Sex and the Religious-Left

[Gary Childress]

Hitler, in the present usage, is meant as a symbol of ontological evil.

Nobody believes in ontological evil. Hitler was this very bad man who did exceptionally evil stuff. And you are this weird man who needs to avoid saying that but also wants nobody to notice.

But he was loved.
He loved his dog; refused to eat meat.
He built the autobahns. Ahnd many people hate Jews. They think he did the right thing.

Now how many people think Obama, Bush and Clinton are "evil"?? I can tell you that many people who live in islam and have suffered from US agression think this trio are evil. Are they right?

terrorism.jpg

Yes. They are right. It's not like any of us can deny that millions of Muslims have suffered under the regimes of those American Presidents. Muslims are human beings also.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Note: When certain ideas are mentioned, ideas that just a short while ago were entirely normal, a psychological mechanism is activated. The switch is thrown and entire sets of reactive ideas, always expressed through astounding emoted moralizing, are heaped on whoever vocalizes them.

The Spectre of ontological malevolence is invoked, and all consideration of the ideas themselves is made impossible.

Here we can easily see that •European grammar of self-intolerance• which, I assert, has been installed in us.

To confront decadence, decay, corruption and decline is not in any sense morally wrong.

To critique liberalism — hyper-liberalism — and to examine social and political remedies or alternatives — that is not wrong either.

To consider, or reconsider, questions of •identity• on all levels, and on any levels, is neither inherently wrong. In fact it can be highly moral.

And certainly the examination of metaphysics in the sense of one’s •metaphysical dream of the world• and attempting to define that is not wrong nor bad.

But notice: the mere mention of these things causes acute conniptionisms to overboil in some brains that have been primed for such.

[Gary Childress]

But notice: the mere mention of these things causes acute conniptionisms to overboil in some brains that have been primed for such.

I don't have a stomach for the killing of people, especially when done by my own government. It bothers me.

[Harbal]

I understood that part, but what does to transmute my mire into something positively actionable mean?

Any ideological position, say about social conduct and ethics, involves ideas or aspirations that in relation to one can take action.

If the project is, for example, renovation of the corrupted self, then some remedial choices will be taken. That means “action”. (But ceasing to act in some area can also be seen as action, if you get my point).

Those people today (in politics, in social affairs) who propose remediation do so in relation to actionable ideas.

Clear now?

So if you do not approve of my social conduct, or my ethical stance, some course of action is justified, in order to bring those things more in line with what you consider acceptable? Is that what you mean?

And what form would this action take? Am I the one who is supposed to take action in response to some process of persuasion, or will the action be imposed on me by some authority or other?

You are being vague again. You have obviously arrived at certain conclusions about me, so, based on those conclusions, what, exactly, could I expect to experience in your world?

Just a reminder that you haven't dealt with this yet, Alexis, although I'm sure it's not necessary, as you are bound to have your considered reply in progress.

[Gary Childress]

But notice: the mere mention of these things causes acute conniptionisms to overboil in some brains that have been primed for such.

I don't have a stomach for the killing of people, especially when done by my own government. It bothers me.

Maybe I'm just weak. (And a wanker too of course).

[Sculptor]

Note: When certain ideas are mentioned, ideas that just a short while ago were entirely normal, a psychological mechanism is activated. The switch is thrown and entire sets of reactive ideas, always expressed through astounding emoted moralizing, are heaped on whoever vocalizes them.

The Spectre of ontological malevolence is invoked, and all consideration of the ideas themselves is made impossible.

Here we can easily see that •European grammar of self-intolerance• which, I assert, has been installed in us.

To confront decadence, decay, corruption and decline is not in any sense morally wrong.

To critique liberalism — hyper-liberalism — and to examine social and political remedies or alternatives — that is not wrong either.

To consider, or reconsider, questions of •identity• on all levels, and on any levels, is neither inherently wrong. In fact it can be highly moral.

And certainly the examination of metaphysics in the sense of one’s •metaphysical dream of the world• and attempting to define that is not wrong nor bad.

But notice: the mere mention of these things causes acute conniptionisms to overboil in some brains that have been primed for such.

