Philosophy Now Forum

Necromancer wrote:"That's why illusory concepts such as religion and patriotism were invented in the first place. They're a valuable tool of the oppressor in his pursuit of wealth and power because they enslave the minds of those who get sucked in by it."

Hobbes' Choice wrote: What an odd outburst!
How more irrelevant could you get?
Sentence 1: "not" what?
Sentence 2: what is the 'it' in the "it's all about..." Statements that start with "it" are often evidence that the writer is unclear about his objective.
Sentence 3: I'd suspect it was a total non sequitur, were it not so ungrammatical.

Is this an "outburst"? Why illusory concepts? Are they illusory? Truly? Why tool "of the oppressor"? Who are "sucked in by it"? "Pursuit of wealth and power", WHAT!? No, not irrelevant, just responsive to "criticism" that seems more like the usual lines from Critical theorists. Just like the "religion is the opium for the people". "Enslaved"! Hah-hah-hah! Aren't you the father for us all? BTW, I'm not "ungrammatical", that's only unfounded "shouting" when the head isn't that smart afterall. "Now whose head"? "Huh?"

Please refer to the post I made some moments ago.

Well, well, if you really want it.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: "What an odd outburst!
How more irrelevant could you get?
Sentence 1: "not" what?
Sentence 2: what is the 'it' in the "it's all about..." Statements that start with "it" are often evidence that the writer is unclear about his objective.
Sentence 3: I'd suspect it was a total non sequitur, were it not so ungrammatical."

Please refer to the post I made some moments ago.

Sentence 1: Not illusory concepts!
Sentence 2: This/In this context the text comes down to description and utility. Second part, only when misunderstanding.
Sentence 3: Again, your understanding of non sequitur within this context. Ungrammatical? No.

Necromancer wrote:Well, well, if you really want it.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: "What an odd outburst!
How more irrelevant could you get?
Sentence 1: "not" what?
Sentence 2: what is the 'it' in the "it's all about..." Statements that start with "it" are often evidence that the writer is unclear about his objective.
Sentence 3: I'd suspect it was a total non sequitur, were it not so ungrammatical."

Please refer to the post I made some moments ago.

Sentence 1: Not illusory concepts!
Sentence 2: This/In this context the text comes down to description and utility. Second part, only when misunderstanding.
Sentence 3: Again, your understanding of non sequitur within this context. Ungrammatical? No.

Please run along, you are off topic and confused.

Necromancer. I'd love to respond to your post but alas I haven't got the faintest idea what you're banging on about. Can you do a version in Australian English?

Hobbes. Don't forget that this is the bloke who talks to dead people, so that his form of language might be somewhat non-standard is only to be expected.

Obvious Leo wrote:Necromancer. I'd love to respond to your post but alas I haven't got the faintest idea what you're banging on about. Can you do a version in Australian English?

As for your conception of religion and patriotism, I think I'll just "go along" and see where this goes as I'm so "off topic". I'm, however, curious to how deeply you know Critical Theory as you seem to belong to the School of Communism (for personal freedom, I believe). Hobbes, either way, isn't getting the best feedback from other Forum posters.

--------

[Edit:] In other words until then, please just ignore me.

Necromancer wrote:[Edit:] In other words until then, please just ignore me.

Consider it done. Since I can't understand what you're banging on about anyway this will be easy.

However since it seems that you might be trying to make some sort of political statement I don't mind nailing my colours to the mast so that you know where I stand. I'm a greenie, pinko, bleeding heart, tree-hugging, anarcho-socialist, liberal, neo-Bolshevik contrarian. In other words a member of a critically endangered species.

Necromancer wrote:Certainly not. It's all about description and utility to such ends that Zuckerberg now is a billionaire and Bill Gates started from scratch too. ...

Neither of these started from scratch, Zuckerberg was at Harvard where he 'stole' the idea from others, Gates was also at Harvard and without his background would very likely not have made it. The 'American Dream' is pretty much that.

Obvious Leo wrote:Hobbes. Don't forget that this is the bloke who talks to dead people, so that his form of language might be somewhat non-standard is only to be expected.

I see. I was a bit surprised that the thread had been possessed by a demon or something.

Arising_uk wrote:

Necromancer wrote:Certainly not. It's all about description and utility to such ends that Zuckerberg now is a billionaire and Bill Gates started from scratch too. ...

