greg334
Veteran Expediter
I stand by my statement simply because it seems to fit you better then just calling you names or is this what you want?
The ad hominem criticism comment proves everything.
To Davekc
- Thread starter MrGautama
- Start date
I stand by my statement simply because it seems to fit you better then just calling you names or is this what you want?
The ad hominem criticism comment proves everything.
MrGautama
Not a Member
I've tried to reason with you to exhaustion only to find that you will defend your position regardless of the logic of the argument or validity of facts. To label my comment about your disinformation a ad hominem criticism is just capricious. A graphic description of an attempt at reasoning with you would be trying to convey the essence of a color to a blind man.
It's a sign of failure on my part no to be able to cross the defensive chasm that a fellow human being has dug to defend and nourish a regressive ideology, to keep it safe from the dangers of reason and progress. To my relief I understand that this forum is just a small sample of people that fortunately don't represent the real composition of our society, I also know that a new generation has spoken with a resolute voice to repeal what you stand for and look for a new road towards a better day.
Change comes slow specially with the drag of the regressive and the greedy, but the ball has started rolling and with the relentless push of the progressive minds it might get far despite the resistance of a minority group dragging our advancement to a sustainable future.
Greg334... keep up the good work. You're exhausting MrG. I always favored the seige strategy myself, it is a gem.
This is yet another example of your convoluted reasoning and false logic. Your spectrum is invalid, if you intend to use degrees of driving. True, Reckless or Extremely Dangerous driving would be at one extreme - but the opposite pole would be Not Driving At All, with Safe Driving being the Mean.
- Libertarian Socialism is a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
- Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's.
- The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example).
- In the USA, anarchists organized "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965.
Hultberg and de Havilland are just charlatans and so easily disproved that they are not taken seriously anywhere. In the spirit of understanding I would suggest resorting to better sources, there have been some heavyweights in the right that may give a more accurate take, like William Buckley... mmm... I don't know who else... is not like they are very abundant!
- The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas.
"Hultberg and de Havilland are just charlatans..." Once again you confuse your opinion with fact. It's YOUR OPINION they're charlatans, and I doubt whether or not you know how seriously they're taken outside your rather limited universe. The fact remains that Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism, the Anarchist Left movement, or whatever the hell you want to call this nebulous philosophy from one sentence to the next will never be taken seriously because of its impracticality. It has never been the governing philosophy of a nation or ruling party because it won't work in the real world. As in the case of 1930's Spain, the Anarchists are easily vanquished because they're usually an insignificant group of crackpots* whose philosophy doesn't appeal to the majority of the population.
*Crackpot:–noun a person who is eccentric, unrealistic, or fanatical.
(Source: Dictionary.com)
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well What can I say... you seem to be either an pseudo intellectual or a college student. Either way you have repeated a few things that show that some you are coming up with are not actually coming from you;
My tired mind knows I read this before, it surely isn't something that you came up with.
I remember reading it from some obscure propaganda text book I had to study or was it one of the thousands of speeches I had to read, I don't remember. Maybe this is the same thing;
Changes will come slow, especially with the drag of the cowardice and the greedy among us, but it has started and with the relentless push we have slowly begun to create unity despite the resistance of a minority dragging of our progress and our future will be a bright and sustainable future comrades.
Which in its original form...
Änderungen kommen langsam, besonders mit der Gegenkraft der Feigheit und dem gierigen unter uns, aber es hat begonnen und mit dem unnachgiebigen Stoß haben wir langsam angefangen, Einheit trotz des Widerstands einer Minorität zu verursachen, die auf unserem Fortschritt schleppt und unsere Zukunft ist Kameraden der hellen und stützbaren Zukunft.
Can you tell me where this came from, if you are so enlightened?
My tired mind knows I read this before, it surely isn't something that you came up with.
I remember reading it from some obscure propaganda text book I had to study or was it one of the thousands of speeches I had to read, I don't remember. Maybe this is the same thing;
Changes will come slow, especially with the drag of the cowardice and the greedy among us, but it has started and with the relentless push we have slowly begun to create unity despite the resistance of a minority dragging of our progress and our future will be a bright and sustainable future comrades.
Which in its original form...
