eywan gowtew pee ooksietee wear tagulssa haatan stelalya basisin baeba

somthing just fell out off the skyyyyyy

o tenessee what did u write
we come 2gether in tha middle of the nite

Part 1 of my response to BMU.
@BMU, your response in post 138 is one of the most intelligent things I’ve seen on this board. I don’t agree with all of it, but the spirit behind it is 5×5, and you know a hawk from a handsaw.

Respect, as Ali G would say.

Please let me be blunt now.

beta_males_unite said:

@Wolfe/Sony/All
Gentleman, the world you seem to be accusing me

Rubbish. First, Sony and I have nothing in common other than the letter ‘o’. Second, and most importantly, I do not accuse you of anything; I’m genuinely trying to understand your proposals and perspective. Which former I still don’t grasp.

of desiring sounds eerily similar to the liberal/conservative dystopia I grew up in and wish to escape.

I note below that you twist (interpret would probably be a fairer word; I’ll leave twist because I’m trying to dialogue honestly with you) libertarian in the context of societal governance and evolution. I believe you do the same above.

I think the greatest difference I have with the traditional mindset is, I view civilization and it’s subsystems (religion, politics, culture, art, science, technology, etc) to be products of human nature - rather than the other way around.

So do I (sort of), but there is indeed great subtlety here.

I believe we are naturally a moral, logical and emotional animal, with good and bad sides, designed by evolution to operate on both an individual and collective/group level

Wow. That’s both brilliant and… uh… not so much. For any twit-like person still reading, my criticism is directed very narrowly at BMU. You don’t get to play unless you’ve read the philosophers he mentions below.

I can’t possibly agree with your paragraph above… as I read it. Let’s just agree to disagree for now, and I will certainly stipulate your argument is a reasonable baseline.. (Obviously, for example, there’s a trivial Christian counterargument to you, but that’s dependent upon axioms you likely don’t accept).

.. interdependent, interlocking, self-regulating, self-organizing systems and subsystems with inherent, defined, hardcoded ranges

I don’t buy hardcoded at all.

and parameters of thought, experience and behavior. I believe life to be nothing more than a system, and all living things to be biological “robots”, which serve as vehicles for genes.

Look, this is the reductionist biological argument and it’s circa 500 years old.

Bluntly, the biologists and philosophers who so argue are ignorant of modern physics and I’ll simply (mis)quote the Bard: “There is more on this earth than is dreamt of in thy philosophy”.

As radical as my view may seem to you, I would argue westernism founders’ core views were similar, and radical for their time:

Not really, unless you magically (as I think you do) port Adam Smith as a founder of the US. You play a bit of a game with ‘libertarian’ in simply ascribing progress in the west to the best of libertarian ideals, whereas progress in the west is based on a more complex melange (though may be ultimately due to libertarian ideas — I’d LIKE that to be true, but neither you nor I have proof of same).

Jefferson believed

I suspect we’d mostly agree on Jefferson. Let’s stipulate that for now.

I’m an empiricist and a rationalist. My views are largely based upon mainstream (non racist, non sexist, non eugenicist, non hateful)

Don’t have a problem with sexist, other than irrationally sexist. The rest, yep.

And here Part 1 ends… more to follow.
-wolfe

My apologies. All hail thee, P Coderch, king of the Leberwurstians!

- Die Walkure - Ride of the Valkyries

sonyad said:

That might well be. Yet I contend you’re a leberwurstian, regardless.

- Carl Orff, Carmina Burana (1937) - 23 Veni, veni, venias

I don’t even know what the fuck that means. Stop speaking in codes and MAN UP!

P Coderch

Merry Christmas to all from the North Pole! May you all have a good day!

-Strength and Honor-

sonyad said:

And a merry Christmas and a happy new year for all! Those marsupials among us yet to be shot by Stallone included.

LOL
Stallone couldn’t pass our newly announced entry tests on either knowledge of our culture or literacy. This particular marsupial feels remarkably free of lead.

Likewise on the greetings.

I’ve completely forgotten my previous post, undoubtedly still awaiting moderation… How cool is that?

Quite.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Most unpleasant perusing!

And a merry Christmas and a happy new year for all! Those marsupials among us yet to be shot by Stallone included.

- the sounds sony makes while blissfully savouring a bottle of aged Cabernet Sauvignon from Vrancea’s hills

Quite.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Unpleasant perusing!

