quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
1 - A standard tactic of debate is always preferred, but apparently, that's not available here

2 - Do you mean relativism sensu Schopenhauer or relativism sensu postmodernism? In the case of the former, it explains the boolean attribute as a product of its own logic.

In my view, logical positivism is a well-intentioned attempt corrupted by modern society such as to become an artifact of modern liberalism/individualism.

---

"but apparently, that's not available here" that was an individual statement from you. ==> and that was an indvidual statement from me.

Re: debate here - I think my point there has been proven in this very thread. If you can't see it, well, see above.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
Objective relativism: this is compatible with Boolean measurements. However, it perhaps understands them in a different context.

Re: debate here - I think my point there has been proven in this very thread. If you can't see it, well, see above.

---

I do not think objective realism is compatible with boolean mesurements.

I think that all that has been proven is that we have differnt views and beliefs. Nihilism itself is a belief just as all different religions are beliefs. ==> That was a statement from me and to me that statement is true. What is "true" for me can be "false" for you.

Can I prove I am right? I can always try; I claim it is 22:00 in the evening. What time is it? Well, that depends.....

There is a source on the web that can be useful in this matter of debate. If the text is true or not is up to the reader: black tools

Now I have to go back to my reality and make sure my daughter goes to bed in time to have enough sleep in order to be "fit for" school tomorrow.

Schopenhauer has a wonderful explanation of this during the first 50 pages of WWR:I.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
I do not believe you understand objective relativism, which does not state "all things are true if believed by the perceiver" but that "all truths are relative to their own context." In other words, a perceiver can be deceived.

Schopenhauer has a wonderful explanation of this during the first 50 pages of WWR:I.

---

I do understand what objective relativism is.

Ultimately, objective realitivism, says that no thruth is universally, what in my opinion is "true" can conflict with your "thruth" and still be valid.

People need to wake up to the idea that you can do more than just subscribe to two diametrically opposed camps.

Progressive:
One who actively campaigns for (liberal) change.

Neo-Liberalism
A strain of liberalism with its main emphasis on pragmatic approaches to change.

Conservative
One who opposes change, and seeks solutions to societal problems via traditional methods, especially with regard to "moral" problems" There are also "fiscal" conservatives, but they usually lean more towards libertarianism.

Neo-conservativism
A strain of conservatism that grew out of the Cold War which is much the same as regular conservatism, but without the isolationism and with a much more activist foreign policy.

Libertarianism
Libertarians believe in an extremely tiny government whose role is limited to common defense and arbitrating disputes between private individuals (enforcing contracts). Libertarians do not want any government regulation of the social or economic spheres, with complete individual liberty in all areas of life. Conservatives generally agree with libertarians on much (but not all) of their economic platform, while liberals generally agree with libertarians on much (but not all) of their social platform.

Radical right
The strongly conservative minority of society which wishes to solve societal problems by using the government to impose religious-based solutions to moral dilemmas.

"Patriot" movement
A more extreme strain of the radical right with heavy emphasis on millenarian pseudo-Christian religious beliefs, self-reliance, weapons/militia training, and conspiracy theory.

Populist:
A segment of the American public which is strongly conservative on social issues and very protectionist and "anti-big business" on economic issues. Pat Buchanan is the prototypical populist, Ross Perot is a much less virulent example.

Democrat:
A member of the Democratic party. Note that Democrat is not synonymous with liberal. There are some conservatives and moderates in the Democratic party, even if the majority of Democrats could be considered liberal.

Republican:
A member of the Republican party. Note that Republican is not synonymous with conservative. There are some liberals and moderates in the Republican party, even if the majority of Republicans could be considered conservative..

Moderate:
Generally, a "middle-of-the-road" set of beliefs, rather than an ideology. Moderates of both parties usually share the traits of pragmatism, an aversion to ideology or ideological excesses, and a willingness to compromise.

Socialist:
One who advocates government ownership of the means of production (i.e. business). Often misused by right-wing ideologues who confuse regulation of certain aspects of the economy with government ownership of business.

Democratic Socialism:
Similar to regular socialism, but with a strong emphasis on democratic decision-making, both in politics, and in the running of economic entities.

Capitalism:
An economic system in which the means of production (business) is in private hands.

Mixed System:
An economic system where the means of production are held by the government in some industries (usually large ones) and in private hands for other industries. Very common in Europe.

Communist:
One who advocates communal ownership of all property. There is no central government in a communist system.

Statist:
Anyone who advocates a strong central government, especially with regard to finding solutions for societal problems. Can apply to both right and left.

Fascist:
One who advocates a very strong form of statism, a corporatist economy, modernization, regimentation, and strong central leadership. Citizens' purpose is to serve the state. Often includes appeals to a "glorious" past or pseudo-religious ideal, thus combining several facets of liberalism, conservatism and socialism into an organic vision of society.

Nazism:
A form of fascism espoused and put into place by Adolf Hitler in Germany. Differs from standard fascism primarily in its emphasis on anti-Semitism and eugenics.