Änderungen kommen langsam, besonders mit der Gegenkraft der Feigheit und dem gierigen unter uns, aber es hat begonnen und mit dem unnachgiebigen Stoß haben wir langsam angefangen, Einheit trotz des Widerstands einer Minorität zu verursachen, die auf unserem Fortschritt schleppt und unsere Zukunft ist Kameraden der hellen und stützbaren Zukunft.
Can you tell me where this came from, if you are so enlightened?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
MrGautama
Not a Member
So you cry ad hominem argument?
I'm sure what you tried say was that I am a "plagiarist" as in the "copy and paste" or the "copy and re-word" type. A pseudo intellectual on the other hand is "one who feigns the marks of superior intelligence: their use of advanced vocabulary is out of context or they acquire possessions considered intellectual."
About the other part, I wish I could be a college student (even at my age) and maybe finish what I once started and had to abandon for lack of resources, but it's not the case. So please give it a rest about not being a truck driver, I wish it was different and I could devote my life to the research of the human mind which is my field of interest but, traveling across the country and making a living out of it is a privilege I am deeply thankful for.
To tell you the truth you have aroused my curiosity to a very high level!, I have no idea where it comes from (even though the word "comrade" kind of gives it away); I've looked in Google and some other places and nothing, not in English or German (is German right?). So I'm at your mercy to see in which context I came so close to someone else's writing. The piece you refer to was a flight of fancy on my part and I just hope your version (assuming is real), that certainly bears a striking similarity to mine, is not from Hitler or one of his clowns.
I have no idea so tell me, where did I copy it from?
MrGautama
Not a Member
I still can't find Greg's paragraph in your source, would you be a bit more specific about to where to find it?
MrGautama
Not a Member
Does it have to be necessarily that sick or perverted the reason why I post in this forum?.
The reasons are several; first of all this is my work environment and the rest of the people that form this forum are the only ones in the world I share this experience with. I'm an avid reader of many sections but for the most part only interact in the soapbox because of my controversial views that some find offensive, and out of respect just share them with the ones that voluntarily come to this corner of the forum.
I also, believe it or not, find interesting the opposite view to my beliefs. From where I stand I see that the only way to be exposed to new aspects of social understanding is by hearing the dissident voice, most advances come from dissidence and not from complacence so exposing myself to the other side keeps me "on my toes" so to speak.
But perhaps the strongest reason to submerge myself in a conservative environment is to look for the answer to a question that, seems to me, hasn't been addressed in all it's complexity by my peers in the progressive movement; "why working class adults would align themselves with a movement that in essence is detrimental to their interests?".
The general belief by the progressives is that it's just a case of "intellectually challenged people", in other words that they are too stupid to understand how the relationship affects them and so they are easily manipulated in following a plan against what would be more convenient to their situation. A bunch of simpletons hypnotized by the Jerry springer types and kept attuned to the banalities that make up the core of their lives. Incidentally is pretty much the same concept that the atheist community holds regarding believers.
That view maybe appropriate in some limited number of individuals but for me it's just a bit too arrogant and a case of stereotipization of a group that in reality varies significantly. There have been some studies that seem to link intelligence and political inclination (Dearby I, Dearby II) but they are far from conclusive.
So far I can tell that isn't a matter of intelligence but the way our brains are wired to understand morality, molded by genetics and environment. I am begining to lean towards the ideas put forward by Jonathan Haidt in which certain traits predispose a particular type of mind to adopt a moral code that is more in tune with the conservative platform.
It's a fascinating subject.
DougTravels
Not a Member
Ok Mr G , I was with you on alot of your points, but now you have gone over the line. You can say what you want about America its policies, conservative hypocrisy and the like, but when you start attacking Jerry Springer that is going too dam far!
hz909
Seasoned Expediter
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw that said: A TAXPAYER VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT IS LIKE A CHICKEN VOTING FOR COLONEL SANDERS
And yes, much of what I tend to believe is actually the function of being exposed to clever bumper stickers. The whole reason I got into expediting in the first place was to seek out the country's best bumper stickers. They make me smile.
The question is, how pragmatic can you be, or how open are you to an opposing viewpoint? The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by Lyle Rossiter, Jr., MD I strongly encourage you to read the excerpts from the provided link on the appropriately left side of the page.
