"
Quote :
Quote :
8. The idea of workers rights, unions and some trade protectionism is a basically politically Left position (the opposite position of “free trade” global capitalism is the neoliberal-neoconservative idea).
I disagree. The left/right distinction came from Marx, who took a perfectly pan-political English workers movement for an extra day off (weekend), and minimum wage, and made it itno some bizarre metaphysical ‘necessity’. Traditionally, working classes vote conservative, namely to keep their jobs - only when a right wing regime needs to be replaced to they sometimes go for left - but this regime now is ultra-left, ultra statist, and has all but destroyed the working class.
I am only speaking of US politics here. I understand the left/right political divide doesnt perfectly translate from the US to European countries.
Marx’s point was that the class war being fought at the economic level of labor against capital owners is indeed a kind of metaphysical necessity as you called it. That is absolutely truly the case. Marx was right about that. If you disagree, tell me why. The entire nature of labor is that we (you and I, most people) are required to sell our labor power as a commodity to a capital owner; the capital owner literally buys us as indentured servants and we sell our intellectual or physical or emotional labor, the capitalist sits around and by virtue of owning the capital is able to directly appropriate our labor to himself, and “pays” us wages that are commensurate only with the cost of this labor (again, us, you and me and most people) replacing itself over time as a flesh mass workforce.
Yes, that is a fucked up, highly “metaphysical” situation that human being is present locked in. Marx was right to call bullshit on it.
Quote :
Consider how utterly noble it is for people to fight to the right to work, to build something.
Indeed work is, all other things being equal, a noble and necessary thing. That does not at all refute the above point I just made.
Quote :
I dont believe in left and right at all, never have, by the way. Trump talks like someone who understands peoples desire to make themselves useful, rather than being urged to feel guilty for wanting to work. I dont care who is in the left, or in the right textballoon - I just know that he’s right about this, regardless of what he can ultimatey accomplish.
You’re homogenizing all “work” into the same category, a supposedly noble thing where we desire to “be useful” in some grand beautiful sense. Most work today does not conform to that standard. Most people feel like slaves, and are slaves.
Quote :
It is a very crucial thing to just have your values expressed for a person, especially when the last 20 years, your presidents have scolded you for having values, and for complaining when they give all your values away to fascist and simply incompetent regimes overseas.
Trump mostly represents normal people being fed up with being lectured by the very people that ruin their lives, towns, states, country, and planet. In this sense, at least, he represents me. He is the most dignified and honest representative politician I ever saw. Hillary is of course not elected really, so she isnt a representative politician, just a banal criminal. But she’s not the issue here.
Again, we will disagree. Which people have ruined the lives of which other people, and how? NAFTA puts manufacturing out of business but creates a ton of other jobs elsewhere, such as in service industries and traded goods, imports, small proprietors and entrepreneurs and salesmen. NAFTA also lowers prices on goods and services over time (I am not defending NAFTA, but I am pointing out that these same Trump supporters have also benefitted from it too). The only ones who really get net zero or negative benefit from NAFTA are A) if you literally really did lose your job at the steel mill and are basically unemployable now, or 2) if you are working in a third world sweat shop or jumping off the roof of Foxconn. Those people have legitimate complaints against NAFTA… these petulant Trump supporters are not seriously in a position to complain at all, they are just “disaffected” and mostly whining. Trust me, I have been to Tea Party rallies, I have seen what it is like there.
Imagine a bunch of well to do upper middle class white guys in business suits holding up anti-Obama signs about how Amerca is Tyranny now. Yeah, these fucking people have no idea what tyranny really is – do you think they give one shit about the workers in the third world, or the lower class laborers who REALLY lose their jobs due to free trade policies? Nope. They just care about their own narrow ideological, partisan feelings and getting to spout off against “them liberals”.
This is precisely my point, that most of these supposedly angry Trump supporters aren’t seriously upset by the REAL problems that we have. And neither for that matter is Trump. Mostly it is a lot of fake outrage (it is real outrage for faked reasons).
Quote :
Quote :
9. The political Right (Republican party of which Trump is a member) in the US generally supports corporations as people, money as speech and the decimation of institutions like the EPA whose task is to hold corporations to a basic standard of social beneficence toward public spaces and public health; again the notion that corporations are not people, money is not speech and companies should generally serve the public interest or at least not seriously damage it, these are all politically Left views.
