Groups do not by definition promote hatred and violence. To assert such a definition would be unconventional and indicative of a misunderstanding of what’s essential to being a group.
Is worth as rigid as that? What something is worth to you, right now - is that the final worth of the thing? I’d say worth is judged in a particular context. Among a billion other contexts, something is bound to have much more worth. The more complex the thing, the more potential for worth.
If you mean by intrinsic distinction, that’s not the reason why social classes exist. They are perceived and enforced for many reasons: economic, ethnic, medical, by gender, by family, religion, ideology, etc. Classes exist as the product of a particular social order. Social class might correlate with certain behavioral characteristics, but does not guarantee those characteristics, nor does one’s class guarantee one’s potential. This is why people can move between “classes.”
What does that mean - the anarchy we have right now?
AutSider,
Sure, we can get into “philosophical” or “political” discussions of Group Pride. Intertwining both “genes” and “memes”.
But you know me, I am equally as curious to grapple with how your current views about, among other things, “kikes” and “niggers” evolved in sync with the actual life that you lived.
So, as a child being indoctrinated – and we all were – to think about these folks, what were the most important existential factors in your life.
Let’s start there.
Me?
Well, having been born and bred in the belly of the white working class beast, encountering the word “nigger” was practically an everyday occurrence. I was taught basically to hate black folks and basically I did.
Kikes on the other hand was more problematic. Every once and a while I would hear a reference to “the Jews” but I was never really able to fathom the significance of it.
Now, on the other hand, I don’t use epithets like this. And I tend to view those that do as embodying particular political prejudices that one way or another they picked up over the course of having lived through one set of experiences in life rather than another.
On the other hand, prejudice is so deeply engrained in the course of human history, it is hard to believe that “genes” aren’t a factor in there somewhere. There certainly seems to be a biological predisposition to create this category we call “Other”.
Again, it always comes down to the extent to which a particular set of genes and a particular set of memes become intertwined in the context of one particular life out in one particular world.
And only the objectivists of your ilk seem compelled [psychologically] to reduce it all down to “one of us” or “one of them”.
No, you explained your misunderstanding of what “group” conventionally entails.
Regardless of what other things you would add to the definition of a group it is most certainly a collection of organisms, and since organisms are inherently violent and thus hateful, so are groups.
What’s the big point of contention here?
Classes create distinction, they don’t reflect them. Only a retarded would fail to see such.
Groups don’t have to have organisms in them
So why… in your opinion… are certain groups banned and not others, if hate and violence are not the reason?
Are the state not there to keep a/represent the status quo?
Do you think that most are in groups, or prefer the global umbrella of the state? I myself have no idea, but being forced to be part of any group would be against my human rights, but my not being so is probably down to not identifying with any one group… no-one is denying anyone their national pride or message, but it’s the way they go about it which is the deciding factor on how they are received.
…the will of the people/the many… not of a disparate few, so therefore offering protection from those disparate few.
Simply getting one’s message across in a palatable form is pretty much key in making that groups mandate more appealing.
The kinds of groups talked about in this thread do.
MagsJ
I’ve already offered my explanation in the OP.
But what when there is a system of indoctrination in place which teaches a certain group from a young age to adopt political ideals which are self-destructive, aka go against the interests of the group?
Can we truly and fairly say that it is their own will? Especially when a “disparate few” manage to break free from the indoctrination and point out all its flaws (though no doubt the system continues to suppress their message and vilify them).
Does a child which has been indoctrinated from early age to believe in God by every adult authority they know, in an environment where any atheist would be labeled a “mindless hater”, “heretic”, etc. and opposing views would never be seriously entertained, believe in God of its own will?
That violence is inherent in all organisms, or in all groups of them. It’s a pretty big stretch to say that.
I explained my reasoning and there weren’t any good counter-arguments so no, it’s not a big stretch at all.
Wait, so you’re telling me that your reasons, minus any good counter arguments = your position is correct?
That’s what you believe?
You’ve done nothing but assert inanities and post food pics in all my recent threads in S&G so far. Are you genuinely this stupid or are you just pretending?
My position is correct because it describes reality. I know you’ve got nothing.
The implication is that if you take an untouchable and put it in some higher class, say the warrior class, he’s going to cease to be an untouchable and become a warrior.
That means we are all born equal (blank slate) and that our shape is defined entirely by one generation of nurturing.
A dog is not a dog when it is born. It’s just nothing. Or maybe you can say “infinite potential”. Then you give it some kind of nurturing, and depending on it, it becomes something. Say a dog if it is raised by dogs. Or a human if it is raised by humans.
Everything is possible. You just have to believe in it.
Castes exist to make sure that everyone reaches their potential to the fullest. And different people have different potentials. Without castes, or with poorly established castes, you get stunted development – wasted potential. That’s what we have today.
An interesting fact is that it’s more difficult to go up than to go down. An inferior person cannot become superior within any period of time. But a superior person can quickly degenerate into an inferior one.
See, insulting me and then declaring yourself to be correct…that doesn’t actually warrant a counter argument. You get what I mean?
You’re making deductions from unconventional definitions, so its on you to demonstrate that no groups are not violent.
Are you able to understand my 3 previous sentences there? Should I slow down?
Like, all cats are dogs, Garfield is a cat, therefore Garfield is a dog.
That’s what you’re doing. Its a basic mistake.
Have you ever taken a philosophy course, or do you just read on your own?
Its like the Pythagorean theorem. High school stuff man.
If a=b and b=c, then a=c.
The “if” up there is super important.
And you know that pork chop pic was the best thing going on in that thread. Not trying to down your post or anything, but the pork chop pic was just better. Like maybe your post was a 9 out of 10, but the food just won out that time.