## Desperate Degenerate Support Group

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

σᾰ́τῠρος wrote: Desperate degenerates hate it when philosophy is "brought down to earth" and out of their needy desperate minds.
They want to only bring it down to earth if it proves that this cannot be done, or if it becomes emotional, so that reason is no longer applicable.

He will go on and on like this in the same preposterous manner. Accusing folks like me of keeping philosophy up in the clouds...by deluging us with one intellectual contraption after another.

Back again to this:

It would seem that in nature the self-serving genes of any particular man or woman who chooses to engage in homosexual relationships is likely to become intertwined in any number of memes...depending on which actual historical, cultural and experiential context he or she is "thrown" into at birth. And then on the unique set of experiences that he or she comes to embody in shaping the biological "I" into any number of possible anthropological, political, sociological and psychological renditions of "I".

The gene self is clearly more embedded in factors that are beyond our control. But the far more fascinating aspect here is grappling to understand the relationship between the biological self and all the other ones.

Let him react to this in regard to homosexuality. Or let him describe a context involving another set of conflicting goods and note how his assessment of genes and memes plays out when values come into conflict over his assessment of nature.

A particular set of circumstances that most of us here are likely to be familiar with.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 38676
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

Just more of the same: shrill retorts, accusations, personal attacks

σᾰ́τῠρος wrote:Desperate Degenerates...so cowardly, so hypocritical.
They have convinced themselves that they are truly interested in "bringing philosophy down to earth" when they have no such interest at all. the opposite in fact.

Such cowards. Such hypocrites.
If they were not the majority we could almost pity them.
It's a coping method. Who would deny a sick person his way of coping with his situation?

The mind, even a hypocrite and a coward';s mind, cannot entirely dismiss the perceived....but it can easily dismiss the thought of the perceived.
The desperate degenerate wants selective parts of reality - those that come close to his wounds - to be a thought...an idea.

The classic Desperate Degenerate retort they learned in the school-yard..
"That's only what you think!!! That's your opinion"
How they learned to deal with bullies that teased them.
They remain children...

Where here [in regard to homosexuality] is there a single reference to the points I raised above regarding the existential interaction of genes and memes embedded "in the head" of any particular individual relating to any particular context? I even gave him the opportunity to choose a different conflict.

And note this: when someone here reacts to his points, it often seems to send him into a veritable fit of agitation. Over the course of an hour or two he comes back to post new fulminations again and again. You can almost feel his perturbation as he paces back and forth brooding; before coming back to fling yet more vitriol at us.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 38676
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

sarty pants wrote:The Marxist cannot help but divide human groups in abstractions they share with capitalists....money.

Societies had something we do not have today.
Homogeneity.
The elites shared blood, genetics, with their inferiors.

This made the inferior resentful and prone to ally with inferiors in other tribes...so we have the emergence fo class to describe the inferiors in all tribes united in their status of inferiority.
workers of the World Unite!!!
really means.....beta-males and excluded females across ethnic and racial divides unite in your shared resentment of the superior.
Instead of being inspired by the superior and striving to surpass them, they settled for a unified resentment and a victim identification that spanned bloodlines, cultures and civilization lines.

the recognition of class transcended any relevancy of 'bloodline' here. those with similar citizen roles as workers observed in each of their societies - which were relatively isolated from each other unless they were part of an empire - that there was a class which didn't share in the responsibilities of production, and yet possessed the most property and had executive authority over law.

small revolts were always put down by military might, and by giving special privileges to soldiers, they kept their allegiance with the rulers.

so the survival of the parasite class depended on a few things. the impossibility of an organized worker revolt with any strength, the effective ideological indoctrination of the lower classes, and the impossibility of workers mobilizing together because of vast distances between societies.

once the iron age revolution happened and feudalism was secured, the conditions were set to carry the momentum of the parasite class further and strengthen it even more. as marx noted, the possibility of effective revolution wouldn't exist until an industrial revolution happened... at which point much greater numbers of workers could be concentrated in one location.

all they required was organization. we saw it happen in russia and china. the ruling parasite class couldn't prevent revolt any longer. the days of scattered peasants wielding garden rakes was over. these niggas had guns.

but all this talk about beta males and inferiors and shit is vocabulary he learned from conservative narratives. there was nothing superior or alpha about these ruling class parasites. they were practically useless to society. scratch that. not only were they useless, but they were also a tremendous drain on the vitality and wealth shared and created by the productive citizens.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

oh and this:

sarty pants wrote:Instead of being inspired by the superior and striving to surpass them, they settled for a unified resentment and a victim identification that spanned bloodlines, cultures and civilization lines.

