Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...]
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...]
Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design.
The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that
are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy
which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialismYes. I've complained about that myself, including to the face of
card carrying communists and even marxists!
They're focused on economics first & foremost, when the real
problem is social inequality. Political, economic, educational
and even legal inequalities all stem from social inequalities.
Socialism, communism and the like should all be focused
first & foremost on the destruction of social inequalities.
You're also right about the Nazis and evolution. This "Master
Race" was the heart and soul of their ideology. This is the
chief reason why Stalin and later Mao REJECTED evolution.
You could be prosecuted for teaching evolution in the
communist world BECAUSE of the "Master Race," the
Eugenics of the west.
NOTE: Darwin himself was a British upper class, and that's
why they showered credit on him, instead of Wallace. See,
Wallace was a socialist who was against Monarchy: A
Scottish upstart. They couldn't turn him into a genius! So
they heaped it all on Darwin, who was a goddamn jackass.
Truth: Darwin didn't even believe in evolution! For real.
Remember how the communist world REJECTED evolution?
Well in its place they put something that was a dead ringer
for Darwin's one and only "Theory": Pangenesis.
Darwin's thoughts, what he believed in mirrored those who
arrested people for teaching evolution... THAT'S how far
from reality Darwin was, and the cult of personality that the
British ruling elite built around him.
The truth is so far from what people have been taught, what
people have been TRAINED to believe that they literally
can't wrap their brains around it.
They suffer Cognitive Dissonance.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727701377221083136
On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 06:25:28 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:When the artisans and merchants behaved like pack animals
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...]
Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design.
The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that
are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy
which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
(had guilds) then the evolution of technology was slower but there was
lot less trash manufactured, sold and lot less lies advertised. After
purely greed-, lie-, bribery- and deception-based snake oil economy
was invented ... we started to suffer. More than half of work contract
of current artisan or merchant consists of requirements to not disclose
the dirty tricks used by non-organisms for whom they work ... enterprise
and its business partners.
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...]
Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design.
The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that
are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy
which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...]
Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design.
The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
So we should base economic policy on how evolution works and not intervene? Paging Herbert Spencer.
Hayek may have said apt things about price signaling and how goods or resources are allocated or distributed being better than central planning, but there’s room for that in some sort of highly regulated social market system.
Currently Chinese intellectuals are inspired by a dead nazi name Schmidt
(sic), in a sort of ethnic nationalism.
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:20:29 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:So we should base economic policy on how evolution works and not intervene? >> Paging Herbert Spencer.
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...]
Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design.
The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that
are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy
which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
Hayek may have said apt things about price signaling and how goods or
resources are allocated or distributed being better than central planning, >> but there’s room for that in some sort of highly regulated social market >> system.
It seems to me that your leap "So we should ..." is rather presumptuous.
Is there a hidden premise?
To be clear, I don't oppose Intelligent Design. I'm rather fond of applied intelligence. Thus, an economic system that is intelligently designed
seems like a good thing. My understanding of evolutionary mechanisms
is that they are rather wasteful and cruel, leaving many casualties in
the wake.
Of course when observing the world, I have various critiques on just
how "intelligent" certain designs are. And of course, at times the intelligent
thing to do is to admit that our ability to anticipate the future, and to respond to the present in effective and timely ways, might well favor
using self-adjusting strategies like Natural Selection rather than enforcing the conceit of attempted intelligent design by those of inadequate intelligence.
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:20:29 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:So we should base economic policy on how evolution works and not intervene?
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...] >>>Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design. >>> The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that >>> are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy >>> which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
Paging Herbert Spencer.
Hayek may have said apt things about price signaling and how goods or
resources are allocated or distributed being better than central planning,
but there’s room for that in some sort of highly regulated social market
system.
It seems to me that your leap "So we should ..." is rather presumptuous. Is there a hidden premise?
Maybe I read too much into Mark’s “The autocracy which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.”
To be clear, I don't oppose Intelligent Design. I'm rather fond of applied intelligence. Thus, an economic system that is intelligently designed seems like a good thing. My understanding of evolutionary mechanisms
is that they are rather wasteful and cruel, leaving many casualties in
the wake.
Yes. See below.
Of course when observing the world, I have various critiques on just
how "intelligent" certain designs are. And of course, at times the intelligent
thing to do is to admit that our ability to anticipate the future, and to respond to the present in effective and timely ways, might well favor using self-adjusting strategies like Natural Selection rather than enforcing
the conceit of attempted intelligent design by those of inadequate intelligence.
Going too far with natural selection would result in the passively callous stance of letting the poor go to the wall.
Of course creative destruction of Joseph Schumpeter was far more revolutionary and sounds great as a slogan, but Bezos’ superyachts came at the price of losing so much traditional bricks and motor small businesses and even larger corporate presences. This process got rid of hated inefficiencies. So will automation. We people the inefficiencies. As an aside, clicking for products destroyed the mall as local social hub and may have contributed to obesity. Shopping in buildings is inefficient exertion. Clicking is couch potato sedentary. Do the maths.
And letting the market sort things out got Clinton to go along with the deregulatory regime of the late 90s that made the future mortgage meltdown and the odd financial instruments resonating it through the world economy worse. He and Blair were Reagan-Thatcher lite. A New Democrat indeed.
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Currently Chinese intellectuals are inspired by a dead nazi name Schmidt
(sic), in a sort of ethnic nationalism.
If you are MAGA, Carl Schmitt is your man with his friend-enemy distinction (rapist immigrants and the pizza parlor lurking adrenochrome addicted Democrats) and and his politics of the exception (Stop the Steal and Jan
6th insurrection).
One trick pony Desantis streamlined and perfected the approach with his monomanic antiwoke moral panic. And he reanimates Joseph McCarthy with the ChiCom rhetoric. We’ve seen that movie before.
More on Schmitt:
https://theconversation.com/carl-schmitt-nazi-era-philosopher-who-wrote-blueprint-for-new-authoritarianism-59835
This is interesting: “But the price for this Schmittian sovereignty is high: it needs the executive to control the legislature, the courts and often the media.”
The supermajority Florida legislature no longer serves as a check on autocratic Desantis. They rubber stamp his initiatives because they can. They were fine with his political map. They were fine with his vendetta against Disney. They were fine with him running for POTUS while still governor. They were fine with no longer putting his comings and goings
under the light of sunshine law. He’s above that now.
He is getting some court based pushback. Good thing that. Fix News loves
him but most sane stream media not so much. We haven’t had our institutions
subverted fully yet so authoritarians like Rainboots Ron still have an uphill battle, but Carl Schmitt provided a blueprint for his and/or Trump’s
future success. Shudder!
So thank you for kicking that Carl Schmitt own goal. Way too easy.
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Currently Chinese intellectuals are inspired by a dead nazi name Schmidt
(sic), in a sort of ethnic nationalism.
If you are MAGA, Carl Schmitt is your man with his friend-enemy distinction (rapist immigrants and the pizza parlor lurking adrenochrome addicted Democrats) and and his politics of the exception (Stop the Steal and Jan
6th insurrection).
One trick pony Desantis streamlined and perfected the approach with his monomanic antiwoke moral panic. And he reanimates Joseph McCarthy with the ChiCom rhetoric. We’ve seen that movie before.
More on Schmitt:
https://theconversation.com/carl-schmitt-nazi-era-philosopher-who-wrote-blueprint-for-new-authoritarianism-59835
This is interesting: “But the price for this Schmittian sovereignty is high: it needs the executive to control the legislature, the courts and often the media.”
The supermajority Florida legislature no longer serves as a check on autocratic Desantis. They rubber stamp his initiatives because they can. They were fine with his political map. They were fine with his vendetta against Disney. They were fine with him running for POTUS while still governor. They were fine with no longer putting his comings and goings
under the light of sunshine law. He’s above that now.
He is getting some court based pushback. Good thing that. Fix News loves
him but most sane stream media not so much. We haven’t had our institutions
subverted fully yet so authoritarians like Rainboots Ron still have an uphill battle, but Carl Schmitt provided a blueprint for his and/or Trump’s
future success. Shudder!
So thank you for kicking that Carl Schmitt own goal. Way too easy.
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Currently Chinese intellectuals are inspired by a dead nazi name Schmidt
(sic), in a sort of ethnic nationalism.
If you are MAGA, Carl Schmitt is your man with his friend-enemy distinction (rapist immigrants and the pizza parlor lurking adrenochrome addicted Democrats) and and his politics of the exception (Stop the Steal and Jan
6th insurrection).
One trick pony Desantis streamlined and perfected the approach with his monomanic antiwoke moral panic. And he reanimates Joseph McCarthy with the ChiCom rhetoric. We’ve seen that movie before.
More on Schmitt:
https://theconversation.com/carl-schmitt-nazi-era-philosopher-who-wrote-blueprint-for-new-authoritarianism-59835
This is interesting: “But the price for this Schmittian sovereignty is high: it needs the executive to control the legislature, the courts and often the media.”
The supermajority Florida legislature no longer serves as a check on autocratic Desantis. They rubber stamp his initiatives because they can. They were fine with his political map. They were fine with his vendetta against Disney. They were fine with him running for POTUS while still governor. They were fine with no longer putting his comings and goings
under the light of sunshine law. He’s above that now.
He is getting some court based pushback. Good thing that. Fix News loves
him but most sane stream media not so much. We haven’t had our institutions
subverted fully yet so authoritarians like Rainboots Ron still have an uphill battle, but Carl Schmitt provided a blueprint for his and/or Trump’s
future success. Shudder!
So thank you for kicking that Carl Schmitt own goal. Way too easy.
