What is Authority?

[Guide]

“"Here is a good speech on authority:

Start at 8:45"


The group says, here, what is self thinking? Which is to say, can one at first make a distinction between more and less free acceptance of what is said by the speaker?


Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of (authority). Try not to think of a purple tiger. You can't help what you believe.”

The group would say that “thinking” something provides the only possibility of not accepting it. In other words, one doesn’t believe in the purple tiger only because they picture it, or reflect about it. If someone is young, it is more likely that they will not be able to set aside something they have reflected over, the free thinker, then, is the one who has a mature power to confront what is put forward without succumbing to it, while, so to speak, sleeping.

a. there are those unable to think, largely taking their ideas from those they trust.

I run into a lot of folks online who are less concerned about my argument and more concerned about sizing me up as if that had anything to do with anything (ad hom).

It’s the trick of a sophist to hide behind “arguments”. Paid proponents in public debate. One always wants to know who, in the Delphic sense of “know thyself”, one speaks to. From a liar we can never learn about the self in the Dealphic sense. One can see this in most Platonic dialogues.Consider the case of the juryman: one wants the one who says guilty to say what they truly believe.

On the disinterested level, in Plato’s Sophist, one sees this play out beyond politics, in the sense of the impossibility to speak of the nothing, without the nothing being, i.e., in staying with the statement, there, where nothing external is at stake, the Sophist, indeed, teaches us something.

In this this member of the group only touches on the difficulties involved. The citation “a. there are those unable to think, largely taking their ideas from those they trust.” doesn’t fit the case you adduce in the video. But this: “b. those who can reason, but don't for the sake of interested motive” (does fit.) In other words, it is wholly sensible to suspect a case where interested motive leads to sophistry. An obvious case of that being the tobacco companies interested in producing “arguments” denying the cancer causing nature of their product. (Note: the Climate Change case is not adequately parallel to the Tobacco case, since it is a one time event never played out, based on scientific expertise, rather than scientific results, but it shines light on the issues involved in the misuse of "logic" and assumed rules of reasoning [the latter are never acceptable to a serious thinker, since they must think anew every time they take up a subject matter [even this one, remembering they must also challenge the conception of formal contradiction and inconsistency at each moment])

[Pedro I Rengel]

The group hesitates to direct its attention to the object of the group's distaste. It appologizes beforehand for any confusion this might cause the group.

[Serendipper]

Oh I see... feminism! lol! How much more rebellious can one be than to be a feminist?

Depends on where you are. On certian colleges it's not rebellious at all. Other places it is. And it depends on what kind of feminist you are and the issues you are working on.

Pride is the point of feminism (the empowerment) and pride results in rebellion.

If you give an order to a robot, it has no pride and dutifully obeys.

If you give an order to a person, they might say "Hey! You can't boss me around!"

[Serendipper]

“"Here is a good speech on authority:

Start at 8:45"


The group says, here, what is self thinking? Which is to say, can one at first make a distinction between more and less free acceptance of what is said by the speaker?


Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of (authority). Try not to think of a purple tiger. You can't help what you believe.”

The group would say that “thinking” something provides the only possibility of not accepting it. In other words, one doesn’t believe in the purple tiger only because they picture it, or reflect about it. If someone is young, it is more likely that they will not be able to set aside something they have reflected over, the free thinker, then, is the one who has a mature power to confront what is put forward without succumbing to it, while, so to speak, sleeping.

Kids believe in santa claus because the parents (authority) put that idea into their heads. Eventually the consensus of opinion among friends (authority) turns against the idea that santa is real, so kids stop believing. No one can dictate by power of will what they believe as if by sheer determination one can once again decide to believe in santa. Faith comes by hearing and what's heard comes from authority (consensus of opinion).

You think by thinking you can decide what to believe, but what determines the fundamentals of thought? Well, that's just more acceptances of axioms on faith and of which you have no control.

All statements must be backed by empirical evidence. So what's the evidence for that axiom? You either buy it or you don't.

a. there are those unable to think, largely taking their ideas from those they trust.