striving to surpass the ruling class does not come from being 'inspired by the superiority', but rather disgusted by their inferiority.

even the most primitive workers had the natural sense to recognize dead weight, which is precisely what these parasites have always been. when large groups of workers share this recognition, they tend to conspire toward getting rid of this dead weight. that conspiring is called class awareness... or better yet, class interests.

you'd have to be a complete imbecile to allow such a parasite to exist over you rather than squashing him and dividing up between yourself and your fellow workers, all the wealth he accumulated from your labor while contributing nothing to it. you'd have to be beyond retarded. i mean a pure glutton for punishment. a frickin' masochistic idiot. and that's what conservatism wants them to be, to remain, and any time the worker expresses disagreement with this ridiculous arrangement, he's taught to believe he's being a 'victim', a wimp. this reverse psychology used to be clever, but it doesn't work anymore.

it used to be that you could placate a fellow's desire to 'be a man' by convincing him that any protest against the system was for pussies. well yeah... if you're the parasite that system defends, of course you're gonna try this reverse psychology bullshit.

capitalist: 'real men do their job and don't complain.' *twists moustache*

promethean75: 'thank you sigmund freud. now go fuck yourself, or i will.'

yeah but the whole victim paradigm is ugly, yes, but its a neccessary armament in this slow moving process. the use of it is that it rallies people together. duddint matter if its nasty and deceptive - i mean the degree to which its all so exaggerated ('omg he touched my butt!')- as long as it creates a sense of 'us and them' mentality. the target is conservatism, or more succinctly, old rich useless men who think they run a world that couldn't get along without them. in a war like this, you gotta resort to any means necessary, because the enemy still has incredible power (because the dumbass backward working classes gave it to them).

lemme tell you something. if i was alive back in lenin's days... you'd all be speaking russian right now.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

... and by the way, a note to my readers. i'm not a marxist or a communist, but a card carrying stirnerite egoist. my own law maker. my defense of marxism/socialism is a gift, an act of charity that i participate in because i'm a good guy. what's the purpose? the purpose is to try and help you create a world where your children, and their children, won't have to be the piece of shit you are.

now i don't have to do this, but i do anyway because i' enjoy watching myself in action like a steven seagal movie or some shit.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

promethean75 wrote:but all this talk about beta males and inferiors and shit is vocabulary he learned from conservative narratives. there was nothing superior or alpha about these ruling class parasites. they were practically useless to society. scratch that. not only were they useless, but they were also a tremendous drain on the vitality and wealth shared and created by the productive citizens.

I just, simply do not buy this. The "productive citizen" is almost always a mere fraction of 'production' power of a business owner, CEO, or bourgeois elite. Sure some of them are parasites, but most? Probably not. They sign the workers' paychecks, and workers are not content to trade places. If you could be an owner, then do it yourself, and see how 'parasitical' it would be to own your own contracting company. Nevermind a successful contracting company. I will wager that most of the "ruling class" and bourgeois are there for a reason, and may also 'deserve' to be there.

It takes an above-average intelligence, ruthlessness, and risk-taking, to gamble with your own assets and company. Now, sometimes they lose, and the workers are fucked, and the paychecks stop coming. That's the risk implied in the relationship between worker and owner, employee and employer.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

..maybe, but it's forced. its not a genuine loftiness of humor because he can't escape the dour gravity of his seriousness. this man is dank and cavernous. deeply troubled, like a johnny cash song.

Well.. when I first encountered the guy, here on ILP, I recall that he was like any other poster here, then he changed into the being we now know.. but do not love. The question is.. what happened that made him change from normal to the not sublime?

I still get jokes from his jokes though Should I be troubled that I can relate.

promethean75 wrote:
Why is he obsessed with the genetic dead-end of gays?
that is a symptom, not a cause. i mean the part about homosexuality is just a feature of a larger philosophical world view... but here's the cool part. the philosophical world view is also a symptom, not a cause. the actual cause is a very, veeeery deep seated fear and resentment, nervousness, of the future, of turning political and social tides... as well as a little personal vendetta against various posters. this is the edifice upon which all this is fueled and built.