This is a cross between psychobabble, word salad and verbal diaoreah. You hide some pretty confused thoughts behind a eneer of bullshit signifying nothing.
IF you want to be taken seriously then just say what you mean!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Don’t be silly. The ideas expressed are ultra-clear. I assume you experience some ideological friction so bluntly condemn, without consideration, what was expressed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Harbal: So if you do not approve of my social conduct, or my ethical stance, some course of action is justified, in order to bring those things more in line with what you consider acceptable? Is that what you mean?

And what form would this action take?

Classical liberal arts education.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Don’t be silly. The ideas expressed are ultra-clear. I assume you experience some ideological friction, so bluntly condemn, without consideration, what was expressed.

Sculptor, you may not be aware that the post you quoted was a re-summation, after the gallery had its freakout, of this post.

[Harbal]

Harbal: So if you do not approve of my social conduct, or my ethical stance, some course of action is justified, in order to bring those things more in line with what you consider acceptable? Is that what you mean?

And what form would this action take?

Classical liberal arts education.

Is that it, just another link to someone else's words?

What about the rest?

Am I the one who is supposed to take action in response to some process of persuasion, or will the action be imposed on me by some authority or other?

You are being vague again. You have obviously arrived at certain conclusions about me, so, based on those conclusions, what, exactly, could I expect to experience in your world?

Is the question too hard for you, or something?

[FlashDangerpants]

Harbal: So if you do not approve of my social conduct, or my ethical stance, some course of action is justified, in order to bring those things more in line with what you consider acceptable? Is that what you mean?

And what form would this action take?

Classical liberal arts education.

Is that it, just another link to someone else's words?

Oh I don't know, there's lots to be learned from that reading list he gave you.
It even includes the lesbian poetry of Sappho, including poem 31...

That man seems to me to be equal to the gods
who is sitting opposite you
and hears you nearby
speaking sweetly

and laughing delightfully, which indeed
makes my heart flutter in my breast;
for when I look at you even for a short time,
it is no longer possible for me to speak

but it is as if my tongue is broken
and immediately a subtle fire has run over my skin,
I cannot see anything with my eyes,
and my ears are buzzing

a cold sweat comes over me, trembling
seizes me all over, I am paler
than grass, and I seem nearly
to have died.

but everything must be dared/endured, since even a poor...

Sadly we don't know the rest of the poem.


But it's good to know that Jacobi can promote some good lesbian scissorings in between his nazi rallies.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is the question too hard for you, or something?

No, it is that you don’t understand my responses nor my core motivations and what I express. You-plural hear it and twist it.

Making any sense?

I linked you to an academic program — the Great Books Program — and that is non-intelligible to you. Really, it is a list of books that are foundational to our civilization.

[Sculptor]

Don’t be silly. The ideas expressed are ultra-clear. I assume you experience some ideological friction so bluntly condemn, without consideration, what was expressed.

No. You just talk bollocks.

It's almost like your write some inane drivel and then process your text through a "post modern" convertor, or "Thesaurus AI App.

You are totally opaque and but seem to have very little to say.

[Dubious]

Both the US and the UK should be occupied by some hostile nation for a few decades, that would set them straight heh.

Themselves mostly. Rottenness starts at the core.

[Harbal]

Is the question too hard for you, or something?

No, it is that you don’t understand my responses nor my core motivations and what I express. You-plural hear it and twist it.

I asked you a specific question, related to an issue that you usually have plenty to say about. If you give me an answer, I have no intention of "twisting" it. I'm not asking for a complicated answer; in fact, the simpler it is, the better.

Making any sense?

Not really. You complain of my not understanding, but you refuse to remedy that by simply explaining.

I linked you to an academic program — the Great Books Program — and that is non-intelligible to you.

I don't know if it is non-intelligible to me, because I didn't klick on the link, I never do. I'm not interested in what someone else thinks, I want to know what you think.

Really, it is a list of books that are foundational to our civilization.

But I'm not interested in that, I just want to know how the society you would have us living in would affect me. Anyone would think I were asking for one of you kidneys, rather than just a straight forward answer to a straight forward question.