I run into a lot of folks online who are less concerned about my argument and more concerned about sizing me up as if that had anything to do with anything (ad hom).

It’s the trick of a sophist to hide behind “arguments”. Paid proponents in public debate. One always wants to know who, in the Delphic sense of “know thyself”, one speaks to. From a liar we can never learn about the self in the Dealphic sense. One can see this in most Platonic dialogues.Consider the case of the juryman: one wants the one who says guilty to say what they truly believe.

On the disinterested level, in Plato’s Sophist, one sees this play out beyond politics, in the sense of the impossibility to speak of the nothing, without the nothing being, i.e., in staying with the statement, there, where nothing external is at stake, the Sophist, indeed, teaches us something.

A sophist is a sophia-ist or one who practices wisdom. Perverting the word in condescension to mean the opposite is akin to today's republicans deriding intellectuals as being stupid for lacking "common sense". The "professor" is the modern day "sophist". The very purpose of perverting the term is to implement the ad hominem.

"You're just a sophist and since I've labeled you such, anything you say can be disregarded!"
"You're just an indoctrinated liberal professor and since I've labeled you such, anything you say can be disregarded!"

In this this member of the group only touches on the difficulties involved. The citation “a. there are those unable to think, largely taking their ideas from those they trust.” doesn’t fit the case you adduce in the video. But this: “b. those who can reason, but don't for the sake of interested motive” (does fit.)

How does one reason that they shouldn't reason because they have a motive to not reason?

In other words, it is wholly sensible to suspect a case where interested motive leads to sophistry.

Sophistry is quite different from lying.

An obvious case of that being the tobacco companies interested in producing “arguments” denying the cancer causing nature of their product.

Either they are lying or they are honestly presenting their side of it. You could be a sophist for alleging that they are sophists by implying their arguments are not.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Pride is the point of feminism (the empowerment) and pride results in rebellion.

There's truth in that. But then one can join feminism to conform to the subculture you are in. One can do it to find an outlet for rage that really is about other things. Men can be feminists though they might say that men cannot be feminists to get Close to women, with or without realizing it, or out of guilt, or to feel good about themselves. Same with women. I don't Think most idealogies mean that one is a rebel and I Think one can rebel, in the right context or with the right attitude, with any idealogy or set of ideas. A communist in earlier versions of Russia would have to be more creative to be a rebel as a communist. But in the US it would require Little more than daring to say it in many contexts.

If you give an order to a robot, it has no pride and dutifully obeys.

If you give an order to a person, they might say "Hey! You can't boss me around!"

Sure and feminism has called into question implicit and explict orders and the right to give them for certain reasons, in certain situations, etc.

[Guide]

“Authority? Truth.

I'm going to take the whole cosmos because I don't care about dominating anyone, and it will be mine.

I'm going to make every existent a hallucination of eternal forms. The cosmos goes to me, and there's nothing you or anyone wants to do to stop it.”

The group says, this sense of unremitting authority as mere whim, or at the other end as expression of naked superiority and relativising of the others, was not the primary issue the group wished to reach. Rather, the uptake of teaching in early life, as what remains for decades or until death. In other words, what would, if taught during a period of greater maturity of the student-existence, not have been accepted. Then, authority and maturity of thinking as a road in the investigation, which ventures into what this maturity is. At first, from the observed things, more than the inner searching of the adventure into the intellect’s concept.

[Guide]

Guide wrote:
“"Here is a good speech on authority:

Start at 8:45"


The group says, here, what is self thinking? Which is to say, can one at first make a distinction between more and less free acceptance of what is said by the speaker?


Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of (authority). Try not to think of a purple tiger. You can't help what you believe.”

The group would say that “thinking” something provides the only possibility of not accepting it. In other words, one doesn’t believe in the purple tiger only because they picture it, or reflect about it. If someone is young, it is more likely that they will not be able to set aside something they have reflected over, the free thinker, then, is the one who has a mature power to confront what is put forward without succumbing to it, while, so to speak, sleeping.