And a merry Christmas and a happy new year for all! Those marsupials among us yet to be shot by Stallone included.

- Offspring - Want You Bad

@Wolfe/Sony/All
Gentleman, the world you seem to be accusing me of desiring sounds eerily similar to the liberal/conservative dystopia I grew up in and wish to escape.

I think the greatest difference I have with the traditional mindset is, I view civilization and it’s subsystems (religion, politics, culture, art, science, technology, etc) to be products of human nature - rather than the other way around. I believe we are naturally a moral, logical and emotional animal, with good and bad sides, designed by evolution to operate on both an individual and collective/group level .. interdependent, interlocking, self-regulating, self-organizing systems and subsystems with inherent, defined, hardcoded ranges and parameters of thought, experience and behavior. I believe life to be nothing more than a system, and all living things to be biological “robots”, which serve as vehicles for genes.

As radical as my view may seem to you, I would argue westernism founders’ core views were similar, and radical for their time:

(from wikipedia)Jefferson believed that individuals have an innate sense of morality that prescribes right from wrong when dealing with other individuals—that whether they choose to restrain themselves or not, they have an innate sense of the natural rights of others.

Let’s toss the term “libertarian” for a second .. too confusing… it means too many things to too many people.

I’m an empiricist and a rationalist. My views are largely based upon mainstream (non racist, non sexist, non eugenicist, non hateful) neo-darwinistic theories in the mold of Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett and Robert Wright. Pinker’s most recent work does a decent job at presenting the case:

——————
(excerpt from wikipedia)

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature is a best-selling 2002 book by Steven Pinker arguing against tabula rasa models of psychology, arguing that the human mind is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations.

Pinker claims these fears are non sequiturs, and that the blank slate view of human nature would actually be a greater threat if it were true. For example, he argues that political equality does not require sameness, but policies that treat people as individuals with rights; that moral progress doesn’t require the human mind to be naturally free of selfish motives, only that it has other motives to counteract them; that responsibility doesn’t require behavior to be uncaused, only that it responds to praise and blame; and that meaning in life doesn’t require that the process that shaped the brain must have a purpose, only that the brain itself has purposes. He also argues that grounding moral values in claims about a blank slate opens them to possibility of being overturned by future empirical discoveries; and that belief in a blank slate human nature encourages destructive social trends such as persecution of the successful and totalitarian social engineering …
——————
I usually describe my political stance simply as “libertarian”, mainly because there is no other term laymen usually easily/quickly understand, and mainly because “real” libertarians and I strive to do more or less the same thing: build effective market and governmental systems which properly and fairly balance rights and responsibilities, towards ethical and productive outcomes, for both the individual and the whole, to maximize growth in both the short and long terms.

However, “original” “real” libertarians such as Jefferson, Smith, et al - were not privileged with our modern scientific understanding of evolution, natural systems, human nature, genetics, computer science, etc. Neo-darwinist libertarians such as I seek to continue on in the tradition of westernism’s founders, by updating our libertarian-based systems to reflect our updated understanding of the Age of Enlightenment concepts these systems were based upon.

In my view, one of the most important factors westernism’s founders failed to predict was the unique psychology and value system of females and children/young adults,which I believe “unmasked” itself shortly after women gained the right to vote, and also after academic institutions (populated mostly by young adults) gained greater visibility on the western scene. Imo, this phenonema, and the failure of anyone then or since to clearly identify or understand it, led to the unchallenged, under-the-radar rise of matriarchal socialism both culturally and politically, on both the left and the right .. and is best exemplified by the rise of the “soft left” ie western leftism ie “liberalism” ie “feminism” [as opposed to the "hard left" ie eastern leftism ie "Stalinism", which is much more of an adult - though woefully incorrect - masculine mindset] and the conservative right’s largely futile efforts to contain it.

That being said, the founders of westernism did the best they possibly could with the information available to them at the time, and to then take their radical new vision and navigate the traditionalist socio-political landscape of the 18th century. I would argue that our libertarian-based systems in only 230 years have advanced human civilization more than in all of prior human history (scientist estimate anatomically modern homo sapiens emerged about 130,000 years ago) combined, and is still chugging along in a positive direction overall, in spite of all of it’s problems.

-BMU

That might well be. Yet I contend you’re a leberwurstian, regardless.