As Ive said I dont see life in categories like that, what Ive seen happen with my own eyes is the Democrats under Clinton have sold out the country and planet to a few corporations, and they were enthusiastically helped by the Bush clan, for the whole thing to be extended by Obama. They are lal clearly of the same party,despite the shows they put up to pretend to be adversaries. It would be hilarious if it was acted a bit better. Now its just watching a bunch of sanctimonious Hitler wannabes seeing who can make the most pointless kills with a smile… I truly dont get what their joy is but they seem to enjoy it. Anyway - this is what I keep coming back to. The last 4 presidents were just basically American Hitlers, in terms of the disregard for human life.
There are clear differences between the left and right parties here in the US. This radically cynical view, which I also think is deliberately defeatist, that they are all the same, there is no difference, it is all shit, everyone of them is Hitler, is just nonsense to me. But then again I live here and see first hand the real, down to earth differences in beliefs and attitudes of these people based on their political persuasion. And more to the point, the ideas themselves which you seem to appreciate, namely the ones mentioned just above in the quote, are at the philosophical and theoretical level progressive ideas, namely they stem from a deeply rooted belief and value in human rights, equality, fair treatment, the rights of the individual, and social justice when it comes to caring for public spaces and not allowing private industry to run over all of it, destroying and polluting or even just privatizing it all. These are good ideas, we need more ideas like this; they are fundamentally philosophical, progressive thoughts and values. It is good that you have them implicitly, but you don’t seem to want to acknowledge from where they come or why they are really valuable at all.
Quote :
Quote :
10. Global warming does actually exist and it is actually very critically important that we address it somehow. Trump’s denial of these facts is based on his ideological need to remain ignorant here.
I think that the point Parodites has been making is the right one; nothing is worth handing over our power to a global elite. Nothing furthermore exists that count count as a reason to trust that such elites would even be remotely capable of addressing any issue with success. These are the same elites that have caused global warming - who have shaped the world of uncontrolled industry that we’re in.
Industry itself isn’t bad. Technology and science are the only ways we can fix global warming. We do not need to shut everything down, we need to keep innovating new ideas like carbon capture tech. And no, “the elites” didn’t “create global warming”, that is a weird and false way of looking at it. Global warming is a natural consequence of the industrialization of the modern world, probably every self-aware, sentient species in the universe confronts this challenge at a certain stage in its development as a species.
I of course agree that we should not just hand over our power to anyone. Obviously I agree on that. But I am saying we do not need to do that. Things like the Paris Agreement can happen if idiots like Trump get out of the way, denying the very problem itself. And why do you think big business apologists like these Republicans deny global warming? It is because of their own narrow self-interest at the level of business and profit. They do not want to have to scale back or pay for more advanced technology or pay a cost for the carbon they emit. There is heavy lobbying here in the US by the energy industry. The Republicans are basically, to a certain degree, beholden to these people and special interests. I don’t know if Trump is beholden to them or not, but the GOP in general is.
Quote :
Now we should give them more power in the belief they will act wisely and on our behalf? Hmmm… no.
Again, this is not something I ever advocated, nor is that what would be necessary. When it comes to politics and serious problems I believe in honest and difficult pragmatism, not easy hyperbole.
Quote :
Quote :
I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I’ve already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant.
That it happens with any government is precisely why it will certainly happen with something as colossal and unwieldy as a global government. Al the UN does these decennia is stand by while the chosen dictators or militias slaughter their populations. Then they extend the dictator a document.
You are arguing against a specific iteration of the UN, and not even the UN in general, much less the idea as such of a “United Nations” sort of structure. The UN indeed does condone violence and genocide, approve sanctions, sent in peacekeepers and relief supplies and aid workers, and try to organize for peace. Yes they aren’t always great at it, there needs to be a lot more work being done here. That is precisely my point, which you seem to indirectly be agreeing to: the UN is not yet good enough, we need more of this very same thing. Your very complaint against the UN, that it is not effective at its ostensible goals, is also precisely my point too.