Kids believe in santa claus because the parents (authority) put that idea into their heads. Eventually the consensus of opinion among friends (authority) turns against the idea that santa is real, so kids stop believing. No one can dictate by power of will what they believe as if by sheer determination one can once again decide to believe in santa. Faith comes by hearing and what's heard comes from authority (consensus of opinion).

You think by thinking you can decide what to believe, but what determines the fundamentals of thought? Well, that's just more acceptances of axioms on faith and of which you have no control.

All statements must be backed by empirical evidence. So what's the evidence for that axiom? You either buy it or you don't.

The group must say, this account given by the group is false in its presuposed slick neatness: “Eventually the consensus of opinion among friends (authority) turns against the idea that santa is real, so kids stop believing.” Rather, among the thoughtful, such transformation has an inward source. Though, for the many: such “opinion among friends” wields more than power to change the way of relating outwardly.

“No one can dictate by power of will what they believe as if by sheer determination one can once again decide to believe in santa.”

The passion for thought leads out of the grips of many such concepts, but, also into many, through the seeking of the passion for confrontation with the strongest teachings of they who have moved the farthest amidst the transcelestial region of all thinking through flanked by their protective daemons coming close to the god who does or does not philosophise.

a. there are those unable to think, largely taking their ideas from those they trust.

I run into a lot of folks online who are less concerned about my argument and more concerned about sizing me up as if that had anything to do with anything (ad hom).


It’s the trick of a sophist to hide behind “arguments”. Paid proponents in public debate. One always wants to know who, in the Delphic sense of “know thyself”, one speaks to. From a liar we can never learn about the self in the Dealphic sense. One can see this in most Platonic dialogues.Consider the case of the juryman: one wants the one who says guilty to say what they truly believe.

On the disinterested level, in Plato’s Sophist, one sees this play out beyond politics, in the sense of the impossibility to speak of the nothing, without the nothing being, i.e., in staying with the statement, there, where nothing external is at stake, the Sophist, indeed, teaches us something.

A sophist is a sophia-ist or one who practices wisdom. Perverting the word in condescension to mean the opposite is akin to today's republicans deriding intellectuals as being stupid for lacking "common sense". The "professor" is the modern day "sophist". The very purpose of perverting the term is to implement the ad hominem.

The group says this is no perversion, but the simple text of Plato, where Socrates often must deal with sophists who attempt to play the great and powerful OZ, ergo, the one hidden behind the curtain of argument.

“The "professor" is the modern day "sophist". The very purpose of perverting the term is to implement the ad hominem. “

The group says sophists were paid to make arguments. A professor who worked for a think tank in the pay of an interested party would meet this description.

"You're just a sophist and since I've labeled you such, anything you say can be disregarded!"
"You're just an indoctrinated liberal professor and since I've labeled you such, anything you say can be disregarded!"

Of course, anything can be abused. The group yawns and remains with Aristotle, he who despised often.

In this this member of the group only touches on the difficulties involved. The citation “a. there are those unable to think, largely taking their ideas from those they trust.” doesn’t fit the case you adduce in the video. But this: “b. those who can reason, but don't for the sake of interested motive” (does fit.)


How does one reason that they shouldn't reason because they have a motive to not reason?

The group advises the group to take five minutes talking to a human being into account in the group’s reflections. Then such questions would answer themselves. The group lacks experience with human beings.

In other words, it is wholly sensible to suspect a case where interested motive leads to sophistry.

Sophistry is quite different from lying.

The group says, not in this context. Big Tobacco can rightly be said to have simply lied. Though, the means was sophistry.

An obvious case of that being the tobacco companies interested in producing “arguments” denying the cancer causing nature of their product.

Either they are lying or they are honestly presenting their side of it. You could be a sophist for alleging that they are sophists by implying their arguments are not.

Too much cleverness and arid generalization about what could be serves to take one off piste. The group says, the closest approximation to a use of reason on this public issue, on the business (or "conservative") side of the issue, it knows of, is Conrad Black’s. He gives a tolerably thoughtful account, i.e., one that does not flee into selective lapses of intelligence or hiding behind mere “argument” (i.e., sophistry).