- Carl Orff, Carmina Burana (1937) - 23 Veni, veni, venias

sonyad said:

P Coderch said:

sonyad said:

Nihilism, which libertarianism is uncompromisingly based upon, is not the answer to society’s ills. In the anarchy within lies exacerbation of all mankind’s evil traits, escaped from any restraint of law or society enforced moral code of conduct.

- Mozart - Carmina burana

What the hell does nihilism have to do with leberwurstism? Answer: nothing. Leberwurstism is the most irrational, reprehensible and subversive exaltation of the egocentrist and his egotistical manias there is. Nihilism, similarly, dictates that we have no value as individuals or as a Society, then everything is allowed. Leberwurstism is the extreme polar congruent of nihilism.

P Coderch

Partially correct. A quote to which I complementary complete with another.

The underlying issue between conservative libertarianism and libertine libertarianism is at bottom a totally opposed view of the nature of destiny of men. The libertines—like those other products of the modern world, ritualistic liberals, socialists, Communists, fascists—are ideologues first and last. That is, they reject reality as it has been studied, grasped, understood, and acted upon in five thousand years or so of civilized history, and pose an abstract construction as the basis of action. They would replace God’s creation of this multifarious, complex world in which we live, and substitute for it their own creation, simple, neat and inhuman—as inhuman as the blueprints of the bulldozing engineer.

Accurate. One might perspicaciously perceive a particular libertarian among us is lacking ‘civilisational restraint’. Yet it’s still SotS that put it best.

Silly little nerdy robots. Ever plotting to rule the world through no rule, ever fruitlessly. Thankfully.

- Carl Orff, Carmina Burana (1937) 28 - O Fortuna

Changing my post does not change the fact that you’re wrong. Libertarianism advocates individual responsability, respect for individual rights, a rational approach to government, seeing it as a corporation with a specific purpose instead of a the embodiment of the will of a collective - which allows those in power to trump indidvidual rights to serve themselves, etc. You are a loser if you disagree with me here.

P Coderch

Oy Coderch. Really. Drop a pebble to your right and it would fall off the Earth.

Government is the manliest thing since an ape bore the first queen of England, haven’t you heard?

P Coderch said:

sonyad said:

Nihilism, which libertarianism is uncompromisingly based upon, is not the answer to society’s ills. In the anarchy within lies exacerbation of all mankind’s evil traits, escaped from any restraint of law or society enforced moral code of conduct.

- Mozart - Carmina burana

What the hell does nihilism have to do with leberwurstism? Answer: nothing. Leberwurstism is the most irrational, reprehensible and subversive exaltation of the egocentrist and his egotistical manias there is. Nihilism, similarly, dictates that we have no value as individuals or as a Society, then everything is allowed. Leberwurstism is the extreme polar congruent of nihilism.

P Coderch

Partially correct. A quote to which I complementary complete with another.

The underlying issue between conservative libertarianism and libertine libertarianism is at bottom a totally opposed view of the nature of destiny of men. The libertines—like those other products of the modern world, ritualistic liberals, socialists, Communists, fascists—are ideologues first and last. That is, they reject reality as it has been studied, grasped, understood, and acted upon in five thousand years or so of civilized history, and pose an abstract construction as the basis of action. They would replace God’s creation of this multifarious, complex world in which we live, and substitute for it their own creation, simple, neat and inhuman—as inhuman as the blueprints of the bulldozing engineer.

Accurate. One might perspicaciously perceive a particular libertarian among us is lacking ‘civilisational restraint’. Yet it’s still SotS that put it best.

Silly little nerdy robots. Ever plotting to rule the world through no rule, ever fruitlessly. Thankfully.

- Carl Orff, Carmina Burana (1937) 28 - O Fortuna

beta_males_unite said:
The average/beta western straight man likes to make fun of faggots.

P Coderch said:
I think Wolfe and Billy should start having sex with each other. However, I don’t see how that’s possible, since two pussies can’t screw each other.
P Coderch

I offer no comment, since none is needed for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

beta_males_unite said:

@Wolfe, I will admit to being an obsessive, misanthropic nerd who sees the human animal as greedy/evil

I don’t (and didn’t) accuse you of the former. The latter? Yes, that makes sense.

and only producing death/destruction unless channeled into ethical/fair competitive systems containing effective checks and balances.