Quote :
Quote :
Another point I found where I didn’t properly respond yet: Parodites claim that the US constitution exists as a means for the will of the people to realize itself, “The US constitution and founding documents were designed in order to provide the masses the instrument by which to express- as perfectly as possible, that will. It has been corrupted as I said by the centralized federal government. The founders also hoped we would even make further improvements to it, as opposed to fuck it up like we’ve done.” My response is that the US constitution set up a government of division of powers and representative elected leadership precisely to also prevent the “the people” from “expressing their will”. We have an entire judicial branch that is equal to the other branches; the judicial branch doesn’t work by submitting issues to popular vote. Neither are laws written like that. In fact the US constitution makes it quite difficult for direct popular vote of the people to enact any laws (amending the constitution requires 3/4 vote of all states (yes states, not even direct democracy here either). It’s diluted surrogate governance of layers of representation with checks and balances where experts positioned at key points in the system (such as judges) make critical determinations. I absolutely disagree that the will of the people is somehow the central or sole goal here. If it were, direct popular vote would have been the basic template on which decisions of law and policy are made, and that is not the case. The vast majority of the time we vote for REPRESENTATIVES, people, not on law or policy directly. This allows for compromises and for expert level thought on issues to coexist with the larger and more blind, inexpert will of the people. It’s basically a system of compromise. And that is why it works.
Edit: Disclaimer: no feelings were harmed in the making of this post.
Im between you and Parodites in this - I do believe the logos was the correct one, but as I said in this thread earlier, the logos was superimposed on a highly unequal landscape.
The whole suing and countersueing culture evidently makes it impossible for a nation to be truly stable. It is absolutely prepostrous. Maybe this would be a fertile subject to investigate for us - how to construct a proper legislative system without becoming socialist or anti-capitalist or anti-wealth.
All of it comes down to how valuing is understood, how it is ranked in the episteme, from which the law is born
Yes, basically: reality is imperfect. Politics and economics especially.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:03 pm
" You yourself seem to clearly oppose the state of affairs where the US “steals the oil”, so why on earth are you defending Trump when he “goes along with Obama?” More specifically, in Iraq, the US did return the oil fields to the Iraqi people, which was absolutely the right thing to do. "
Obviously it wasn’t. We shouldn’t have left oil to a destabilized state where we know terrorist ideology was propagated.
“I have not seen Trump admit this. If that is true then he is basically saying “hey I am doing bad things because it is really hard to be good!” Well, that isn’t really a defense, just a pale justification and excuse. In any sense it is not a philosophical reason”
You claim we can’t rag on politicians because we haven’t read their 1,000 page tax code, but your rag on Trump’s business practice. People in his position have something called fiduciary responsibility. They must avoid paying costs that could be legally avoided, in order to maximize profits for their workers. If that means working the tax code, moving a factory out of the US, etc. then that’s what he does. His point is that he shouldn’t have to move his shit to another country, there shouldn’t be a tax code full of loop holes. The tax code reform he is going to pass simplifies hundreds of pages to a single page, making it more of an even playing field for small and larger businesses. This reform will cost Trump himself a significant monetary loss.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:05 pm
"There are clear differences between the left and right parties here in the US. This radically cynical view, which I also think is deliberately defeatist, that they are all the same, there is no difference, it is all shit, everyone of them is Hitler, is just nonsense to me. But then again I live here and see first hand the real, down to earth differences in beliefs and attitudes of these people based on their political persuasion. "
Nah, they’re both (were) globalist corporatocratic parties. The only difference is in meaningless social issues: one likes fags, the other doesn’t. On everything that matters they are the same. Bush and Obama’s foreign policy was the same. Their views on the surveillance state were the same.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:09 pm
“I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I’ve already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant.”
The cultures and national identities in this world cannot possibly ever come together in the way you describe. It is not conceivable. You would have to first get rid of the idea of the nation state and open the borders, then simmer the population in a melting pot for a few generations.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:11 pm
Parodites wrote:
No hard feelings in this, just have to respond.