[Serendipper]

I run into a lot of folks online who are less concerned about my argument and more concerned about sizing me up as if that had anything to do with anything (ad hom).


It’s the trick of a sophist to hide behind “arguments”. Paid proponents in public debate. One always wants to know who, in the Delphic sense of “know thyself”, one speaks to. From a liar we can never learn about the self in the Dealphic sense. One can see this in most Platonic dialogues.Consider the case of the juryman: one wants the one who says guilty to say what they truly believe.

On the disinterested level, in Plato’s Sophist, one sees this play out beyond politics, in the sense of the impossibility to speak of the nothing, without the nothing being, i.e., in staying with the statement, there, where nothing external is at stake, the Sophist, indeed, teaches us something.

A sophist is a sophia-ist or one who practices wisdom. Perverting the word in condescension to mean the opposite is akin to today's republicans deriding intellectuals as being stupid for lacking "common sense". The "professor" is the modern day "sophist". The very purpose of perverting the term is to implement the ad hominem.

The group says this is no perversion, but the simple text of Plato, where Socrates often must deal with sophists who attempt to play the great and powerful OZ, ergo, the one hidden behind the curtain of argument.

“The "professor" is the modern day "sophist". The very purpose of perverting the term is to implement the ad hominem. “

The group says sophists were paid to make arguments. A professor who worked for a think tank in the pay of an interested party would meet this description.

"You're just a sophist and since I've labeled you such, anything you say can be disregarded!"
"You're just an indoctrinated liberal professor and since I've labeled you such, anything you say can be disregarded!"

Of course, anything can be abused. The group yawns and remains with Aristotle, he who despised often.

In this this member of the group only touches on the difficulties involved. The citation “a. there are those unable to think, largely taking their ideas from those they trust.” doesn’t fit the case you adduce in the video. But this: “b. those who can reason, but don't for the sake of interested motive” (does fit.)

But to dismiss an argument for any attribute about the person making the argument is an ad hominem fallacy.

Reminds me of the manifesto at zerohedge

our method: pseudonymous speech...

anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.

...responsibly used.

the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

- mcintyre v. ohio elections commission 514 u.s. 334 (1995) justice stevens writing for the majority

though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.

https://www.zerohedge.com/about

[were34]

first of all about which authority you are talking about ? can you tell us all ? ( my dear guide ) i hope that you will guide me.

so first of all tell atleast me ( only ) that which authority you are talking about ? weather of any random idiots ? who has captured the damn power by hook or crook ?

or about me ? after chewing my lollypop ( by pying without invitation { like an whore}) anyways atleast enlighten me that about which authority you are talking ?

are you powerful enough to act directly ? instead of indirectly ? than atleast tell me ( only ) that about which authority you are talking about ?

[Guide]

“But to dismiss an argument for any attribute about the person making the argument is an ad hominem fallacy.”

The group is stuck in a moronic truism. That of the authority of the phrase “ad hominem”. The result is that we succeed in immunizing ourselves against thinking. One has a meaningless phrase, widely accepted, ergo, instead of thinking, we lay it down. This is the reverse of philosophic existence. In philosophy we are very anxious to know about the existence of the witness to thought. Because we make a distinction between someone who would say, this man is guilty, and really believe it in their bones, and someone who would say, I want to go home to see the basketball game, OK, so he’s guilty, and don’t ask if I really mean it, since that would be the fallacy of ad hominem. The fallacy is an injustice based on European Science, and the concept of the fact that came to power in about the year 1900. It means the same thing as the End of Philosophy.

[Guide]

first of all about which authority you are talking about ? can you tell us all ? ( my dear guide ) i hope that you will guide me.

The example above, of “ad hominem”, an idiot truism, and its analysis, is apt if we, here, in the group, would observe the phenomenon of authority through a specific manifestation. Note the way it dominates the thinking of beings. Leading them by the nose, as it were, obstructing the possibility of genuine investigation or thoughtful existence. And this is so also of those who do not directly follow the truism, but, as it were, move in the surrounding outflow of such authority, which pervades human life.