Once rights are properly balanced with responsibilities, any group or system can be dynamically, fairly and consentually be created/formed by individuals who so desire.

Who decides how this is done? And who acts to ensure contracts are enforced?

And so, I don’t seek to destroy families.
Rather, I seek to update family, marriage and other traditional group “contracts”, so they can be governed by overt rules, rights, responsibilies, costs, benefits - instead of the covert, parasite/host relationship

Well we already have this. You can get married in a state with lax marital laws that’s not a community property state with a marriage contract. It’s true there’s a chance that won’t be upheld, but that’s true of any contract.

So what you’re proposing isn’t (initially at least) libertarian at all. You simply seek a new overt ruleset, rather than permitting people to contract as they wish — even if we agree they are contracting foolishly and stupidly, as present-day marriages certainly are.

You then hope that this new ruleset may permit a relatively libertarian society to emerge.

Have I got it right?

I’m not trying to attack your views, or even (at this stage) to debate them; I’m simply trying to understand them, as they seem to be shifting subtly as I enquire. It seemed before that you and P were proposing a revolutionary change — the kind that’s not been seen for thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years.

Now you seem to simply believe that imposing new rules of some sort upon society, while maintaining entirely the structure of family and marriage — can lead to the changes you so fervently desire.

And no, I don’t think you’re a nihilist, though it’s somewhat difficult to tell at the moment.

Best,
-wolfe

Beta-Males-Unite, keep putting sense in the brains of these chivalrous pussy-whipped bastards, otherwise we’ll continue to see little boys being genitally mutilated by their chivalrous bastard dads, and women to remain eternally eing treated as “enhanced” children. The word “enhanced” is used to emphasize that the female condition is infinetely better than that of children, because while the latter have no responsabilities, they also have no rights, while women have no responsabilites, like children, BUT all the rights of adults. Keep up the great work. You kick ass!

P Coderch

sonyad said:

Nihilism, which libertarianism is uncompromisingly based upon, is not the answer to society’s ills. In the anarchy within lies exacerbation of all mankind’s evil traits, escaped from any restraint of law or society enforced moral code of conduct.

- Mozart - Carmina burana

What the hell does nihilism have to do with lebertarianism? Answer: nothing. Libertarianism is the most rational, reponsible and sublime exaltation of the individual and his rights there is. Nihilism, conversely, dictates that we have no value as individuals or as a Society, then eveything is allowed. Libertarianism is the extreme polar opposite of nihilism.

P Coderch

I think Wolfe and Billy should start having sex with each other. However, I don’t see how that’s possible, since two pussies can’t screw each other.

P Coderch

Female said:

I must admit P Cod that calling you a woman was indeed a massive insult to womankind. It’s not often you see a woman act like an adolescent male having a hormonal temper tantrum, but perhaps wolfe has seen this kind of thing before and is thus basing his comments on personal observation.

Female, you would give me a blow job if I wanted you to. Unfortunately for you, I think lesbians are ugly.

son of the suns said:

“And what’s so fucking great about male heterosexuality? Women are mostly short, squat, with road hips, narrow shoulders and have stinky gnetialias - as the thread’s author explicitely said. Funny that in Ancient Greece they made tons of statues praising the physiques of young men, but very few of women. And before you say tey were effeminate queers, just consider that the Greeks actually went to wa and defended their city-states, unlike most modern exclusively heterosexual men, who are mild-mannere3d office workers who are pussy-whipped by their wives at home.”

I’m the last person to be preached to about Ancient Greece. Indeed Alexander and the Greeks were a force to be reckoned with, but for all their fury when they died there was nothing left of them. An apt end for a group of bisexual warriors who born and left few children behind as well.

Look at Rome however. The greatest experiment in Helenism in history, and fearsome warriors that had lasting power in the world. Quite the conservative culture too, very American pre-60’s scumbag revolution.

You dream about humanism and Libertarianism, because you seek to build systems that counter the will of Nature. Nothing beats the rutting pulse of evolution. Libertarians think people are robots, as well behaved and intentioned as them. The truth is far darker. Libertarianism is the ideology of Transhumanism and cyborgism, of the next millenium. Of SciFi fantasy. Of maybe some day but not in my lifetime.

Are you trying to say that the Ancient Romans were strictly heterosexual in the Christian and Conservative mold of pre-1960s America?(rolls eyes 50 times in a row)