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 9:25:29 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:20:29 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>> Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:Maybe I read too much into Mark’s “The autocracy which denies the free >> market is anti-darwinian.”
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:So we should base economic policy on how evolution works and not intervene?
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...] >>>>>Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design. >>>>> The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that >>>>> are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy >>>>> which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
Paging Herbert Spencer.
Hayek may have said apt things about price signaling and how goods or
resources are allocated or distributed being better than central planning, >>>> but there’s room for that in some sort of highly regulated social market >>>> system.
It seems to me that your leap "So we should ..." is rather presumptuous. >>> Is there a hidden premise?
Yes. See below.
To be clear, I don't oppose Intelligent Design. I'm rather fond of applied >>> intelligence. Thus, an economic system that is intelligently designed
seems like a good thing. My understanding of evolutionary mechanisms
is that they are rather wasteful and cruel, leaving many casualties in
the wake.
Going too far with natural selection would result in the passively callous >> stance of letting the poor go to the wall.
Of course when observing the world, I have various critiques on just
how "intelligent" certain designs are. And of course, at times the intelligent
thing to do is to admit that our ability to anticipate the future, and to >>> respond to the present in effective and timely ways, might well favor
using self-adjusting strategies like Natural Selection rather than enforcing
the conceit of attempted intelligent design by those of inadequate intelligence.
Of course creative destruction of Joseph Schumpeter was far more
revolutionary and sounds great as a slogan, but Bezos’ superyachts came at >> the price of losing so much traditional bricks and motor small businesses
and even larger corporate presences. This process got rid of hated
inefficiencies. So will automation. We people the inefficiencies. As an
aside, clicking for products destroyed the mall as local social hub and may >> have contributed to obesity. Shopping in buildings is inefficient exertion. >> Clicking is couch potato sedentary. Do the maths.
And letting the market sort things out got Clinton to go along with the
deregulatory regime of the late 90s that made the future mortgage meltdown >> and the odd financial instruments resonating it through the world economy
worse. He and Blair were Reagan-Thatcher lite. A New Democrat indeed.
I'm largely inclined to agree with most of your specific examples of things gone wrong, inasmuch as I tend to agree they are, in isolation, undesirable.
Yet I find the use of specifics in these cases inadequate to the broadly abstract question of attempted intelligent design of an economic system versus a more darwinian system. It's odd to complain about specifics.
But the problem is, citing examples of our "free-market" results aren't really free-market results.
Simplistically, in an true free market, workers would be free to strike.
And it's a complicated question as to the limits of workers freedoms
to make life difficult for scabs. My choice of words reveals sympathies
but the question remains about how much anarchy are we promoting?
The point behind all this is that what many claim to be a free market
is in fact a highly regulated market. The key questions are about how
those regulations get set, who gets to influence them, and to the extent
to which they are "intelligently" designed, with what goals in mind
and how good is the design at achieving the goals.
Reality is a complex mix of oddly chosen goals of mixed acceptance
coupled with less than intelligent designs. Thus being a yacht broker
can be a plausible career path in a world where children go hungry,
except for the long line of others awaiting for scraps from the table
of the very lucky few.
Ofcourse you would think maga is right wing socialism, because left and
right wing socialism are the only options you can see politically.
However maga is clearly just common sensical. Each problem has it's own specific characteristics, and you cannot make an ideology that is suited
for each and every problem, such as socialism pretends to do.
Wokeness is a real issue, connected with it is the for years increasing mental illness rate. Censorship is real, government gestapo tactics are
real, election fraud is real. To say the culture war is not about
anything real, is delusional.
Ofcourse if you step out of bounds in a liberal university, then you
would see that the woke mob is a real thing. But you are part of that mob, are you not?
And if you were honest, you would accept that marginalization of subjectivity, caused by increased education, and especially evolution
theory, is the root cause of the culture war.
But you have no honest evaluation of the importance of the concept of subjectivity for societal functioning, because you only do mindless ideological fighting for socialism.
p vrijdag 8 september 2023 om 03:00:29 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
If you are MAGA, Carl Schmitt is your man with his friend-enemy distinction >> (rapist immigrants and the pizza parlor lurking adrenochrome addicted
Currently Chinese intellectuals are inspired by a dead nazi name Schmidt >>> (sic), in a sort of ethnic nationalism.
Democrats) and and his politics of the exception (Stop the Steal and Jan
6th insurrection).
One trick pony Desantis streamlined and perfected the approach with his
monomanic antiwoke moral panic. And he reanimates Joseph McCarthy with the >> ChiCom rhetoric. We’ve seen that movie before.
More on Schmitt:
https://theconversation.com/carl-schmitt-nazi-era-philosopher-who-wrote-blueprint-for-new-authoritarianism-59835
This is interesting: “But the price for this Schmittian sovereignty is
high: it needs the executive to control the legislature, the courts and
often the media.”
The supermajority Florida legislature no longer serves as a check on
autocratic Desantis. They rubber stamp his initiatives because they can.
They were fine with his political map. They were fine with his vendetta
against Disney. They were fine with him running for POTUS while still
governor. They were fine with no longer putting his comings and goings
under the light of sunshine law. He’s above that now.
He is getting some court based pushback. Good thing that. Fix News loves
him but most sane stream media not so much. We haven’t had our institutions
subverted fully yet so authoritarians like Rainboots Ron still have an
uphill battle, but Carl Schmitt provided a blueprint for his and/or Trump’s
future success. Shudder!
So thank you for kicking that Carl Schmitt own goal. Way too easy.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 5:15:30 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 9:25:29 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:We live in a global neoliberal regime (perhaps ordoliberal) where the
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:20:29 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Maybe I read too much into Mark’s “The autocracy which denies the free >>>> market is anti-darwinian.”
Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:So we should base economic policy on how evolution works and not intervene?
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...] >>>>>>>Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design. >>>>>>> The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that >>>>>>> are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy >>>>>>> which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
Paging Herbert Spencer.
Hayek may have said apt things about price signaling and how goods or >>>>>> resources are allocated or distributed being better than central planning,
but there’s room for that in some sort of highly regulated social market
system.
It seems to me that your leap "So we should ..." is rather presumptuous. >>>>> Is there a hidden premise?
Yes. See below.
To be clear, I don't oppose Intelligent Design. I'm rather fond of applied
intelligence. Thus, an economic system that is intelligently designed >>>>> seems like a good thing. My understanding of evolutionary mechanisms >>>>> is that they are rather wasteful and cruel, leaving many casualties in >>>>> the wake.
Going too far with natural selection would result in the passively callous >>>> stance of letting the poor go to the wall.
Of course when observing the world, I have various critiques on just >>>>> how "intelligent" certain designs are. And of course, at times the intelligent
thing to do is to admit that our ability to anticipate the future, and to >>>>> respond to the present in effective and timely ways, might well favor >>>>> using self-adjusting strategies like Natural Selection rather than enforcing
the conceit of attempted intelligent design by those of inadequate intelligence.
Of course creative destruction of Joseph Schumpeter was far more
revolutionary and sounds great as a slogan, but Bezos’ superyachts came at
the price of losing so much traditional bricks and motor small businesses >>>> and even larger corporate presences. This process got rid of hated
inefficiencies. So will automation. We people the inefficiencies. As an >>>> aside, clicking for products destroyed the mall as local social hub and may
have contributed to obesity. Shopping in buildings is inefficient exertion.
Clicking is couch potato sedentary. Do the maths.
And letting the market sort things out got Clinton to go along with the >>>> deregulatory regime of the late 90s that made the future mortgage meltdown >>>> and the odd financial instruments resonating it through the world economy >>>> worse. He and Blair were Reagan-Thatcher lite. A New Democrat indeed.
I'm largely inclined to agree with most of your specific examples of things >>> gone wrong, inasmuch as I tend to agree they are, in isolation, undesirable.
Yet I find the use of specifics in these cases inadequate to the broadly >>> abstract question of attempted intelligent design of an economic system
versus a more darwinian system. It's odd to complain about specifics.
But the problem is, citing examples of our "free-market" results aren't
really free-market results.
Simplistically, in an true free market, workers would be free to strike. >>> And it's a complicated question as to the limits of workers freedoms
to make life difficult for scabs. My choice of words reveals sympathies
but the question remains about how much anarchy are we promoting?
The point behind all this is that what many claim to be a free market
is in fact a highly regulated market. The key questions are about how
those regulations get set, who gets to influence them, and to the extent >>> to which they are "intelligently" designed, with what goals in mind
and how good is the design at achieving the goals.
Reality is a complex mix of oddly chosen goals of mixed acceptance
coupled with less than intelligent designs. Thus being a yacht broker
can be a plausible career path in a world where children go hungry,
except for the long line of others awaiting for scraps from the table
of the very lucky few.
regulatory structure favors the big players. The international trade scene >> has been tilting in favor of trade treaties that gut national sovereignty
to uphold corporate profit over local law or regulation. Mont Pelerin
cheerleaders Friedman and Hayek had no qualms with the authoritarian
imposed capitalist reform of the Chilean miracle under Pinochet. That was a >> harbinger of things to come.
Meanwhile, I've spent a sleepless evening listening to Pink Floyd, Yes, and Peter Gabriel. I'm about to queue up some ELP. It all comports with buying music lessons for my grandkids. I will also indoctrinate the little ones with Quadrophenia and some John Prine as well as an extensive larger playlist.
(it hurts to omit so many, but Bonnie Raitt, ...)
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 9:25:29 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:20:29 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Maybe I read too much into Mark’s “The autocracy which denies the free
Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:So we should base economic policy on how evolution works and not intervene?
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...] >>>>>Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design. >>>>> The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that
are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy >>>>> which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
Paging Herbert Spencer.
