Should Only Humean Randomly Taser Ambush Richard Dawkins?

thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … y-101.html

Now, taking into account Dawning Utilitarian math of Maximizing Pleasure and Decreasing Pain, Richard Dawkins has been living a life exactly opposite of his stated beliefs, he lives with constant Foot in Mouth Syndrome, FMS for short.

Whenever he gets a bright idea, and opens his mouth, both religious and atheists bond together and hound him. Richard Dawkins is living a lifestyle counter opposite to his stated beliefs of seeking a life where he can maximize pleasure and decrease pain… unless he is interpreting this formula through de Sade’s philosophy.

So… from a BioEthics position, if he can say it’s better of the welfare if a child with down syndrome to murder them (something tarded with that logic), let’s build on it.

Lets say this website was a real community. Only Human, Magsj would be thugs dressed in black, randomly attacking people in restaurants or on the street, telling us at seeming random to shut the fuck up, or tasing us, or beating us unconscious and dragging us away, often times without reasonable cause or provacation… just the crazy little hamster in their heads got turning, and they went on impulse, little thought about consequences on the ability to debate and willingness of others to contribute in the long term.

A Tad bit psychotic, definitely lacking ethics, always shocked to discover when people don’t agree with them. Whats the larger excuse given though? Somehow, this molestation of the forum decreases pain, maximizes the good (for whom?).

So, should we bring the moderator function mainstream? I believe Bioethics can apply to society, as society is composed of biological components. In India for a long time until recently, police were given authority to form special assassination units, aimed not at assets, but rather the identification and targeting of mobsters. It was a highly successful unit, what brought it down in the end wasn’t it’s successful kill rate, but allegations mobsters bribed them to focus on other Mafia factions, leaving theirs alone.

Lets say we calmed it down a bit, and took psychopaths like Only Humean and Magsj, gave them stun grenades and taser batons, and freedom to roam society, targeting philosophers, who in their view had perpetual FMS, causing more pain than pleasure to society, as well as even to themselves. Obviously, Richard Dawkings has to feel pretty glum about the deeply negative reactions he experiences at times, and spends alot of time staring out his window on rainy days, face pressed against the glass, wushing people woukd like him more… or at least he did before people saw him doing that and started flipping him off and throwing rocks at his stupid face. So instead he likely now just sits a few feet away from the window, staring, unable to even feel the gloomy sensations and reflect properly anymore, just sitting with whisky bittle in hand.

If we adopt Only Humean’s role to the larger world at large, guys like Richard Dawkings wouldn’t have to suffer any more. They can just randomly attack Dawkings (and people like him, whatever that means, completely up to their internal interpretations) with taser batons, striking angry, ignorant blows of justice at the offender, all in a effirt to make the world right and orderly, for the smug satisfaction and benefit of people who hate Dawkings and similar offenders, but are too meek to say something about it openly.

Only Humean can assult him inpublic parks. Magsj can when he is taking to a friend on a street corner. They can join together during press conferences, or one on one debates, and randomly pop up behind him with chloroform, telling the audience and other debater they didn’t approve of him, tough shit about the discussion, Dawkings has to go night night for a bit. They can also forceably remove the discussion at gunpoint from university lecture halls to seedy strip clubs and abandoned warehouses in Skid Row, where homeless drug users about, out of sight from everyone in the university, cause they feel like it… with the flimsiest of justification.

I do believe it’s quite possible to adapt such a system, and it’s not irrational to apply the theory of utilitarian pain avoidance with harsh, irrational legal codes that only the policing force is allowed to interprets and enforce without check of power. Many societies already practice this on this very platform:

Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committ … udi_Arabia

The promotion of virtue is the promotion of pleasure, and the prevention of vice is the prevention of pain, in terms of the long term view. In Saudi Arabia, they are the most liberal, utilitarian force not only in the country, but perhaps the planet, only recently rivaled by ISIS’ squads of roving clerics dispensing religious justice, and of course, the moderation here at www.Ilovephilosophy.com

They will get up into your business for seemingly no fucking reason, saying bizarre shit like “it’s unislamic to have cats”, “it is unislamic to build snowmen”… and they will fine and beat you, if not haul your ass off to jail for it. They LOVE capital punishment in that country.

So… is the Mutaween… asshole police force with no apparently viable check to their power, a force we can universally apply across philosophy?

