a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[Flannel Jesus]

So Biggus ought to respond based on his current situation.

But saying that makes you an objectivist Nazi ...

[phyllo]

I can't be an objectivist because I don't believe in one optimal position which all rational men and women are obligated to accept.

If one understands what 'optimal' means then one understands how impossible and ridiculous such an obligation would be.

[Flannel Jesus]

Which brings us back to dasein and how biological matter acquired autonomy in the first place...

Am I doing this right?

[Peter Kropotkin]

like many, Alex J. believes that drag shows/queens are "morally" wrong, but that leaves out several questions, for example, under what overall moral/ethical standards
is he using?

If after reading what I wrote this AM, and that is your takeaway, you confirm to me what I said previously: you are scatterbrained and have very real comprehension problems.

K: ahhh, the scatterbrained and comprehension problems defense...
I don't blame you for going with that one... your other choice is to
provide us with actual evidence that what you say is actually true.....
that schools/teachers do in fact provide children with morally offensive
matters... in fact, almost anything can be said to be ''morally offensive''
and against the "will of god" which is in fact your entire argument is
based upon... and that is the unsaid part of your entire defense....
that is the part that is not spoken.. upon what basis do you judge
something to be ''morally offensive".. or sexual? in fact, I can proclaim
that science itself is "morally offensive" and any talk about the human
body is obscene and violates my morals/ethics...for example, children,
we breath... ah, that is sexual talk and thus obscene....on what grounds
do you judge these matter... you keep saying this is 'morally offensive"
but why? you say that schools/teachers teach about cross dressing and
other sexual matter, but you A. haven't proven that point, B. shown us
why that is obscene/indecent/ morally wrong....that teachers teach this,
and by definition, it is immoral.... show us how....

AJ:If that is so — it looks to be so — the next question is How has that come about? That you read something, misread it, and offer a phantasy mis-interpretation of what you read. How can this be? (I ask rhetorically).

K: that "phantasy mis-interpretation" of yours, is actually on your part
I want some proof or justification that what you say is true and based on
what? you say something is "wrong" but how? On what grounds do you say so?

AJ: I can understand why you’d see Iambiguous as an admirable intellect. But only through critiquing that your reasoning is muddled and that Iambiguous is caught in a loop that consumes him.

K: AND ONCE AGAIN, engaging in "phantasy mis-interpretation"
I said that I believe "iam'' to be the best philosopher here.. and
I stick to my comments... but you failed to understand why? he
understands that he is a "fractured" soul and wants to understand
what it means and how to escape it... whereas you have no clue...
you too are fractured, you just haven't figured that out yet...
anyone who engages in philosophy.. although you really don't
engage in philosophy, you engage in polemics...anyway, anyone
who asks, what is the point, is fractured...the very act of asking
is evidence of being fractured...

AJ:
Note that I clearly indicated where the moral issue I identify as valid and genuinely concerning is located: when adult sexual topics become pedagogic themes in public education. Yes, my concern is indeed moral. And I am not a ‘moral nihilist’ nor a ‘moral relativist’ in this area.

K: AND I am asking why is this issue, a moral issue? On what grounds
is this a moral issue? on what grounds do you base this as a Moral issue?
and how do you know that "adult sexual topics" is being taught in schools?
and what constitutes "adult sexual topics?'' you have several problems
which you seem unable to be unaware of..

AJ; But choosing as well to rise up a bit above this issue of the adult sexualization of children I would also say that to understand the social conflicts of today can only involve understanding the predicates, moral as well as legal, that people in society hold to.

K: "adult sexualization of children'' you mean like children beauty pageants?
or in magazines and on TV? You speak of this as if it were an isolated incident,
a one off as it were, but everything in our society is connected in a
myriad of ways and you can't/don't see that.. and why is this a problem
and not the lack of food in children or the marginalization of children
in society....and again, on what grounds do you believe that
the "adult sexualization of children'' is actually happening or
why does it matter?

