On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 02:33:10 -0000 xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:40:09 -0000 > > xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > > > Dude, that has nothing to do with any 'group'. If you are an > > attacker, then your victims have every right to defend > > themselves. That's the basic logic of morality. > > Ya know, after I hit send on that last message, I knew you'd start off > with this. > > You're like autistic or something.
Sure. And being gay is a disease that is cured with electroshocks and lobotomies. Oh and you are a master of 'biological' political 'theory'. No, not just ivory tower theory. What you say is REAL REALITY (TM) "Autistic" - you just keep polishing your pseudo scientific garbage eh. Now you are firmly in the grounds of fascist 'psychiatric' 'science'. > You focus on the words, but seem to > have difficulty actually relating to the underlying scenarios or > seeing the dynamics of human relationships within those scenarios. > It's all this bullshit about "the logic" of morality. Bugger off with > that nonsense. Sure. If such an alpha master of intelectual thought like you says so, I will obey. > > If I'm walking down the street, and see some strapping > brick-shit-house sized dude chase after you, pin you the ground, beat > the ever living shit out of you for a few moments, then pull out a > knife and raise it above his head to kill you.. > > Well, I am not a victim. I'm no danger at all. I'm 20 yards away, > smoking a cigarette, with my .45 in my waist band. > > And I still have the right, and some would argue, the moral > responsibility, to draw down on him and order him to stop, and if he > won't to cork that fucker square between eyes. > > And the REASON why I am able to do that. To make a judgment call > valuing your life over his, IS because of GROUPING. Namely, the > grouping of victim and grouping of aggressor, and the social > valuation of one over the other. > > I happen to agree with that valuation. But I'm not arrogant enough to > say it isn't a grouping, and in that respect is not different than > other groupings. > > It is simply a grouping that I firmly believe. Others firmly believe > in groupings based on religion, or race. Those I firmly despise. > > But they are still a representation social in-group/out-group dynamics I bow to your superior wisdom, massa > > > > >> > >> A deeply pacifistic person might disagree, > > > > Fine. If somebody doesn't mind being attacked, that's his > > choice which he CANNOT FORCE on other people, both because of logic > > and his own pacifist principles. > > It isn't because a pacifist doesn't mind being attacked. It's because > their morality dictates that using force is wrong. And they won't > stoop to the level of someone who does, even to defend themselves. It > is akin to someone putting a gun to your head and trying to force you > to rape a child. Hopefully you don't. Hopefully your morality is such > that you'd rather die than do that. Even though someone forcing you > to do so absolves you of responsibility. You choose to TAKE > responsibility, and die. Same for the pacifist. He says "I will take > responsibility for my actions, and not do violence, because violence > is wrong. Whatever it costs, I won't do wrong." Sure. Violence is wrong according to pacifists, but allowing people to be killed, including oneself, is 'right' - I laugh my ass off at the STUPIDITY of it. Feel free to lecture me again with that kind of stupidity as if it wasn't sheer stupidity... > > Yesterday YOU WROTE > > > > "A white male living in 1740 quite literally was not AS > > FREE as you or I in terms of his beliefs about race, SLAVERY, > > God,..." > > Yeah, I mentioned it as an example of the types of social institutions > that many people are not really in a position to question very > easily. I thought it would be obvious, and easily accepted. > > You were the one that zeroed in on it, and made a discussion of it. > Perhaps I should have clarified more. So, first you bring up a topic. Then you accuse ME of bringing up the topic...YOU brought up. And now the problem is that I 'zeroed in' on it. Oh, and if I mention that YOU brought the topic up, since, you know, you accused me of doing it, then "This is all about some mental dick-measuring contest" Any more self-parody you'd like to share? > > >> Indeed, even after they were > >> FREED, many slaves stayed with their former masters, and worked as > >> paid laborers. That's a fact. So they certainly wanted to be there, > >> probably even AS SLAVES. > > > > lol...Not only a moral relativist, also a slavery apologist. > > Oh fuck that nonsense. I'm not an apologist for shit. But it is true > that some freed slaves stayed on the compounds. If you say so. And good for them. > > It sounds to me as if you simply don't have a fucking clue about life, > mate. Have you ever been in a truly hopeless situation for