On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:55:09 -0000
xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 02:43:08 -0000
> >     Do you think that slaves wanted to be slaves? And do you
> > think that the people who enslaved them were not responsible for the
> >     enslavement? THAT is free wiil at work.
> >
> >     "There are limits free will" is just a vague, irrelevant
> >     comment.
> 
> Whatever. This is just hard-ass, inflexible thinking. The point of the
> matter is that right and wrong are largely a matter of interpretation
> through cultural norms.


        I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, are you
        'implicitly' saying that slavery being right or wrong is a
        matter of 'cultural interpretation'? Or mostly a matter of
        'interpretation'? 

 
> It was socially reinforced to be racist back then. It was socially
> reinforced to not be homosexual. Hence, it was MORE DIFFICULT to be
> racially egalitarian, or homosexual. This, it would seem to me, shows
> that FREE WILL has limits. Those people were LESS FREE to be
> homosexual, or racially egalitarian.


        That has nothing to do with free will. People were, and are
        free to think whatever they want. Notice also in the case of
        slavery how its 'legal' status changed overnight. And how
        the conservatives lost, at least regarding the most overt forms
        of slavery. At any rate, that means there wasn't a single
        'river' 'flowing' in a single direction.



> 
> Could they still do so? Yes, at a cost. Fuck, for that matter, the
> slave could refuse to do his work and not BE a slave too. There would
> be a cost: beatings, or death. But he has the CHOICE, right? THAT is
> your free will?


        So you don't know what free will means, and you are
        confusing free will with political freedom. 

        Indeed the slave had free will and could CHOOSE to disobey.
        What he didn't have was POLITICAL FREEDOM.

        If I point a gun at you and say your money or your life, you
        are free to decide for yourself what you want. That's
        'metaphysical' freedom or free will. You are not free in the
        sense that your natural rights are not being respected and you
        are not free to keep your property, I am stealing it. By the
        way, I am free to become a thief or not. I can't blame someone
        else if I do.



> 
> Sure, from a hard-assed use of the terminology "free will" and an
> inflexible way of looking at it, that can be claimed.

        You mean, from a correct usage of the terminolgy and sticking
        to logical thinking. 

> 
> But for christ's sake you KNOW WHAT I MEAN when I say the slave
> doesn't have free will. 

        Well, it would be a lot clearer if you simply said that the
        slave didn't have freedom. Coincidentally, "lack of freedom"
        would be the definition of slavery...The point I was making is
        that despite the fact that the slave was physically coerced, he
        still had a will that opposed that coercion. 


> There is a COST to exercising it. It isn't
> fucking FREE.

        Now you added a third layer of equivocation =)

> 
> Same for going against social conventions.
> 
> It's fucking grade school elementary.



        Let's put it another way :

        There are 'benefits' to being a corrupt lapdog who goes along
        with whatever corrupt nonsense is currently fashionable. So? Is
        that what you advocate? If that's not what you advocate, what's
        the point of bringing it up? Is your point that I 'should'
        'suck it up' and keep quiet, don't rock the boat, or what?



> 
> >     I am not. But I can change the animal anyway. Cats don't
> > have 'leaders'. And my remark would be as relevant, or even more
> >     relevant than your comments about humans being 'primates'
> 
> Domesticated cats, no. But anyone with a cat will tell you they are
> LESS SOCIAL pets than dogs.
> 

        I happen to have a few cats and I wouldn't make such a  remark.
        "Less social"? Less servile than domesticated dogs? Dogs vote,
        cats don't? What does "social" even mean?


> That is my whole point.

        ...

> 
> >     So you say. So what. Bottom line is, comparing humans to
> > other animals doesn't prove anything.
> 
> How very Biblical of you.

        How so?


> 
> There is an idea in our culture, that it is man's right to use the
> planet, and animals any way we see fit. Because we can, basically.
> It's "might makes right." It's Yahweh's commandment to "hold dominion
> over the earth" where he set man apart from animals.
> 
> It's a primitive notion, really.

        Yes, like anything coming from those retards. But I don't
        subscribe to it. 

        You know, I don't have to either agree with what you're saying,
        or with the bible...

> 
> Are you mention humans are animals. Now, its perfectly normal in our
> science to compare lions to tigers. Or horses to zebras. We're
> content to abstract from their behaviors, and find similarities and
> guiding principles for the activity of different genus'.
> 
> Except when it comes to humans, and our primate relatives. It's
> arrogance.

        You can compare us humans to our primate relatives or to our
        dogs and cats relatives or any other relatives. Ultimately the
        whole animal kingdom is related. Or, you can go even farther to
        plants. And? You can find similarities and differences. But you
        can't make a political philosophy out of the similarities.



> 
> >     OK. So in **authoritarian cultures**, some grown-ups pay
> >     attention to 'leaders'. There are also grown-ups who believe
> >     incredibly stupid and evil nonsense they call 'religion' -
> >     especially rhe jew-kkkristian sort. Do you think the bible
> >     comes from the DNA? But it just so happens that children
> > don't believe that shit 'naturally'. They have to be brainwashed and
> >     coerced into believing it.
> 
> Lets be precise: in authoritarian cultures MOST adults will pay
> attention to the leaders. The ones that don't will get a label and
> will suffer some level of ostracism or social sanctions.


        At any rate, now you've partially conceded my point. It's not
        animal/biological nature. It's a cultural matter. 