Neither of these started from scratch, Zuckerberg was at Harvard where he 'stole' the idea from others, Gates was also at Harvard and without his background would very likely not have made it. The 'American Dream' is pretty much that.

Indeed two smart Jews from good families, without a keen sense of honour, and a dubious moral compass. Born with silver spoons so big they were doomed to succeed at something, poor dears. Born with all the advantages into a plutocratic and exclusive society. Whats the chance of failure? Statistically them or someone like them were gonna get lucky and invent something that took off.

Necromancer wrote:Hobbes, either way, isn't getting the best feedback from other Forum posters.

--------

[Edit:] In other words until then, please just ignore me.

point 1 true. (with one or two exceptions)
Point 2 good idea.

There's none so stupid as that deluded.
ISIS is now starting to antagonise China.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/isis-recogniz ... ar#hgeub1U


China is the country that can put boots on the ground. There standing army (the biggest state funded institution in the world), is not especially high tech (though it has all the fancy new weaponry), and as such is the one best equipped to fight a hand to hand style war.
Chinese ground forces alone number 1,600,000 personnel, and could soon deliver a small percentage of those to Iraq with their quarter of a million members of the Navy including 10,000 marines ready to establish a base for landings.
I would imagine that once the force was deployed, the utter destruction of IS Daesh would be just the sort of weekend exercise that China has been looking for to further the experience and training of their troops.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:There's none so stupid as that deluded.
ISIS is now starting to antagonise China.

Getting up Putin's nose is probably not very smart either because the Russian sense of humour doesn't run to "negotiated settlements". However the Chinese tend to operate according to far longer time -frames in pursuit of their global ambitions and it's rather hard to see them getting involved in a conflict where all the current players are already continuously bitching amongst themselves. It would probably suit their interests better simply to keep to the background and just make sure that the pot doesn't go off the boil. It's certainly very difficult to imagine them joining a "coalition of the willing". Speaking of which, whatever happened to the "willing"?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:There's none so stupid as that deluded.
ISIS is now starting to antagonise China.

Getting up Putin's nose is probably not very smart either because the Russian sense of humour doesn't run to "negotiated settlements". However the Chinese tend to operate according to far longer time -frames in pursuit of their global ambitions and it's rather hard to see them getting involved in a conflict where all the current players are already continuously bitching amongst themselves. It would probably suit their interests better simply to keep to the background and just make sure that the pot doesn't go off the boil. It's certainly very difficult to imagine them joining a "coalition of the willing". Speaking of which, whatever happened to the "willing"?

True but China is all over Africa and South America. They are also hungry for oil.
About further bombing Syria, we are currently having a debate in the UK.
Supposedly intelligent people in the House of Commons seem to want to join in with their buddies for a good knee-jerk revenge. They seem to be ignoring the lessons of Iraq and its lack of an end game. What's our end game? The removal of Assad and the imposition of some vaguely defined "free army" coalition. Conversely Russia's end game is the preservation of Assad.
Well fucking Duh.
Sun Tzu "don't fight a fucking war you can't win"

Hobbes' Choice wrote:True but China is all over Africa and South America.

And Australia, too, if truth be told. They're buying up residential property as if money was no object, which to them it isn't, and driving property prices up into the stratosphere. They've also bought a number of strategic assets, such as the port of Darwin, and are currently negotiating to buy the Kidman agricultural holdings, which represents a land area of over 100,000 sq km. The Chinese have very deep pockets and probably figure that it's going to work out cheaper to buy the world than invade it. They already own a substantial proportion of the US foreign debt and they know bloody well how to leverage the power this brings.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: They are also hungry for oil.

They're the biggest winners out of the US-Iran nuclear detente because they'll be willing to take Iran's heavy sulphurous crude oil where many other nations might not. This is just a guess but it's not a left-field one by any means.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Sun Tzu "don't fight a fucking war you can't win"

The fearsome military technology which emerged during and after WWII has taken all the fun out of warfare. Gone are the days when you can beat the living crap out of your foe and vanquish him utterly. For all their cruise missiles, stealth bombers, ICBMs, etc etc etc the US still got kicked out of Afghanistan by a gang of bandits hiding in the hills making bombs out of cowshit and kerosene.