[Serendipper]

“But to dismiss an argument for any attribute about the person making the argument is an ad hominem fallacy.”

The group is stuck in a moronic truism. That of the authority of the phrase “ad hominem”. The result is that we succeed in immunizing ourselves against thinking. One has a meaningless phrase, widely accepted, ergo, instead of thinking, we lay it down. This is the reverse of philosophic existence. In philosophy we are very anxious to know about the existence of the witness to thought. Because we make a distinction between someone who would say, this man is guilty, and really believe it in their bones, and someone who would say, I want to go home to see the basketball game, OK, so he’s guilty, and don’t ask if I really mean it, since that would be the fallacy of ad hominem. The fallacy is an injustice based on European Science, and the concept of the fact that came to power in about the year 1900. It means the same thing as the End of Philosophy.

For example:

Hello, my name is Authoritus Credibullshit. I'm telling you my name so you'll be intimidated by my credentials in lieu of making a convincing argument to legitimately win your support.

Hello, my name is John Q Public. I want to know your name because I'm too stupid to make any sense of your argument, which is completely inconsequential anyway because the only substantiation that matters is you're a hetero white man with storied history of staunch support for conservative values.

Anecdotally, I've found a person's age is proportional to the extent to which they endeavor to discover who I am.

A long time ago, people took pride in their ability to stand on their own, so to be put in a position where they had no alternative but to find employment under someone else was a mark of shame. The fact that they had to work "for" someone wasn't anything to be proud of. But then it changed from bragging "here is what do" to boasting "here is who I work for". It became about the "who" instead of the "what" and a whole generation became an incarnated ad hom. They seek to "size me up" when determining the soundness of my argument.

I'd prefer to be member # 47854785764 today and # 86558739486 tomorrow so that no one could ever link me to my arguments and I agree with Justice Stevens in that if anyone strives to make his identity known, it could only be to bias his argument as if he felt his own argument couldn't stand on its own merit and therefore suspicion is warranted.

Conversely, if anyone seeks to address an attribute of the person advancing an argument, it's likely the person isn't confident in his own rebuttal.

Perfect example:

FWD to 7:42



Mr. Inslee: You come here and call yourself a lord to try to convince the world to ignore something that threatens our grandkids and you're not even a lord. Not only are you not a scientist, you're not even a lord who served in the house of parliament. Not only can the deniers not produce one scientist to deny this clear consensus, but they can't even send us a real lord from the house of lords. I think that says a lot about that status of this debate.

Yes, indeed it says much about the status of the debate: it says Mr. Inslee is out of ammo and has nothing but ad homs for a rebuttal.

Is the claim that Lord Monckton presented true or not? Well, according to Mr. Inslee, it depends whether or not Lord Monckton is a real lord. Typical Boomer (that would be an ad hom if I weren't making the case that it's generational).

The bigger question here is what the hell happened to our educational system in the 70s that produced a generation so disproportionally representative of knuckleheads. Probably Nixon's forced desegregation that possibly required the dumbing-down of curriculum to accommodate blacks which wasn't fully sorted out until the 80s. It could be multi-faceted in addition to the coddling by FDR's socialistic paradise combined with desegregation and the influence of the prior generation who decided "who" they worked for was more important that the job they actually performed that gave us a generation more concerned with who someone is than what they have to say.

[lordoflight]

I will tell you what authority is. Some narcissist trying to control others and tell you what to do. I don't respect authority at all. Authority is brainwashed to pathetic sheeple who can't do logic and reason.

Again, all authority figures are narcissist. But not all narcissists are evil. JFK was a narcissist who fucked 100 women and used them as objects. Still not an evil man.

