I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[Alexis Jacobi]

What's your point?

That Tolkein was a certain European with established notions of Europe and European man. He was to all appearanced racialist though not racist, and deeply involved in an Aryan cultural (or mythological) identification.

Different from the National Socialist racist definitions but in a similar European (chauvinistic?) camp.

In relation to his positions you and numerous others here are radical opponents.

Does that answer your question?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I would like to think so, and yes, very significant.

Let’s see what he manages to put forth. Prediction: nothing. He has zero content. Literally zero. I read many of his posts to be sure.

Flash? C’mon man — dance!

[Sculptor]

If I'm evil then so was Tolkein, Vehemently anti-racist, and anti-nazi. And would be considered to be EVIL by your measures.
He fought in WWI against your sort of evil right wing garbage.

More Lies from the Deceivers

Sauron, by the way, wanted to "integrate" the orcish hordes into human societies. JRR Tolkein is Pro-Racist because he represented the Good Races versus the Evil ones.

You clearly didn't understand the books.

I think the main difference between me and you is that I have read those books three times.
Whereas you have never read a book in your life.

[Wizard22]

Dpants is a reprobate.

Alexis, you seem to be making a mistake that I made when I was younger and fresher in the 'philosophy' scene—you are attributing to your opponents, your own 'type' of rationality and interest. You have this presumption, that other people, other thinkers, are "like you" in the sense that they can be deeply verbose, structurally disciplined, and intelligent in their rationalization. When other people are not, I imagine you feel like they're "holding back", but they're not. They just don't have the same type of mind that you have, nor the discipline, nor the interest, nor the curiosity, etc. That was difficult for me to come to grips with, too. But eventually I was forced into my 'perspective'.

Dimwits really aren't capable of what you're capable of. Which is why they use base rhetorical "tricks" to compensate for their lack of insight and content. Basically, you're trying to squeeze water from stones. Hairball, too, isn't much better, the eternal class clown that thinks pulling pranks on the smarter kids in class, will save him face from being completely ignorant when called upon by Teach to answer simple questions that the rest of the class know easily. Hairball relies on comedy for his "philosophy". Again, no content.

Now, I'm aware these debased arguments are rhetorical, completely off-topic, and stray further from the previous conversation and points...but sometimes when the reprobates want to drag you into the mud, and beat you there, you have to prove them wrong in BOTH arenas.


Our Greek Agoras
And
The Mud Pits

[Wizard22]

I think the main difference between me and you is that I have read those books three times.
Whereas you have never read a book in your life.

Showing you up, easy as it is, does tempt me to re-read them to appreciate Tolkein's creative genius. And you'll still be wrong.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wizard, the statements you make, though hard and incisive, are I think based in truth.

Here is a key or the key to understand my approach: I write to make sense, if only to myself, of what I am working hard to understand: What happened to us?

How has it come about that men who think like Flash, Harbal and also Sculptor, have arrived on the civilizational scene.

But I never disassociate myself from the problem in which they (seem to me to) suffer.

We are dealing with a massive imposition and we struggle to get clear about what it is and how to get it *off our backs*.

Let them spit, bark, snarl and accuse — unless they can articulate a genuine, comprehensible position it is simply paper bullets ….

I honestly wish they had some real ammo.

[Wizard22]

Civilization and Humanity produce all types and ranges, of course. I imagine that even these reprobates were hoisted high by their classmates and contemporaries, which led them to 'Philosophy'. However we (the entire world has access to this forum, hypothetically) will individually perform how we do, and judge one-another from there. If they 'had' Philosophies worth typing, pushing, progressing, and arguing for...they'd have done so by now. Thus, they must instead Follow (conversation) instead of Lead.

Cynics, Sceptics, Hypocrites, all common in the Greek Forum, the Audience waiting upon the more esteemed and famous speakers to come and Awe them.

Simply put, it's a matter of performance.


I've come to the point, to try and let them enjoy their Bliss. It won't take long for their slings, barbs, arrows, to no longer make a difference really.

[Harbal]

Dpants is a reprobate.

Alexis, you seem to be making a mistake that I made when I was younger and fresher in the 'philosophy' scene—you are attributing to your opponents, your own 'type' of rationality and interest. You have this presumption, that other people, other thinkers, are "like you" in the sense that they can be deeply verbose, structurally disciplined, and intelligent in their rationalization. When other people are not, I imagine you feel like they're "holding back", but they're not. They just don't have the same type of mind that you have, nor the discipline, nor the interest, nor the curiosity, etc. That was difficult for me to come to grips with, too. But eventually I was forced into my 'perspective'.

It seems you've acquired a disciple, Alexis, or perhaps more an Igor to your Count Dracula.


Oh, Alexis, you're so intelligent, and articulate, and structurally disciplined.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm going to help you out here by speaking very plainly so that you don't get confused about subtext. This is a philosophy forum Jacobi, and you are no philosopher. You are not equipped to take on Harbal on the matter of normative truth, and neither is wizzy. Immanuel Can is better at that question than you two, and Harbal regularly shreds him without even breaking out the philosophy lingo to do it.

Duly noted.

Would you kindly share your deepest thoughts, or even not so deep thoughts, on that topic of normative truth? You seem really in the know.

C’mon you perv, give it a shot.

Harbal, you’ve got a significant ally! A real intellectual powerhouse. Does the bulldog bite hard?