AJ: Your own presentation, so far, has been and is thoroughly shallow. You obviously are stuck in a place where your own moral sense has not been clarified in relation to the real issue at the core. So muddled thinking results in a muddled moral sense.

K: please enlighten me, what is ''A MORAL SENSE" and where does one
find it? In the bible? in day school? on TV? I hold that the confused one
here is actually you.. because you can't actually define, in any
cohesive manner the ground for your beliefs....

AJ: What is the cure? Philosophical clarification. A stronger engagement with the issue at a depth level. My sense is you will avoid this perhaps at all cost.

K: there is very little chance of a "philosophical clarification"
because you can't figure out what the problem actually is...
it has nothing to do with allege "adult sexualization of children"
because the fact is, that isn't happening in schools...
you are being lied to...I am sure you also believe in the "big lie"
about kitty litter boxes in schools for children.... yah..
spoiler alert, that isn't true either...

I submit that the entire problem here lies within your own
confusion about what is true and what isn't... and on what
grounds do you hold that what is moral/ethical, is actually
something that is moral/ethical? You can't even explain what
moral/ethical means and one what grounds should we hold to
your version of what is moral and ethical?

I am not arguing about the specifics, I am arguing about
your own understanding of what being "moral and ethical" is
and how do we know what is moral/ethical? The overall
picture of being moral/ethical.. on what grounds are we supposed
to understand what being moral/ethical is?

Kropotkin

[promethean75]

"Which brings us back to dasein and how biological matter acquired autonomy in the first place...

Am I doing this right?"

no. it has to be on this side of the grave in a no god world awash in chance, change and contingency where u explore the manner in which u come to construe it, which u will then note to nature and dance like a banana (if one is available).

Sorry for the interruption keter please proceed.

[Peter Kropotkin]

and thanks prom...

I am wondering that history over the last 150 years has
been an exercise in what happens when we have no solid ground
for morals/ethics.... since Nietzsche, we are, philosophically at least,
left with no solid grounds for morality/ethics...

what does being moral/ethical actually mean?
and on what grounds do we base it on? what overarching
philosophical principle do we base ethics/morals on?

that is why clowns like AJ, pretend to hold moral/ethical positions,
when in fact, they can't explain why those positions and what
is the overall justification of being moral?

what this set of beliefs and not another set.... what allows
you to believe this set of beliefs is the path to morality/ethics,
and not another set of beliefs?

one might say, that is ethical and morally wrong... and on what grounds/
basis do you hold this belief? what is the principle that drives your beliefs?
god, the bible, tv, Faux news, your dick... what is the basis for belief
in morality? and why is good, actually good? can you justify your beliefs
in terms of some overarching principle or is your belief, as AJ beliefs
seem to be, "ad hoc" of the moment, temporary... and not based on
some permanent, knowable set of beliefs..... how do I know that morals
are actually based on something real? and not imagined, like god is?

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is the principle that drives your beliefs. God, the bible, tv, faux news, your dick...

TeeVee and my man-thing certainly. You?

[Peter Kropotkin]

What is the principle that drives your beliefs. God, the bible, tv, faux news, your dick...

TeeVee and my man-thing certainly. You?

K: well, watching TV explains your education and your man-thing,
well, that explains your fixation on children's sexuality...

I am old and thus not interesting in my dick... and my
focus is and has been, for decades now, on what being human means
and how to overcome our indoctrinations and ''education" that is what
drives me... to write before I am unable to write anymore....

Kropotkin

[iambiguous]

Doesn't it embarrass you at all to be made a fool of here?

If you did succeed, in the course of this discussion, in making strong, coherent arguments that moved me, I would not feel embarrassment but perhaps something more like relief.

Come on, AJ, all of the objectivists of your ilk come after me with that. But, of far more importance, in my view, they go after you as well. Why? Because while they are all convinced [as you are] that their own views on drag queens reflects the most rational thinking, they also adamantly refuse to accept any of the other "my way or the highway" assessments. Extreme left or extreme right, the important factor is always the same: you're either one of us [the smart guys] or one of them [the fools].