If Hitler toned down his homicidal policies, who knows. I don't agree with burning books 'n burning jews. But if Hitler just toned down his homicidal urges he would have been a great ruler. He banned all junk food and cigarettes. He was the first person to do animal rights. Imagine if you will, a world where Hitler was not as homicidal, and did not gas gays and burn jews in ovens. It would be a better world. Modern politicians have no values other than money. They feed us poison, like flouride, pesticides and junk food. I say burn it like the Joker did. Fuck all forms of authority unless that authority is me. Cops are not good people, they are evil people who want to lock human beings in cages. All hitler had to do is one little thing, not be as homicidal, and it would have been good. Germans are good people. Still, us British are ultimately superior to them. Fuck cigarettes. Fuck junk foods. As for gays, I don't believe all gays deserve to burn alive. However there are some gays I know who I'd burn alive with my own hands. What we need is a rational politician. Someone with a sophisticated mind. A higher class of politicians. Rich Christian cucks don't count as high class.

My views are this. Sterilize the retards. I'm not a tyrant, so I wouldn't euthanize them. That is where Hitler went wrong. As for gays, I will allow gays to be fags. But no more bathhouses and no more of them trying to brainwash kids to turn into fags. Also, before someone in the audience speaks up like a whiny, pathetic SJW retard, let me say this. Gays got to have their bathhouses for 40 years. Fuck em. Its time they learn how it feels to be gynophillic. Fuck bathhouses. Bring back whorehouses. Fuck these SJW faggots. I'm trying to be nice, I said I wouldn't kill gays, I even said I'd allow them to be fags. But no more of them shoving it in my face and shaming and banning gynophiles, its indecent faggotry.

I have spoken this like a true Brit.

[The Eternal Warrior]

I will tell you what authority is. Some narcissist trying to control others and tell you what to do. I don't respect authority at all. Authority is brainwashed to pathetic sheeple who can't do logic and reason.

Again, all authority figures are narcissist. But not all narcissists are evil. JFK was a narcissist who fucked 100 women and used them as objects. Still not an evil man.

If Hitler toned down his homicidal policies, who knows. I don't agree with burning books 'n burning jews. But if Hitler just toned down his homicidal urges he would have been a great ruler. He banned all junk food and cigarettes. He was the first person to do animal rights. Imagine if you will, a world where Hitler was not as homicidal, and did not gas gays and burn jews in ovens. It would be a better world. Modern politicians have no values other than money. They feed us poison, like flouride, pesticides and junk food. I say burn it like the Joker did. Fuck all forms of authority unless that authority is me. Cops are not good people, they are evil people who want to lock human beings in cages. All hitler had to do is one little thing, not be as homicidal, and it would have been good. Germans are good people. Still, us British are ultimately superior to them. Fuck cigarettes. Fuck junk foods. As for gays, I don't believe all gays deserve to burn alive. However there are some gays I know who I'd burn alive with my own hands. What we need is a rational politician. Someone with a sophisticated mind. A higher class of politicians. Rich Christian cucks don't count as high class.

My views are this. Sterilize the retards. I'm not a tyrant, so I wouldn't euthanize them. That is where Hitler went wrong. As for gays, I will allow gays to be fags. But no more bathhouses and no more of them trying to brainwash kids to turn into fags. Also, before someone in the audience speaks up like a whiny, pathetic SJW retard, let me say this. Gays got to have their bathhouses for 40 years. Fuck em. Its time they learn how it feels to be gynophillic. Fuck bathhouses. Bring back whorehouses. Fuck these SJW faggots. I'm trying to be nice, I said I wouldn't kill gays, I even said I'd allow them to be fags. But no more of them shoving it in my face and shaming and banning gynophiles, its indecent faggotry.

I have spoken this like a true Brit.

Authority is actually a self-analytical dictator that overly emotional and immature minds see as narcissistic.

You have spoken like a true dipshit.

[lordoflight]

I will tell you what authority is. Some narcissist trying to control others and tell you what to do. I don't respect authority at all. Authority is brainwashed to pathetic sheeple who can't do logic and reason.

Again, all authority figures are narcissist. But not all narcissists are evil. JFK was a narcissist who fucked 100 women and used them as objects. Still not an evil man.

