE your doorstep.

Your 'arguments' against the genuine nature of civilization itself are based on projection. Small wonder then, that you think civilization is pretense! Yes, these following are again your OWN WORDS:

Here's a sterling example of how you 'evidenced' your statements that 'Civilization is pretense.':

Oh and by the way, this is a logical fallacy. In fact, its a number of logical fallacies, all at once, here are some references for you:

Argument_from_fallacy
Biased_sample
Hasty_generalization
Proof_by_example
Straw_man

Congratulations! That was truly impressive, I don't believe I've ever seen anyone with half a brain argue from such shoddy foundations!

Do you really want me to go rifling through your posts to dig up all your other retarded arguments? Anyone reading can scroll back through the pages and pick them all out at their leisure, however that would take such effort...

You draw your propositions fundamental conclusions from ridiculous assumptions and extreme generalizations. You have no legitimate argument.
You pretend to be civil that you may live off the civilization you idealistically loathe. You are a fraud.
You contemptuously deride others for living by necessity, when you yourself live by necessity. You are a hypocrit.
You compartmentalize your life, you compartmentalize your perception of other peoples reasoning processes, then you accuse OTHER people of compartmentalism! You are a JOKE.

Above all else, you've become a complete waste of my time. I'm done with you. While you attempt to justify your compartmentalism, I am going to partake in some unpretentious, civilized living. And so I'll end this with a last quote from you.

You do and you continue you to do so, long after you should have had the self-control to cut your losses and run. While you live out your life hiding behind a facade, civilization will silently thank you for your self-lessening (i.e. 'necessary') contribution and roll onward.

 

Unbelievable...satyr thinks just because he uses deductive reasoning to describe a phenomenon therefore he understands it and others do not. That is stupidity. He compartmentalizes the physical and base instinct as valid and real while morality, and positive emotions are deemed an illusion. His argument would be as inane as deeming himself nonexistent because his mother came before him. He acknowledges negative emotions such as "shame", "frustration", or "anger" in others because it serves his purpose of shallow oneupmanship while positive emotions are dismissed. He is bent and retarded in his arguments and thinks he actually comprehends the universe by observing patterns. He can only describe just like anyone else, he cannot even understand his beloved instinct for survival besides as a mental construct of "there it is." Why live at all. How retarded can one be.

 

MoronMan

Oh shit...he's gonna make another "point".

He’s squirming, trying to find room to “spin”.

He's explaining me to me.

So we …don’t disagree?

So we agree…but disagree?

You mean, you just single-handedly explained “thingness” or existence?
It must have been lost in all the “good points” you were making.

Now... we can continue onto the core discussion without any ambiguous definition obsfucating the issue:

You mean you were….dare I say…wrong? Say it ain’t so, Joe.

One must remember that everything has a price.
If you want to enjoy “civilization” then, at least, acknowledge the repercussions.
Stupidity is a byproduct of civilization.

My preference is based on my self-interests.
Average man’s stupidity suits my interests.
Why would I give sight to a blind man if his blindness serves my well-being.

Can't wait.

So utility is the motive?
How honest.
The fact that you depend on them forces you to pretend like you consider them your equal or makes you blind to their difference?
‘Its true…civilized man isn’t duplicitous.
This is my “failure to understand”.
Idiot, that's the basis of my thesis.
You raise need and necessity to the level of “truth”. You make your subjective opinions universal rules.
The fact remains, as you allude, that color does matter in all circumstances. Nature evolved the perception of color for a reason, and it wasn’t superficial or trivial.
Whether, you then consciously choose to disregard it, for self-serving utilitarian reasons, is different than stating that it is superficial and irrelevant.

The dogs difference are obvious, they are not superficial. That I choose to ignore them, because the dog serves some purpose and offers me comfort and companionship is not the same as stating that its form and color is irrelevant and only a “prejudiced” mind would acknowledge that the dog is inferior or of a different species, because this demeans the dog.
If the dog’s feelings are guiding my rational deliberations then who is being prejudiced?
If my own comforts and self-interests, in relation to the dog, guide my reason, then who is being stupid?