That, after all, is the source of their "comfort and consolation". It's not what they believe but that they believe it is what all others are obligated to believe in turn if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous.

Then for some [like the Nazis] the "or else" part.

Then back to my own focus here:

Whereas I am more interested myself in exploring the part where, specifically, you note how those who were drag queens or homosexuals or off the beaten path in other ways sexually would fare if they were around you in any particular community and you were in a position of power such that you were able to enforce particular "rules of behavior" pertaining to sexuality in the community.

Then -- click, click -- Stooge mode:

Yet I have been reading what you write for months now and I do not find you coherent and I do not believe that you make good arguments. I have been forced, because this is one of the main things I am interested in and try to do, to attempt to understand why your thinking is muddled, why you seem stuck in a loop, what predicates you have absorbed and converted into axioms, and then to examine the connection between how you think and the larger, general thinking errors that are common and prevalent today and which I regard as 'infections' and as psychologically pathological.

I'm the problem. It's not what I argue it's that I refuse to come around to your own frame of mind. In particular, in accepting that your own frame of mind here does in fact reflect the optimal conclusions.

Or, perhaps, second to Satyr's?

So with that said let me go right to the meat of what I believe we are talking about here or what the issue really is and why people are riled up about it. First off, it is not about some person who desires to dress up in drag. This goes on all the time and has been for decades. There are burlesque clubs where these acts are presented and in a liberal society like ours there are legitimate places for this stuff that no one has any legal right to stop.

Oh, right. Your own political prejudices here don't go as far as those like Satyr. Or the Nazis. In a community where you had the power, some off the beaten path sexual behaviors would actually be tolerated!

On the other hand...

What is it about then? It is about state actors (teachers, schools, officials) who have roles in pedagogy purveying to under-age children information and imagery that has to do with adult sexual matters. The sociological, political and philosophical question can here be asked: Why are they doing this? What is going on here? To make this analysis one has to back-track into ideological, social and political ideas that were introduced into the intellectual world in the American postwar. Mostly in the Sixties though the roots (of the ideas) have a deeper history. That deeper history can be outlined and explored.

Here, of course, you would need to provide us with "case by case" examples of this. It is one thing to teach kids that drag queens and homosexuals should not be persecuted and another thing altogether to encourage kids to become drag queens and homosexuals themselves. To, what, destroy the community itself by eventually forbidding heterosexual intercourse? Ending reproduction altogether? Satyr's ridiculous claim.

For this reason I have referred to and submitted the work of James Lindsay as sets of ideas that can be taken into consideration. Can these be broken down into simple elements that I might include here? I must note that simplifying things into bullet-points is, in my view, often employing reductionist strategies, so I do not think any statement I would make about Lindsay's work can be presented here without you and those who read here taking the time to study his material. So abbreviations are not helpful here. But they must be made in order to open up the conversation. The issues of our day are complex indeed. In fact they are compounded in complexity and this makes it that much harder to get clear about what really is going on.

Right. You have his set of ideas and those on the opposite end of the political specturm have their own authors and advocates.

Now, let's get back to you and your ilk being in power in a community. What behaviors would be encouraged or discouraged? Permitted or prohibited?

Your own "sober individuals" when it comes down to actual laws. To actual rewards and punishments.

You'll either come down out of the "Marxian Feminism, Queer Theory, Critical Race Theory, Disability Studies, and Fat Studies" clouds and note the "for all practical purposes" parameters of a community you would prefer to live in or you won't.

Right. As though down through the ages historically and across the globe culturally, there have not been any number of conflicting moral narratives and political agendas in regard to all of the many, many conflicting goods that have rent the species going back to the pre-Socratics.

All that you are saying here is that there is conflict, difference of opinion, and social struggle. To note that is not really to make any substantive argument.

Bullshit. It's to note the obvious. That in regard to things like human sexuality, philosophers are still no closer to encompassing anything even remotely approaching a deontological moral and political agenda. Merely those like you who insist that others are flat out wrong for not thinking about it exactly like they do. The psychology of objectivism I call it.