I believe so. It works in some countries already, so it’s not theoretic. Its a real system, policing the fuck out of ideas and actions with the same level of insight as is used by forum moderators here. The constant public backlashes against guys like Richard Dawkins make it evident that neither he nor they are conforming to Richard Dawkins Utilitarian Principles. This is change we can believe in.

Now, for those of you who are like "Oh no, this is a terrible idea, we need a system of checks and powers, accountability, a place to lodge complaints, etc… that’s just faggot talk, and your losing sight of the bigger picture.

You see, there us accountability. They are not immoral, anyone can go to the Mutawen’s chief, or his boss even, and lodge complaints, just like we can with Carleas here. You can be assured of the same dead end response as well, of black ignorant sneers and faulty logic, run abouts and a poorly disguised fuck you, where the priority is always to reassure the bewildered Mutaween that that “their feelings matter more” and the government always… ALWAYS, will back them no matter how outrageous or absurd the stunt they just pulled was. Because you know, if the Mutaween can’t function freely, what happens then? The chaos of free association? Educational opportunities outside the mainstream arising? Increased Sufferage instead if Suffering. People running around with bayonets, trying to elect their own leaders! Fuck no, we can’t have that kind of Enlightenment shit, here or in Saudi Arabia, or in ISIS. Besides, the Mutaween has plenty of defenders, mostly people who get crushed in discussions with guys like Dawkings, afraid to ever leave their house or forum thread, keeping as low a profile as possible.

No way in hell can we tolerate such people here on this forum… the Help and Suggestions section is full of Carleas making it very clear, the Mutaween is perfect, beyond reproach, and matters more to him than the posters. Dawkings and others are clearly hurting themselves, and society at large… is it time for society at large in the west to adopt despotic, cruel middle eastern/ www.ilovephilosophy.com practices across the board on philosophers, or anyone who stands out and pisses our moderators off at any given moment.

It is a legitimate question of statecraft, since such societies already exist on the nation state level, and it’s already in practice on the forum. Guts like Smears will step forward, pupils dialated “We need the Mutaween to fuck us over and give us order, being allowed to think and say any idea, no… that’s anarchism. We need coercive, repressive measures undermining a free society.”

I personally am opposed to it, but it seems to be the direction we are heading in. Is it time for it to become the law of the land.

hurriyetdailynews.com/pkk-an … sCatID=338

hurriyetdailynews.com/Defaul … sCatID=398

We also have the concept of “The Tyranny of the Majority”, Chomsky very recently started a crackdown in the Turkish Government against Academics, and a new theory emerged explaining Turkey as a “Majoritarian Democracy”, I do believe the structure if government described in the above post would match up with just such a “Democracy”, and the US Department of State stance on freedom of speech applies equally to Turkey as the Mutaweem, and Carleas Coercive, Don’t Give a Fuck Policies… cause I took my masters on this stuff attitude.

So… there is wiggle room in this ideology, we can still call it a democracy while randomly beating anyone the Mutaween dislikes for any random reason. Cause they can.

Dawkins is FBI’s public idiot number one.

Had a dream about Dawkins the other day. I was on 6 train tracks and I had a word with Dawkins. I was awestruck by his aura. He said a few words and waved goodbye. That made my day.

Next dream I had, me and my mother were walking along the train tracks, only they were piled up and stacked, and not connected together. I asked mother…why are these train tracks in random stacks? Why are they not connected? No train can pass through. Why are you hopping up and down the 6 foot tall stacks like mario? Why can’t you just walk on the ground? Next thing we were in my dad’s mansion, only he was nowhere to be found, presumably, out at the bar doing drugs. We found his secret stash of cereal, located in the west schoolwing. There was all kinds of junk cereal (with the preservatives) to be found. It was approaching the end of the war, and Nazi germany was defeated. I managed to gut a couple for the RAF. I followed a black man, who was a war hero. I had a trenchcoat which allowed me to fall slowly. Jumping through the crowd of people and on the church pews, I found my old middle school friend, who followed me as well. It was good, I was reunited with an old friend and following a negro war hero, my hero who I admired. We were happily going along until the man turned a corner - he was nowhere to be found. We looked, we searched, but we never did find him. For all I knew he was a figment of our imagination. My friend took the ticket to the station, and we parted ways.

This forum is not that fascist compared to others. Most forums these days ban anyone who isn’t a liberal.

I wonder if Dawkins is secretly Satyr but he has an italian voice for his videos. It would explain the connect with evolutionary biology.