I’ve always wondered what goes through that man’s mind and on in his head.. I’m not sure that Philosophy borne of vendettas is healthy, but it sure would make for a good movie.

promethean75 wrote:
They either adopt or surrogate-create babies, so definitely still a part of the nurturing/adding to, of the population/the gene pool, respectively.
this of course would be countered with the argument that children raised by same sex couples will be dysfunctional. this image of dysfunctionality will be modeled off the old image of human identity that was conditioned and manufactured by the paternalistic model/institution of marriage.

this dysfunctionality only pertains to a cultural issue, not a materialistic issue, which is the only kind of issue that matters. a persons role in the modes and means of production; everything else is a subset of that and has very little relevance. a fellow can prefer to play with barbie dolls so long as he has a job, contributes to production, and doesn't break the law. barbie dolls are his personal business which government should not interfere with. sociologists who argue that identity is in jeopardy when males stop doing male stuff are limiting their scope of analysis to a very narrow period of time in the continuum of human social/economic evolution. they get this monolithic concept of 'masculinity' stuck in their heads and want to seize all change that disturbs that concept.

allow bruno to demonstrate:

I have no world-view on the matter of same-sex parenting, and have met a few Brunos in my time.. such males can be quite blinkered, so their world view.. a narrow one.

Would that affect a balanced upbringing for a/any child? I’m sure there are studies and papers on that, that would give some insight on whether this was problematic in the long-term, or not.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 20931
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

The "productive citizen" is almost always a mere fraction of 'production' power of a business owner, CEO, or bourgeois elite.

what exactly does 'production power' mean here? what characterizes the real production power? is a piece of paper on which a deed is written for the property/business the capitalist owns, the production power? is the pen he signs the checks with, production power? these are just institutional formalities and contribute nothing to real production. which is to say, if you removed these formalities, the same potential, demand and productive activity would still occur. on the other hand, if you removed the wage/salary workers, everything would stop. so you tell me what the 'production power' is.

Sure some of them are parasites, but most?

i define 'parasite' in this context as a person who sells the product of someone's labor for more than what he paid the laborer to produce it. in addition to contributing nothing of his own to the chain of production, he also takes the fruits of that production. by definition this is a parasitic relationship to a host (worker).

If you could be an owner, then do it yourself, and see how 'parasitical' it would be to own your own contracting company.

i'm not interested in starting my own business and/or being a contractor. for that i'd have to settle in one place, and i'll never do that. i do subcontract though, and if/when i need help, i split the profits equally among those i use for help. or at worst, i'll pay a less skilled helper a set wage per hour that's considerably higher than what he could expect elsewhere. this is the closest i come to being a capitalist, but i'm confident the helper's contribution to the production will not exceed the proportionately equal payment he receives. and therein is the difficulty capitalist modes of production both creates and takes advantage of; exactly how much is the helper worth? how do i break down such a complex equation? capitalism avoids this conundrum, this grey area, by leaving it as this; the worker chooses to accept the wage he gets, and therefore there is no need to go further. but then this problem wouldn't need to be avoided if it didn't exist. and to avoid it, you eliminate private ownership of business and make it all democratically governed by workers. this way a wage is carefully determined by a large group as opposed to only two negotiators; employer and employee.

I will wager that most of the "ruling class" and bourgeois are there for a reason, and may also 'deserve' to be there.

lol. the 'reason' they are there is because they have successfully appropriated the labor, and the profit it has produced, at time x, and are therefore able to invest that into more labor and profit at time y. the parasite collects a surplus of profit and then uses it to make more.

It takes an above-average intelligence, ruthlessness, and risk-taking, to gamble with your own assets and company.

a monkey could start his own business if he has a calculator and a line of credit.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

sarty pants wrote:Kings rose to power because of some gift, and then kept power for generations, because of the collective interests of the elites that benefited from his reign.
This power was passed on, until we get Queen Elizabeth and her clan of degenerates....no longer are those traits prominent - diluted over generation of in-breeding and out-breeding.
In fact in-breeding - just as the Jews still practice - was an attempt not to dilute the genes that rose to power.
Now mulattoes are being accepted into the blood-line....and there's nothing left to respect by the common Englishman. No shared culture, no shared blood....no shared destiny. There's only a shared ideology....Liberal Anglo-Saxon, Judeo-Puritanism - the morals of the slave classes.....ergo Marxism is dominating the Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence. It no loner inspires respect in other tribes that fell into its dominion.

what made a 'king' is different for each period of time, but of all the ways, two general criterion account for them all. one kind of king and his power is acknowledged because of his display of physical strength and prowess. we are at the stage when the guy with the biggest club and most kills becomes the chief. this kind of king is not the proto-bourgeois, because he actively participates in a social function that the group cannot do without. the nigga got his hands dirty and was willing to take one for the team if he needed to.