Hayek may have said apt things about price signaling and how goods or >>>> resources are allocated or distributed being better than central planning,
but there’s room for that in some sort of highly regulated social market
system.
It seems to me that your leap "So we should ..." is rather presumptuous. >>> Is there a hidden premise?
market is anti-darwinian.”
Yes. See below.
To be clear, I don't oppose Intelligent Design. I'm rather fond of applied
intelligence. Thus, an economic system that is intelligently designed >>> seems like a good thing. My understanding of evolutionary mechanisms
is that they are rather wasteful and cruel, leaving many casualties in >>> the wake.
Going too far with natural selection would result in the passively callous
Of course when observing the world, I have various critiques on just
how "intelligent" certain designs are. And of course, at times the intelligent
thing to do is to admit that our ability to anticipate the future, and to
respond to the present in effective and timely ways, might well favor >>> using self-adjusting strategies like Natural Selection rather than enforcing
the conceit of attempted intelligent design by those of inadequate intelligence.
stance of letting the poor go to the wall.
Of course creative destruction of Joseph Schumpeter was far more
revolutionary and sounds great as a slogan, but Bezos’ superyachts came at
the price of losing so much traditional bricks and motor small businesses >> and even larger corporate presences. This process got rid of hated
inefficiencies. So will automation. We people the inefficiencies. As an >> aside, clicking for products destroyed the mall as local social hub and may
have contributed to obesity. Shopping in buildings is inefficient exertion.
Clicking is couch potato sedentary. Do the maths.
And letting the market sort things out got Clinton to go along with the >> deregulatory regime of the late 90s that made the future mortgage meltdown
and the odd financial instruments resonating it through the world economy >> worse. He and Blair were Reagan-Thatcher lite. A New Democrat indeed.
I'm largely inclined to agree with most of your specific examples of things
gone wrong, inasmuch as I tend to agree they are, in isolation, undesirable.
Yet I find the use of specifics in these cases inadequate to the broadly abstract question of attempted intelligent design of an economic system versus a more darwinian system. It's odd to complain about specifics.
But the problem is, citing examples of our "free-market" results aren't really free-market results.
Simplistically, in an true free market, workers would be free to strike. And it's a complicated question as to the limits of workers freedoms
to make life difficult for scabs. My choice of words reveals sympathies but the question remains about how much anarchy are we promoting?
The point behind all this is that what many claim to be a free market
is in fact a highly regulated market. The key questions are about how those regulations get set, who gets to influence them, and to the extent to which they are "intelligently" designed, with what goals in mind
and how good is the design at achieving the goals.
Reality is a complex mix of oddly chosen goals of mixed acceptance
coupled with less than intelligent designs. Thus being a yacht broker
can be a plausible career path in a world where children go hungry,
except for the long line of others awaiting for scraps from the table
of the very lucky few.
We live in a global neoliberal regime (perhaps ordoliberal) where the regulatory structure favors the big players. The international trade scene has been tilting in favor of trade treaties that gut national sovereignty
to uphold corporate profit over local law or regulation. Mont Pelerin cheerleaders Friedman and Hayek had no qualms with the authoritarian
imposed capitalist reform of the Chilean miracle under Pinochet. That was a harbinger of things to come.
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 5:15:30 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 9:25:29 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:We live in a global neoliberal regime (perhaps ordoliberal) where the
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:I'm largely inclined to agree with most of your specific examples of things
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:20:29 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Maybe I read too much into Mark’s “The autocracy which denies the free
Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:So we should base economic policy on how evolution works and not intervene?
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...]
Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design.
The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no >>>>>>> overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that
are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy
which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
Paging Herbert Spencer.
Hayek may have said apt things about price signaling and how goods or >>>>>> resources are allocated or distributed being better than central planning,
but there’s room for that in some sort of highly regulated social market
system.
It seems to me that your leap "So we should ..." is rather presumptuous.
Is there a hidden premise?
market is anti-darwinian.”
Yes. See below.
To be clear, I don't oppose Intelligent Design. I'm rather fond of applied
intelligence. Thus, an economic system that is intelligently designed >>>>> seems like a good thing. My understanding of evolutionary mechanisms >>>>> is that they are rather wasteful and cruel, leaving many casualties in >>>>> the wake.
Going too far with natural selection would result in the passively callous
Of course when observing the world, I have various critiques on just >>>>> how "intelligent" certain designs are. And of course, at times the intelligent
thing to do is to admit that our ability to anticipate the future, and to
respond to the present in effective and timely ways, might well favor >>>>> using self-adjusting strategies like Natural Selection rather than enforcing
the conceit of attempted intelligent design by those of inadequate intelligence.
stance of letting the poor go to the wall.
Of course creative destruction of Joseph Schumpeter was far more
revolutionary and sounds great as a slogan, but Bezos’ superyachts came at
the price of losing so much traditional bricks and motor small businesses
and even larger corporate presences. This process got rid of hated
inefficiencies. So will automation. We people the inefficiencies. As an >>>> aside, clicking for products destroyed the mall as local social hub and may
have contributed to obesity. Shopping in buildings is inefficient exertion.
Clicking is couch potato sedentary. Do the maths.
And letting the market sort things out got Clinton to go along with the >>>> deregulatory regime of the late 90s that made the future mortgage meltdown
and the odd financial instruments resonating it through the world economy
worse. He and Blair were Reagan-Thatcher lite. A New Democrat indeed. >>>
gone wrong, inasmuch as I tend to agree they are, in isolation, undesirable.
Yet I find the use of specifics in these cases inadequate to the broadly >>> abstract question of attempted intelligent design of an economic system >>> versus a more darwinian system. It's odd to complain about specifics. >>> But the problem is, citing examples of our "free-market" results aren't >>> really free-market results.
Simplistically, in an true free market, workers would be free to strike. >>> And it's a complicated question as to the limits of workers freedoms
to make life difficult for scabs. My choice of words reveals sympathies >>> but the question remains about how much anarchy are we promoting?
The point behind all this is that what many claim to be a free market >>> is in fact a highly regulated market. The key questions are about how >>> those regulations get set, who gets to influence them, and to the extent >>> to which they are "intelligently" designed, with what goals in mind
and how good is the design at achieving the goals.
Reality is a complex mix of oddly chosen goals of mixed acceptance
coupled with less than intelligent designs. Thus being a yacht broker >>> can be a plausible career path in a world where children go hungry,
except for the long line of others awaiting for scraps from the table >>> of the very lucky few.
regulatory structure favors the big players. The international trade scene
has been tilting in favor of trade treaties that gut national sovereignty >> to uphold corporate profit over local law or regulation. Mont Pelerin
cheerleaders Friedman and Hayek had no qualms with the authoritarian
imposed capitalist reform of the Chilean miracle under Pinochet. That was a
harbinger of things to come.
Meanwhile, I've spent a sleepless evening listening to Pink Floyd, Yes, and
Peter Gabriel. I'm about to queue up some ELP. It all comports with buying music lessons for my grandkids. I will also indoctrinate the little ones with
Quadrophenia and some John Prine as well as an extensive larger playlist. (it hurts to omit so many, but Bonnie Raitt, ...)
What no Rush 2112? How will they get sucked into the Ayn Rand vortex
without a gateway drug? Set the controls for the heart of the sun I say.
Caveat: As Gabriel had shown in his groundbreaking dissertation child’s play, even music, can lead in bad directions. From the abstract:
“Hans plays with Lotte, Lotte plays with Jane
Jane plays with Willy, Willy is happy again
Suki plays with Leo, Sacha plays with Britt
Adolf builds a bonfire, Enrico plays with it”
You understand nothing. Socialists aren't really focused on economics, they
And another thing
mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
You understand nothing. Socialists aren't really focused on economics, they
And you're the product of incest, judging from your problems on
display here...
mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
And another thing
You type like a homosexual. Are you a homosexual?
Or, maybe I should ask; are you a repressed, closeted
or "Out" homosexual?
The National Socialist were big into procreation, so
of course you'd hate them. And they do use the word
"Socialist" so, as a homosexual, there's a negative
connotation for you.
Darwin was a twat so, clearly, no appeal for you...
Do your parents know? Or is that middle eastern thing; "Boys are
for sex, women are for babies."
You'd think that sort of thing would be frowned upon, in
this day & age. STICK TO CONSENTING ADULTS!
mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
And another thing
You type like a homosexual. Are you a homosexual?
Or, maybe I should ask; are you a repressed, closeted
or "Out" homosexual?
The National Socialist were big into procreation, so
of course you'd hate them. And they do use the word
"Socialist" so, as a homosexual, there's a negative
connotation for you.
Darwin was a twat so, clearly, no appeal for you...
Do your parents know? Or is that middle eastern thing; "Boys are
for sex, women are for babies."
You'd think that sort of thing would be frowned upon, in
this day & age. STICK TO CONSENTING ADULTS!
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727915015121829888
A Darwinian market gives us plastic filled ocean gyres. It doesn’t do public goods like lighthouses so well. Things like the nascent pre-web internet and GPS we now take for granted came at least partly from gov’t. Al Gore did take some initiative in the information superhighway way after the fact of ARPANET and such before. What we know as the web came from CERN which itself has some intergovernmental bases. So both the precursor of the internet and the web itself have public infrastructural roots.
What the actual fuck? I thought Nando was off his rocker. You’ve gone and taken it to a new level.