an extended > period of time? Have you experienced what it does to the mind, to your > thought process and psychology? > > If not, then yeah.. you have no fucking clue. If so, then you really > need to think on what it would be like to be subjected to that since > birth, and not even have a past to draw from, or a future to look > forward to, for strength. > > Because your whole "they didn't want to get killed" thing is bullshit. > Indentured servants rebelled. Some were killed. Fucking people rebel > and fought over taxes or shit like that, nothing as egregious as > getting beaten and held as slaves. You really think that whites > valued their tax dollars and liberty more so than blacks valued not > getting beaten or raped, and so on? Get off it. > > So really fucking think it over and ask yourself if it was a rational > choice about getting killed, or whether it really did have a lot more > to do about social engineering, human psychology, and the simplest > thing of all: lack of hope. Why would I bother 'thinking' about it when such a great philosopher like you has it all figured out and is teaching us poor betas? > > That's why indentured servants rebelled. They had HOPE, I'm glad they voted for obama! > saying to > themselves.. I'll will myself into virtual slavery for N years, then > I'm free, and I get a plot of land and I'm my own man. When that deal > breaks down, it's fucking on. They'll DIE for the fucking dream that > they lived for. Ah, the americunt dream! Or the british dream? Your story is really moving mate! Have you thought about sending it to hollywood, or the proper english colony's dream factory! > > A true slave, born into it? There is no hope. No one ever gets free. > It isn't even a concept to freely think about. Nope it isn't. Now I get it. Thank you massa! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slaves_in_the_United_States In xorcist's Real Reality there are no fugitive slaves. > > > " Find a small, soluble problem that fills a need. Propose a > > solution. Implement it. Repeat." If everyone does a little, > > a lot will get done." > > > > My retort : > > > > "What kind of small, soluble problems do you have in mind? " > > > > > > And your answer? None of course. Even you don't believe your > > own bullshit. > > > > LOL. No. Because you don't get the fucking point, son. > > #1, The whole point is for YOU to be SELF-DETERMINED and find > problems YOU are interested in and that YOU want to solve.Find > things that give your life meaning. What, on fucking earth, makes you think I'm interested in any paternalistic, psychobabbling nonsense from you? The topic, as far as I was concerned was what practical things could be done to limit state power, not to "give meaning to my life". > #2, I didn't respond, because I suspected from your general demeanor > you didn't really give a shit. Au contraire. I was interested in a concrete reply, but admitedly, only to illustrate the flaws in your position. > As you indicate with your choice of > the word "retort" .. everything you've shown so far is > confrontational, so I didn't take the request seriously. Are you autistic or what. YOUR first message whining about off topic posts was nothing but STUPID 'confrontational' bullshit. And now you are crying because you got 'confronted'? Pathetic. > > #2, But since you're asking a second time, even though you're > bringing it up in a seemingly confrontational manner, rather than any > sort of genuine interest.. I'll tell you what I do, primarily, with > my time in that regard. > > I act as mentor for some cognitively disabled adults. Has NOTHING to do with limiting state power. > > I do this on top of my day job, which is in cloud infrastructure type > shit. Oh, that's more interesting. So you have first hand knowledge on how the 'infrastructure' is sabotaged, or do you even do the sabotage yourself? > As a hobby, try to find time to program, keep my skills up > somewhat. In the past, I've designed deniable encryption protocols, > and implemented tools to do it. One of the methods even got picked up > in IEEE transactions and used in a communication system in Lebanon > designed to safe-guard privacy in the face of oppressive governments. Ah, 'oppressive' governents in the 'third' world. That would be governemtns that didn't follow CIA/Foreign Office orders? > But, as I mentioned elsewhere to Zen .. I also didn't respond to that > because I'm not on this list for fucking hand-holding and > encouragement about some shared social agenda. That is fucking obvious. What you've done is the exact opposite. > Find your own fucking > answers. I know what I believe in, and I know how far I'm willing to > go, and what I'm not willing to do, to help. > > Truthfully, this whole fucking thread is exactly what I DIDN'T want. Really. A > bunch of horseshit that has nothing to do with "cyphers" .. but > whatever, I'll count it as a "getting ta know ya" free-for-all. > > > >