> 
> Does religious nonsense come from DNA? No, not as such. But
> considering that EVERY human culture has developed some type of
> religious mythology, I'd say that its in our bones, so to speak. It's
> not JUST a matter of coercion and control, either. For example,
> shamanistic religions where there is no priestly initiation, or
> transfer of authority, etc. Humans seem to have a great need for myth.


        Fairy tales are OK. Mythology, philosophical speculation about
        the universe, etc. Those are not a tool for political
        oppression, unlike some well known 'religions'.


> 
> But lets take it a step further. What is a "non-authoritarian"
> culture? Hippies? Punks? Bohemians and beat-nicks? Sure. But even
> they have leaders. They have ALPHAS that get a measure of deference
> and respect. 


> The key difference, and why we don't consider them
> authoritarian, is that there is less expectation to conform and do as
> one is told. But, for example, you're still going to get treated
> oddly by most members of these sub-groups if your fashion sense is to
> wear a three-piece button up suit.

> 
> But what is important to realize is that the alpha/beta dynamic
> exists in *virtually* all human social interaction. It *PLAYS* to a
> deep need, among most primates, to HAVE that dynamic.


        Sorry, that's just cheap pseudo scientific fatalism. Why
        would your primates have such a 'need'? 


> 
> There are always anomalies. You may be one of them. I certainly am.

        I don't consider myself an 'anomaly' ;) - But if by 'normal'
        you mean 'average', then yes people who don't have 'average'
        views are not 'normal'. But so what?


> As a child, I was socially ostracized for being friendly and
> talkative with mentally handicapped kids. They were my "lessers" and
> there was an expectation that I'd treat them as such.. not to be mean
> to them, but to not include them in "the circle."

        And that was a rule that children had come up with on their
        own? 

> 
> I saw many kids grow up and learn those types of "lessons." The vast
> majority folded to social pressure.


        I'm sure children learn all kinds of 'lessons' from their
        shitty parents and the shitty enviroments they are raised in.

        But you must have noticed that children have a strong tendency
        to not obey their piece-of-shit parents? 


> 
> I never cared about it. Still don't.
> 
> But I recognize that for many people, they deeply care about what
> others think of them.
> 
> >> Agreed, with the proviso that quite often people rationalize,
> >> rather than act rationally. They rationalize away animal instincts.
> >
> >     I don't know what you mean by 'rationalize' - Isn't that
> >     psychobabble?
> 
> Not at all. Let me give you an all-to-common example. Alice is
> married to Bob, and is close friends with Charlie. Bob is jealous of
> Charlie. Not full on, sweaty, digging through her phone jealous. But
> he feels it in a low-level way.
> 
> So, Alice decides to go hang out with Charlie and a few other friends
> one day, and Bob doesn't want her to go.
> 
> But he doesn't tell her NOT to go. He rationalizes: gives seemingly
> rational reasons why she should not go. "Oh, well hey babe, I was
> hoping to spend that day with you fixing up the garden." Or, "well,
> shit honey sorry, I wish I'd known earlier, but there is a good
> chance I'll get called in to work that day so you might have to watch
> the kids." And so on.


        So Charlie is a hypocrite and doesn't want to confront his wife.
        Which might be a clever move since he might piss her off and
        get thrown out of his house, accused of being a 'child
        molester' or something.


> 
> They are rational, in the sense that proceed according to practical,
> reasonable principles. But they are (possibly unknowingly) dishonest.


        And honesty and dishonesty happen to be moral concepts =)

> 
> The unknowing part is the important part. It may be that Bob really
> isn't aware that he is acting out of jealousy. He doesn't feel it in
> an acute way,
> and so he is largely unaware.


        Ah, that 'subconscious' thing? 

> 
> >
> >     Also, there are animal behaviours that don't entail
> > aggresion towards other animals, so even "acting like an animal"
> > isn't necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> I disagree. Animalistic responses, while not necessarily a bad thing
> in terms of effects, are inherently MINDLESS.

        I disagree =) - It's quite obvious that animals have minds.
        Less complex than human minds, but fairly complex still. 


> Bob isn't MINDFULLY
> thinking to himself "Well, why don't I want Alice to go out today. Is
> it Charlie? Could I be jealous of Charlie? Hmm.. yeah, maybe thats
> it.."

        Some people will be more honest with themselves than
        others. Still I don't see in that any foundation
        for any sort of political theory. 



> In fact, he doesn't necessarily THINK about it at all.. he KNOWS he
> doesn't want her to go out, for a low-level gut feeling, and has
> already started acting or rationalizing in a way to get what he wants.
> 
> >     Bottom line again, your 'realistic' view that SOME humans do
> >     what they do because of their animal nature is bullshit.
> 
> Nope.


        Yes =) - And even if that were the case, what do you think it
        would follow in terms of political theory or political action ?



> 
> When I speak in generalizations, it is to say: the river is flowing
> south, and people get pulled south with the current.
> 
> You point to the two Olympic swimmers who can fight the current and
> say "SEE! NOT EVERYONE GOES SOUTH!"

        So your first wrong analogy was gravity (to which there are no
        exceptions) and now you have a parable =P

        
> 
> Failing to realize the significance of the fact that they are able to
> do so, and what it means for the rest of people.


        Well, let's pretend your view is correct. So, what would
        follow, politics-wise?  For instance, why would anybody bother
        swiming against the current? (hm, that's a spanish expression -
        it seems to be an english expression too...)









Reply via email to