So, anyone you cooperate with or depend upon is automatically like you or your equal?
How...objective of you.

Really?
So, you see a dichotomy of mind/body, where mind IS the human being and body is an add on a tool a vehicle?
How primitive of you.
And what is the mind?
Does the brain produce it and is the brain physical?
If the mind is separate from the body then the dog should not be judged by its physicality either.

So, your observations of their physicality, in action, is different from their physicality?
Appearance is temporal. Action is included in existence.
Color is the lights activity its effect on the eye.
But here we are not saying if color reveals if a person is kind or useful or anything. We are stating that color exposes essence and potential.
If my dog is nice to me, I like my dog, but I don’t consider it like me or think that it is capable of abstract thought on my level.
I see a chimpanzee and consider many of its physical characteristics similar to mine, yet the differences make me consider that it isn’t completely like me.
Its Becoming has taken a different rout; a route which is its essence and determines its qualities of mind and body.
Mind/Body being manifestations of the same thing. You cannot separate them and arbitrarily place more importance on one and less on the other.
That the mind can be trained or masked and that it can pretend and act and suppress and control instincts and desires and inclinations does not negate the fact that it is its essence – the complete history of its Becoming.
If I want to fuck my neighbors wife but I don’t because I have been trained by culture to be ashamed of this or because I fear being caught or because I have been indoctrinated into a mindset where it is immoral, does not negate my need or desire or inclination.
That I don’t act on it makes me contained and a hypocrite.

Furthermore, how do you access another’s thoughts?
How do you find out what “he is thinking”?
Using your sensual awareness, right? Is not language sound?
So sensual abstractions offer information about the world around us and how we interpret them is a matter of personal ability and cultural effects.

But language can also feign similarity.
We control what information we offer to the other in ways that we do not with color. So language can be duplicitous and, when a culture is shared, the same language can be taught and the same ideas can be feigned, offering the illusion of similarity and cohesion.
We get together, and we discuss, each being careful not to insult and to keep within culturally determined political-correct modes of expression. None of us actually knows if the other actually believes what he is saying or how well he understands or how much that understanding is equal to our own. Each for self-serving social reasons remains mediocre and average in our expressions, trying not to offend, so as to maintain that “cooperation” you mentioned, but nobody actually knows what the other is thinking.
We parrot the words “Hi, how are you?” pretending interest, for example.
We use words like “freedom” or “compassion” or “love” imitating the cultural norm but nobody actually defines these words or knows how well the other understands them.

What skin color indicates, in a direct and honest way (if it is not covered up with elaborate methods), is a historical Becoming and the effect of environmental conditions on an entire family tree of organisms, as well as the reactions to these environmental conditions.
To assume that environment has physical affects but not mental ones is to selectively rationalize evolution theory.
If this were the case then the environmental conditions that caused the split between chimpanzee and man would have had a physical affect but no mental one.
Then all species with brains would have similar mental abilities, even thought they looked different.

Therefore the usage of color in categorizing animals is ineffective?
What is prejudiced, that nature gave us sight to interpret the world and to categorize phenomena or that culture directs how this categorization is interpreted or what is significant and what is not?

The underlying motive here being ‘how useful’ these others are to my well-being.
So, if someone is nice to me and acts in accordance to culturally defined proper behavior and is useful to me for physical and emotional reasons, his difference is deemed irrelevant, and if the opposite is true, as in the case of Muslim fundamentalists or Nazi supporters, then the differences become very much relevant.
How convenient.
No objective or emotional thinking there.
Here self-interest is raised to a ‘truth’.

That’s “rational” in your mind?!
The height of emotionalism and objective thinking is thought of as “rational”.
Nice job.
I see you making many good “points”.

