Yeah he makes Rumsfeld look good.
Yea, iss deep. Communist propaganda goes deep.
Thankfully, staunch individualism, trusting only one’s self and one’s own assessment of reality (without ever ignoring others’, that’s not what this is about), is a guaranteed, if possibly drawn-out and painful, cure.
“What is good?”
“I don’t know, work it out son.”
K: Here in this one post, we see why conservatism is such a failure…
and the interesting thing will be that “Pedro” will have absolutely no
idea why his beliefs are a failure or why the beliefs of conservatives are
a failure…
Kropotkin
See Rengel this is the sort of stuff consensus is made of.
Some person who is ten lifetime away from braving the first step of logic being able to blubber some words and another person who speaks the same language actually being able to suspect that he is saying something.
He is not.
Language is overrated dude.
Its all about method.
Ain’t nobody can consent to what he said. He didn’t say nothin’!
For good or ill
The method the liberals are using is killing millions of people and enlisting hordes of remorseless morons like the one you just witnessed in action to pretend to themselves and each other, en masse, that it didnt happen.
Thats consensus, all it is ever good for. Lies.
I don’t think you’re giving the word consensus enough credit…
Consensus requires ponderation.
He clearly did not ponder a single thing I ever wrote. Consensus is not even an issue here.
Collectivism does NOT require consensus. That would imply that the members have some ability to to decide things.
“Pedro” he says.
First time anyone implied my name was actually an asset. It’s kinda nice.
Yeah I guess you want to stick to your guns, even if they shoot little flags saying “bang!”
You didnt appreciate the gunpowder I gave you.
Because… what…
It would disturb the precious consensus.
Or worse… you have no use for it.
I hope its not the latter.
But then, I BEEN on camera. My personhood can easily be assertained through a brief review of this board’s history.
Whereas this K fellow… “Kropotkin.”
Because my politics depends on people having the ability for thought and taking positions they are responsible for.
Who is responsible for a method? Nobody, it already assumes a whole lot that was never discussed or consented to.
I actually take science seriously. Being a scientist and all.
Goddamn this … marketplace.
“I don’t even know why I’m on this track. Y’all niggas ain’t even on my level.”
Do you, I dunno, agree that water displacement says something about volume?
Otherwise Obama could just say “i dunno, the method just failed I guess.”
Obama. Now there is a man of method. Never in his life did he ask himself what he himself would think or decide. Other than to follow method.
Algorithms and shit…
I don’t answer to no fucking machine.
Codes.
“Live by the code.”
God fucking forbid you lived by your own capacity to reason and figure shit out.
Let something outside yourself be your measure, sure. that’s what free men do.
NOT
Fucking asshole.
But this is an interesting avenue, let’s explore it further.
Why is the mention of consensus, “scientific consensus,” such a surefire win for leftists? because, thanks to the magnificent USofA, it has become reflex to assume that ultimate authority lies in individuals. when they say consensus, scientific consensus, tey are claiming there are scientists, individualists by nature, who all agree on certain things.
Of course, this relies on people ACCEPTING that “consensus,” obeying that collective of scientists, and enver ever ever actually engaging in an act of consensus, which would require knowing what exactly it is these supposed scientists are saying and what they are basing it on and how it corresponds with the real world, with things that acutally happen or not in an observable way.
See the beauty of observability is that it relies on an observer. An individual.
“Take my word for it” is self-evidently not consensus, which is what these leftists do when they appeal to "scientific consensus. "