As a 'moral nihilist' (if you are indeed one) what you are doing, though you do it in a strange neurotic way, is asserting that you see no alternative to moral nihilism.

And what you refuse to own up to is the fact while you fail to grasp that moral nihilism is no less my own rooted existentially in dasein subjective frame of mind, all the other objectivists out there are clamoring to agree with you that there is indeed an optimal assessment of drag queens. But it sure as shit is not yours. Why? Because you refuse to agree that it is theirs!!

Just pick one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

It's the political equivalent of Christians going after atheists and all the while these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are calling Christians atheists themselves in refusing to worship and adore their own Gods or spiritual paths.

As though no matter how vast and varied the historical or cultural or personal experiences one might be confronted with, if we all just think about drag queens reasonably and intelligently we'll all think about them...like you do?

Here, you reduce a far larger issue and genuine concern down to something ridiculous. If a man in a burlesque club dresses up as a woman and dances and entertains on stage I am not concerned. And in any case my *concern* is little relevant since that person is within their rights in our liberal society to carry on as they wish.

Please. Are you or are you not ready, willing and able, to walk your talk regarding drag queens and homosexuals...in examining a context in which you do acquire the power in any particular community to enforce sexual behaviors deemed appropriate or inappropriate? I'm just curious in regard to sexuality to pin down more precisely what "for all practical purposes" drag queens might expect in that community. What would be "tolerated" and what would not be?

Are you or are you not the embodiment of "right makes might" here"? Satyr certainly is there.

Is it really all that you are concerned with here is this: the kids?

But when their activity extends to the education and the reeducation of children at a pedagogic level, and when the state and powerful private corporations get behinds a 'socially transforming' and 'engineering' strategy, the issue can be compared to the very real and very important critique of the *military-industrial complex*. If the State is in a relationship of collusion with private military industry, and the state foments war for the purposes of benefitting and enriching the private sector, this is a legitimate area of concern. Similarly, if the state and private corporations get involved in social engineering projects that deal on sexuality, gender identity, and all we see taking place today, then it stands to sound reason that this can be examined from a philosophical, political and social perspective. Therefore the work of Jennifer Bilek can be legitimately examined by thoughtful people.

Now, here, of course, when it comes to the state and the military industrial complex we share the same "thoughtful people" perspective. But where is the evidence the state itself is pushing a program that kids be taught -- indoctrinated? -- by the "educational industrial complex" to actually embrace drag queens and homosexuality? Sure, encourage the young not to persecute them. Many are behind that. But what you are claiming?

Okay, in regard to your own moral and political prejudices pertaining to drag queens, how are the points I raise in the threads above not applicable to you?

You keep repeating what I regard as a ridiculous reduction because you do not seem capable nor interested in examining a larger issue because (I gather) of your position within moral nihilism.

What issue could possibly be larger than connecting the dots existentially between the life we live and the moral and political value judgments that we accumulate?

Try this:

1] go to his philosophy forum here: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora
2] note the many threads he starts pertaining to things like race and gender and human sexuality and religion
3] become a "user" there and share your own opinions regarding these things in exchanges with him

That way those of us here can explore the extent to which you and he are on the same page or not. In terms of both means and ends.

Presently, I am discussing the ideas that inform our views and our perceptions. You negatively label this as being inclined to fiddle around in the intellectual clouds. But we must become capable of seeing how ideas operate (ideas have consequences) and we must become capable of parsing through them.

Okay, then don't engage him there. But trust me: what you just noted above is precisely the sort of intellectual cloud bullshit that I got from him all the time. Really, you're two peas in a pod in that regard.

Thus...

You'll like him [Satyr], in my opinion, because, like you, he spends most of his time up in the intellectual contraption clouds.

I very briefly examined some of what Satyr has written. It is not hard to see his *areas of concern* and, if you asked me, I'd say they are valid. But he may or may not successfully develop convincing arguments for his value-assertions and the same is true for me and for anyone.

