I think everyone has at least one obsession, or addiction, it’s a part of the human condition.
Did your mother (mom) go buy you the smokes?
Okay, point taken. Serious philosophers at work.
Which is why I posted this above:
Perhaps you missed it. So far though no takers. How about you? Would you be willing to take your own intellectual contraptions above and expose them to a particular context relating to implicit protections said to be protected in a particular constitution?
Come on, as though discussions of the right to bear arms or the separation of church and state, or the role of government is on par with mathematicians discussing whether or not 1 is equal to .999…
In terms of actual consequences to be born by actual citizens in particular contexts.
You note:
But: Even regarding freedom of speech there’s always the context. It’s not like anyone [to my knowledge] has ever demonstrated [philosophically or otherwise] the absolute inherent right of a citizen to say anything to anyone at anytime. Let alone as a “natural right” to be protected for all human beings everywhere.
Most here know the components of my own argument. What then are the components of yours? Given a particular context of your own choosing.
Well ok at least you recognize that you are mad.
As is with anyone who has a passion, to one degree or another.
I’m going through an obsessive process, myself, of understanding the perception of light levels. I find myself staring at things for a very long time, processing what I see, getting emotional about it. Unfortunately it is not something I can write about.
It will be a long time before my skill level can catch up with what I’ve learned by looking. I’m working on it.
In the mean time there are a lot of people who like what I have been making now, as amateur as it may be, and they’re sure to come forward and express their admiration, by the hundreds at a time.
As a consequence I am exposed to people, a lot. And man…
It’s pretty rough out there. I mean, if you think this forum is bad…
It has gotten to a point where I can predict what people will say, where the conversation will go, with a significant level of accuracy, most of the time.
Being surprised by something someone says has become rare. My communications are robotic.
In public it’s worse. Whenever I am at a bar or coffee shop, I feel like I’m in a different species.
So in your defense, you are not missing much in terms of what people can add.
You do need to exercise your social muscles, though, don’t you think?. It is too significant of a portion of the brain to neglect. Everything is so intricately connected in there that it is impossible to not cause other areas to suffer as well.
One can anticipate responses here since as it is a small forum one can model everyones psychology with some accuracy
Now human beings are not clockwork automatons but they nevertheless do have some degree of predictability to them
I meant everywhere, on the internet at large and in the physical world.
There are many practical applications to sampling people’s behaviors and reactions in the thousands as I have. To a person of my disposition, noticing the patterns is inevitable.
Okay, take these abstract assumptions about predictability and practical applications and behavioral patterns and note how they might be understood more substantively by discussing implicit protections of particular constitutional rights relating to a context in which different people have very different political prejudices regarding “the right thing to do”.
Otherwise, really, what’s the point of a thread like this?
Pedantry?
If you agreed with me, first you would need to understand me, which would make you an equal to me. I can’t have that. So you are quite correct: the last thing I want, is to be agreed with. Which does not mean I wish simply to be incomprehensible. No, I wish to be simply, a singularity.
Not only more powerful, but it actually has less peripheral nervous system activity. Central nervous system is where you get the good stuff: euphoria, pain relief. Peripheral involve unwanted side effects like, well: not breathing. So with the research chem I have in mind, you can survive the otherwise impossible euphoria. Not only that, but unlike all other opiates, it possesses NMDA activity, granting you what amounts to an ecstasy rush on top of the opiate rush. Simultaneously. From one drug. A drug that possess 100 percent bio-availability when taken orally, meaning that if you swallow it in pill form, it hits you immediately, as alcohol would, so there is no need to inject it. It is also hyper-addictive, it is so powerful that after only one or two doses, your body behaves as if you are withdrawing from years of heroin use. You are immediately physically addicted. And after even a few weeks, you are so far gone that the changes to the brain are essentially irreversible as far as I can tell, and you are stuck in a permanent state of withdraw, from which your only hope of escape would be suicide. Because of this severe issue, the chemical is only used in end of life palliative care, in the Netherlands. Go to the libraries and find the 1960’s-1980’s profiles on research chemicals, the writeups for synthesis are provided. The synthesis is non-trivial, but possible, without the multi million dollar labs needed for other pharms. I’m not stating the name of the chemical, I only wish to say that: it exists. As do 1,000 strange substances that have not been produced for many decades and are quite forgotten.
Understand you in regard to what set of conflicted behaviors in what particular context relating to the explicit/implicit protections of what rights pertaining to what assumptions underlying a particular constitutional philosophy?
Or is that not what serious philosophers pursue on this thread?
yes
Doesn’t surprise me. So, sure, by all means, carry on. =D>
I deleted the video where I was talking and replaced it with this… which has les than nothing to do with this context.
Iambiguous, you’re such a wimp, lol
Right, I’m a wimp for not going up into the stratosphere of intellectual contraptions largely devoid of any use or exchange value for men and women actually confronting particular protections relating to particular contexts relating to a particular constitutional philosophy, while Parodites sustains the courage necessary to do battle with those who do not share his own definitional logic up in the technical clouds of abstraction.
In much the same way [given my own discussions with you] you manage to defend value ontology. At least the part not derived directly “from the stars”.
Pick one:
Maybe you’re brave for being so transparent about not being capable of being substantive – on the other hand, it takes an IQ like mine, apparently, to understand that you’re being transparent.
Brave and transparent in regard to what particular set of circumstances in which conflicts erupt in regard to the rationality of any one particular constitutional philosophy.
Say, for example, the U.S. Constitution in regard to protections afforded…as this pertains to a citizen’s right to bear arms.
At what point in this discussion does it become foolish [and technically inappropriate] for a serious philosopher to go?
Or is this now just an exchange of quips and retorts between us?
Pick one:
Unfortunately it does take intellectual ‘contraptions’ to decipher the Constitution, as the founders were particularly influenced by stratospheric achievements to overcome the binds to the otherwise overwhelingly formidable established rules of conduct.
Okay, someone reads this and ponders the extent to which, if true, it actually does impact on how he thinks about the implicit protections the U.S. Constitution affords him in regard to his rights as a citizen to bear arms. Lots and lots and lots of them in fact. Including hand grenades and artillery pieces. Even chemical and biological devices.
Which constitutional philosophy reflects the most rational – virtuous? – set of assumptions here?