later, the second kind of king becomes possible. this king gets his power through his psychical force, not his physical force... not any role that plays a crucial part in the productive requirements for the groups survival. to get and keep his power, those under him have to be made to believe he has some special quality of character or soul that gives him the right to rule. this can be done by the careful subterfuge of mystics and philosophers. being almost entirely ignorant of the superfluity of genetics in political matters, people are taught to believe that a particular person who possesses a set of certain phenotypes has ancestral importance... representing the spirit of a people, the ideal type of the people, etc. here the mundane features of physical anatomy are enriched with metaphysical significance - the bloodline doesn't just carry a set of inert chemical compounds, but is also a medium for the presence of the soul... which is the basis of culture, etc. this kind of nonsense is the foundation for monarchical systems and has existed for millennia. today, genes are no longer magical, and people no longer so easily persuaded to grant power to a person just because of his family bloodline. hardly a reason to give someone permission to rule.

and of course the other way is concerned less with ancestry and more with religious significance. these kinds of kings get their power through convincing the people that they are the conduit to god, and that the kings order and rule reflects god's order and rule. the king is elected by god to rule, in other words, the people believe it, and happily grovel at his feet.

so its the later style of king that was for all intents and purposes, perfectly useless and nothing more than an ornament of adulation. he gained his power through a systematic brainwashing of the idiots he ruled.

but you can see that the mentality of sarty pants and his emphasis on 'bloodline' makes him not much different than those pre-scientific idiots that bought all that crap a thousand years ago. the difference is, they had an excuse; scientific knowledge of genetics was not available to them. sarty pants, on the other hand, is either totally denying that this is nonsense, or reading all the wrong shit. i dunno.

your genes have nothing to do with your right to rule. your right to rule depends solely on your competence in political matters and your ability to contribute to some necessary function in society. and by this i mean, not just sitting on a throne ordering people around because the fact that you have blonde hair and blue eyes fascinates everyone around you.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

promethean75 wrote:what exactly does 'production power' mean here? what characterizes the real production power? is a piece of paper on which a deed is written for the property/business the capitalist owns, the production power? is the pen he signs the checks with, production power? these are just institutional formalities and contribute nothing to real production. which is to say, if you removed these formalities, the same potential, demand and productive activity would still occur. on the other hand, if you removed the wage/salary workers, everything would stop. so you tell me what the 'production power' is.

This is common sense. So you are playing the fool, pretending you don't know.

A business is contracted work to assemble keyboards. One worker can assemble 700 in an hour. Another can assemble 600. And another can assemble 500. The production power is their ability to assemble. Some workers can do it better than others. The owner, can assemble 650 in an hour. But the owner is not tasked to work on the line. But he can, and has done it before. Rather the owner manages a team of managers, does accounting, sales, buys the contracts, works off the clock, and is responsible for everything.

The lowly worker, (pay attention because this is you, Prom), is not responsible for anything. He punches his card to clock-in and clock-out. He gets a paycheck. And that's the deal. He's content. He doesn't need to worry about lining up contracts for the next 3 months. He doesn't need to worry about the whole productive quality or quantity. He doesn't need to worry about the morale of all the other workers, unless he's an assistant manager or a general manager of the factory. Even then, those in higher management, are ultimately "not responsible" for the whole operation. The owner is responsible. And this responsibility, is a stress, and a performance, that the other 1000 workers cannot perform. Only 1 in a thousand can perform the operation of owner. It is rare.

And it is deserving of a million dollar salary, extended vacations, a nice house in Malibu, gated-communities, and all other manner of benefits, which you (the worker) do not deserve.

The workers deserve to be paid peanuts. Because you will never be 'responsible' for anything more than your 8 or 10 hour shift.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

Lol I just had this same convo with a business owner the other day, and he was struggling so hard to convince himself, and me, that what he does is hard work, that even he noticed how pathetic he sounded. It was so funny. Like I had to politely interrupt to prevent him from embarrassing himself further.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

I will also point-out here that "you don't want to stay in one place" is your freedom and lack-of-responsibility that a business owner does not have. That's another cost, of ownership, and deserving of more reward than that of vagrancy. It is a cost, not a reward, to go through life abiding laws, suppressing desire, investing in assets, to build a home, than it is to be "free" from those responsibilities. It's easy to have nothing. It's hard to have something, and defend it.

Another point against your argument. Business owners, the Bourgeois, again, got there for a reason.