If I were to say “We will all die? We are all mortal.” will you judge this sentence as being irrational because it is impractical or it makes you feel bad or it serves no purpose in being reminded of it?
If I say no two things, never mind human beings, are created equal, is this an irrational sentence, based on your emotional rationalizations?
Are you an imbecile?

Next time you are faced with the racial issue be honest and tell a Negro that for practical purposes you will consider him equal to you and that for the sake of cooperation you will offer him the modicum of respect so as to facilitate coexistence.
No…this isn’t hypocrisy…its civility.

Now, as to you, your ideas and your inability to comprehend this. (And too, your lackeys-by-default that are seemingly drawn to your civil discontent, but whom are worse still for lack of any grace-saving perspicacity of their own)

Why deconstruct anything?
To find ‘truth’ behind the bullshit.
But all you seemingly contented, well-adjusted civilized people are full of honest thought.
I bet all those Christians in church consider all those “evil’ thoughts they have daily to be a sin, and that if they repent and ask for absolution heaven awaits them in the afterlife as a reward for their pretence and suppression of their natural tendencies.

No, cooperation is a fundamental a part of nature and an expression of dependence and weakness and imperfection.
Telling it as it is shouldn’t frighten you, little brain.
I know living in denial and pretending like everything is all nice and good and honest is more comforting, but too bad.
Sorry for reminding you that all this touchy-feely, niceness and civility is built on brute need and repression and suppression and bullshit. It’s a compromise.

Why are you afraid of the truth?

And?
Do you even read what I’m saying?
Who are you debating against?

Are you saying we should keep quiet and not say such things, even though they might be true?
Then what a travesty this “intelligent community” is.

Unlike you I am not affected, or try not to be, by my personal needs and self-interests when evaluating existence.

Again you raise your emotional and physical needs into ‘truths’.

Are you sure they are aware on that level?
Saying “Yeah I know its that way but it suits my needs so I go along” is different from vehemently disputing that what I am saying has a basis in reality.
Their reactions show how aware they are, as yours was, before all this backtracking and utilitarian angle you came up with to save face.
As if I was arguing against cooperation.
Reread the original post.

What shows you up as a fraud, what exposes you above all else, is how by your own definition, you COMPARTMENTALIZE, your very own life.

Imbecile a slave that knows he’s a slave is different than one that thinks he’s free.
Wake up.
I know what I am and why, can you say the same?
I take advantage of my environment, as I find it. To do this fully I must be aware of it.
You, retard, are caught up in the facades.

Exactly moron.
You assume that I am trying to escape my own evaluation, as you do in your own life.
Life is imperfect, that is why it needs.
Life is dependant, that is why it is weak.
Life is suffering.

Do you know of any such wilderness?
What really “irks” me is people like you living in hypocrisy and oblivion.
It’s this stupidity, and its repercussions, which I cannot escape.
An imbecile living in oblivion, like those terrorist, are no different than you.
That morons like you have a vote when you have such poor judgment and inferior minds, irks me.
Not the rest.
I sort of like civilization, pretence, hypocrisy and all. I just don’t whitewash it and rationalize its reality away. I see it and describe it as it is, not as I would like it to be.

How would you know what I contribute and what I don’t?

I play the game...I don't buy into it.
I don't call shit flowers to save myself the pain.

I’m here to expose idiots like you.

You made another "point"?

Keep digging, idiot.
Why would the psycho-babble and opinion of a mind like yours and a judgment like yours matter?

All that and that's the "logical fallacy" you come up with?
What’s fallacious about it?
You claim that it is cooperation that makes color irrelevant, raising utility to fact, and I am the hypocrite?
Do you love your neighbor, stupid, or is he necessary and useful to you, making his well-being important to your well-being?
This is your civilized, modern man?
Pretence, masked in hypocrisy, covered in duplicity.
You are as "good" as a Christian. They “love” their neighbors just to get to heaven…Do they love their neighbors?

