Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has becoming primal/paleo ruined your life?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Marx was long dead before the first Communist state came into being. Those regimes tell us nothing about Marx's analysis of the contradictions of capitalism, which was the starting point here before getting sidetracked by "expert" and Engel's parents.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Rojo View Post
      Marx was long dead before the first Communist state came into being. Those regimes tell us nothing about Marx's analysis of the contradictions of capitalism, which was the starting point here before getting sidetracked by "expert" and Engel's parents.
      That's nice, but it has nothing to do with why I quoted that text.

      I was drawing a parallel between your latent anti-intellectualism (as demonstrated by your belief that "Him uses lots of words!" was an insult) and the history of anti-intellectual purges (aka mass murder) by other followers of Marx.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Him View Post
        I was drawing a parallel between your latent anti-intellectualism (as demonstrated by your belief that "Him uses lots of words!" was an insult) and the history of anti-intellectual purges (aka mass murder) by other followers of Marx.
        Anti-intellectualism? I know you think of yourself as some special genius but your arguments have amounted to: A) Marx was bitter; B) Engels was spoiled and C) Commies are murderers. Not exactly brimming with insight.

        Comment


        • #94
          For the OP's question:

          Nope!

          tl;dr on the rest of the thread. Will get back later
          My chocolatey Primal journey

          Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Rojo View Post
            Anti-intellectualism? I know you think of yourself as some special genius but your arguments have amounted to: A) Marx was bitter; B) Engels was spoiled and C) Commies are murderers. Not exactly brimming with insight.
            Yes, anti-intellectualism. And whether you perceive deep insight doesn't really matter to whether someone is intellectual. Certainly not in the context of Marxism.

            Originally posted by wikipedia
            During their four years in power, the Khmer Rouge overworked and starved the population, at the same time executing selected groups who they believed to be enemies of the state or spies or had the potential to undermine the new state. People who they perceived to be intellectuals or even those that had stereotypical signs of learning, such as glasses, would also be killed. People would also be executed for attempting to escape the communes or for breaching minor rules. If caught, offenders were taken quietly off to a distant forest or field after sunset and killed.
            As for the rest...my argument was that Karl was not the expert on Capitalism you claimed.

            Engels was simply context on Karl - there was no argument, only historical context. The history of Marxist government was part of a comment about you - again, not an argument, simply a correlation between your attitudes and the attitudes of some of history's most prolific mass murderers.

            Comment


            • #96
              Silly me, I was hoping to witness a debate between a collectivist and an individualist that didn't result in the leftoid resorting to baseless mockery in the face of fact and reason.

              What will save us all from leftist do-gooders? Strange, isn't, that a collectivist can live in an individualist society without having their rights trampled, but not the other way around.

              Truly, they can make a living, give away as much of their income to minority factions as they like, agitate for all of their leftist causes with liberty...but an individualist living in a collectivist sociey has his rights trampled every time he is not permitted to opt out of a 'social program'.

              Which is the tolerant society, again?

              Comment


              • #97
                We all live in collectivist society. I pay taxes to bomb people and protect private claims.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Him View Post
                  As for the rest...my argument was that Karl was not the expert on Capitalism you claimed.
                  And that "argument" is based on some definition of "expert" I don't share. Shelby Foote's an expert on the Civil War despite the fact that all he did was study it incessesantly. I mean, I think that'd be enough. But I think debating definitions is getting boring.

                  The history of Marxist government was part of a comment about you - again, not an argument, simply a correlation between your attitudes and the attitudes of some of history's most prolific mass murderers.
                  Because I didn't follow you down your path, accepting your definition of terms, I'm labelled "illogical" and "anti-intellectual". You were actually pretty quick to jump on that high horse.

                  This may come as a shock to you, but in an argument there isn't just a "logical" side and an "illogical" side, an "intellectual" side and an "anti-intellectual" side. Two logically-adept intellectuals can have two opposing view points. Differing experiences, values, foundations all play a part in that. That you don't get this, frankly, paints you as the anti-intellectual.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    And yet you would see the state grow larger and more powerful. Government officials become less likely to use violence as their power becomes more absolute, yes?

                    Nothing wrong with people having private property and doing with it as they please. Do you suppose that a state that doesn't recognize your right to land and property will somehow magically respect your right to do what you wish with your body and your time?