Now I can side with you on a different point. That a wealthy family has children, who are spoiled and careless, and they have children, who are spoiled and careless. And after multiple generations of degeneracy and Inheritance (as the primary method of holding assets), they act parasitical and leech off of others. MAYBE you have a point here. But I would say this is a small fraction of the Bourgeois, not the majority. Maybe it's 20-80 or 40-60, but you don't have the numbers, and you don't seem to care for accuracy.

Furthermore, you seem to ignore the possibility that the majority of the wealth got there, for these reasons I mention.

So your "Democratically controlled society of government-run capitalist enterprise" takes away the motive, and wealth, from all those business owners and leaders, who did earn their own take. You ignore this completely, which is why I can't bite into this tripe you serve. You have a rather predictable complaint that philosophy is about serving bullshit-sandwiches. But aren't you guilty of it, here?

I think it's more common than you realize that wealth is earned "the hard way". Not many earn it "the easy way". And the majority of wealth in the Western Hemisphere is still Capital, not Inheritance. If you want to look at Inheritance and critique it as such, then you may have a valid argument throughout the Eastern Hemisphere of the world.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

σᾰ́τῠρος wrote: Without races evolution is contradicted....and desperate degenerates acknowledge and accept diversity and gradual processes, and survival of the fittest, and appearances being relevant and indicating essence. they accept all this as being probable, on the flimsiest of evidence...but when it comes close to humans, then the rules change. Now the standard becomes an absolutist either/or. If absolute evidence is not provided then the probability must be nil, or not worth mentioning.

This is basically as close as he will allow himself to come in taking his prized and precious intellectual contraptions down out of the autodidactic clouds.

But: Individual attitudes about race are not unlike individual attitudes about homosexuality and gender roles. They are embedded in the complex interaction of genes and memes embodied in any particular man or woman out in a particular world. Each able to establish some things as in fact true for all of us and other things as only believed to be true subjectively in their head.

Then this evolves over the ages historically and culturally.

He has his own set of political prejudices which he claims to be in sync with the only way in which to understand human behaviors naturally. Then he dresses that up in his philosophical jargon in order to impress others as a really, really deep thinker. A run-of-the-mill pedant in my view.

Endless arguments based on particular sets of assumptions regarding what is alleged to be the most rational manner in which it is said one must think in order to understand race. Some more or less insisting that their own assessment reflects "the standard becom[ing] an absolutist either/or. "

I merely add my own set of assumptions [prejudices] to the mix. Individual attitudes about race are embedded existentially in the trajectory of experiences that come to embody "I" as dasein. As expounded upon in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 38676
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

I will also point-out here that "you don't want to stay in one place" is your freedom and lack-of-responsibility that a business owner does not have. That's another cost, of ownership

ah but look closer. what does it cost him if he wants to stay in one place, buy the house, settle down, etc.? here you couldn't say that choosing not to have the transient lifestyle was a sacrifice, because he never wanted that in the first place. we can't call something a sacrifice, a cost, unless we've lost something by not having it. this guy has lost nothing and misses nothing of the freedoms of transiency because he didn't want them to begin with.

It is a cost, not a reward, to go through life abiding laws, suppressing desire, investing in assets, to build a home, than it is to be "free" from those responsibilities. It's easy to have nothing. It's hard to have something, and defend it.

how hard it is to have/keep something depends on what you have to do to defend it, yes. many people are incredibly wealthy and on account of that wealth, do not struggle in the least to defend what they have. on the other hand, a man might have nothing but the clothes on his back, and be in a position where merely to be free requires him to fight or even become criminal. depends on what you mean by 'hard' here, or better yet, what is at stake if the man fails.

Another point against your argument. Business owners, the Bourgeois, again, got there for a reason.

that means you aren't reading what i've written. i've explained how and why (in general terms) the bourgeois 'got there', already. now you may disagree, sure, but then you'd only be wrong.

But I would say this is a small fraction of the Bourgeois, not the majority. Maybe it's 20-80 or 40-60, but you don't have the numbers, and you don't seem to care for accuracy.

yeah we don't have the numbers, and class divisions aren't as rigid as they were in marx's day. i should clarify that not all capitalists are bourgeois, but all bourgeois are capitalists. by 'bourgeois', marx meant a very general definition characterizing several aspects of lifestyle... while by 'capitalist', marx meant a very specific kind of class characterized by its economic role; business owner that exchanges payment for labor.

so some capitalists might not be accurately characterized as bourgeois. i'm an example. i become a capitalist when i pay people a wage to help me, but am at the same time the very antithesis of bourgeois.

but we can pretty much assume that people and families we'd call bourgeois probably have a degree of wealth generated from some kind of business somewhere down the line. at least that's what marx meant by the term; the social class that was primarily concerned with attaining business and property during the industrial revolution... as opposed to the class used by them to generate their wealth (the proletarian).