Now “generalizations” has been adapted to the assault and is relabeled “extreme generalizations”, he being the one deciding what is extreme and what average.
So far your counter-argument, if we can call it that, consists in exposing that man should be color-blind for utility’s sake.
This constitutes an indirect admission that color is relevant in all instances and not superficial, and by pretending that it is not, on the grounds that it facilitates cooperation, you expose modern civilized man as being duplicitous.
Thank you, imbecile, for making my point to clear.

Did you even understand what I dubbed “compartmentalization”?
To act in accordance with your self-interests consciously is not the same as to act in accordance to your self-interests and then pretend that they have a moral high-ground or that they are motivated by anything other than selfish desires and needs.
See what duplicity is?
As for who is a “JOKE” and who is not, I would think that, since you are representative of a majority of mediocre simpletons, the popular vote will benefit you.
But I am addressing my opinions to those few who actually get what I’m saying. You are a waste of time, and a waste of brain.
Your anger, which is obvious, is produced by being threatened by what I’m saying, by being exposed as what you are to yourself and by being embarrassed by it.

I lose...again?
If you say it long enough it might come true.

And that ends our display of the modern “thinker”.
Color, it concludes, doesn’t matter because it doesn’t suit cooperation. This was its “point”.
It doesn’t matter because it shouldn’t.
So it matters but we should not admit it openly in case it destroys cultural cohesion.
Censoring, you say?

A human should be judged by how he acts.
But how he acts is determined by a culture that limits action to acceptable norms and moral imperatives.
So we imitate behavior, judging the other by how closely he adheres to the cultural ideal or how nice he makes us feel or how useful he is to us.
This is not duplicity.
It’s called civilization.
Anyone commenting on its negative aspects is “dysfunctional” because he does not adhere to the cultural norms.

TimeTraveler
Moron, if I had the time to get into phenomenology with you, I still wouldn’t bother.
One moron is fatiguing.
Two… is too much.
Go back to worshiping your own existence and calling it “objective thinking”.

Movement

 

Let us recap.

I compare Christian selective reasoning to social selective reasoning, each serving a purpose, having a utility, which I do not deny. In fact this utility is what the basis of my thesis is.

A Christian lives in the world of cause/effect where one precedes the other and each is separate from the other.
There is CAUSE and then EFECT in linear temporality – insinuating a separation and not a flow. This results in his error - an error that satisfies his metaphysical anxieties.
This, in turn, leads him down the long erroneous path to a prime mover, a beginning, for which he posits no cause.
Here he reverses his “logic”, suspends his reasoning, changes the rules, providing no reasons for it, except that it is written in a book or that his peers and the majority believe in it.

So everything has a cause, Except! - When it suits his metaphysical and learned institutionalized ends he changes the rules.
He lives in accordance with his empirical perceptions, EXCEPT! When it suits him or where he has been taught/trained to not do so.

The same occurs with the socially indoctrinated mind.
He has evolved to use all of his senses to judge reality and to categorize the phenomenon that he faces, daily.

Appearance is the basis for his science and reasoning, being an empirical being.
He sees color and form and taste and smell and sound as signifying something, as being the essence of the phenomenon (the building blocks of his abstracted reality), EXCEPT! When it suits him or when he has been trained/taught to dismiss them or parts of them.
Color is the product of light bouncing off an object. The way it bounces or is absorbed signifies something about the object’s nature and essence. It is the result on the object’s entire Becoming.
The mind translates this information into colors. The color symbolizes the effect.

The specimen admits that much.
He says that it facilitates cooperation and is useful.
I agree, but that doesn’t make something true or fact.
The argument that it suits us or is “good” for us is raising subjectivity to the level of ‘truth’.
It also suits me to believe I am immoral, this does not mean that I am, unless I am a religious mind and I relieve my anxieties concerning death by inventing an afterlife.

God is similarly useful but that Him make them fact.
Santa Clause is useful also.
Myths in general are useful.