If Hitler toned down his homicidal policies, who knows. I don't agree with burning books 'n burning jews. But if Hitler just toned down his homicidal urges he would have been a great ruler. He banned all junk food and cigarettes. He was the first person to do animal rights. Imagine if you will, a world where Hitler was not as homicidal, and did not gas gays and burn jews in ovens. It would be a better world. Modern politicians have no values other than money. They feed us poison, like flouride, pesticides and junk food. I say burn it like the Joker did. Fuck all forms of authority unless that authority is me. Cops are not good people, they are evil people who want to lock human beings in cages. All hitler had to do is one little thing, not be as homicidal, and it would have been good. Germans are good people. Still, us British are ultimately superior to them. Fuck cigarettes. Fuck junk foods. As for gays, I don't believe all gays deserve to burn alive. However there are some gays I know who I'd burn alive with my own hands. What we need is a rational politician. Someone with a sophisticated mind. A higher class of politicians. Rich Christian cucks don't count as high class.

My views are this. Sterilize the retards. I'm not a tyrant, so I wouldn't euthanize them. That is where Hitler went wrong. As for gays, I will allow gays to be fags. But no more bathhouses and no more of them trying to brainwash kids to turn into fags. Also, before someone in the audience speaks up like a whiny, pathetic SJW retard, let me say this. Gays got to have their bathhouses for 40 years. Fuck em. Its time they learn how it feels to be gynophillic. Fuck bathhouses. Bring back whorehouses. Fuck these SJW faggots. I'm trying to be nice, I said I wouldn't kill gays, I even said I'd allow them to be fags. But no more of them shoving it in my face and shaming and banning gynophiles, its indecent faggotry.

I have spoken this like a true Brit.

Authority is actually a self-analytical dictator that overly emotional and immature minds see as narcissistic.

You have spoken like a true dipshit.

Since you like authority so much, I decided to report your post to the "authorities". We shall see if you get banned.

[The Eternal Warrior]

I will tell you what authority is. Some narcissist trying to control others and tell you what to do. I don't respect authority at all. Authority is brainwashed to pathetic sheeple who can't do logic and reason.

Again, all authority figures are narcissist. But not all narcissists are evil. JFK was a narcissist who fucked 100 women and used them as objects. Still not an evil man.

If Hitler toned down his homicidal policies, who knows. I don't agree with burning books 'n burning jews. But if Hitler just toned down his homicidal urges he would have been a great ruler. He banned all junk food and cigarettes. He was the first person to do animal rights. Imagine if you will, a world where Hitler was not as homicidal, and did not gas gays and burn jews in ovens. It would be a better world. Modern politicians have no values other than money. They feed us poison, like flouride, pesticides and junk food. I say burn it like the Joker did. Fuck all forms of authority unless that authority is me. Cops are not good people, they are evil people who want to lock human beings in cages. All hitler had to do is one little thing, not be as homicidal, and it would have been good. Germans are good people. Still, us British are ultimately superior to them. Fuck cigarettes. Fuck junk foods. As for gays, I don't believe all gays deserve to burn alive. However there are some gays I know who I'd burn alive with my own hands. What we need is a rational politician. Someone with a sophisticated mind. A higher class of politicians. Rich Christian cucks don't count as high class.

My views are this. Sterilize the retards. I'm not a tyrant, so I wouldn't euthanize them. That is where Hitler went wrong. As for gays, I will allow gays to be fags. But no more bathhouses and no more of them trying to brainwash kids to turn into fags. Also, before someone in the audience speaks up like a whiny, pathetic SJW retard, let me say this. Gays got to have their bathhouses for 40 years. Fuck em. Its time they learn how it feels to be gynophillic. Fuck bathhouses. Bring back whorehouses. Fuck these SJW faggots. I'm trying to be nice, I said I wouldn't kill gays, I even said I'd allow them to be fags. But no more of them shoving it in my face and shaming and banning gynophiles, its indecent faggotry.

I have spoken this like a true Brit.

Authority is actually a self-analytical dictator that overly emotional and immature minds see as narcissistic.

You have spoken like a true dipshit.

Since you like authority so much, I decided to report your post to the "authorities". We shall see if you get banned.