Come on, AJ, you and he would have much to agree upon, in my my view. It's just that he is much more inclined to go off the deep end and start ranting and raving when effectively challenged:

"How long did it take them - PN - to realize that iamastupidcunt* is a psychotic? Faster than it took the retards on ILP, that's for sure."

*me of course



Give it a shot, okay?

[iambiguous]

Pure mind-fuck, Iambiguous. You want to convince others to succumb as you have succumbed to this enormous neurotic intellectual contraption and the skyhook that you haul yourself around in.

The parents concerned about the lives of their children and their well-being will not be convinced by these absurd arguments. And this reasoning illness that you suffer from, if it manifests in policy choices that go against their sense of what is right, they will resist you and the mental sickness you embody.

Getting at all clearer?

Again, you are in power in a particular community. What behaviors would not be tolerated in regard to homosexuality? What would children be taught if they were themselves confronting the fact that homosexuality is in fact a reality in the community.

Would you tolerate only heterosexual behavior? If children displayed homosexual tendencies themselves, would they be sent somewhere to be "reeducated" or "deprogramed"?

Are the arguments of others "absurd" simply because they are not your arguments?

As with race, there is the policy of the Nazis and their ilk in regard to homosexuality. How would your own policies if in power be the same or different?

[iambiguous]

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

This is an absurd statement. It implies that you cannot and would not be able to reason in whatever circumstances you found yourself. Here, you refer to being thrown (determined) and deny something — what? — in yourself capable of common sense reasoning, thinking, feeling and deciding.

And what this suggests of course is that, no matter how dramatic the changes might be in one's life, everyone is still able to finally come around to the optimal set of reasons for behaving rationally and virtuously.

Your reasons.

Or are you willing to admit that in regard to homosexuality there are those who do not think at all like you that can still be deemed rational and virtuous given that their own set of assumptions are no less defensible than yours?

The rest [as per usual] is just more intellectual contraption bullshit that refers to no particular context at all...

You also imply that even your being here (being the person you are, reasoning and feeling as you do) results from thrownness and that you are not really the owner of your own moral perspective.

You declare whole sets of moral perspectives and decisions, yet neurotically undermine their validity. If you really were a moral nihilist you’d stop the high-minded lecturing and guilt-slinging. On what basis could you lecture?

Your moralizing is ostentatiously didactic yet by your own declarations you have no legs to stand on.

You are, weirdly, defending the Holocaust. On what basis could you oppose it!?

Your continual reference to those cherished negative emblems (argumentum ad hitlerum and references to ‘communism’) are essentially shallow and whatever moral stance you have is frail, vain and somewhat infantile.

You come across as unwilling to engage in a mature, grounded way with real moral questions. And as you say you actually want to drag others down into your self-described pit.

Note to others:

Let him apprise us of instances when, in exchanges with others, he came across those who did not share his own arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian dogmas regarding thinks like race and homosexuality, but he was still willing to agree that their own point of view was legitimate.

And, again, being down in the "pit" is not without its compensations. For one thing, in eschewing moral and political objectivism, your options increase considerably. In other words, unlike with objectivists of AJ's ilk, you don't always have to behave solely in accordance with your own arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian dogmas. AJ no doubt has his own rendition of "what would Jesus do"? He is always obligated to behave as one must in order to be deemed rational and virtuous by those who might judge him as less so.

Think Ayn Rand and those around her who ever feared that they might say or do something not wholly in sync The Master. Same with AJ. He will always be judged by those like him so as not to be accused of being "one of them".

That's why I was interested in him taking on Satyr. Yes, they seem to share the same views regarding things like race and ethnicity and gender and homosexuality and Jews.

But what if they don't? What if AJ is not nearly as fierce and fanatical in regard to those things as The Master there??

