Mowk wrote:Thanks Merlin, I have some time, probably not enough.I agree philosophy should be accessible to everybody but there are some out there that can't understand or grasp it. I don't think your mind is that slow where comments about me slowing things I figure is just your way of condescension or detracting.
I may very well just 'be' that slow. It is prudent to ask that of myself every once in a while, I did not intend the condescension or distraction. I'll work on changing your mind on all that.I haven't made a case? Have you not looked at what I've said previously? Are you intentionally ignoring what I've said? Congratulations, you know of one of my old usernames. Everybody here knows including Carleas about the numerous old usernames I've had. No real new revelation there concerning ILP.
Sorry you have made "a" case, and I didn't get it. So let me back up a to what you've stated as you request.Given the extremes of censorship by other philosophy and political based forums I would like to thank Carleas for creating a free-thought or free-expression environment here. It's a message to other philosophy forums that there is at least one place on the internet where censorship doesn't prevail.
Working forward from here. I asked if we are talking about the same thing. The topic is civility and I'm confused my the mention of censorship. I don't believe I am asking Carleas to censor a subject or topic.Censorship is a form of bullying or intimidation on an intellectual scale.
I suppose it is a form of. So if I feel tactics like derogatory and demeaning language and saying people are laughing at you are bullying and intimidation on an intellectual scale, and censorship is a form, I'm still not asking Carleas to act as a censor.You like a few others here are international communists and Marxists under the banner of state democracy as disguise. That for me is enough to warrant a ghastly laugh.
(That disguise by the way no longer works as everybody is starting to figure our your collective aim and endgame for what it is. The jig is up.)
This is where I wanted to slow down. That sounds like name calling and the use of language that is intended as derogatory and demeaning. I guess I am not sure what you mean by Me and a few others are international communists and Marxists under a banner of state democracy as a disguise. I have read what you've said but I am not getting your meaning, it is occluded by the name calling, can you phrase the thinking without the string of labels? Can you specifically address how I evidence these characteristics?Well, for me since the 1960's liberal democracy in the west has been hijacked by Marxist communists. I say international because the goal by them is eventually a global socialist state.
It seems everywhere in the west we can see liberal democrats supporting globalist projects like the E.U. in Europe and NAFTA of the United States. (Then there is the TPP of the south pacific.)
Some radical Marxists assert things on identity like there is no such thing as race or the assimilation of all racial and cultural identity under the state's directive. They'll also say there is no sexual identity between men and women making it where there is only one unisex identity.
So yes, I believe liberal democracy in the west has been hijacked by radical globalist communists or Marxists. Every time I talk to a liberal democrat more and more they purely sound identical to communists or Marxists.
Essentially you are calling me a hippy.
With regard to race and my question of it and your criticism; Physical Anthropologists and Archeologists have this theory that we began as a species "human" from a common ancestral pairing. Races developed from differentiation as we moved around the planet and were exposed to different conditions. So yeah, I think it is sort of an odd phenomenon, that today we make our cultural and environment differentiation a distinction. When early man was in struggle for territory and resources, it was a common practice to kill all the males and rape all the females. That process mixed the genetic make up of the resulting survivors into a more homogeneous collection. We have a single origin, have differentiated, remixed, for likely our entire history as mankind on this planet. And it is quite likely the process will naturally result in a single race eventually, if we don't become extinct before then. (why I lean towards Green, but even that party looses much of its appeal by the time politics gets involved.) I am not clear why you think it is a problem. We go have gone out and explored and come together again to shared what we've become in the process. I too would be concerned if I thought it was under a state directive like Arianism.
To your argument of globalism. We have developed technology that allows us to move much more freely about the planet. There is no longer the geological isolation that caused us to develop into different races in the first place. We have begun the natural and historical process of remixing as a result, a sort of home coming, if you will. It is time, I think, that we share what we have become in the process. We have only had this technology for a short time relatively speaking. As a natural cycle it seems inevitable. I am not going to get all intelligent design on you, but it is an awareness that has colored my view of the world at large. I do start to wonder myself. If it happened entirely by accident, It is even more impressive.
So I am liberal, if this sort of thinking is what makes a person liberal. I am not strictly speaking a democrat, while I have leaned in that direction it isn't a party thing for me. I simply have agreed in the past with some key ideas expressed by democrats in the democratic/republican war in play. This home coming is not an easy thing to do. From a political perspective, I do see the need, in this reintegration, for ideas gleaned from socialism and communism as potentially helpful, but by the time they get turned into a party platform, I find the party practice, so far, a failure. Not so much because of the ideology, but our performance at it.
The corruption of it, democracy, socialism or communism, is not a flavor that I find appealing, but if I were to have to eat one, democracy is my choice.
From my experience usually when people discuss civility it is because they perceive a lack of civility and then they discuss about needing new rules or laws in enforcing civility which censorship is discussed right around the corner of all that. Interestingly enough I don't believe in civility in that I believe we live in a very uncivilized world and really the word civility doesn't mean much of anything at all. No, you haven't asked for censorship but some individuals here who have a similar philosophy to yours have in the past. People of the so called liberal democratic party of the United States have demanded censorship. This is why I'm a bit suspect initially.
This is the link reference to the Photo you provided. Did you happen to take a look at the domain it came from?
You probably just googled for a picture and didn't notice its source.
Mowk wrote:On second thought, we have strayed a bit from the topic at hand. Rather then to continue on the tangent. I'd just like to say thanks, I have learned in the process. We share a critique of many similar issues.
Mowk wrote:I've read you have a forum. Perhaps we could carry on somewhere there.
Amorphos wrote:I was attempting to point out where people know themselves that what they are saying is based in hate.
Amorphos wrote:repetition of that to the extent we get here is abhorrent imho.
Amorphos wrote:I've been on e.g. gaming sites where the moderators stop all such attacks and the world doesn't explode. you just get civil although still passionate debates.
The Golden Turd, a.k.a. Turd Ferguson wrote:Ahhh, your logic is fucked Carleas.
Mowk wrote:And you believe your moderator of SG&E practices this art?
Mowk wrote:Lets say, I and the other members of ILP are not peers of moderators. Have you lost any respect for a moderator that lacks the responsibility to avoid bickering matches in favor of substantive discussions of philosophy?
Mowk wrote:We could be sitting around sipping tea and talking philosophy too.
jerkey wrote:This is true, the further question may be, how the importance and context of a situation effects the sensibility/sensitivity of perceived standards of civility, and even inordinately changing the perceptions of those standards?
Mowk wrote:Could someone point me in the direction of his "good" philosophy?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users