Similarly gender is, in true Orwellian fashion, labeled a social product when it is a natural one. It is the abolition of gender, as is the abolition of racial differences, which is a social and cultural product.
Gender roles abound in nature but are dismissed in certain, not all, human social unities as disruptive for complete harmonious assimilation and coexistence.
Everything that fragments or threatens social harmony is trained or taught out of the minds consciousness; it is made to feel ashamed about it.

Let us take Monogamy.
Here we have the quintessential cultural and social institutionalized product, facilitating the absorption and harmonious coexistence of substandard, genetically, males and females.
There are few monogamous species and ours is not one of them.
Our suppression and struggle against our natural polygamous tendencies is revealed by the tenuous maintenance of the marriage institution and its often failing. Even under the threat of death adultery persist as a sign of the human struggle against genetic instinctual tendencies which are mimetically unacceptable.

Yet, society imposes monogamy as necessary and useful and practical. It trains the human mind to think of it as civilized and normal and be ashamed for not living up to its standards. Society also threatens with consequences if a human doesn’t adhere to its institutionalized premises.

Now let us see hypocrisy.
The specimen admits that color blindness, when it comes to racial “stereotyping, is not practical and it disrupts cooperation.
Here he, inadvertently, displays hypocrisy in all its glory.
He isn’t saying that color doesn’t matter, only that admitting that it does, matters.
Self-censorship or duplicity again.

He will not tell the other what he really thinks so as to not disrupt their potential cooperation for his well-being.

But that’s not even the worse of it. It’s when the mind begins believing in the act self that the duplicity turns even more ridiculous.
The mind, trained, taught to be ashamed for its normal, natural inclinations of noticing differences as relevant, begins believing that it is bad or that noticing them is evil.
He will then deny that he is even doing so, afraid of how this will make him look to those that share his cultural ideals.

Just as the make covets the neighbors wife, but will never admit it – not even to himself – , never act on it, and plays the “normal”, well-adjusted man, so too political-correctness and cultural indoctrination threatens, promises and shames the mind into conformity.

Live well and prosper morons.

 

How's the wife?

 

He is not retarded. He is a mad genius. He wants YOU to work hard to maintain society so it can baby him. So while you work and try to figure out how to keep society going, he will complain about how we should go back to our caves. It's self loathing. The genius of his self loathing, is he expresses it in the sorta way that makes you feel like something is wrong with you because you are civilized, or something is wrong with you because you don't act as a slave to your base instincts.

So maybe he is right. Maybe we should just go monkey and adopt our most ancient animal instincts.

The first thing we need to do is get rid of all laws, rules and order. The second thing we should do is put someone like him in control of all the worlds resources. That way he can destroy the earth as quickly and efficiently as he possibly can, while we are all his slaves, following our base instincts.

Or perhaps you can imagine something worse. How about a world where, in your very neighborhood, all the laws are gone, and a mob of guys like this one decide to say "fuck the world and everything in it"? Can you imagine what it would be like when these mobs start mob bombing people? The lynch mob of angry pissed off anti civilization anarchists will gather with pitchforks in hand, spewing vulgar language and profanity everywhere, as they search for a worthy target for their rage. And of course they finally find someone small enough, weak enough, defenseless enough to bully to death, maybe the neighborhood dork? Maybe the dork with the 200 IQ, the one who is intelligent enough to built a civilization. Can you imagine the mob surrounding him and beating him to death? Then running around looting everyone, raping people, and setting fires all over town?

Just try and see the picture from 28 days later, where all these angry mobs are everywhere chasing people, setting fires, raping women and children, bullying people, hazing people, and in some cases torturing people for fun. If you want to see how brutal mobs can be, watch the passion of the Christ.
Do you remember?

In mob rule, everyone is a victim, because there is no order. In Anarchy, you will have people who take advantage of the chaos to destroy as much shit as they can and hurt as many people as they can, simply because it's their favorite thing in the world to do. Perhaps that is their greatest enjoyment, to destroy something you worked your entire life to build. Remember the mob that burned the library of Alexandria? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria The mob burned that library to the ground. Why? They wanted the pleasure of watching it burn, they wanted to set society back thousands of years and ruin all the centuries of effort from philosophers, intellectuals, scholars, poets, and anyone else who actually contributed something to human knowledge. It's GONE FOREVER and the mob took joy in watching it burn.