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
What the actual fuck? I thought Nando was off his rocker. You’ve gone andWhen two members of Pavo cristatus nutcasius (the Nutcase Peacock) run into each other, each puts on a display to establish dominance. The display usually
taken it to a new level.
involves groundless insults, weird conspiracy theories, and on rare occasions a
Yo Mama contest. The Nutcase Peacock that out-does the other establishes
the newsgroup as its territory, and struts and preens until exhaustion; the other
one doesn't realize it is outdone, and also struts and preens. They then mate
and release somewhere between 10-12 chicks into the wild to infest other newsgroups. The feathers of the Nutcase Peacock are highly neurotoxic; handle with care, as lengthy exposure can transform formerly reasonable posters
into chicks; this is the other way in which these all-too-common creatures reproduce.
JTEM saying I am a homosexual is the same as you all calling me crazy. You have no argument, so you resort to other means.
Nando wrote:basic nature here as a nutcase for decades, which gives you the advantage of the challenger, JTEM ... but I think you deserve each other nicely. I can't think of anyone else off hand who deserves a Nando.
JTEM saying I am a homosexual is the same as you all calling me crazy. You have no argument, so you resort to other means.IMO anyone who fantasizes about shooting people he disagrees with, beating their heads in with baseball bats, and putting them in concentration camps is crazy and/or evil - and you've done all three of those over the years. You've established your
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:So we should base economic policy on how evolution works and not intervene? Paging Herbert Spencer.
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...]
Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design.
The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that
are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy
which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
Hayek may have said apt things about price signaling and how goods or resources are allocated or distributed being better than central planning, but there’s room for that in some sort of highly regulated social market system.
Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:
On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 06:25:28 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:A Darwinian market gives us plastic filled ocean gyres. It doesn’t do public goods like lighthouses so well. Things like the nascent pre-web internet and GPS we now take for granted came at least partly from gov’t. Al Gore did take some initiative in the information superhighway way after the fact of ARPANET and such before. What we know as the web came from CERN which itself has some intergovernmental bases. So both the precursor of the internet and the web itself have public infrastructural roots.
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:When the artisans and merchants behaved like pack animals
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...]
Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design.
The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that
are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy
which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
(had guilds) then the evolution of technology was slower but there was
lot less trash manufactured, sold and lot less lies advertised. After
purely greed-, lie-, bribery- and deception-based snake oil economy
was invented ... we started to suffer. More than half of work contract
of current artisan or merchant consists of requirements to not disclose
the dirty tricks used by non-organisms for whom they work ... enterprise
and its business partners.
You have no argument, so you resort to other means.
You are part of this academic culture that mangles the concept of subjectivity,
resulting in real life harm, not fantasy harm.
But ofcourse, you are just doing your best, by definition, so no functioning conscience.
Nando wrote:became clear that you were completely insane.
You have no argument, so you resort to other means.Actually we've had plenty of arguments, but I eventually gave up on you when I realized that you were incapable of hearing anything other than what you wanted to hear. The arguments you ascribed to me were so unlike anything I had ever said that it
You are part of this academic culture that mangles the concept of subjectivity,I've never met *any* academics that take the position that you claim we all do.
Maybe someone does, but I don't, and I've never heard anyone take the position
you claim all academics do.
resulting in real life harm, not fantasy harm.So you claim that by teaching students chemistry I am harming them? By giving them the skills they need to become engineers, doctors, nurses, physicists, biologists, or (for that matter) other fields with a bit of knowledge
of chemistry to round out their education I am harming them? Wow.
But at least now you are admitting to your fantasies of harming others. I want
to help others, you want to hurt them. You are deliberately evil. I'm a better
person than you will ever be.
But ofcourse, you are just uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudoing your best, by definition, so no functioning conscience.You're babbling again. You have no idea of my actual position despite my having
described it to you repeatedly; every time you just replace it with your bizarre
worldview, ignoring whatever I have ever said on the topic. But I am responsible
only for my actual beliefs and actions, not for your insane misrepresentations of them.
I have a much better conscience than a person who dreams of violence and death
and imprisonment for everyone who disagrees with them. You call other people Nazis
because you don't want to admit to yourself how similar to them your own desires are.
Mainly tyrannical stuff, is what makes me fly into rage. But also things like stonefaced systematic lying, dishonesty, and some ordinary crime.
You don't argue straightforwardly.
How does subjectivity work?
You just argue politics.
How you look at people, is totally different from the way I look at people.
Nando wrote:
Mainly tyrannical stuff, is what makes me fly into rage. But also things likeAs far as I can tell you "fly into rage" whenever someone disagrees with you,
stonefaced systematic lying, dishonesty, and some ordinary crime.
especially if they refuse to follow the script you believe they have to follow.
If you believe someone should take position A, and they instead take any other position, you start calling them liars, saying they should be shot, saying you want to smash them with a hammer, etc.
You don't argue straightforwardly.Actually I do ... once or twice. I just don't repeat myself indefinitely. If it
becomes clear that someone isn't listening after one or two explanations,
I cease bothering trying to explain myself to someone who clearly has their brain shut to anything other than what they want to hear.
How does subjectivity work?
I've explained my position on that to you at least three times. That you cannot
remember is exactly the problem: you refuse to listen to anything that doesn't
fit into your existing worldview.
You just argue politics.
Not at all. I've explained my position on subjectivity to you at least three times.
It's hardly my fault that you don't remember any of it. Your inability to understand
or remember any position than your own is a major and unfortunate flaw, but we are not required to give our positions over and over again just because you
can't recall them.
How you look at people, is totally different from the way I look at people.That is true in a limited way ... but I doubt you have any real understanding of the
way I look at people. Every single time you have tried to describe my position on
anything you have gotten it badly wrong; you try to shove me into what you think
I should believe rather than listening to what I actually believe. You don't seem to
realize that you can't choose other people's positions for them.
IMO you are incapable of learning, you have nothing of value to teach, and you
are horribly unpleasant to interact with ... making you worthless to debate with.
But every once in a while it is worth pointing out to the audience just how bad
a person you are, just in case there was any chance of convincing other people
to join your hateful crusade.
snipping
JTEM saying
All I remember of your "position", is something about subjectivity having to do with the brain.
Your reasoning processes are all about, this may look foolish, that may harm the reputation
of scientists, this may show I am wrong, etc.
Sure I have a hatefilled, that is, emotion filled, agenda.
There is continuous rage against the people who mangle subjectivity, and you are one of them.
Your crimes being mainly in the past, helping evolution along with the talk.origins
evolutionist organization.
These kinds of things I see on facebook, of all the fact obsessed atheists, who imagine
that emotions are objective, who completely fail to acknowledge the entire subjective
part of reality, that is the fruits of your labor.
And now I remember again, it was actually atheists who started the cussing and
swearing, and you were fine with that.
You have no honor that you do not accept defeat.
I have out argued all of you, with the creationist conceptual scheme.
Nando wrote:
All I remember of your "position", is something about subjectivity having to do with the brain.So several long posts from me explaining my position in detail, and all you remember is one
thing ... that happens to be completely wrong, as I never said that subjectivity had anything to
do with the brain! Thank you for illustrating my point exactly. You don't listen and you don't
remember, so explaining anything to you is worthless.
Your reasoning processes are all about, this may look foolish, that may harm the reputationAlso things I have never said. You are just making up things and putting them in my mouth
of scientists, this may show I am wrong, etc.
despite my never having said them. If you realize I never said them, you are fundamentally
dishonest. If you don't realize I never said them, you are insane.
Sure I have a hatefilled, that is, emotion filled, agenda.Hate is not the only emotion. There are others, such as love, caring, respect, etc. that you
seem unable to manifest.
There is continuous rage against the people who mangle subjectivity, and you are one of them."Disagree with Nando about subjectivity" is not the same thing as mangling, and hating everyone
who disagrees with you is not a sign that you have any sort of emotional balance.
Your crimes being mainly in the past, helping evolution along with the talk.originsDisagreeing with you is not a crime.
evolutionist organization.
These kinds of things I see on facebook, of all the fact obsessed atheists, who imagineNonsense - I am responsible only for what I have actually done and said, not for your
that emotions are objective, who completely fail to acknowledge the entire subjective
part of reality, that is the fruits of your labor.
bizarre delusions that you dishonestly attribute to me. I acknowledge the entire
subjective part of reality; I just disagree with you about how it works. Disagreeing
with you about subjectivity is not in any way arguing that subjectivity does not exist,
that subjectivity isn't valuable, or any of the other lies you put into the mouths of others.
And now I remember again, it was actually atheists who started the cussing andAnother lie on your part. You are one of the most dishonest people I have met.
swearing, and you were fine with that.
I am responsible only for what I actually say and do, not for the lies you attribute to me.
You have no honor that you do not accept defeat.I do accept defeat, when I have actually been defeated. But you lying about me
is not a defeat.
I have out argued all of you, with the creationist conceptual scheme.No, you are just dishonest and full of hate.
mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
JTEM saying
You're a symptom.
I can't take you seriously but if you paid me enough I would
pretend to.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727915015121829888
I don't take you seriously. I can't. You have to switch handles,
reply to yourself in order to pretend someone does.
You said something that touched on reality. The fact that it
came from you was irrelevant. You were irrelevant. You
still are.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727915015121829888
I don't take you seriously. I can't. You have to switch handles,
reply to yourself in order to pretend someone does.
You said something that touched on reality. The fact that it
came from you was irrelevant. You were irrelevant. You
still are.
So basically you are expecting for others to read what you write, but you don't read what others write.
Or in other words, more nonsense and excuses from the people who refuse to reason.
Op zondag 10 september 2023 om 06:05:31 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
I don't take you seriously. I can't. You have to switch handles,
reply to yourself in order to pretend someone does.