So your "Democratically controlled society of government-run capitalist enterprise" takes away the motive, and wealth, from all those business owners and leaders, who did earn their own take. You ignore this completely, which is why I can't bite into this tripe you serve.

lol. i guess i ignore it because.... it's a series of non-sequiturs? the 'motive' of the capitalists is precisely what is trying to be eliminated here. that's the very fucking point of it. and they certainly didn't 'earn' anything, unless by 'earn' you mean 'take into possession'. but you wouldn't mean that, because a thief would then earn what he takes. or maybe by 'earn' you mean 'his product was successfully sold, so his profit was earned.' but even this is wrong. the fact that the product is 'his' is, again, a formality derived from property laws. the product is the result of the labor extended to bring it into existence... not who happens to possess it at any given time. if anybody can be said to be the real 'owner' of the product, it's the people who produced it, not the guy who the cops come running to defend when somebody tries to take it from him.

anyway, that tired old capitalism 101 argument that 'socialism takes away incentive' is played out, my dude. wherever there is the possibility of receiving greater reward for one's efforts, there will be an incentive to improve oneself. this possibility quite obviously would exist in a socialist system, and whoever told you it wouldn't was either trying to sell you something or repeating what they read in some amateur critique of socialism.

And the majority of wealth in the Western Hemisphere is still Capital, not Inheritance.

this is true. the 'old money' bourgeois are becoming a minority compared to small business owners. but i have no problem with 'wealth'. my problem is with how that wealth is generated. oh and with the 'dead capital' problem. all these fuck-offs with billions of dollars that are doing nothing but sitting in an electronic code in some bank. i can think of a thousand ways to put that money to use to improve the lives of countless people. that's what it's about right? making the world a better place? i mean i can work with whatever. if you say 'no', i'm already two steps ahead of you as a lawless anarchist heathen reprobate. if you say 'yes', i can help you do it. making the world a better place is like a hobby of mine, you might say.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

... and that's my signature irony, too. others try with dreadful seriousness to 'make things better', and get everything wrong. i couldn't care less, and get everything right. i do right, and with the littlest effort, what others do wrong, and with everything they got.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

promethean75 wrote:lol. i guess i ignore it because.... it's a series of non-sequiturs? the 'motive' of the capitalists is precisely what is trying to be eliminated here. that's the very fucking point of it. and they certainly didn't 'earn' anything, unless by 'earn' you mean 'take into possession'. but you wouldn't mean that, because a thief would then earn what he takes. or maybe by 'earn' you mean 'his product was successfully sold, so his profit was earned.' but even this is wrong. the fact that the product is 'his' is, again, a formality derived from property laws. the product is the result of the labor extended to bring it into existence... not who happens to possess it at any given time. if anybody can be said to be the real 'owner' of the product, it's the people who produced it, not the guy who the cops come running to defend when somebody tries to take it from him.

anyway, that tired old capitalism 101 argument that 'socialism takes away incentive' is played out, my dude. wherever there is the possibility of receiving greater reward for one's efforts, there will be an incentive to improve oneself. this possibility quite obviously would exist in a socialist system, and whoever told you it wouldn't was either trying to sell you something or repeating what they read in some amateur critique of socialism.

Two major flaws here:

1. The business owner contractor who takes out a $250k loan to start a business, hire a few guys, buy contracts, is not entitled to the rewards if his business is successful? Here's why I can't take marxists-communists-socialists seriously -- you have the nerve to criticize success and wealth, but I've never heard of one socialist who was there to pickup the mess of failure. Say the business fails, the owner still owes$250k. Are you going to pay for it? Certainly not. But all the losses, of risk, are conveniently ignored or looked over. "Capitalism" seems easy when you sit on the top of a pile of wealth. Nevermind how it was gathered. Socialists see the wealth and simply want to steal it. You've already admitted that you don't want to take the risk (of ownership) yourself, so this is a simple hypocrisy.

2. "The worker owns the product" No, you don't. You were paid, by your employer, to build a house. And you do not deserve to sleep in it. Surely, if this were a "perfect" world, you might have a point. But you don't. The house is not 'owned' by the workers, nor should it be. It is owned by the one who owns the property, and put money into your pockets.