That same mob will take joy watching your neighborhood burn, watching everything you've built all your life burn away or be destroyed, watching your house burn, etc. Civilization is EVERYTHING. We have invested our entire lives, going to school, or college, to contrbute to or to protect this civilization, and to think that some people don't value the concept of civlization. Some people literally want us to go mob wild. What does mob wild look like? I think I described it the best I could, but if anyone else has a better description go ahead. Basically just think of a bunch of pissed off people destroying everything that gets in their way.

 

Of course it's obvious he wants others to do the work. That does not mean his view of the world is not retarded. He is a coward because he does not comprehend the issue, he is forever a bystander. That is retarded because he is contradicting his own desire for growth beyond his pseudointellectualism. That's why his personal development hasn't progressed beyond base instinct and that's WHY he wants to pull down others to his concrete level because civilization is leaving his fake ass behind.

 

Like all women...including the ones with penises...she is oblivious.
............................................

I believe these retards finally figured me out.
I’m a lazy bum, living in my mom’s basement, wanting others to work for me.
I have never had sex, I have no friends and I play video-games all the time.

Let me see....
I built my first house when I was 26.
I’m currently getting married, buying a new house, buying a new car, and planning a honeymoon.

And all that by mooching.
Then again I might be lying.:bugeye:

You people are so intelligent…you deserve one another.
It’s been so entertaining watching you worms squirm.

Now go back to discussing Religion and the nature of God and the paranormal.

Fucking retards.
If you weren’t so many, you would just be funny.

But George W. Bush proves that your stupidity in numbers is a force to be reckoned with.

............................................................
Hey, have you Americans – the nation of retardation - finally decided what to teach your children in school: Evolution Theory or Creation Theory?
I would go the creationist route.
It’ll bolster your moral image and put you guys ahead of the curb.
Instead of importing brain power, try producing some on your own.

 

I wonder if the marriage will be based on sweeping generalizations? Seems to be a theme with this guy.

Making broadbased accusations based on stereotypes does not equate to a coherent point, regardless of username.

I left this place for a couple of years, and came back to find the same misanthrope making the same excruciatingly long-winded arguments that go nowhere.

Otherwise, nice to see you Ms. Bells.

 

Hey look Bells is digging for ways to feel superior.

She’s an idiot, but at least she’s an idiot with a healthy portfolio…and she is now a moderator.
Such authority...impressive.

But how does she know what I’ve invested in?
Oh, I see…she’s hoping.

Bells.
I drugged her.
But anyone who’s with me can’t be on your level.
You would see right through me, sweetness.
That cutting mind of yours would catch on, really fast.

How does it feel moderating a bunch of imbeciles talking about how wonderful civilization is and not thinking this is subjective reasoning?
You know, the kind of retards who equate reality with their self-interests and are not skeptical when their desires always coincide with their truths.

If it benefits you, it is true; if it doesn’t, it’s false…or at least it should not be mentioned.
We wouldn’t want too much of reality entering our awareness and making us uncomfortable.


And looky here: 1ofthe0.
A blast from the past.
The sleazy imbecile opining over past internet Queens and Warrior Princess’s.

Be warned, he’ll wow you with his intellect.

Look he’s using the words “broadbased accusations” and “stereotypes”, as if he’s actually responding on-topic or making a valid counter-argument.

Hey, look at me use his methods:
Proposition: Bears are omnivorous.

1ofthe0 ‘s response: Broadbased accusations and stereotypes.

He doesn’t have to say anything. A few insinuations are enough.
I think you can all expect his profound thoughts to remain comfortably in mediocrity and culturally acceptable, middle of the road, conformity.
He’ll impress you with his …”normality”.