Anarchist:
One who opposes all forms of government. Often confused with libertarians, who share many anarchist beliefs; however libertarians still think that there should be a minimal government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
Your interpretation is clearly wrong

---

Now I have to laugh.

Anus is a clique. A clique of neo nazis who think they are radical and intelligent. The fact is they are neither. Just a bunch of teeny bopper white supremacist masturbators slaving at the pork sword to a poisonous ideology. Intelligent? At 'Cut And Paste' certainly. That's about it.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by AnnkiZ:
Ultimately, objective realitivism, says that no thruth is universally, what in my opinion is "true" can conflict with your "thruth" and still be valid.

You say Schopenhauer has a wonderful explanation; That is your opinion and it is the "truth" for you.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lycanthropy:
I agree somewhat Warcorpse, but I think the problem in itself is rooted in the fact that 'liberal' is too much of a catch-all term, as 'conservative' is.

People need to wake up to the idea that you can do more than just subscribe to two diametrically opposed camps.

---

I agree, which is why I'm a third-fronter: to me the two halves make no sense.

However, part of the confusion here is that there are two meanings of "liberal": philosophical, and modern American-style political.

Philosophical liberalism applies to all individualist and egalitarian (same thing, roughly) philosophies; these all descend from the influence of Judeo-Christian doctrine into Western thought with the collapse of Rome.

Political liberalism applies to one group, say Democrats, but philosophical liberalism applies to both Democrats and Republicans. The only political party I can support are the Greens, and they hamper themselves by attempting to be concerned with human issues when they should stick to forests and oceans.

I'm still having a good laugh about the "relativist" vs "objectivist" debate, but for those who have the experience/reading here, it should be good fans to the flames.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delightful Little Capuchin Monkey:
Postscript: and before anyone can reply saying "YOU'RE the one saying it's anti-black, anti-gay, anti-jew" you need not bother. Do some homework and read some of the threads over at Prozak's homebase. Any denial would be passive aggression at its most blatant.

---

How can you reconstruct an ideology from a single thread? Please cite examples, with URLs.

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

Interesting that it took less than 2 minutes to gather these:

thread

thread

While you aren't braindead enough to use 'nigger' in your speech (and you're about the only denizen of your board that doesn't), you certainly profess the general superiority of whitey.

I think the gist of my quarrel with your ideology is your lack of respect for nature. You obviously have put a great deal of thought and energy into imagining a utopia wherin races are separated and those who aren't up to your own standards (which is a laughable concept) should be euthanized.

Let me put the ball into your court now (and back onto the subject of this thread, started weeks ago):

Regarding eugenics, I think a balance between strength, intelligence and character needs be found, and it can be determined according to classical criteria through tests (of a real world nature) administered by those of intelligence and learning in a community - the elders. This requires the administration of learning to a select few, and them working outward, but if we're lucky, not even that will be necessary... already I think the groups have separated.

I note that here I provoke jubilant, revengeful responses from people... which definitely counts are character analysis

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
........The second is scientific, ........I note that here I provoke ..... revengeful responses from people....

---

Provoke people? Yes, has it ever crossed your tiny little "mind" that there are people on this board who had ancestors that lived and died in different camps during the Hitler regime? Revengeful? Yes, everyone doesn't "turn the other cheek"!

Check the article NAZI-neoclassical points out, where does it come from? If I go to the source witch is mugu.com there I can choose Upstream or galton.org.

One of the links "hails" Galton, sir Francis Galton, an eugenicist 1822 - 1911! Neo-Nazis choose to build their theories on such old crap. And the other; CRAP!

The one who wrote the ]article the same one that is referred to above has choosen scorces that clearly suits his purposes. What purpose?

As Neo himself declares; EUGENICS!! ANUS-creatures can do whatever they like to try and prove their point in any fucking way. They can NEVER change my point of view.

I tell you once again; there is only one human race, HOMO SAPIENS!

You might find me stupid enough to point out two scorces myself, scources Nazis can use. I do belive people on this board have the common sense to NOT fall for the neo-Nazi propaganda.

Go ahead... see where democracy and liberal/individualist ideals end up. Better yet, move here.

We'll talk again in five years, then. Politely. Over coffee (tea?). Maybe something useful will have come of your journey; I'm sure in five years I will have more ideas as well.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
Regarding eugenics, I think a balance between strength, intelligence and character needs be found, and it can be determined according to classical criteria through tests (of a real world nature) administered by those of intelligence and learning in a community - the elders. This requires the administration of learning to a select few, and them working outward, but if we're lucky, not even that will be necessary... already I think the groups have separated.

---

This is still human intervention. Since your board preached so much about returning to a more natural way of life, which in principle sounds plausible enough, your ideas are often anything but, this being a classic example.

If you are going to 'breed out' unwanted traits within the human race is this process ongoing? For example you weed out those with downs syndrome, but by doing this another genetic defect surfaces which did not previously exist. This will surely need to be 'bred out' as well, yes? Then surely this narrows our gene pool, and therefore our species' diversity, the very thing that allows a species to evolve!

