Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:27 pm
I think there are bigger fish to frown at. Decadence at a level only technocrats could dream of. Decadent displays at a level only technocrats could dream of and corporations could appropriate.

The non-human incursions into the human are a real threat.

Yet you seem to recognize the “area of concern”.

I agree that there are many serious issues.

I am not at all as sure as you that the transvaluation of sexual values is as benign as you seem to believe it is.

I don't know why we need large families. I don't think the increasing world population needs to keep increasing.

I am of the school of thought that in Europe, with the English speaking world, suffer at a demographic level. It would be *ideal* if that were reversed without recourse to mass-immigration, which seems to be the present pattern.

But the reason I feel that way — the core motive — would I think certainly displease you.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:01 pm Thank you, but just so you know, I don't expect permission.

Fully understood.

Then certainly you are fine with not being taken seriously.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:25 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:20 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:54 pm Semen and feces should be seen as improper to combine.

On what basis?

Symbolical, metaphysical, aesthetic principally.

In other words your are talking bollocks
No one is forcing you to mix them up yourself anymore than anyone is forcing you to mix meat and milk.
But I understand that were you an orthodox jew, that would worry you. Do you think Jews have the right to impose not mixing meant and milk on other people?
Or are you just being an arsehole?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:02 pm Yet you seem to recognize the “area of concern”.

I think much of the Left's version of PC has gotten out of hand. I don't think heteros have a low priority - in part for reasons mentioned above.

I don't think we have to keep increasing the population at current rates either.

I am not at all as sure as you that the transvaluation of sexual values is as benign as you seem to believe it is.

I'm not sure you realize how toxic the old sexual values were and the ways both men and women were viewed. I'm not sure you know how toxic the conservative political correctness was.

I'm not sure, as I said a couple of weeks ago that the your calling this the transvaluation of values recognizes that the values you want to go back to were themselves a transvaluation of values when they first came in.

I am of the school of thought that in Europe, with the English speaking world, suffer at a demographic level. It would be *ideal* if that were reversed without recourse to mass-immigration, which seems to be the present pattern.

But the reason I feel that way — the core motive — would I think certainly displease you.

I'm of the school that the real problem is the Ponzai scheme economics we have and the continued shifting of wealth and property and power upward.

I can probably guess what you think would displease me, but on some level I think this is yet again another area where they want people to fight and not pay attention to what they are doing. Even if it is a part of what they are doing.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:04 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:01 pm Thank you, but just so you know, I don't expect permission.

Fully understood.

Then certainly you are fine with not being taken seriously.

Because I don't need your permission? That seems an odd reason to not take me seriously.
Though it is correct, I am fine with you not taking me seriously.
But you are taking me seriously, so I don't know why we're in the counterfactual.

AJ: However, my take from lots of reading, and some historical analysis, is that since the 1960s that the family-valuation I refer to, and the family itself, has suffered as a result of the sexual revolution (of which homosexuality is a part).

Iwannaplato: And the 50s led to the 60s.

Understood. And I am certainly not dismissing the 1960s as the origin of decadence. It overflowed with a great deal that was highly positive.

Certainly I am not advocating for a return to the Fifties.

There is only now — and going forward.

Q: On what basis?

A: Symbolical, metaphysical, aesthetic principally.

You asked, I answered. If you think it bollocks I can respect your view.

But I definitely do not agree with that assessment.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:10 pm Though it is correct, I am fine with you not taking me seriously.

I take seriously expressed ideas seriously.

You are clear about what exactly I don’t take seriously though, right?

But you are taking me seriously.

I believe I try to take everyone seriously. My object is to understand what makes people tick (how they arrived at their ideas).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:15 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:10 pm Though it is correct, I am fine with you not taking me seriously.

I take seriously expressed ideas seriously.

You are clear about what exactly I don’t take seriously though, right?

OMG, you're taking this very seriously here and want to make sure I know what you're not taking seriously and why.
It's all very serious. If you ignored them, I'd get it that you weren't taking them seriously.
This.....however......

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:25 pm I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ooh, shut that door.

You won't know what I'm talking about, either.

I’ll take you at your word unless otherwise instructed.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:43 pm I’ll take you at your word unless otherwise instructed.

Rodger that.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:25 pm I have no idea what you are talking about.

That's OK. I'm sure you understood other things I wrote.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:13 pm Q: On what basis?

A: Symbolical, metaphysical, aesthetic principally.

You asked, I answered. If you think it bollocks I can respect your view.

But I definitely do not agree with that assessment.

If this was directed at me I don't what it's responding to or, really, how.