" To hate one is to love the other. I recall Nietzsche talking about this logic as the basis of slave morality: you are bad (evil) therefore I am good. Clinton is bad/evil therefore Trump is good. Or, as Ive been falsely accused of already many times, just because I think Trump is bad (not “evil”) must mean that I apparently think Clinton is good. "
Bullshit, nobody has intimated that you support Clinton. I recognize you do not, I have also recognized you’re not supporting the current globalist regime. Is putting words in our mouth part of your elite debating skills that you learned?
Thanks for the attitude and making it personal. Glad we can really elevate the conversation here.
Yes many times when I make arguments against Trump it has been replied that Clinton is much worse, or why don’t I also attack Clinton also? This is the false dichotomy I am taking about; “Clinton is bad, therefore Trump is good, or must be good”. It doesn’t need to be a direct “You believe X” statement to conform to that fallacy, nor for the implication to be quite clear that apparently in order for me to attack or criticize Trump I am supposed to also either attack or defend Clinton; after all, why would Clinton come up so much when I am talking about Trump specifically, if perhaps not as the false dichotomy of the fallacy of excluded middle then maybe just as a kind of redirection?
Quote :
-
The false conflation that Trump made between protecting Iraqi oil from terrorists and stealing it for our own use.
-
Trump ripping off contractors and American steel workers by secretly purchasing Chinese steel for his buildings and for refusing to pay contractors for work done.
[His practice as a businessman is typical and nothing illegal was done.]
That wasn’t my point. My point was that Trump is being a clear hypocrite and apparently lying about truly caring about issues like cheap Chinese imported steel.
Quote :
3. Trump using third world sweat shops for his clothing line, and owning stock in the very companies he supposedly objects to (Ford, GM, Nabisco, etc.)
[His practice as a businessman is typical and nothing illegal was done.]
Ok, it is clear that tou are [i]deliberately missing my point.
I will be honest, this is a new low for BTL.
Quote :
4. The fact that “tyranny of the majority” is a very real concern and that direct democracy on policy issues doesn’t work very well and isn’t ideal (as I said, in no other field or line of work or policy do we take a “vote of “the people”” for policy or decide what to do).
[What does that have to do with Trump, specifically? And our process is much more complicated, it takes into account to some extent the non-homogeneous nature of ideology, it’s a representative government, etc. Are you… suggesting that Trump should be denied the presidency even if we wins the popular vote? What is the point? Is Trump a tyranny of the majority? ]
No, I am not saying that Trump should be denied the presidency if he wins the popular vote (although he could still lose anyway, thanks to the electoral college system). And the kind of fake populism and cheap religious pulpit-like demagoguery that Trump represents and cultivates in his followers is indeed flowing from the same place where the danger of tyranny of the majority resides. As de Tocqueville was referenced as saying in that news piece which you summarily dismissed without serious discussion.
Quote :
5. A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently “totalitarian” any more than government itself is).
[Government- centralized federal top down government: is itself totalitarian and fascistic.]
No it is not, not necessarily. You can define it that way if you want, but that doesn’t make it true. You could of course provide some evidence or reasoning in favor of the logical argument that federal top down government is necessarily totalitarian and fascistic… that should be interesting to see.
Quote :
6. The government should not be run like a business (for profits).
[Says who? The US government should exist to maximize American interests over those of other nations and populations. Does that mean “for profit”? Do you disagree?]
The point I made was that the nature of government is different from the nature of business. Not every thing can be capitalized upon to turn a profit, case in point with addressing polluting of common spaces (economic Tragedy of the Commons). The government in part exists to address those issues and problems which are either not capitalizable or ought not to be capitalized upon; the business world exists to generate those profits, pure and simple.
Quote :
7. Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.
[An assertion.]
What the fucking hell? Where has the honest intention for serious discussion gone?
Yes it is an “assertion”. It is also one that makes perfect sense, or perhaps you can tell me how you are going to address a problem of X scope if you aren’t going to operate solutions at the same X level? Or perhaps you can be bothered to even reply to the point I made at all, rather than dismiss it out of hand like some fucking troll.
Anyway, I am fucking pissed off now. You achieved your end. I will not bother with the rest of what you wrote.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:13 pm
“I of course agree that we should not just hand over our power to anyone. Obviously I agree on that. But I am saying we do not need to do that. Things like the Paris Agreement can happen if idiots like Trump get out of the way, denying the very problem itself. And why do you think big business apologists like these Republicans deny global warming? It is because of their own narrow self-interest at the level of business and profit”
And why do you think others push it so vehemently?