You said something that touched on reality. The fact that it
came from you was irrelevant. You were irrelevant. You
still are.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/727915015121829888
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't take you seriously. I can't. You have to switch handles,
reply to yourself in order to pretend someone does.
You said something that touched on reality. The fact that it
came from you was irrelevant. You were irrelevant. You
still are.
So you think Nando is a sock puppet of one of us? Who? Me? Harshman?
On 9/7/23 5:14 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/6/23 12:47 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:So we should base economic policy on how evolution works and not intervene? >> Paging Herbert Spencer.
Socialism is basically the political expression of materialism [...]
Actually, socialism is the economic expression of intelligent design.
The free market works on evolutionary principles -- there is no
overriding control, individual markets are left to vary, and those that
are unfit soon no longer contribute to the marketplace. The autocracy
which denies the free market is anti-darwinian.
Hayek may have said apt things about price signaling and how goods or
resources are allocated or distributed being better than central planning, >> but there’s room for that in some sort of highly regulated social market >> system.
It was reading Hayek that got me thinking about socialism as intelligent design. I also found it interesting that a couple chapters of his _The
Road to Serfdom_ could well be written to address unhealthy conservative trends today.
I answered your first question in another post. To reiterate: No.
Opposition to regulations that address market failures is opposition to
a workable free market.
JTEM is my hero <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
So you think Nando is a sock puppet of one of us? Who? Me? Harshman?
I don't take you seriously. I can't. You have to switch handles,
reply to yourself in order to pretend someone does.
You said something that touched on reality. The fact that it
came from you was irrelevant. You were irrelevant. You
still are.
JTEM is my hero <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
So you think Nando is a sock puppet of one of us? Who? Me? Harshman?
I don't take you seriously. I can't. You have to switch handles,
reply to yourself in order to pretend someone does.
You said something that touched on reality. The fact that it
came from you was irrelevant. You were irrelevant. You
still are.
JTEM’s snip
I suspect
Here's your explanation:
"Subjectivity, on the other hand, has to do with things that aren't about the independent universe; it has to do with things that exist in our own heads. Subjective statements can be true for one person and false for another simultaneously.
Examples of subjective statements:
The planet Earth is beautiful when seen from space.
Metallic sodium is a useful to me.
The sun's light woke me up this morning.
Broccoli is tastier than chocolate.
It is unethical to have sex with my neighbor."
Which is obviously outrageous facile nonsense.
But indeed you did not say brain, you said head.
It's not long, and you could never make a long post about it, because you don't
do truth, you do politics.
It is just absolutely inconceivable that you would reason straightforwardly.
So you see, I am not dishonest.
You think I make this up about the atheist talking about skullfuck and whatnot, and you expressing satisfaction over it?
Sure you are just responsible for the consequences of your own actions, and those consequences are what I said.
The appreciation for the inherently subjective human spirit choosing things has
sunk to a new low in academics, and you helped cause that.
And scripture says basically, it is the worst crime of all.
Things in the head, is not a good understanding of subjectivity.
Nando wrote:
Here's your explanation:
Well, part of the at-least-third explanation, anyway. I generally am most detailed
in the first explanation, less so on the second one (except for any signs of >confusion in responses to the first one, which get responded to in more detail),
and summarize at best in the third explanation, if you get one at all, depending on
whether you showed any signs of listening to the first two explanations. You >were lucky to get even this summary ... and even that you clearly snipped a
good deal of it out. You started in the middle, as evidenced by the "on the
other hand" in the first sentence of the small portion you quoted. You also >appear to have snipped off the concluding section.
"Subjectivity, on the other hand, has to do with things that aren't about the independent universe; it has to do with things that exist in our own heads. Subjective statements can be true for one person and false for another simultaneously.
Examples of subjective statements:
The planet Earth is beautiful when seen from space.
Metallic sodium is a useful to me.
The sun's light woke me up this morning.
Broccoli is tastier than chocolate.
It is unethical to have sex with my neighbor."
Which is obviously outrageous facile nonsense.
That is a subjective opinion on your part. My subjective opinion about it is rather
different from yours. Since subjective opinions vary from person to person, that
is only to be expected. Countering a subjective opinion with another subjective
opinion is usually quite futile, since such things vary so highly. Your "which
is obviously outrageous facile nonsense" is no more influential of me than my >"insane, confused, and baseless nonsense" is influential of you.
It is also interesting to note that your response the first time was in no way >more substantial. I expressed my opinion, you expressed your opinion,
and that was that.
You would be a lot saner if you learned that your opinions are not privileged >over those of other people, but that does seem to be completely beyond you. >If we were looking for someone who has trouble with telling their subjective >opinions from objective truths, you really should be looking in a mirror.
But indeed you did not say brain, you said head.
And if you read the rest that you didn't quote, it becomes pretty clear that I was
referring to mental things - thought - not to brains, which makes your claim about
me incorrect. You quoted one tiny aspect of my thoughts on this subject - and >even that one tiny bit you got wrong, and IMO in a fairly important way.
It's not long, and you could never make a long post about it, because you don't
do truth, you do politics.
Everything I said in that post, the quoted sections and the parts you didn't quote,
was true ... because I stated clearly that it was my opinion about subjectivity. If
you don't understand why saying that and then stating my honest opinions made >that true, IMO you really don't understand subjectivity at all. Hmmm ... let's
modify that. We'll just shorten it to 'IMO you really don't understand subjectivity
at all'. You keep stating your opinions and pretending they were objective truth
rather than subjective, which shows pretty clearly how confused you are about >the difference between the two.
It is just absolutely inconceivable that you would reason straightforwardly.
Inconceivable to you ... but that's your purely subjective opinion. That being
inconceivable to you is really unlikely to be of any worth to anyone else.
So you see, I am not dishonest.
That claim does not follow from the prior discussion at all.
You think I make this up about the atheist talking about skullfuck and
whatnot, and you expressing satisfaction over it?
Yes, I do. Quote me exactly, the entire post, no snipping, with me expressing >satisfaction about someone else using the word "skullfuck" in reference to you.
Sure you are just responsible for the consequences of your own actions, and >> those consequences are what I said.
That is a subjective opinion on your part; I strongly disagree with your claims
about the consequences of my actions.
The appreciation for the inherently subjective human spirit choosing things has
sunk to a new low in academics, and you helped cause that.
Actually, most academics I have met (and myself, of course) have a very high >regard for subjectivity. We appreciate the importance of beauty, wonder, >interest, imagination, a huge number of subjective aspects of reality. We >also now how influential many of them are on people's behavior even when
they are negative emotions (such as your endless sea of hatred for everyone >who disagrees with you). I've never met any academics who express the bizarre >opinions you ascribe to them. That doesn't mean that there might not be a few,
but IMO they would be a tiny minority at best.
I doubt anyone in academia or outside of it agrees with your bizarre and insane
beliefs about subjectivity, but that doesn't mean people have a low opinion of >subjectivity - it means they have a low opinion of your beliefs.
And scripture says basically, it is the worst crime of all.
Disagreeing with Nando is the worst crime at all? Nah. IMO there are many things
that people can do that are far worse than disagreeing with you; and some of those
far worse things are things you have described fantasizing about doing here to other
people for disagreeing with you.
Things in the head, is not a good understanding of subjectivity.
IMO subjectivity is mental in nature. I realize you have a low opinion of that opinion,
but your low opinion of it means no more to me than my low opinion of your ideas
has to you. And neither opinion has any sort of privileged position.
Nando wrote:
Here's your explanation:
Well, part of the at-least-third explanation, anyway. I generally am most detailed
in the first explanation, less so on the second one (except for any signs of confusion in responses to the first one, which get responded to in more detail),
and summarize at best in the third explanation, if you get one at all, depending on
whether you showed any signs of listening to the first two explanations. You were lucky to get even this summary ... and even that you clearly snipped a good deal of it out. You started in the middle, as evidenced by the "on the other hand" in the first sentence of the small portion you quoted. You also appear to have snipped off the concluding section.
"Subjectivity, on the other hand, has to do with things that aren't about the independent universe; it has to do with things that exist in our own heads. Subjective statements can be true for one person and false for another simultaneously.
Examples of subjective statements:
The planet Earth is beautiful when seen from space.
Metallic sodium is a useful to me.
The sun's light woke me up this morning.
Broccoli is tastier than chocolate.
It is unethical to have sex with my neighbor."
Which is obviously outrageous facile nonsense.That is a subjective opinion on your part. My subjective opinion about it is rather
different from yours. Since subjective opinions vary from person to person, that
is only to be expected. Countering a subjective opinion with another subjective
opinion is usually quite futile, since such things vary so highly. Your "which
is obviously outrageous facile nonsense" is no more influential of me than my
"insane, confused, and baseless nonsense" is influential of you.
It is also interesting to note that your response the first time was in no way
more substantial. I expressed my opinion, you expressed your opinion,
and that was that.
You would be a lot saner if you learned that your opinions are not privileged
over those of other people, but that does seem to be completely beyond you. If we were looking for someone who has trouble with telling their subjective opinions from objective truths, you really should be looking in a mirror.
But indeed you did not say brain, you said head.And if you read the rest that you didn't quote, it becomes pretty clear that I was
referring to mental things - thought - not to brains, which makes your claim about
me incorrect. You quoted one tiny aspect of my thoughts on this subject - and
even that one tiny bit you got wrong, and IMO in a fairly important way.
It's not long, and you could never make a long post about it, because you don'tEverything I said in that post, the quoted sections and the parts you didn't quote,
do truth, you do politics.
was true ... because I stated clearly that it was my opinion about subjectivity. If
you don't understand why saying that and then stating my honest opinions made
that true, IMO you really don't understand subjectivity at all. Hmmm ... let's
modify that. We'll just shorten it to 'IMO you really don't understand subjectivity
at all'. You keep stating your opinions and pretending they were objective truth
rather than subjective, which shows pretty clearly how confused you are about
the difference between the two.