Things are really going to heat up around here when Flash gets going.

I guess the first question, so that we can establish the baseline for this whole thing, is to see if you even know what the issues with normative truth are?

As it stands, you seem to be engaged in a propaganda effort to promote a set of values that you consider to be prudent for society, which includes certain sexual mores you recommend, mainly to do with who should have sex with whom and in pursuit of what end. The values you are selling are some version of traditional family values on the whole, seemingly aimed at encouraging large families? Presumably you support that with some effort to say that large families are the building blocks of whichever sort of society you consider to be the best sort.

If any part of that is factually inaccurate, please recommend the most efficient changes to remediate. But please don't segue into irrelevance. Not everybody here is a retiree and I have other stuff to do today than wade through one of your obscurantist nonsense posts picking out diamonds from the turd farm.

So what would be the mandate by which you arrive at a conclusion that Harbal is mistaken in any view he holds that homosexuality is not a problem at all? What argument would elevate your work from mere propaganda to normative fact that is superior to Harbal's judgment?




As a side note. If you and Wizzy don't want me to write homoerotic fan fiction about you, you really ought to suck each other's dicks less than you currently are.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh, Alexis, you're so intelligent, and articulate, and structurally disciplined.

Doubly marvelous that I remain so humble.

Thank you, Harbal!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I guess the first question, so that we can establish the baseline for this whole thing, is to see if you even know what the issues with normative truth are?

Good question. I assign to you now the role of teacher and lecturer on this interesting topic.

Proceed. Spell it out.

[FlashDangerpants]

I guess the first question, so that we can establish the baseline for this whole thing, is to see if you even know what the issues with normative truth are?

Good question. I assign to you now the role of teacher and lecturer on this interesting topic.

Proceed. Spell it out.

OK then. Here's 641 pages of homework. Skip every post written by VA or Skepdick if you are in a hurry.
What could make morality objective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

If any part of that is factually inaccurate

It’s a skewed rephrasing, obviously infused with your ire and general bad-faith.

In the present dispensation — diseased, subjectively interpretive, politicized and ideological — misstatements or ‘skewed rephrasings’ are typical.

That is your object, is it not?

Write out a few paragraphs of your own ideas on normative truth. Guide the conversation.

I feel something awesome is submerged down there and ready to come to the surface.

641 pages when all needed was to start, and end, here:

Oh, and by the way. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotists think their own moral opinions are facts, and among which egotists the most dangerous can be those who think their own team's invented god's invented moral opinions are facts.

[Iwannaplato]

Conservatives are the ones who built and defended all the Good that we take advantage of today.

Actually no. If you like not having a king, it was not conservatives who wanted to break free from England and royalty (and that set of hierarchies, to take a term that AJ has been using. It was precisely NOT preserving the order that the radicals in the colonies wanted to do.

And the Catholic Church is founded on someone who radicalized Judaism: Jesus.
As one example amongst many he internalized the Commandments. Not just about behavior, your internal states must change - he also confirmed paying your taxes which may or may not cause problems for some conservatives, but that's a side note.

Every single thing about Western Civilization that separates it from other things was brought into being by radicals. The conservatives of the times would have and did hate these people.

Western Civilization is a very complicated beast and it has done things that are terrible and some very confused notions
and
it in turn
overturned (transvalued) previously held values and was happy to kill people who did not believe what the church or governments in that civilization though they should THINK.

The Catholic Church not only demanded certain behaviors, but even reading, thinking about, saying all sorts of things could lead to torture and death.

Liberals needed to come in and break the conservativism around that.

Even you Wizard while respecting many of the values of the Catholic Church don't believe in Catholic metaphysics and if you spoke about that you would have had serious problems. But you can because people decided to change parts of Western Civilization because they felt you should be able to think and speak as you like


It's not binary. Accept the whole thing or you are a parasite.

Well, guess what, that makes you a parasite also. A parasite on many people who were not conservatives.

[FlashDangerpants]

If any part of that is factually inaccurate

It’s a skewed rephrasing, obviously infused with your ire and general bad-faith.

In the present dispensation — diseased, subjectively interpretive, politicized and ideological — misstatements or ‘skewed rephrasings’ are typical.

That is your object, is it not?

Write out a few paragraphs of your own ideas on normative truth. Guide the conversation.

I feel something awesome is submerged down there and ready to come to the surface.

641 pages when all needed was to start, and end, here:

Oh, and by the way. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions held by people, among whom the egotists think their own moral opinions are facts, and among which egotists the most dangerous can be those who think their own team's invented god's invented moral opinions are facts.

Are you, or are you not, promoting a set of values centred around the desirability of large families, and predicated on a preference for some benefit of that family structure to the society at large, which you deem to be of greater importance than the personal desires of any individual that migth feel disinclined to the same set of values? You can't already be at the stage where you need to obfuscate this horribly.

I'm not interested in laying some trap to make you say that you favour the interests of ethnicites and races above those of societies and those above the interests of the individual if that's what you are afraid of.

My own ideas on normative truth are much too sophisticated for you and this discussion with you will never test me in that way. We can simplify it by just saying that I am content to go with Hume on the matter of is and ought, and then we only really need to worry about more complicated stuff if you can get over that hurdle.

It results in the same endpoint anyway, which is that you have no basis for saying Harbal is mistaken on the subject of tolerance of alternative lifestyles, sexual or any other sort.