[Alexis Jacobi]

Esteemed Iambiguous, there is not much to be gained from responding to you. What you have done, the content you have responded with, is nothing more than a repeat (cut'n'paste) of what you always say and what you will always say. But I think your purpose, as you state it, is important to emphasize: You will either be converted by those who 'prove' to you that set of things yo require to be proved; or you will go down ever further into what you describe as a *pit*: that place where you reside intellectually and perceptually. Meaning that you will never be convinced and will remain exactly where you are!

My desire is that you remain in that pit and that you go ever more down into it.

However, in contradistinction to you, and though I can see some benefit from objectifying a non-objective and ever-slippery ethical and moral stance (which is how I interpret you), it is obvious to me that you will never be able to arrive at any sort of conviction. Therefore, your influence will always be as it essentially is: to act as an acid against any objective decisiveness.

There are some further points. I do not think you have read what I have written very well. Your reading, it seems to me, is contaminated by your numerous a prioris and substantial prejudices. That is one thing. The other thing is that I do not think you are sufficiently informed (as informed as you could be) about the issues that I wrote about. You keep reverting to a testing or a challenging of my views of homosexuality and cross-dressing (drag queens) but I do not focus on that. Homosexuality, and by extension transvestitism and other 'deviancies' do exist and they will (I surmise) always exist. So as I directly and unequivocally say: they must be accepted.

But that is not the issue. The issue is something that you, and those who come here to a forum like this to read and learn (about other perspectives, other realms of consideration, and much else), must investigate under your own steam. I do not have the time or the inclination to *convince* you of anything. And indeed I have no problem a) that you remain exactly where you choose to be, and b) am even willing to help you dig yourself more deeply into it. But here is the thing (as I see it): You are destined to go to your grave, as indeed Kropotkin is, carrying with you exactly the negating perspective that you are invested in. And that for which you can see (discover, realize) no way out of. But instead of believing that you are *determined* to have the views that you do have I say that you are actively choosing them and in that sense creating them.

You say [my paraphrase] "If I had been raised in some other circumstance or time I'd see, think and believe differently". Meaning that you'd have been determined differently. But with the set of ideas you present to me, and by extension to all who read you, you are simply saying "My present perspectives are determined". It is something to look into in any case.

Are all of us similarly *determined*? That is to say not empowered individuals and intellects capable of 'free thought' and importantly as being capable of changing from a given perspective stance to another one through intellectual work?

It is said that to get someone out of a pit you have to get muddy. But what I notice, and it is certainly not just with you (and with your *ilk* to borrow your term), is the increasing manifestation of the expression of thought and ideas that are essentially just glorified and tarted up emotionalized opinions -- but seem to me devoid of real depth thinking. I am aware of those on the Traditional Left who are sound thinkers (Chomsky I would put in this category). I am aware of others, seemingly on the opposing pole (?) who are also very good thinkers (Richard Weaver is such a one in my own view).

But the style of thinking, and the thinking topics, of many of those who came forward in the 80s and 90s and those that for example James Lindsay analyses) seem to me to be doing 'bad thinking'. So all that I have done, and likely all that I am willing to do, is to present links to his material as a possible area that you, and anyone else, could examine if you were inclined to. Sexuality is one extremely powerful area within human life that is highly exploitable and indeed it is my opinion that it is being exploited for a host of reasons by powerful entities and interests in our present.

And the main thrust of my recent essays have focused on a critical position in respect to the introduction of adult sexual themes by state representatives in the pedagogic arena. I have only stated that if one wishes to understand the present social and cultural struggles one is advised to examine the ideas, views and perspectives of those who are involved in opposing a range of manipulations occurring in this arena.

If you believe that there is nothing wrong goin on there, you are entitled to that opinion and to any other opinion. If you believe that it is improper or somehow fraught to have values in this arena (say that of "protecting" children from such adult content or in making it difficult or illegal to contribute to children (minors) undergoing sex-change operations, beginning regimens of taking puberty blockers and all the rest), there too I am not interested in convincing you to change whatever position or orientation you have.

But what I am interested in doing is presenting the reasons and the reasoning of those who are concerned about the lives of their children, about state actors imposing ideas and values in pedagogic settings, and then as well about the *industry* that seems to be developing to undertake these sort of interventions.