You’re talking about the radio interview with thw dude who sounds like Chris from family guy. The one where satyr sounds like an old Italian gangster…“It’s bewlshit… why would I want that? I don’t care about any of that bewlshit. That’s what it is. Bewlshit.”

Or the one where he quotes the philosopher who said “there is no such thing as man. There are only men, etc.” The slightest touch of a new York idiom would turn that into Italian gangster. and he’s got a ‘typical guy’ feel that makes his audience receptive. I could get a talk show together around this guy on the merits of how he says the word bewlshit, alone. This is what we need… a new breed of no bewlshit cynicism that the average Joes of the world can understand.

atheism always chooses short cuts-solutions, hence is Darwinian oriented, a major flaw. Although I am not an atheist, I’d rather argue about the ethical concerns any parent should have before the conception of a child and which is being screened to prevent any birth defects. Parents doing otherwise should bear the responsibility, not the child.

Your analogy kind of falls apart insofar as you choose to post on a forum that has rules posted clearly. It’s not so much being hounded through society by baton-wielding oppressors, as much as getting thrown out of a movie theatre for masturbating, and then berating the security guards for being fascists.

I appreciate that you’re heavily influenced by the Cynic philosophy, which has a proud pedigree of public masturbation, so I hope you take the comparison in the favourable spirit it was meant. It takes an impressive sense of melodrama to equate a moderated philosophy forum with ISIS, I’ll grant you that. I’m not going to follow you off the forum and cramp your right to free expression anywhere else; nor am I here to police beliefs, just the manner you choose to express them. (Edit: and, to be fair, to judge your sincerity in arguing them)

I in return do appreciate you seem too of taken your philosophy degree back in the 30s in Germany, especially in regards to tolerance, and critically checking to see if writings are historically valid, or just offends your personal, poorly thought out biases. You’ve banned and moved a good number of threads, exposing your ignorance of the subject matter at hand, and have just further proven you lack a understanding of philosophical rhetoric in Antiquity to Modern times.

It wasn’t the act that mattered, but a evaluation of cause and effect, analysis of social norms, how well they functioned as far as rules were concerned. The Cynic always carefully examined and tested these aspecys, even if it was as simple as police laws, and rules against improper use of coercive force or judicial judgments, which you certainly have proven a unique knack for. Your era is of the vice patrols who used to run around Boston seuzing books and burning them, closing down plays. The just and proper thing for such scumbag would of been locals rushing out of building weilding baseball bats, smashing the kneecaps of these unconstitutional, detestable “Only Humeanites” for thinking government was above the first admendent.

Tell me, do you support the burning of Wilhelm Reich books back in the 20th century? If yes, is your excuse for doing so based on your own critique of science and philosophy, how he was wrong, and your always right, cause your way is naturally superior?

Do you find people very easily dismiss your arguments, or wander off silently in the middle of a discussion with you? Do you think you’ve done anything whatsoever to change anyone’s mind by shutting down discussions, or merely prolonged it.

You are not the philosopher king. You do not rule over philosophy, as your actions suggest. You are not a expect, as your actions clearly show. Nobody is impressed with you. We all see you as very, very little.

But nobody is beyond redemption, not even the Mutaween. I recommend you voluntarily surrender your moderation, any degrees if you have them, abandon your job, and start from square one… start hitting the books, ask people on the street about what they are doing, what is important to them, start again to learn philosophy.

This may be your last chance. I wouldn’t want to live my life as a ignorant fuck, dying as a hard, surrounded by the means of learning, never once daring to take them up in earnest. Thats like a starving man dying in a buffet restaurant, it’s just sad and unnecessary.

Its more important we debate what we want to and need to debate than you to just down the door on the appeal to ignorance and brute force, forcing us to think and follow the methods of yoyr thought, especially after you’ve proven yourself wrong so many times in the past. We don’t come to experience the joys of your lash, but to talk to one another. This place is a springboard to a larger debate, and you obviously fail in controlling it. If anything, you have reinforced the emphasis on it.

For example, your banning my The Truth About The Nietzsche and thread… it’s one of the best ever on this site, it proved to me it had merits. Your wrong headed reaction showed there was a lot of potential to it, so I’ve seriously redoubled my efforts. Now it’s everywhere on this site, and will eventually be in book form, with special thanks to you in appreciation for being such a shitheaded moderator. I’ve collected enough biographical material, properly sourced, to make a very convincing new theory. One you wrongfully tried to squash. If you we’re a university professor, and I was a student, I wouldn’t of hesitated to get a rally going to have you banned for your actions.