It is just absolutely inconceivable that you would reason straightforwardly. Inconceivable to you ... but that's your purely subjective opinion. That beinginconceivable to you is really unlikely to be of any worth to anyone else.
So you see, I am not dishonest.That claim does not follow from the prior discussion at all.
You think I make this up about the atheist talking about skullfuck and whatnot, and you expressing satisfaction over it?Yes, I do. Quote me exactly, the entire post, no snipping, with me expressing
satisfaction about someone else using the word "skullfuck" in reference to you.
Sure you are just responsible for the consequences of your own actions, andThat is a subjective opinion on your part; I strongly disagree with your claims
those consequences are what I said.
about the consequences of my actions.
The appreciation for the inherently subjective human spirit choosing things hasActually, most academics I have met (and myself, of course) have a very high regard for subjectivity. We appreciate the importance of beauty, wonder, interest, imagination, a huge number of subjective aspects of reality. We also now how influential many of them are on people's behavior even when they are negative emotions (such as your endless sea of hatred for everyone who disagrees with you). I've never met any academics who express the bizarre
sunk to a new low in academics, and you helped cause that.
opinions you ascribe to them. That doesn't mean that there might not be a few,
but IMO they would be a tiny minority at best.
I doubt anyone in academia or outside of it agrees with your bizarre and insane
beliefs about subjectivity, but that doesn't mean people have a low opinion of
subjectivity - it means they have a low opinion of your beliefs.
And scripture says basically, it is the worst crime of all.Disagreeing with Nando is the worst crime at all? Nah. IMO there are many things
that people can do that are far worse than disagreeing with you; and some of those
far worse things are things you have described fantasizing about doing here to other
people for disagreeing with you.
Things in the head, is not a good understanding of subjectivity.IMO subjectivity is mental in nature. I realize you have a low opinion of that opinion,
but your low opinion of it means no more to me than my low opinion of your ideas
has to you. And neither opinion has any sort of privileged position.
Are you getting it yet, that trying to hold a rational
discussion with Nando is a waste of time, since his posts
inevitably equate to "Well, well, OH YEAH?!?"?
If you enjoy it, fine; your choice, and you do make clear and cogent
points I enjoy reading. But if you expect to ever actually
get anywhere with him, as if he were mentally competent
and/or emotionally mature, I'm afraid that you're doomed to
disappointment.
But ofcourse, you are just doing your best, by definition, so no functioning conscience.
Obviously you didn't write anymore about subjectivity in that post, because you begin with subjectivity is, and it ends with examples of it. You only wrote
about objectivity before that.
And then I explained, nazi ideology should be discredited, which requires explaining
exactly how personal character is inherently subjective, with the creationist conceptual scheme. You have no basis to complain about nazi ideology objectifying
personal character.
I already explained the substance of creationism a 100 times.
Which is ofcourse the real explanation for subjectivity.
As compared to your mental things in the head, which is just a throwaway remark.
And ofcourse it's wrong, because something subjective like courage, or love, is not
actually either a mental, or a physical thing in the head. Because mental things are
objective just the same as physical things are objective. The idea of a table, is just
as well objective as a physical table.
Ofcourse that you do not use the word spiritual, which is the appropiate word for
what is inherently subjective, shows that you design to attack and mangle the concept of subjectivity.
The logic of subjectivity is explained by that the spirit chooses, and the spirit
is identified with a chosen opinion.
It is not really acknowledging anything inherently subjective. Only when the variation is a consequence of freedom, then there is the inherently subjective
spirit deciding things.
Nando wrote:
Obviously you didn't write anymore about subjectivity in that post, becauseWow! It has been a *very* long time since you truly flabbergasted me, but you
you begin with subjectivity is, and it ends with examples of it. You only wrote
about objectivity before that.
just managed to pull it off! You don't realize that objectivity and subjectivity
are conjoined twins, intimately connected to the point where you can't explain
one without explaining the other? Wow again ... your lack of understanding of
subjectivity goes far deeper than I ever imagined!
Almost everyone I have seen discuss this subject ... quite possibly everyone in the
world who has thought about this subject except for you ... thinks that objectivity
and subjectivity are related subjects, and an explanation of the difference between
them is key. So, let's see how you handled this:
You either ignored or didn't remember my previous, more extensive discussions of
this subject. On this one, you ignored the majority of what I said because you didn't
realize that discussing the differences between objectivity and subjectivity requires
talking about objectivity. You then took the remaining short section, ignored the
examples because they made no sense without the context of everything else I had
written. And finally you misunderstood the one sentence that remains, saying it
was about the brain rather than the mind, because you had ignored the context which
would have allowed you to understand that. So basically you managed to ignore and
misunderstand the entire post.
Your behavior is very much like someone who is discussing the nature of time, is told
by someone else a summary of Einstein's ideas about space-time, ignores most of it
because all the bits about time couldn't possible relate to the bits about space, then
takes the remaining few bits and complains that they aren't coherent and therefore
Einstein was wrong ...
And then I explained, nazi ideology should be discredited, which requires explainingNo, Nazi ideology being discredited does *not* require your belief that personal
exactly how personal character is inherently subjective, with the creationist
conceptual scheme. You have no basis to complain about nazi ideology objectifying
personal character.
character is inherently subjective, nor does that claim require your ideology. There
are many other routes that people can take to discrediting Nazi ideology.
Apparently your only objection to Nazi ideology is that you disagree with what you think
their opinions were on subjectivity. You don't express any objections to their idea that
some races are superior to others, that violence towards and mass murder of those you
disagree with are acceptable, that oppression is an acceptable political tactic, and
numerous other parts of the Nazi ideology that were quite horrible by an sane person's
standards. Not so oddly, some of those are things you have expressed a desire for here
- violence towards and murder of those you disagree with (i.e. beating them or shooting
them), or oppression as an acceptable political tactic (i.e. putting educators who
teach things you object to in re-education / concentration camps). No, what you object
to in Nazism is not murder, violence, oppression ... it's their opinions about subjectivity.
There are many parts of my own worldview / philosophy / etc. that easily allow me to
object to Nazism's many horrible aspects. Your belief system is *not* required to do so.
Do you really believe that *everyone* who objected to Nazism's horrors was a follower
of your beliefs?
I already explained the substance of creationism a 100 times.Yes, you have explained your beliefs about creationism and subjectivity and how much
you hate atheists and the like at least a hundred times, to the point of being a total bore
on the subject. Unfortunately your subjective opinions are not transferrable ... no matter
how many times you explain to someone else that pickles taste far better than chocolate
ice cream, it isn't going to make someone who likes the taste of chocolate ice cream and
loathes the taste of pickles suddenly change their tastes. Your beliefs are quite simply
unpalatable to the people here, to the point where your posts are getting almost no replies.
Even Harry Krishna seems to have given up on you, though he seems to share my
occasional weakness for replying to you despite the futility of doing so.
Quite simply, repeating a failed argument over and over doesn't make it any more likely to
succeed. To succeed at a logical argument, you need to start with common premises with the
person you are arguing with and then make logical steps from those common premises.
You don't seem to have enough common premises with anyone here to even begin to start
at that. Anytime you start from what someone else considers to be nonsense, the rest of
the argument gets discarded as nonsense. I know I've explained this one to you multiple
times before, but here's an example:
1. Dolphins live in water.
2. Things that live in water are fish.
3. Fish have gills.
4. Therefore, dolphins have gills.
Anyone who objects to *any* of the three premises of those arguments will not accept the
conclusion, and repeating the same argument again isn't going to work.
Which is ofcourse the real explanation for subjectivity.No, no, it's *your* explanation for subjectivity. If you want to get anyone else to accept
it, you'll have to start from premises they also accept. Good luck with that.
As compared to your mental things in the head, which is just a throwaway remark.No, it was a small (but essential) part of a short summary of a much longer previous
explanation. I stated my opinions pretty clearly over the course of the thing. You,
of course, did not accept it because you aren't starting from the same premises. But
I didn't expect you to do so; I didn't even expect you to be able to understand what I said.
That would be expecting far too much. The only opinions Nando can understand are
Nando's.
And ofcourse it's wrong, because something subjective like courage, or love, is notSo how do you intend to convince someone that doesn't share that premise with you?
actually either a mental, or a physical thing in the head. Because mental things are
objective just the same as physical things are objective. The idea of a table, is just
as well objective as a physical table.
Ofcourse that you do not use the word spiritual, which is the appropiate word forOr I simply and honestly don't agree with you, because I'm not starting from even
what is inherently subjective, shows that you design to attack and mangle the
concept of subjectivity.
remotely the same premises you are ... and repeating yourself over and over isn't
going to get anywhere with that.
The logic of subjectivity is explained by that the spirit chooses, and the spiritIn your opinion; too bad you have no way to convince anyone else of that opinion who doesn't already agree with you.
is identified with a chosen opinion.
Basically, almost everything you say as a premise is about as reasonable to me
as "Things that live in water are fish", and thus I have no reason at all to accept
the conclusion you think is so obvious (the "dolphins have gills"). And with your
arguments it's generally worse than with the example I gave, because I'm not generally rejecting just one premise, I'm rejecting nearly all of them ... which
makes the arguments that follow completely useless.