If you wish to create arguments that validate a no-moral and no-ethics position in any of these realms, you are entirely free to do so. If you wish to invalidate any moral and ethical perspective (objective perspectives is your term) because you cannot see how these can be validated objectively, that you are also free to do. It is not that I do not recognize the philosophical problem of universal objectification though.

So, you ask "What would you do if you had the power to influence culture". What I would do is exactly what I am doing: encourage discussion of the questions and the problems. Specifically, I would encourage communities of concerned people (parents) to become active in insisting that state actors cease presenting this sort of material in schools. It is a question not only of cultural mores but of law. Just as people may become influenced by progressive/perverse sexual attitudes, similarly they may recoil from such permissiveness or unconcern (or perversion) when they notice (and if they notice) destructive results in our social life, community life, even national life.

So my *activity* here is less as an agent interested in converting you or anyone, and more a person interested in opening up the issue to a more developed understanding.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And, again, being down in the "pit" is not without its compensations. For one thing, in eschewing moral and political objectivism, your options increase considerably. In other words, unlike with objectivists of AJ's ilk, you don't always have to behave solely in accordance with your own arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian dogmas. AJ no doubt has his own rendition of "what would Jesus do"? He is always obligated to behave as one must in order to be deemed rational and virtuous by those who might judge him as less so.

Sort of but not really. I do go so far as to *notice* that in our own society the binding glue, the idea-adhesive, the social bonding, and the ability to find agreement, is coming undone. Because I notice this dissolution, or this fracturing, I am forced to wonder what sort of cohesive bonding agent holds people (communities, states and nations) together.

So the question becomes one of becoming interested in and capable of seeing and describing what I term 'acids'. That which acts to break down the bonds I refer to.

Certainly we must all recognize that when 'god died' (when the core tenets of Christian belief) that a very significant bonding agent began to unbind. Most of us are aware that Nietzsche, the one who noticed the unraveling perhaps first, predicted hundreds of years of unraveling. The long dusk. The twilight, etc.

So it seems to me not only important but essential -- if we are interested in understanding (and simply understanding something is a valid object, one does not necessarily have to become an activist) -- to see and understand that a great deal of the dis-bonding and unbinding going on in our present has an Essential Cause. I say that the issue is ultimately metaphysical.

Whoever you are in a battle with, and you sure seem to be in one, is not with me even if you'd like to convert me into one of your favorite or preferred enemies. I recognize though that *enemies* can serve our polemics very well!

I object to this description: "of AJ's ilk [...] arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian dogmas". You are projecting. You seem only to be able to see any rationally and intellectually presented ideas that are contrary to those you hold to as the material of a National Socialist indoctrination center. It is really an underhanded tactic on your part but one used commonly.

Not 'What would Jesus do" but all that a well-prepared, well-educated, thoughtful and rational community of persons would choose to do and how they'd choose to live would be the way I would put it. That is the reference point (not prayer to Jesus). But yes, there is a sort of standard to refer to. If there is not then truly we are lost. And I confess to believing in the Liberal Arts traditions as having the highest probability of providing such a platform. Therefore my focus would be -- is -- education. The Occidental canon, etc.

[promethean75]

"What you have done, the content you have responded with, is nothing more than a repeat (cut'n'paste) of what you always say and what you will always say."

so you're saying there's no hope for Biggs?

what, should we just take em out back and put em down then? 

I'm not even sure Biggs can be killed. To kill him we would need a context. But then that context, and the decision made within it, could not be proven by anyone to be the most rational decision that all intelligent people should be obligated to make. Ergo, it cannot be decided that Biggs can be killed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

One solution (just an idea): A three month internment at Arizona Joe Arpaio's Charity Reeducation Faith Camp. Perhaps he will room with Kropotkin?

Iambiguous, Kropotkin? Special dietary requirements? (Unfortunately they only offer 3 versions of Gruel).