                    You didn't really infer that I was calling our society individualist, did you? It begun as such, and has decayed due to the influence of Marxism and Collectivism disguised as humanitarianism. Do gooders, ignorant to the creeping normalcy effect, cheerfully embrace tyranny, perhaps even unaware that Americans have not always paid an income tax, let alone aggressively bombed foreign nations.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nicator View Post
                      Nothing wrong with people having private property and doing with it as they please.
                      Sure there is. Nobody doubts that. You can't just dump toxins in a river that runs through your property. You can't emit toxic fumes. There are zoning laws that prevent your neighbor from turning his property into a strip club.

                      Do you suppose that a state that doesn't recognize your right to land and property will somehow magically respect your right to do what you wish with your body and your time?
                      I don't see what one has to do with the other. The Confederacy respected private property but enslaved millions.

                      You didn't really infer that I was calling our society individualist, did you? It begun as such, and has decayed due to the influence of Marxism and Collectivism disguised as humanitarianism. Do gooders, ignorant to the creeping normalcy effect, cheerfully embrace tyranny, perhaps even unaware that Americans have not always paid an income tax, let alone aggressively bombed foreign nations.
                      Maybe it began as such for white men. Maybe. And "individualst society" is a bit of a contradiction. We've been social creatures since we started hunting in packs. It's the default human organizing principle.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                        And that "argument" is based on some definition of "expert" I don't share. Shelby Foote's an expert on the Civil War despite the fact that all he did was study it incessesantly. I mean, I think that'd be enough. But I think debating definitions is getting boring.
                        It isn't about the definition.

                        Think about it like this... I've studied music since I was 6 or 7. I've had musical instruments as long as I can remember, I've taken university level classes on music theory. I can talk fermata and glissandi and harmonic minor scales ... but put me on a stage in front of an audience with my best instrument and you'll quickly see that I'm not a music expert, despite decades and many many hours of practice. It isn't a definition, it's a performance test.

                        Likewise, no matter how Shelby studied, if he try to start a civil war and couldn't he would not be an expert on civil war. It isn't a definition, it's a performance test.

                        Karl tried to start a business - tried to be a capitalist. He failed. Therefore he isn't an expert on capitalism. That's not due to my definition, it's due to his demonstrated lack of performance.


                        Because I didn't follow you down your path, accepting your definition of terms, I'm labelled "illogical" and "anti-intellectual". You were actually pretty quick to jump on that high horse.
                        No.

                        I pointed out the lack of logic when, as a response to this, "A must B. C did not B. Therefore, C is not A", you characterized that as, "Your argument is that A cannot D." That's a totally illogical leap, and it was yours. I even tried to correct your error in gentler terms before resorting to the direct observation that you aren't being logical. When you cannot see that you are misusing logic, or are not being logical at all, I must assume that you are ignorant of logic.

                        As for anti-intellectual, I only mentioned that when, rather than respond to the logic or content of my statements, you began attacking my intellectualism in a demeaning way. "You write long posts," "you think you are some kind of genius", etc. The fact that those attacks seemed reasonable to you indicates that you are prejudiced against intellectuals, just as use of racial epithets indicate that the user is prejudiced against other races.

                        I didn't leap on any horse. I read and responded to your posts.
                        Last edited by Him; 02-07-2013, 06:11 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Him View Post
                          The fact that those attacks seemed reasonable to you indicates that you are prejudiced against intellectuals.
                          My attacks of you mean I'm an anti-intellectual? Ummmm, no.

                          Gooooood luck with all that.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                            My attacks of you mean I'm an anti-intellectual? Ummmm, no.
                            Ummmm, yes. The nature of your attack indicates your prejudice, just as the nature of Michael Richards' response to comedy club heckling revealed his. You don't need to admit it for the truth to be obvious.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Him View Post
                              Ummmm, yes. The nature of your attack indicates your prejudice, just as the nature of Michael Richards' response to comedy club heckling revealed his. You don't need to admit it for the truth to be obvious.
                              Here is what I see after following this for a while. You are very good at twisting the truth as well as other peoples words, yet for all your intricacies and explanations you are sort of transparent. Not to mention you're using lots of words to say very little. Like Mr.Perfidy said, fuck dead people. Rojo gets straight to the point and makes a bit more sense. That's how I see it from the bleachers. Guha guha, just sayin.

                              Comment


                              • Shrug. I have been trying to be transparent. I don't think truth twists though...a statement is true or not true. A are B, C are A, therefore C are B is true. A are B, C are B, therefore C are A is not true. As for lots of words, yeah, you'd think I'm used to being paid by the word or something. Styles differ.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X