Could it be- perhaps, that the gravity of global warming falls somewhere in the middle between “it doesn’t exist” and “it’s our gravest existential threat,” and that both parties are using it- as they use everything, to profit themselves?
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:20 pm
"Thanks for the attitude and making it personal. Glad we can really elevate the conversation here. "
No, no, no. You’re the one who made it personal. At no point until this thread did I ever exhibit hostility, you are the one who has done so repeatedly.
I’m pissed that you lump several million Trump supporters into the “irredeemable asshole” category. As I support him, that is personal. You explicitly stated that one cannot like Trump “and have any heart”, etc.
" No it is not, not necessarily. You can define it that way if you want, but that doesn’t make it true. You could of course provide some evidence or reasoning in favor of the logical argument that federal top down government is necessarily totalitarian and fascistic… that should be interesting to see. "
I’m not defining it, it’s called a principle. The federal government draws its authority through force- it can legally dispense force; it does not draw it from our volition. Perhaps to some extent it will always be necessary, but this federal government has gone far beyond the scope of powers originally afforded to it. If you read the constitution as granting implied powers, there is no limit to the number of additional capacities you can add to the federal government. The only way to read it, is: if the constitituon does not explicitly define that power, it does not exist.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:22 pm
You’re the one in general that has allowed political discussion to become personal, when you began levying insults all over the place at Trump and anyone who likes him.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:23 pm
" That wasn’t my point. My point was that Trump is being a clear hypocrite and apparently lying about truly caring about issues like cheap Chinese imported steel. "
What I said about fiduciary responsibility applies. Or instead of that explanation for the variance in his business practice and his politics, you could just call him a liar.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:29 pm
“Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.”
The reason I didn’t address it seriously, is the following: for the reasons I mentioned about national identities being too different to cooperate effectively, that global level of cooperation will never appear organically. China is never going to quit fucking up the environment in some spirit of human fraternity with us. You might get Russia to dismantle a couple bombs, if you’re lucky: but they’re never going away. So we must rely on less than global solutions.
Last edited by Parodites on Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:43 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:30 pm
And I am still irritated that you claim: I am the one making it personal. My debate skill comment was a fucking joke, dude. Your comment that I’m an irredeemable amoral heartless asshole because I like Trump- that wasn’t a joke.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:34 pm
Honestly, what the fuck are you talking about?
[Just to be clear, if we’re still on the topic, here is your standard of taste:
giphy.com/gifs/fun-trump-donald-cEb1tO6Xvn0DS]
That wasn’t a personal insult?
So go be pissed off, just understand: you’re the one who made it personal first.
The fact that you won’t support Trump never became for me a signature of defect or malice in your person, I just took you as having got caught up in the spirit of Trumpenhate, as we may have perhaps got caught up in the opposite. But you have quite clearly allowed the fact that a person likes Trump to override your rationality. You could have even voted Clinton and I would have never read you a list of the dictators she’s received money from and said to you: that’s your standard of taste, you’re basically soul-less and heartless for supporting this cunt, you’re just a rabid racist spellbound by empty demagoguery, etc."
" I could be converted into a Trump supporter if the facts, evidence and sound philosophical reasoning requires it. I’m happy to go that route if anyone would like. Otherwise we have mostly stated our positions and our values, and that will have to be enough for now. "
I explained his fiduciary responsibility, and his dealings as a businessman have nothing to do with his politics. Especially when the very tax reforms he has proposed would cost him significantly. I have explained my position on the global state and the fact that a politics based on national identity cannot coexist with it. The global structure you want does not exist. The one that does, has cost us gravely, and Trump at least claims to stand against it. I have explained that his support is coming from a transition into a new political paradigm, and that the parties are reformulating; while Trump openly embraces that reform, Clinton has stuck to the old dying axis- that’s where Trump’s support is coming from. It isn’t because he’s just a “populist, a demagogue.” I have explained the material danger of a Clinton presidency. There is nothing else I can do. A few of his little gaffes, like the t-rex arm guy, I explained as well, but for the most part I thought them insignificant. I could throw my hands up and say you’ve ignored all my arguments just as you say we’ve ignored yours. Clinton is: we’re definitely fucked. Trump is: maybe we’re fucked. If you can’t honestly see enough of a reason to vote one way or the other on that, fine. Honestly your entire line against Trump revolves around petty gaffes and drudging up random blurbs he made without any context, insulting his supporters; comparing his business practice with his politics without any apparent understanding of his fiduciary responsibility, comparing him to Hitler, insinuating he’s a racist, (he’s simply not) etc.