Alternatively, it would be ideal, utopia, magic-land, where a town builds its own houses for its own citizens. This is tribalism. So if you want to be a socialist, maybe you should start a homogeneous ("racist") community, devoted to "its own kind"? Then, and only then, might you have a shot at your utopia. But, I don't buy it. Call me a skeptic or cynic, on this point. Because "socialism" would then require Effort, and sacrifice, and risk, just like the dreaded capitalism does.

promethean75 wrote:this is true. the 'old money' bourgeois are becoming a minority compared to small business owners. but i have no problem with 'wealth'. my problem is with how that wealth is generated. oh and with the 'dead capital' problem. all these fuck-offs with billions of dollars that are doing nothing but sitting in an electronic code in some bank. i can think of a thousand ways to put that money to use to improve the lives of countless people. that's what it's about right? making the world a better place? i mean i can work with whatever. if you say 'no', i'm already two steps ahead of you as a lawless anarchist heathen reprobate. if you say 'yes', i can help you do it. making the world a better place is like a hobby of mine, you might say.

A better place, for whom? For you, right? I don't buy into the altruism.

As I mentioned, if things were really about altruism, then you would have joined a rural Commune. They are out there, you know? Join an Amish community, and see how long your Utopic ideals last? They won't last long, because "socialism" has its flaws. And in those examples, usually a religious leader, Authoritarian-Dictatorship, oversees the community.

But it's socialist and communal, so why aren't you doing it already?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

σᾰ́τῠρος wrote:
Desperate degenerates love to discuss fantasy scenarios about fantasy concepts that could not have occurred without human intervention.
Consider abortion and birth control.
Is there such a thing in nature?
No.
Was there such a thing up until recently?
No...not without a great risk to the female.

A prime example of an "assessment" from him when the focus isn't entirely embedded in a world of words intellectual contraption.

Abortion and birth control are actual human behaviors embedded instead in a particular historical, cultural and experiential context.

Abortion in fact occurs throughout animal kingdom:

"Miscarriage occurs in all animals that experience pregnancy, though in such contexts it is more commonly referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (the two terms are synonymous). ... For example, in sheep, miscarriage may be caused by crowding through doors, or being chased by dogs."

It's quite natural. And birth control is a fact of life for many species that are programmed by nature to give birth at particular times of the year.

With humans, however, the reality of memes concocted by a far, far more sophisticated brain can reconfigure genetic predispositions in any number of actual existential directions. Something other animal species have no access to at all.

His own fantasy in other words is that memes [whether related to abortion or race or gender or sexual preference] are entirely reducible down to his own understanding of what constitutes behaviors in sync with nature.

And, given how many objectivists there are among us, this seems clearly to be a biological predisposition of sorts. But how then to explain the exceptions given that they too are the embodiment of nature in turn.

As I do, perhaps?

σᾰ́τῠρος wrote:I, personally, don't give a shit if a imbecile fucks anything and everything....and she impregnates herself every year, and then aborts it....I'm against having to pay the bill, through my taxes for her to remain indifferent to her own state.

A prime example of what someone [an objectivist] who wants to be thought of as a "serious philosopher" can be reduced down to in exchanges with me. A snarling retort exposing only his own political prejudices.

Right?

Well, providing of course that human autonomy itself is something that we all just assume is natural.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 38676
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

σᾰ́τῠρος wrote:The circular hypocrisy and cowardice of Desperate degenerates, a.k.a, Nihilists, Moderns.

-They are nihilists because words have lost all meaning.
-Words have lost all meaning because Nihilists have rendered language - semiotics - meaningless.
-The meaninglessness of words makes them malleable to subjective desires/needs (positive nihilist) - the plaything of narcissists/schizophrenics; the meaninglessness of words renders all concepts void of meaning (pure nihilists) - the stress-relieving ridicule of the psychotic/cynic.

This really is what passes as philosophy for him!!!

What particular words in what particular contexts have lost all meaning? What on earth does that even mean? If the words in a discussion revolve around homosexuality, there are any number of them that mean exactly the same thing for everyone -- objectivists and nihilists alike. Words that convey actual facts embedded in human sexual interactions. The meaning of anal intercourse and fellatio don't change just because you're a nihilist. In other words, the either/or world is no less substantive and substantial for nihilists.

At least nihilists of my ilk.

Instead, words become more problematic -- subjective -- when they are used to either make or critque reactions to homosexuality in the is/ought world of value judgments.

Here, though, the moral and political objectivists insist the is/ought world is no less encompassed in the either/or world. It must be because they and only they have managed [through God or reason or ideology or assessments of nature] to have discovered or invented the only rational and virtuous manner in which broach, grasp, react to, or critique homosexuality: as they do.