So I return to what I originally said. Our cell structure is not perfect. We are dying from the day we are born because our genes merely 'reproduce' like copying music from one generation to the next. Gradually imperfections develop, which is why we grow old and eventually die, some with more haste than others depending on the fidelity of their cell reproduction. By removing the presently known genetic defects our race suffers from you remove part of the diversity of our species. Who is to say that, once this action is completed and the 'undesireable' elements of our species are removed that others will not emerge and have to be removed as well? More diversity removed. Reduced biodiversity means less ability to evolve. If we chase this policy fanatically in order to remove these undesireable traits we could concievably end up in a position where we cannot evolve because the gene pool is so small, thanks to the policy of eugenics. If we cannot evolve we will become extinct.

Leave evolution to natural forces. We cannot take it's place and we should not pretend we have the capacity to.

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

Yet we seem to believe we hold all the answers, even to the point where we can choose who lives or dies.

Our species will die out because we deemed that we could do evolution better than natural forces; that we decided that nature was old fashioned and it needed a 'helping hand' with genetically modified crops, or perhaps a little population control to get rid of our genetic weaknesses. Or because a few very greedy people figured that short term gains for them were more important than the long term sustainability of our actions on this planet.

Whatever the reason, at some time in the distant future we will become extinct. It's just a case of how, that is all.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knickerzohnonnof:
This is still human intervention. Since your board preached so much about returning to a more natural way of life, which in principle sounds plausible enough, your ideas are often anything but, this being a classic example.

If you are going to 'breed out' unwanted traits within the human race is this process ongoing? For example you weed out those with downs syndrome, but by doing this another genetic defect surfaces which did not previously exist. This will surely need to be 'bred out' as well, yes? Then surely this narrows our gene pool, and therefore our species' diversity, the very thing that allows a species to evolve!

So I return to what I originally said. Our cell structure is not perfect. We are dying from the day we are born because our genes merely 'reproduce' like copying music from one generation to the next. Gradually imperfections develop, which is why we grow old and eventually die, some with more haste than others depending on the fidelity of their cell reproduction. By removing the presently known genetic defects our race suffers from you remove part of the diversity of our species. Who is to say that, once this action is completed and the 'undesireable' elements of our species are removed that others will not emerge and have to be removed as well? More diversity removed. Reduced biodiversity means less ability to evolve. If we chase this policy fanatically in order to remove these undesireable traits we could concievably end up in a position where we cannot evolve because the gene pool is so small, thanks to the policy of eugenics. If we cannot evolve we will become extinct.

Leave evolution to natural forces. We cannot take it's place and we should not pretend we have the capacity to.

---

Evolution in the current time is not left to natural forces. You assume it is. That is obviously error.

Further, evolution is not a completist philosophy; a healthy society is always breeding and evolving. Devolution can occur also, as in the present time.

Deciding "who lives and who dies" occurs in the current system, but you have chosen not to recognize it. That suggests a problem in your code

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

holy shit! Gary Gygax was into Eugenics!

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
Evolution in the current time is not left to natural forces. You assume it is. That is obviously error.

Further, evolution is not a completist philosophy; a healthy society is always breeding and evolving. Devolution can occur also, as in the present time.

Deciding "who lives and who dies" occurs in the current system, but you have chosen not to recognize it. That suggests a problem in your code

---

I assume nothing. What I will say is that the current state of human evolution is somewhat amusing. And I would find your solution even more amusing if it weren't for the fact you actually see it as just that - a cure for our species' ills.

Chosen not to recognise what? That we choose to help some causes, but ignore others, and clearly eugenics cures this flaw does it? I don't think so. The decisions of who lives or dies in hospitals for instance is done by judging if a patient will respond to treatment, or if the patient is elderly or severely/terminally ill, whether it is in the best interest to let the patient die. These are purely medical considerations - in most cases the people who die will die pretty soon anyway. It is not like they are going to suddenly get off their sick bed and lead a normal life - far from it. You are skewing the argument. Most people are aware that constraints on resources dictate that such things happen.

I know exactly where this is going as well. You could argue that this is how eugenics would work in practise. Most of us on VVF know that this would be a distortion of the reality under a regime led by people of your thinking.

At this time humans are living outside of nature, I will not dispute this and I have said it many times. But eugenics is removed further still from what we need to consider. I have also said that I do not know the answer to this one because to control the world's population requires world wide agreement; about as unrealistic as it gets at present.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by neoclassical:
There's a lack of argument in your post, but a lot of characterization. Do you feel contentless communication is more honest than argumentation?

heh heh

---

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

"You have the option to drill additional holes in the label,
causing the record to rotate off the side of the turntable"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tangento:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by neoclassical:
[qb]There's a lack of argument in your post, but a lot of characterization. Do you feel contentless communication is more honest than argumentation?

heh heh

---

I'm sorry you're that mentally limited, but you'll have to do better than that!

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