It is not really acknowledging anything inherently subjective. Only when theThat's your opinion, but I literally have no good reason at all to accept it. Unless
variation is a consequence of freedom, then there is the inherently subjective
spirit deciding things.
and until you have an argument that starts from premises I accept and then goes
to the conclusion through logical steps I agree with, it's not transferrable from
you to me. And the odds of that happening are pretty much nil, IMO, since the
premise set you're starting with and the premise set I'm starting with are so
different that you are, by my standards, functionally insane.
BTW, see next post for something amusing (or at least I found it amusing).
Bob Casanova wrote:
Are you getting it yet, that trying to hold a rational
discussion with Nando is a waste of time, since his posts
inevitably equate to "Well, well, OH YEAH?!?"?
Oh, I fully understand that ... I've got decades of experience with
his posts. And usually I do just ignore them and move on ... but
he has an almost unique ability to pull me in once in a while even
though I know it's a waste of time!
If he's trolling, he's *very* good at it!
If you enjoy it, fine; your choice, and you do make clear and cogent
points I enjoy reading. But if you expect to ever actually
get anywhere with him, as if he were mentally competent
and/or emotionally mature, I'm afraid that you're doomed to
disappointment.
Thank you! I definitely agree. But once in a while I find myself
feeling an itch to point out some of the holes in his claims or
arguments. He'll never see the holes, but ... give him this,
at least he's unique! If only he didn't continually repeat the
same arguments over and over, he might get a lot more
responses. Alas, he is approaching one of the cardinal sins
of the internet ... being boring due to repetition.
Thanks for the input!
Harry Krishna, who is goddamned socialist, I believe he went away because he had no argumentation whatsoever.
It is very sad to see you argue against reason.
It is a psychological issue between your feelings associated to doing what
is best, and you emotional basis at the level of spontaneity.
And your idea that you are honest, and that you have a conscience, that doesn't work out in your intellectual persona.
You simply have duplicity, where you use different logic intellectually, and commonly, and your intellectual understanding is mostly wrong, while your common understanding is mostly right, and creationist.
You have no real argumentation, which again is very sad.
Same as you refer to mental things, which are really just objective.
Maybe that is the magic argument that convinces people, but then obviously, there is still a lot of work to do for you in reorganizing, if you accept the argument.
You aren't actually reasoning, you are just denying.
Nando wrote:
Harry Krishna, who is goddamned socialist, I believe he went away because he had no argumentation whatsoever.I have no reason to value your opinion on either his political bent or why he stopped
talking with you. I have seen him present arguments many times, so your second
claim is completely wrong IMO. But then you claim that I never present arguments
either, and that claim is also false. IMO it is more likely that he just got fed up with
you. These days when I see a post from you, I usually just roll my eyes and don't
bother even to skim your latest regurgitation of your beliefs.
It is very sad to see you argue against reason.On the contrary, I am arguing for reason. You don't seem to know what reason is
or how it works, which is why I have tried multiple times (with great futility) to
explain to to you. I doubt you will ever even listen to, much less understand, my
explanations, so each time it becomes less likely I will bother again. You are
long past my third explanation on that topic to you, and I rarely go past three.
The rest of your post was just you repeating your belief system again. You don't seem to realize that repeating a failed argument over and over does not make it any more convincing. And most of your premises are either
based only in your own belief that you are right (non-transferrable to someone
who thinks you are insane) or show exactly that level of insanity. For example:
And as you might know, the logic used in common discourse is creationism. This is a statement of belief on your part, which no one else has any obligation
to accept. *And the very suggestion on your part that I might "know" such a thing is insane!* If you had listened at all to any of my prior posts on that
subject, you would know very well that I know no such thing. Either you
know I disagree with that statement, and were being dishonest, or you
don't know that I disagree with that statement despite repeated prior discussions, and were being insane. Or both, of course, there's no reason you couldn't be both.
It is a psychological issue between your feelings associated to doing what is best, and you emotional basis at the level of spontaneity.Another example of your insanity - you keep ascribing views to me that you should know aren't true if you were sane and honest. Can you actually remember what my position was on that topic? No, of course you can't,
so you lie and/or rant insanely about it.
Harry Krishna's expressed views come close to what you ascribed to me
above, but my views are nowhere near it. And you would know that if you
were honest and sane and listening.
*snips yet another repetition of the same failed claims* See previous
post for why repeating the same failed argument isn't going to get you anywhere.
And your idea that you are honest, and that you have a conscience, that doesn't work out in your intellectual persona.Actually both work quite well. I really do believe what I say, so I am honest.
And if I feel I have wronged someone, I feel bad about it, and apologize and try to make things right if that is feasible, so I have a conscience.
You simply have duplicity, where you use different logic intellectually, andThat's not what duplicity means. You're assuming that people can't honestly disagree with you again.
commonly, and your intellectual understanding is mostly wrong, while your common understanding is mostly right, and creationist.
You have no real argumentation, which again is very sad.No, you disagreeing with my arguments doesn't mean I don't have arguments.
Same as you refer to mental things, which are really just objective.I disagree, and you have given me no good reason to change my mind.
Maybe that is the magic argument that convinces people, but then obviously,I don't, since you have given me no good reason to accept the argument. *Repeating
there is still a lot of work to do for you in reorganizing, if you accept the argument.
something that has failed to convince someone over and over still isn't going
to convince them*. You either need to take a new approach (see last post on what you need to do) or else realize that you are not going to convince someone
with that argument.
Speaking of which, I am wasting my time trying to explain that to you ... so you
will need to come up with something new if you want any further replies in this
thread. I've got papers to grade that are approximately infinitely more important
than Nandoism.
Nando wrote:
You aren't actually reasoning, you are just denying.
Everything in your post was you repeating failed arguments again. You
still don't know what I have to say on these issues, and I'm tired of trying to teach you a viewpoint other than your own - you have no interest in
what anyone else has to say and just ignore it.
You can't learn, you have nothing of value to teach, you are boring,
and you are unpleasant ... so I'm done with you for now. Let me
know if you ever have anything new to say.
Nando wrote:
You aren't actually reasoning, you are just denying.Everything in your post was you repeating failed arguments again. You
still don't know what I have to say on these issues, and I'm tired of trying to teach you a viewpoint other than your own - you have no interest in
what anyone else has to say and just ignore it.
You can't learn, you have nothing of value to teach, you are boring,
and you are unpleasant ... so I'm done with you for now. Let me
know if you ever have anything new to say.
Abner <abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nando wrote:
You aren't actually reasoning, you are just denying.
Everything in your post was you repeating failed arguments again. You still don't know what I have to say on these issues, and I'm tired of trying
to teach you a viewpoint other than your own - you have no interest in what anyone else has to say and just ignore it.
You can't learn, you have nothing of value to teach, you are boring,
and you are unpleasant ... so I'm done with you for now. Let me
know if you ever have anything new to say.
You can lead a horse to water but not keep him from defecating in it.
It is the truth that you are all going out of your way to marginalize subjectivity, resulting in bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and
mental illness. Causing catastophic harm.
When looking at the discourse of lauded virology experts in the covid
crisis, and politicians back here in my country, it is very clear to me
that they are making superficial argument based on a mood. Actually they argue the same as evolutionists here do. Their emotional basis is underdeveloped, they are not careful in considering things, they do not
prime their emotions for honesty, because they are completely clueless intellectually, about how subjectivity works.
So they have the mood of positivity that science and technology will be
able to handle the pandemic, and then they make superficial arguments
towards that mood. Resulting in bad judgments, which results in mass death.
Op zaterdag 16 september 2023 om 13:35:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
Abner <abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nando wrote:You can lead a horse to water but not keep him from defecating in it.
You aren't actually reasoning, you are just denying.
Everything in your post was you repeating failed arguments again. You
still don't know what I have to say on these issues, and I'm tired of trying
to teach you a viewpoint other than your own - you have no interest in
what anyone else has to say and just ignore it.
You can't learn, you have nothing of value to teach, you are boring,
and you are unpleasant ... so I'm done with you for now. Let me
know if you ever have anything new to say.
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is the truth that you are all going out of your way to marginalize subjectivity, resulting in bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness. Causing catastophic harm.
What you tend to do is catastrophize or cognitively distort based on stuff you’re projecting onto labeled others like “evolutionists”, which is subjectivity gone haywire. You are indeed “making superficial argument based on a mood”. If only you had a mirror.
If you were right our vaccinated immune systems would be melting down by
now or some other ridiculous hyperbole you concocted in your reality deprived mind.
When looking at the discourse of lauded virology experts in the covid crisis, and politicians back here in my country, it is very clear to me that they are making superficial argument based on a mood. Actually they argue the same as evolutionists here do. Their emotional basis is underdeveloped, they are not careful in considering things, they do not prime their emotions for honesty, because they are completely clueless intellectually, about how subjectivity works.
So they have the mood of positivity that science and technology will be able to handle the pandemic, and then they make superficial arguments towards that mood. Resulting in bad judgments, which results in mass death.
Op zaterdag 16 september 2023 om 13:35:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
Abner <abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nando wrote:You can lead a horse to water but not keep him from defecating in it.
You aren't actually reasoning, you are just denying.
Everything in your post was you repeating failed arguments again. You >>> still don't know what I have to say on these issues, and I'm tired of trying
to teach you a viewpoint other than your own - you have no interest in >>> what anyone else has to say and just ignore it.
You can't learn, you have nothing of value to teach, you are boring,
and you are unpleasant ... so I'm done with you for now. Let me
know if you ever have anything new to say.
The word is that the immune system of the vaccinated is indeed already starting to melt down, currently. The demonstrated in vitro sterilizing capacity of anti-bodies, is not taking place in vivo. The clue that this
is so, and something else is going on, is because otherwise it would be
true that the evolution of the virus leads it to have a lower
reproductive rate, which makes no sense.