And all the arguments that I make above regarding the complex interaction of genes and memes down through the ages are simply ignored. Instead he merely propels his own narrative in 1] worlds of words intellectual contraptions and 2] name-calling.

Trust me though. You can tell how uncomfortable my arguments make him and his ilk by their frenzied reactions...ever and always encompassed in their "general descriptions" and huffing and puffing.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 38676
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

sarty pants wrote:Desperate degenerates cannot understand the concept of no absolutes.
Though it means no absolute certainty, and no absolute knowledge and no absolute power....they are stuck in absolutist either/or mode.
They need constant reassurances...because even superior/inferior means some kind of coercion....some kind of unacceptable absolutism.

The very idea of superior/inferior means no absolute state....but this is not what they understand...because all must be reduced to a level even morons, like them can understand; dumbed-down to manimal levels, e.g., fear....they want parity, and nothing other than this absolute state will do.
Any absence of certainty, of omniscience must mean absolute equality.
Though superior/inferior means one can be more accurate in comparison to another...this is unacceptable to a coward and a hypocrite....the only acceptable position is all are equally right or all are equally wrong.

and to think all this bizarre drivel is coming straight from something heraclitus said that totally blew him away. i mean it's not a groundbreaking fact that 'everything changes'. actually not even that is true. you could change it to 'some or many things change', but to say 'everything changes' is simply something nobody can know. the appeal of this adage is that it gives a philosopher and escape route so if he finds himself in the thick of having to defend a particular thesis, he doesn't have to demonstrate it as fact because 'nothing is absolutely true' because 'everything changes'.

but rather than giving examples of the countless ways the term/concept 'absolute' is perfectly reasonable in describing some state of affairs, i'd rather just demonstrate the impossibly ridiculous position a philosopher who believes 'there are no absolutes' forces himself into.

what happens if i say 'what i assert isn't absolutely true, but it is approximately true'? i inadvertently posit an absolute to which my assertion is 'approximate'. see that? approximate to what? more approximations? but then how do i know what i say is approximately true and not completely false? is there a truth that statement x is closer to, while statement y is farther from? but that truth, too, is only an approximation. this ad infinitem of 'approximations' is precisely the thing this kind of philosophers rests on. if the pressure becomes too much to define clearly some matter of fact, one can simply say 'there are no facts, only approximations'.

what is the standard used to determine the accuracy of an 'approximation' when there are no absolutes?

of course there are also many ways in philosophy the term 'absolute' can't be used meaningfully. perhaps such a philosopher after having witnessed so many of these nonsensical uses then presumes the word is completely meaningless? i should hope not.

the essential problem with this mess is that statements operate and become meaningful only if there are certain absolute qualities about them.... or else one wouldn't be able to know what they don't mean.

three frogs in a bucket are absolutely not the capital of kentucky. that three frogs in a bucket are absolutely not kentucky is not more approximately true than three frogs in a bucket aren't a cherry red corvette. it's just as true, because three frogs in a bucket are neither.

you know i start these posts and then about middle way i'm already burned out on it. i could go on for hours, but right about now i tell myself 'if you are doing this just to demonstrate the irony of being called a grade-a retard, you're in it for the wrong reasons.' see philosophy should be about pacing back and forth with your friend discussing stupid questions and laughing with glee at how brilliant you are, not trying to prove how dumb somebody is. but that's what i've become, and frankly, i blame you all.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

Promethean has been wrong all along.

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

how does dennett respond to this harrisment, sam?

promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

Lol @ Sam. He has very little patience for gandalf's rambling. You can totally hear it.

https://youtu.be/sueFi0F8ynE
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

UrwronxI000 wrote:
If the lowest human today is above the highest human yesterday then where is the backwardness ?

The backwardness is emphasised by comparing the lowest human today to the highest human today rather than yesterday
This method of comparison is actually more reliable because they are living at the same time so it is therefore more valid

The highest human yesterday and lowest human today by contrast have nothing in common other than the very trivial and obvious fact that they are both human
Also the lowest human today is not going to be comforted by the fact that he is living a better life than the highest human yesterday as that is not how this works
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher

Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

The old wretched hag chimed in while I wuz listening to the harris/dennett debate, so I tried to fill her in. Vocaroo is down at the moment.

https://scribie.com/files/7c2abc6f0f634 ... 85f2456b57
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Desperate Degenerate Support Group

^^^ scratch that. You can't get to it. One of those deals where only the device you uploaded it from can retrieve the page or whatever.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

PreviousNext