People are sick and tired of people like you running to the authorities in charge every time you get a little smack upside your head. You're not damaged or broken, you are not the victim of a heinous crime. I did not perform undue violence on your person and you are so spoiled and ignorant and retarded that you think reporting me is worthwhile. People are sick and tired of jumping to attention every time an idiot like you has a problem with other people. Crack and break already.

[lordoflight]

People are sick and tired of people like you running to the authorities in charge every time you get a little smack upside your head. You're not damaged or broken, you are not the victim of a heinous crime. I did not perform undue violence on your person and you are so spoiled and ignorant and retarded that you think reporting me is worthwhile. People are sick and tired of jumping to attention every time an idiot like you has a problem with other people. Crack and break already.

Ok Eternal Faggot. Have fun in your SJW world of feminazis and cucks, attack the only person who could save your planet, what a cuck you are Eternal Faggotm, you're a fucking judas and im the fucking messiah of your world

[The Eternal Warrior]

People are sick and tired of people like you running to the authorities in charge every time you get a little smack upside your head. You're not damaged or broken, you are not the victim of a heinous crime. I did not perform undue violence on your person and you are so spoiled and ignorant and retarded that you think reporting me is worthwhile. People are sick and tired of jumping to attention every time an idiot like you has a problem with other people. Crack and break already.

Ok Eternal Faggot. Have fun in your SJW world of feminazis and cucks, attack the only person who could save your planet, what a cuck you are Eternal Faggotm, you're a fucking judas and im the fucking messiah of your world

Okay, you see how you're breaking and losing it? Don't struggle to try to regain your composure, actually look at it as evidence that you've been accidentally self-deceiving yourself the same as many people have found themselves doing, myself included. The way you're doing it is different that mine, but similar. It's evidence of you being in the wrong and you've opened yourself up to exactly what you just tried to condemn me to. Look at this not as me judging you, though you know I could, but as a chance to self-analyze and right yourself. You've perceived others to be your enemies and twisted yourself up in a lot of ways; you've been fighting improperly and there is a lot of horror and guilt for you to face because your hands won't be clean until later on in life as you find your feet under you. You've got clean enough hands for the good you've been doing while losing yourself. I'd focus on that for a moment before the next takes you. The scene of your nightmare? You kill a righteous person who finds their true love as you realize yours is still ahead of you and your base jealousy and envy and impatience are going to be more of factors in the killing than you'd like them to be. By the time you find your own true love, you will be given a decent amount of chances to make it right, learning as you go. In the end, ultimately, we're all similar to each other and we found it easier to let people like you kill us because you were sick in the head and we're simply going to wait until you're healthier to get our full vengeance. It was a communal decision.

[lordoflight]

I found my true love, they rejected me, so fuck off with your dogma

Being calm amidst the face of hostility is not a sign of strength, moderns want to believe it though just to cope with the fact they are enslaved by higher authorities. On the other hand, even a winner in an internet battle is still a loser, internet bullying contests can never be determined the clear victor

[The Eternal Warrior]

I found my true love, they rejected me, so fuck off with your dogma

Being calm amidst the face of hostility is not a sign of strength, moderns want to believe it though just to cope with the fact they are enslaved by higher authorities. On the other hand, even a winner in an internet battle is still a loser, internet bullying contests can never be determined the clear victor

They rejected you? It might not be time, yet.

[lordoflight]

also u got a lot of nerve accusing me of being a future killer, as if minority report tech actually works, and then lecturing me on righteous morality...Icing on the cake is your avatar is slenderman, a serial killer who targets random kids for no clear reason, you must be a troll

[The Eternal Warrior]

also u got a lot of nerve accusing me of being a future killer, as if minority report tech actually works, and then lecturing me on righteous morality...Icing on the cake is your avatar is slenderman, a serial killer who targets random kids for no clear reason, you must be a troll

If IM wrong, then Im wrong. If Im right, Im giving you an opportunity to help take the sting out of it before it happens and to help reconcile it for yourself after. Im giving you the opportunity to know that it's out of your hands, but not completely, so that when you go to pick yourself back up in the aftermath, you might be able to do so. To me, that's more important to take as a possibility and thus risk being wrong than to just give in to your counter argument.