 

Bells, this is sderenzi.

That's a really, really, really long post, I am banned and you become a writer

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Balls

The “I am bored” angle is overused; use another one.

Stupid, look at the context I mentioned these things.
Dwiddle-dee and Dwiddle-dum were saying I’m a lazy fuck living off others.
I wonder what they’ve worked for.

Trying to make me just like you (mediocre) is flattering…but you know it isn’t true.

Even your “Wendy” is in imitation of another.
You have no brains to be creative. Your claim to intellectual sophistication is that you remain unconvinced by Christian deities.

But anyone with an I.Q. over 100 and the courage to face life, can do that.

Imbecile, read what I said and in what context I said it.
Who was I responding to and why?

Aren’t you supposed to be moderating some moronic debate over the nature of God or something?

Yes, sweet heart, that’s exactly what it means.

“Parasitism” read-up on it.

Still trying to ‘cut me down to size’…your size?
Have you heard, idiot, of Nietzsche’s resentiment?

We all deal with our insecurities and inferiorities in different ways.
Yours is typical.

I love attention, should I be embarrassed about my human nature?

“Disaster”?
People are still e-mailing me.
You have no idea, imbecile.

Go knit a scarf, cow!

Let me help you out.

Dwiddle-dee enters the fray with bravado, wanting to avenge himself upon my arrogant insolence and, like you, dreaming of ‘cutting me down a few inches’.
He promises great things and makes great victorious claims.

Then he backs-off claiming he doesn’t disagree with my positions but only on my emphasis on them. It’s a nuanced disagreement, meant to back away from a fight he is becoming increasingly aware he cannot win and wanting to save face.

Then Dwiddle-dum enters the battle, seeing as his ‘brother in arms’ is not doing so well.
He attacks emotionally, stating that my thanklessness is disgusting and that saying the things that I do about civilization is evil.
Here we see the quintessential sheep brain.
A brain constructing ‘truth’ around what offers it pleasure or survival or what benefits its self-interests, making reality but his ego’s plaything.
He believes the universe gives a shit about him, or so he hopes, and that nothing bad should be said about anything that we benefit from: self-censorship.

Reality and Ego become one.
I see only what benefits me. I acknowledge as fact only what offers me comfort and safety.
I believe only what flatters and protects me.
I will speak no truth, about what I depend upon, unless it is optimistic and comforting and flattering.
This is “objectivity”. Not the world as it is, but as I want it to be.
The universe isn’t something to be endured and overcome, it is something to imagine away and hide from.

They both leave in a huff of insults and angry insinuations, with their tails between their legs….since then, ‘Silence of the Lambs’…
“Have they stopped crying…Clarisse?”

These are the type of brains you are moderating in here.
Congratulations!

If someone agrees with me, he has nothing to offer me.

Then again, the level of challenge these imbeciles provide is not enough to keep me interested for long.
They bore the shit out of me with their culturally determined catch-phrases and modern-day sensitivities and their politically-correct lexicons.

These brains, if they had been born in Iran, let us say, would be spewing shit about Allah and that culture’s ideals and morals.
They are simple sheep, following their environment's demands and buying into what ‘truths’ they are taught; never questioning, never thinking outside the box, never peering into the abyss; afraid of what they might see there.

I am the bringer of the abyss.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I shove their filthy, hypocritical little faces in all the bullshit they’ve built their lives around and force them to taste their own feces.
"What about Bob?"...remeber.
Of course they hate me and of course they imagine me as the most despicable, miserable, lonely individual they can think of, to alleviate their sense of inferiority and to avenge their shattered egos.

If only they knew.
I do not build my opinions around what suits me or what satisfies my human needs. I build it around an objective assessment of what lies around me; adjusting myself and adapting to it, so as to be satisfied and to alleviate my human needs.

It’s not your fault, baby.
Nature is to blame.

 

AD BREAK

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And now: we return you to this year's Internet Typing Marathon..
Please do not adjust your sets.

​