If you accept the ideas of Haidt, then you have to accept the ideas that cover the flip side of that coin, as both are good arguments. Incidentally,
That's not really a valid analogy unless you only allow for one possible reason for being a working class Republican, that self-hatred and having an economic death wish. There are many other possible reasons for being a working class republican. At the end of the day, whether you are working class or not, all you're doing is going out, killing something, and dragging it home for dinner. That's it. One can intellectualize and theorize all day long about how to do it differently, but it's still nothing more than survival.
It's a fascinating subject.
MrGautama
Not a Member
The question is, how pragmatic can you be, or how open are you to an opposing viewpoint? The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by Lyle Rossiter, Jr., MD I strongly encourage you to read the excerpts from the provided link on the appropriately left side of the page.
Incidentally,
That's not really a valid analogy unless you only allow for one possible reason for being a working class Republican, that self-hatred and having an economic death wish. There are many other possible reasons for being a working class republican. At the end of the day, whether you are working class or not, all you're doing is going out, killing something, and dragging it home for dinner. That's it. One can intellectualize and theorize all day long about how to do it differently, but it's still nothing more than survival.
It's a fascinating subject.
Good take Mosieur Tortue, It's always interesting to see the opposite view in any subject. With that said, I think it's also important to filter out the background noise from the music so to speak. I think Dr Rossiter raises a few red flags to be considered reliable:
Language: Does his kind of language reflects a serious study or a political agenda disguised as science?, it kind of reminds me of the global warming deniers.
"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave"
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
External Reviews: In the "Praise & Kudos" section the ones noticeable absent are his peers in the psychiatric community, I would like to read some reviews of his work by other psychologists and psychiatrists. So I went out and look but... nothing.
What I found though was a book being marketed by it's author as the primary focus of his website (the first thing you see on arrival is the book and it's price $19.95), it seems to me a bit fishy and maybe a case of getting to the truth by following the money.
You know, when exploring a subject inevitably I get to the wackos inhabiting the fringes of objectivity that, thanks to freedom of speech, muddy the waters of legitimate research; and is a phenomenon observed on both sides of the spectrum. As examples I would offer the raving lunatics on the left that firmly believe that Bush blew the towers on 9/11, there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim but that seems to have little effect on them. I mean, you know what I think about the US government but please!!.
Also there is... Robert Faurisson!. A character you cross paths when trying to understand the Holocaust, this yo-yo gives you the most technical and detailed explanations for why the Holocaust never happened; it may make sense if I came from Mars but when confronted to the rest of the evidence his little case just evaporates.
So for now I'll leave Dr Rossiter in the wacko list because of the red flags until I see a bit more of his work.
About the bumper sticker, it's just a joke and I thought it was funny. Humor can be good even if against your beliefs. Check out this other sticker:
God is Dead - Nietzsche... Nietzsche is Dead - God.
MrGautama
Not a Member
I've already told you that we're not the same person. That you think the possibility still exists, indicates that you think I have lied to you. I do not take too well being accused of something I didn't do, or of being someone I'm not, and I warm even less to being called a liar. You are beginning to resemble a dispatcher, so stop it.
MrG: Sure, Rossiter has his wacko moments, but so does Haidt. He criticizes the gut instinct of the republican morality and even goes as far as saying that liberals need to understand gut instincts and "feelings" a little better, while at the same time completely ingoring that most of the solutions provided by liberals are little more than feel-good in and of themselves. Both men are a little wacko in that they come from a predisposed platform with their own outlook on things. But both make some excellent points and some excellent observations. Neither should be dismissed on wacko alone, but rather look at what they're saying, instead.
Incidentally, that reminds me, one of the funniest bumper stickers I've ever seen is:
I made Nietzsche in my own image.
What was I thinking? - God
"It's a fascinating subject."
Actually, I'm paraphrasing Spock.
To do is to be. -Descartes
To be is to do. -Voltaire
Do be do be do. -Frank Sinatra
That you know of.
Hmm...sounds very familiar....
+
=
?
Oh chit! I never thought of that.....that is funny though...All this time- trying to out smart one another..