If you want this to stop, merely identifying me as a Cynic, and holding to a ignorant understanding of their philosophy isn’t going to convince me or anyone your qualified to be a moderator. Showing evidence you deserve to be a moderator is however… I have done more moderating on this site by simple riposte and challenging viewpoints than you have done in total, both in harassing members and in engaging debate.

All you gotta do, is do what Uccisore does, actually join debates, talk with people, explore their positions. 99 times out of a hundred this does more to change their views than your current scheme of never debating and putting a end to threads, or threatening people.

We are philosophers, we are supposed to use our fucking words…Socrates and Plato didn’t walk about kicking over tables saying “The Debate Stops Here”. No, The Athenian Government did that with The Hemlock.whose side are you actually on?

Recommendation considered and rejected. Moderation to continue as normal.

All this about free speech and I can’t get him to budge in a discussion about, say, dasein?

I only talk about stuff that is real.

Ah, the defence given by every experienced psychopath in the insane asylum.

So… what prevents every person you’ve ever molested on this site, ever person you’ve ever banned, every person abused on the streets, every person lined up against the wall and shot, from replying right back to the powers that be with saying the same thing in retort to their psychopathic persecutors.

I’ve already pointed out, you got issues in detecting and processing Comportment, some deep Anal Issues, Shirikodama deep.

What qualifies you over any other jackass in prison entering into the mutaween from just generally beating over and pushing others around because you think your outlook is better. You’ve proven yourself to be a philosophical incompetent multiple times. Some of the best threads, bursting with philosophy, was removed by you because you were unawares of the tradition in mainstream philosophy it came from.

“Oh no… not that philosophy stuff again” and you go trampling in like a stupid drunk, crushing the debate.

Why not go to a large chess club, where multiple games are going in at once, and declare your opposed to Knights doing L moves, and Bishops moving sideways, cause it doesn’t fit, isn’t allowed… and randomly tank them off the boards and toss people out of the club?

Are you not doing EXACTLY the same thing? The board and the pieces are to chess what the Dialectic is to Philosophy. It is never up to one person to see the whole of it, much less should we allow the most inferior and narrow sighted control our arguments.

Remember… it was under your watch as moderator of the main forum this site turned into a Neo-Nazis website. Its not completely Carleas fault, it’s also to a very large degree yours. Your analrific policies allowed it to flourish. You can’t use comportment and ettiquette to stop a stiff collared, logical nazi SOB. They are all about that to begin with.

You gotta loosen up, accept the world us a larger place than you, that axioms can’t encompass it, not a single definition is complex enough to embrace it. The world us the mind andbwe all have a unconscious, and others know how to play in our weak spots better than we do.

The Mutaween cannot comprehend this. You try to explain it to them, they will say “Inshallah” as a dodge, and then will test divine fate by beating the objector down. It works for only a while. A few generations, and the state invariably snaps. Look at how many Saudi states have come and gone in Arabia.

Look at Prussia… snapped like a mother fucker. Highly logical civilization, driven by the tension of reason, compartment, honor… snapped into pieces in WW1. Went all over the place after that, never quite recovered intellectually. Why? They didn’t understand Volitaire. The French had a long history of reaching out to ancient Cynic philosophy preceding Volitaire. They learned logic from the viewpoint of humor. They allowed themselves to be a little naughty, to have a laugh, enjoy a satire, tell a fucking fart joke. Can I come here, have a discussion about my farts like Montesquieu or Benjamin Franklin? Why did they engadge in such thought and talk? Why did Chuang Tzu shot at the Monkeys? Why did Aristotle tell such twisted jokes? Why we’re the ancient philosophers immune from prosecution by the state, and why was this later only reserved for court jesters and holy fools (both direct offsprings of the Cynics).

You have but a small corner grasp of philosophy. You neither have grasp of the intuition behind first philosophy, or the drive to the ends. Small ripples in rhetoric confuse and confound you. Every time you enforce a rule, you come off more ignorant looking, because you really don’t get it, you never will apparently get it.

There are no such things as logical fallacies, there is no penal code within philosophical thought, we don’t have North Korean traffic police at the junction if every syllogism blowing whistles. You need to lay back and just let the shit flow at times to see where it will go. Your own internal antaganism, your sense of Anal ordering, isn’t justification for garrassing and blocking free exploration of ideas. Your rules aren’t the ten commandments carved by God, but are put forth by a layman, enforced by an idiot.