I’ve brought this thread into page 9, but one gets carried away sometimes.
We’ve been friends for about 10 years at least, you want to tell me to fuck off because I committed the egregious crime of poking fun at your “I learned how to debate bit”, (you can’t go on a rant about how great you learned to debate and expect nobody to say anything) especially after all the insulting shit I pointed out that you’ve hurled at people on Trump’s side, (which I obviously am) it’s your prerogative. You can’t say shit like “If you like Trump you have no heart, no taste, you’re not a thinker anymore you just want a Fuhrer,” and not expect me and anyone else on Trump’s side to not take that personally, as you know I definitely like him. I let it go at first though. What if I said: you can’t support the centralization of federal government and a global state without being a soul-dead conformist pussy retard? What if I said: If you’re a leftist, you’re a tasteless douche with no credibility as a human being. Would that not be insulting? I didn’t do that shit to you. But you can do it to us. I wouldn’t do it either, because I don’t believe it.
But hey, maybe I just need to read some more Washington Post, it will all make sense to me then. That’s called levity. Now you’re supposed to say: and maybe I can just pop a couple dozen pain killers and probably fall right on the Trump Train too. Or ignore everything, then tell us we’re ignoring you; insult anyone who likes Trump repeatedly and then get pissed off when I take one jab at something you said, riding off into the night on your cloud of moral superiority. Don’t post that bullshit fucking gif and tell me you’re here for a serious debate or what my taste is and then get mad when I make fun of one thing you said. I explained why it was a ridiculous image.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:51 pm
I think by now the title of the thread has been revealed to not be hollow.
VO prescribes irreconcilable value-differences. That is what being is.
This election is of absolute significance. So we are being valued in its terms. Our resources, powers, are being drawn out into this battle.
I agree with Parodites on every point.
Also, I didnt even know it wasnt some kid in a wheelchair he mocked, but a reporter with a fucking paying job.
That is pure wretchedness and ill will, to use that incident as such. The people who framed this story are indeed heartless, soulless, and if that word has any meaning at all, evil people -
as I see it. I’d imagine this fabrication to be very painful for the actually disabled.
Ive also had no choice but to feel offended as someone who likes Trump, for being called all these things. I figured I didnt need to take too seriously, as obviously the working premise of our forum is a deep mutual valuing.
It is only natural that this critical time (with Saturn on Antares, the ancients would be hiding in caves) the most violent valuings find their way out. Valuings that apply to the future of the west, which is being decided.
I would propose that we agree that none of us could possibly be seen as heart- or tasteless, but I’ll wait until after the elections.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:01 pm
Yeah, without VO it’s all doomed to stay in the middle ages - at least the bottom line. Without the formal appreciation of irreconcileable value differences among humans and creatures in general, and a system of reconciling them indirectly by employing the very logic that commands this rugged individuality of being, the world will continue to burn and produce bullshit dichotomies over which friends and family will kill each other.