Praying to God breaks a good mood, and a bad mood, it is a mood killer.
Op zaterdag 16 september 2023 om 17:30:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is the truth that you are all going out of your way to marginalizeWhat you tend to do is catastrophize or cognitively distort based on stuff >> you’re projecting onto labeled others like “evolutionists”, which is >> subjectivity gone haywire. You are indeed “making superficial argument
subjectivity, resulting in bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and
mental illness. Causing catastophic harm.
based on a mood”. If only you had a mirror.
If you were right our vaccinated immune systems would be melting down by
now or some other ridiculous hyperbole you concocted in your reality
deprived mind.
When looking at the discourse of lauded virology experts in the covid
crisis, and politicians back here in my country, it is very clear to me
that they are making superficial argument based on a mood. Actually they >>> argue the same as evolutionists here do. Their emotional basis is
underdeveloped, they are not careful in considering things, they do not
prime their emotions for honesty, because they are completely clueless
intellectually, about how subjectivity works.
So they have the mood of positivity that science and technology will be
able to handle the pandemic, and then they make superficial arguments
towards that mood. Resulting in bad judgments, which results in mass death. >>>
Op zaterdag 16 september 2023 om 13:35:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*: >>>> Abner <abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nando wrote:You can lead a horse to water but not keep him from defecating in it.
You aren't actually reasoning, you are just denying.
Everything in your post was you repeating failed arguments again. You >>>>> still don't know what I have to say on these issues, and I'm tired of trying
to teach you a viewpoint other than your own - you have no interest in >>>>> what anyone else has to say and just ignore it.
You can't learn, you have nothing of value to teach, you are boring, >>>>> and you are unpleasant ... so I'm done with you for now. Let me
know if you ever have anything new to say.
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The word is that the immune system of the vaccinated is indeed already starting to melt down, currently. The demonstrated in vitro sterilizing capacity of anti-bodies, is not taking place in vivo. The clue that this is so, and something else is going on, is because otherwise it would be true that the evolution of the virus leads it to have a lower
reproductive rate, which makes no sense.
Do you have any solid evidence of this that could convince me not to get
the coming updated COVID booster with a flu shot. Thanks. Otherwise a day
of misery for me.
Praying to God breaks a good mood, and a bad mood, it is a mood killer.
Not really a shining endorsement for that either. You might want to work on your promotional skills a bit.
Op zaterdag 16 september 2023 om 17:30:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is the truth that you are all going out of your way to marginalize >>> subjectivity, resulting in bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and >>> mental illness. Causing catastophic harm.What you tend to do is catastrophize or cognitively distort based on stuff
you’re projecting onto labeled others like “evolutionists”, which is
subjectivity gone haywire. You are indeed “making superficial argument >> based on a mood”. If only you had a mirror.
If you were right our vaccinated immune systems would be melting down by >> now or some other ridiculous hyperbole you concocted in your reality
deprived mind.
When looking at the discourse of lauded virology experts in the covid >>> crisis, and politicians back here in my country, it is very clear to me >>> that they are making superficial argument based on a mood. Actually they >>> argue the same as evolutionists here do. Their emotional basis is
underdeveloped, they are not careful in considering things, they do not >>> prime their emotions for honesty, because they are completely clueless >>> intellectually, about how subjectivity works.
So they have the mood of positivity that science and technology will be >>> able to handle the pandemic, and then they make superficial arguments >>> towards that mood. Resulting in bad judgments, which results in mass death.
Op zaterdag 16 september 2023 om 13:35:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*: >>>> Abner <abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nando wrote:You can lead a horse to water but not keep him from defecating in it. >>>
You aren't actually reasoning, you are just denying.
Everything in your post was you repeating failed arguments again. You >>>>> still don't know what I have to say on these issues, and I'm tired of trying
to teach you a viewpoint other than your own - you have no interest in >>>>> what anyone else has to say and just ignore it.
You can't learn, you have nothing of value to teach, you are boring, >>>>> and you are unpleasant ... so I'm done with you for now. Let me
know if you ever have anything new to say.
It is certain fact that there is much evolution of the virus, and not
just a bit of drift. Which is not normal. Which obviously means the mass vaccination is driving the evolution.So that way it is certain that vaccination is wrong. So you should just start taking generic antivirals.
Op zondag 17 september 2023 om 01:40:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The word is that the immune system of the vaccinated is indeed alreadyDo you have any solid evidence of this that could convince me not to get
starting to melt down, currently. The demonstrated in vitro sterilizing
capacity of anti-bodies, is not taking place in vivo. The clue that this >>> is so, and something else is going on, is because otherwise it would be
true that the evolution of the virus leads it to have a lower
reproductive rate, which makes no sense.
the coming updated COVID booster with a flu shot. Thanks. Otherwise a day
of misery for me.
Not really a shining endorsement for that either. You might want to work on >> your promotional skills a bit.
Praying to God breaks a good mood, and a bad mood, it is a mood killer.
Op zaterdag 16 september 2023 om 17:30:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*: >>>> mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is the truth that you are all going out of your way to marginalize >>>>> subjectivity, resulting in bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and >>>>> mental illness. Causing catastophic harm.What you tend to do is catastrophize or cognitively distort based on stuff >>>> you’re projecting onto labeled others like “evolutionists”, which is >>>> subjectivity gone haywire. You are indeed “making superficial argument >>>> based on a mood”. If only you had a mirror.
If you were right our vaccinated immune systems would be melting down by >>>> now or some other ridiculous hyperbole you concocted in your reality
deprived mind.
When looking at the discourse of lauded virology experts in the covid >>>>> crisis, and politicians back here in my country, it is very clear to me >>>>> that they are making superficial argument based on a mood. Actually they >>>>> argue the same as evolutionists here do. Their emotional basis is
underdeveloped, they are not careful in considering things, they do not >>>>> prime their emotions for honesty, because they are completely clueless >>>>> intellectually, about how subjectivity works.
So they have the mood of positivity that science and technology will be >>>>> able to handle the pandemic, and then they make superficial arguments >>>>> towards that mood. Resulting in bad judgments, which results in mass death.
Op zaterdag 16 september 2023 om 13:35:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*: >>>>>> Abner <abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nando wrote:You can lead a horse to water but not keep him from defecating in it. >>>>>
You aren't actually reasoning, you are just denying.
Everything in your post was you repeating failed arguments again. You >>>>>>> still don't know what I have to say on these issues, and I'm tired of trying
to teach you a viewpoint other than your own - you have no interest in >>>>>>> what anyone else has to say and just ignore it.
You can't learn, you have nothing of value to teach, you are boring, >>>>>>> and you are unpleasant ... so I'm done with you for now. Let me
know if you ever have anything new to say.
Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
It is certain fact that there is much evolution of the virus, and not
just a bit of drift. Which is not normal. Which obviously means the mass vaccination is driving the evolution.So that way it is certain that vaccination is wrong. So you should just start taking generic antivirals.
So in reverse Nando-speak I should go ahead and get both my updated
Spikevax shot along with my flu shot tomorrow. Thanks. If I do start
melting down you folks might not hear from me in a while.
Op zondag 17 september 2023 om 01:40:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
The word is that the immune system of the vaccinated is indeed already >>> starting to melt down, currently. The demonstrated in vitro sterilizing >>> capacity of anti-bodies, is not taking place in vivo. The clue that this >>> is so, and something else is going on, is because otherwise it would be >>> true that the evolution of the virus leads it to have a lowerDo you have any solid evidence of this that could convince me not to get >> the coming updated COVID booster with a flu shot. Thanks. Otherwise a day >> of misery for me.
reproductive rate, which makes no sense.
Not really a shining endorsement for that either. You might want to work on
Praying to God breaks a good mood, and a bad mood, it is a mood killer. >>>
your promotional skills a bit.
Op zaterdag 16 september 2023 om 17:30:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*: >>>> mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is the truth that you are all going out of your way to marginalize >>>>> subjectivity, resulting in bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and >>>>> mental illness. Causing catastophic harm.What you tend to do is catastrophize or cognitively distort based on stuff
you’re projecting onto labeled others like “evolutionists”, which is
subjectivity gone haywire. You are indeed “making superficial argument
based on a mood”. If only you had a mirror.
If you were right our vaccinated immune systems would be melting down by
now or some other ridiculous hyperbole you concocted in your reality >>>> deprived mind.
When looking at the discourse of lauded virology experts in the covid >>>>> crisis, and politicians back here in my country, it is very clear to me
that they are making superficial argument based on a mood. Actually they
argue the same as evolutionists here do. Their emotional basis is >>>>> underdeveloped, they are not careful in considering things, they do not
prime their emotions for honesty, because they are completely clueless >>>>> intellectually, about how subjectivity works.
So they have the mood of positivity that science and technology will be
able to handle the pandemic, and then they make superficial arguments >>>>> towards that mood. Resulting in bad judgments, which results in mass death.
Op zaterdag 16 september 2023 om 13:35:38 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
Abner <abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nando wrote:You can lead a horse to water but not keep him from defecating in it. >>>>>
You aren't actually reasoning, you are just denying.
Everything in your post was you repeating failed arguments again. You
still don't know what I have to say on these issues, and I'm tired of trying
to teach you a viewpoint other than your own - you have no interest in
what anyone else has to say and just ignore it.
You can't learn, you have nothing of value to teach, you are boring, >>>>>>> and you are unpleasant ... so I'm done with you for now. Let me >>>>>>> know if you ever have anything new to say.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:32:34 |
| Calls: | 6,915 |
| Files: | 12,380 |
| Messages: | 5,432,022 |