Lay back and let philosophy unfold. Have some trust in the dialectic. We all gave similarly structured brains, our minds naturally follow philosophy. We will resolve our differences naturally. The great thinkers, the great schools, didn’t arise from used the shadow of a gavel. We had freedom of thinking in chaotic times, we were bold enough to make presentations of ideas to sour authorities, fierce competition. We never arrived at great ideas from strict moderation, banishments, book burnings.

Your the old Japanese of the Kappa meeting Freud.

You

Me

Sometimes you gotta put your ass on the line to catch the bigger piece of shit.

How long could a koan, paradoxical writing, satire, aggressive critique, comedic interplay go on without you putting a stop to it? Not very long. How important is this to the history of philosophy? Very important, we never would of progressed far without it. Logic cannot be justified without it.

hyakumonogatari.com/2012/01/25/k … anus-ball/

The Archetype in psychology would be easier to grasp had another idiot moderator not his my look into the psychology behind Freud’s All Stage philosophy… stiff necked comportment, in my “Am I full of shit” thread. It was aimed at sniffing out the Hubris you two, but especially you, exhibit. She is unethical, your merely too ignorant. I have no understanding your attraction to such a dirty way of thinking. Putrid. Unfit for a philosopher.

People banned from ILP, do not mention them, do not talk about them, Only Humean will ban you.

Socrates… banned

Tycho Brahe… banned

Milarepa… repeatedly banned, restricted only to Rant House, Perma Banned, snuck back on site under another name, banned again.

Diogenes: Banned

Aristotle: Banned

Crates: Banned

Rumi: Banned

Justin Martyr: Banned then Executed

Chuang Tzu: Banned

Numenius of Apamea: permabanned for Ad Homs

Sextus Empericus: Banned (did exactly the same thing I did in The Truth About the Nietzsche and thread).

Arius Didymus: Banned

Zeno of Citrum: Banned

Kuan Tzu: Banned

The list goes in for offenses I’ve seen you launch against members, not even talking to your squirrelly, demented ass., they share arguments and techniques.

Who the fuck in the history of philosophy would be able to keep their head above your waters? Could you even survive your own standards? Would you move one of your own threads, if you were a cloned, exact thinking twin showed up, was unnerved with the Uncanny Valley of your actions, spoke out?

You would be stupid enough to move your own threads out. You would ban yourself for criticizing your move.

I know: Let’s ask James to define “real”.

James is a AI program.

This doesn’t have much to do with philosophy, so much as the administration of the site; you could restrict it to PMs or a more relevant forum.

I think he should. He seems like a very frustrated sort of individual. It could do him a lot of personal good.

That is a statement on your part without much fact backing it. You haven’t dispriven any of the many points presented so far, and even the site administer took one of the premises presented and started his own thread.

Your actions do closely parallel the actions of these other groups, and I’ve presented it in the light of a very awkward social situation reaching out to isolate a point if first philosophy…

I mean, look at what your doing even within this thread Only Humean… your acting more or less as you are in the satire of you ambushing Richard Dawkins. Except now your conscious of it, and trying to act impulsively as you normally do prove the point, and validates my position.

Your angry, your upset, everything is screaming in your head to press that licked button, or move it. But by doing so, you validate in full the OP, prove my point, about you, and this allows us collectively (not that there is anything stopping this to begin with, philosophy knows no bounds) to start analyzing philosophy in directions quite legitimate, but you can’t stand. Its painful, it’s breaking your sense of order and security, shows your pleasurable instincts to be often rotten and harmful.

Your that nasty, disturbed censor that existed in every age.

Enough if thus! I’ve had enough if this! This doesn’t qualify as legitimate knowledge, legitimate discourse! Then you burn the pile of books.

So what if those rules in the burning pile of knowledge? What dies your cognitive limitations matter in the greater light of philosophy?

In Saudi Arabia, it’s illegal for women to drive. Guys exactly like you will arrest women for driving, even if they know how to drive from being over seas… they will justify their incredibally dense acts by saying it is wrong. Clearly posted in the law. They will go and arrest the woman.

Who’s brain do you think is going to get spattered all over the place when the uprising… the inevitable uprising, begins? Did you not get anything out of reading about the inspector from Les Miserables?