Divide and conquer… the US election circus has divided us here on BTL… which really is quite proper, under the circumstances. We can suffer a bit for this.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:05 pm
" All of it comes down to how valuing is understood, how it is ranked in the episteme, from which the law is born"
"Yes, basically: reality is imperfect. Politics and economics especially. "
I dont know what perfect means if not reality - (how can reality be more ‘perfected’?) but perfection doesnt imply the absence of friction.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:08 pm
It’s obvious what you’re doing Capable. You’re going around on random news sites trying to find the dirtiest shit on Trump to make us all feel guilty about supporting him, because the incident in the gif happened months and months and months ago. You didn’t for five fucking seconds google the t-rex arm guy incident and find out what actually happened. I know you haven’t listened to Trump himself much or you’d know that he had made that very gesture numerous times before the incident- he makes that absurd hand gesture to everybody, to signify that they’re being too sensitive or babyish or girly, that’s what the gesture means when you raise your hands up really high and flap them around: he did it to Jeb, did it to Rubio, etc. It’s obvious that you simply believe we’ve fallen into a mind trap over Trump. And I believe you’ve simply fallen into the media’s mind trap over despising Trump, the media which de-contextualizes every-last-fucking-thing the guy does or says, as was the case with Mr. T-rex hand. Anyway, I still don’t have any personal malice toward you, I just thought the debate thing was funny: my view of you is not lessened. I just think your politics is fucked. But I understand that politics can only ever be an application of a philosophy, to the world. The same philosophy can be applied numerous ways. Your philosophy may be sound, and your politics can still be fucked.
One great thing about Trump, he’s made a line. There’s not many lines left in the world. A bit of a living strike against old Hegel: synthesize this shit. And it is good that there are still some lines, some separations.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
"Industry itself isn’t bad. Technology and science are the only ways we can fix global warming. We do not need to shut everything down, we need to keep innovating new ideas like carbon capture tech "
In fact, no one is stopping anyone from developing such technology. Governments are entirely free to do this. But they don’t. Globalism is a moot point here. Nothing more is required to start attack this problem than the gigantic scientific apparatus the US has at its disposal. That they arent doing this, and trying for globalism first, is evidence that they have no intention of solving it.
" I of course agree that we should not just hand over our power to anyone. Obviously I agree on that. But I am saying we do not need to do that. Things like the Paris Agreement can happen if idiots like Trump get out of the way, denying the very problem itself. "
A formal agreement and promise to do something without having anything close to sufficient means to do it, is certainly not hope-giving. It is rather a statement of being entirely unfit for the task, of completely lacking seriousness. Which hardly came as a surprise.
The best thing for a scientist now is not to wait until his government gives him an order, but to start thinking for himself.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:33 pm
Oh yeah, Capable, you also mentioned I was behaving like some kind of religious nutjob or cnn correspondent because I- predicted things that might take place should Clinton or Trump be elected. Fuck off with the personal shit like you haven’t gotten personal yourself, before I ever did.
“In fact, no one is stopping anyone from developing such technology. Governments are entirely free to do this. But they don’t. Globalism is a moot point here. Nothing more is required to start attack this problem than the gigantic scientific apparatus the US has at its disposal. That they arent doing this, and trying for globalism first, is evidence that they have no intention of solving it.”
Yes, I would add: All higher level science is a government affair. (Schooling is also a government affair and they fucked that up too.) The government funds all the fucking research projects. Instead of trying to pass laws for us with the alliance you’ve made with other governments, just fund some solar technology or something. Oh yeah, you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to maintain that alliance, this globalism- because our so called allies demand we give them all our military resources, defend their boarders, relinquish our assets to foreign aid, etc, out of the goodness of our heart, for the sake of the noble project of a global state, so your budget for science projects is likely pretty limited. If the globalization had never commenced, our country would have had the funds to get us to Alpha Centauri by now and none of this would matter.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:56 pm
Parodites wrote:
Yes, I would add: All higher level science is a government affair. (Schooling is also a government affair and they fucked that up too.) The government funds all the fucking research projects. Instead of trying to pass laws for us with the alliance you’ve made with other governments, just fund some solar technology or something. Oh yeah, you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to maintain that alliance, this globalism- because our so called allies demand we give them all our military resources, defend their boarders, relinquish our assets to foreign aid, etc, out of the goodness of our heart, for the sake of the noble project of a global state, so your budget for science projects is likely pretty limited.
True. A single percent of the military budget solves all hunger too. The real priorities are evident only by what is actually happening, not by what politicians are saying and formally agreeing on.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:03 pm
Essentially the larger structures get the blinder their will to power unless they are integrally regulated by the self-valuing principle proper; usually this happens as the cost of parts of the environment. Kissingers post-political confession is the final political logos, I think - curb unifying ambitions and tread in deference around great historical powers - above all ones own. Postwar USA equals a globalized politics; Trump understands well that all that is needed now, is boldness, which requires independence.