Parodites exposed:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahVfkwxy6aw[/youtube]
Great, so people on a philosophy site have now overtly turned against writing and reading. I saw something like this coming but to witness it is really… boring.
Don’t kid yourself, you wouldnt know what an argument is, let alone how to work through one. Like the other socialists who came in barking and went away with their tails between their legs, you weren’t even able to read the posts and are just seeking excuses to make to yourself for that.
You, Kropotkin, Tab, promethean, since I invited Parodites here to talk about memes, and he went out of his way to say some more stuff, people that before seemed to have pretty big intellectual egos, now just basically come out and say they don’t like or trust sentences with a lot of words in them. Its like Maos list of 9 with you guys, where the intellectuals were listed as the lowest specimens.
Now you post some video to, in your mind, shame a man for being a good and thorough writer, because you actually take pride in being half illiterate and in not knowing what the federal government is. Mao for the win.
Keep virtue-signalling. Peace.
Yes I was drunk , but like a Chinese Zen version of Socrates , I would like to get reinvolved in this very interesting topic. Sorry for giving you a wrong impression.
Added material:
The very perfunctory evidence against. a jump into constitutive material in support of the co injunction of principles with process (democratic) is contraindicated by said separation of Rights (bill of) from the economy to sustain them, -if the so called naturally derived rights have been transformed from inherited ones to materially earned ones.
The transcendence of formal dialectical objectives have been nullified by this as a result, and the question. Is beyond the principal derivation , of the dialectic, and transposed into the derivation of the of the Principle , or Capital.
This transposition to Democratic ideals, has reduced the coherency with Republiican ideals of the content of what Natural rights of Man are, Their ‘re-publican’ association literally evokes a prior state of what ‘natural’ means.
As Capital fails on a wide arrayed social ideal, it needs to expand markets , but only by sustaining present levels of social distribution of profits.
This process, or procedure is constitutionally left vague , and it is nothing else but a new version of hereditary rights. (For unlimited accumulation is structurally and effectively the same as it was before the ancien regime.
Successfully managed families of capital holding , do tend to resemble that , against which the Revolution was fought.
Logically, the illogic born of such process, tends to diminish the question of procedure, apparently based on an intentional connection, such that exists from Intentionality toward it’s cover- that which posits intention to a hidden transcendental , a far off in the future plan by designers who always meant to keep this monarchical rule, albeit in a different form. The support for this is found in the long term profitability of near term objectives . that this inversion. Is causing a constitutional dilemma of interpretation, does not occur to either party, and as such, tho contradiction becomes useful on many levels.
The disjunction of the logical synthesis demotes the illogic of natural rights, and raises it to the level of identifiable subsequent reification, thereby having everyone fooled.
This Is why the necessary executive interpretation. Is solididified , and it seems the only way to balance and compensate for the ever lowering expexrative short term objectives of the worker/producer.
I find that Nietzche’s approach of transvaluing moral philosophy into the social philosophy of Marx, has this contingent option to automatically shift public awareness into a relative safe harbor.
The end of a posteriori democracy therefore necessitated into an a priori alternative, gyneologically loaded, but only by the use of general principles.
Such was similar in the Democracy of archaic ideal states that come up in defense of.
Therefore , conventional wisdom rules, and social justice will suffer.
It is not a contestible view at this point, but a necessary development , whereupon ideal social philosophy of Marx can finally be put to rest.
For the record, my video was pertinent to the subject in the OP.
Regarding long text, in my opinion the problem with Parodites writing is not that it is long. It is that it’s absolutely monolithic.
Please note that I am not at all criticizing the content of the text.
In my own experience in writing (I was at a point in my life an academic), I have learned that in order to write well, you must be prepared to throw away 50-80% of what you write in order to create clear, coherent, and strong material. If you don’t, you run the risk of drowning the crux of your thought in your own verboseness.
How do you even go about trimming your writing when the whole thing is a block of text without a single paragraph?
Paragraphs are free, Parodites! It costs nothing to use them!
Admittedly I have prejudice about this as well, though in my defense I’ll say it is based on statistics.
If a person can’t break their text into paragraphs, it is possible that they can’t break their thoughts into paragraphs, and that signals a difficulty in organizing thoughts in a logical sequence.
Can’t know that without reading, of course, but if it looks dense both in content and structure, I’ll skip it.
I’d rather save my dense reading time for published work, which has already gone through the scrutiny of editing, than to spend it on a forum and at the end of parsing the whole mess to find that the dude is a quack and it was a waste of time. Time is precious.
Parodites, dude, I’m only typing this out because I think it can benefit you.
If you think I can help you with editing, let me know.
More of the same Phon. “Im not capable of processing all this thought and let me see how I could make it sound like my weakness is your weakness.” And to add to the insult, and bolster your own ego, you pretend youre doing the man a favour.
You’re not the firs to try this approach. Fact it that some things just are rather complex. Its the fact that it is now normal for people to dismiss complexity and literary discipline that the world goes to shit.
Parodites is evidently the best writer on this board. Id be quite ashamed before him of having invited him here, if he gave much of a shit. But he is just bored by how little counterplay he gets. The guy is tough.
The world is full of brilliant people who are terrible at communication, Fixed.
It’s a rather common problem among intelligent folks.
It does him no favor for you to defend his obvious fault, and instead allude to my inability to understand complex text.
The fact is that he can write 100 pages of brilliant arguments, but if it arrives to an editor as a solid mass of text, it will not publish. It won’t even be read.
Is it really, in your opinion, too much to ask of him to every now and then hit the ‘enter’ key?
I might put myself through the drudgery of reading one of his longer posts, on your word that it is indeed worth the time.
Alright guys, I’d suggest you read this as dispassionately as possible so you have a better chance of registering what I’m saying
“How do you even go about trimming your writing when the whole thing is a block of text without a single paragraph?
Paragraphs are free, Parodites! It costs nothing to use them!”
My models were always the great masters of English: Milton, Emerson, Thomas Browne, using the rhetorical teachings of Cicero mainly. I understand the modern paragraph is a little four sentence blurb but in the past, “paragraphs” often went on for an entire page or more. I am not going to limit myself to your attention span. You can’t help me, no; Phoneutria. I have already sought out publishers three times during the production of my main works and found success, though I am still quite busy with putting the various volumes together in some kind of more singular format, as I demand perfection. So the reason I guess I have come to this forum is that, because both of that and my own instincts, I believe there are still people who don’t want to be spoon-fed things and deserve being respected enough to neglect the five second modern attention span thing we seem to have going on now. My writing is dense and the things I write on this forum (Minus self-excerpts from the ten volume work of philosophy I have committed to writing) are a fraction of how dense it actually gets. I don’t think you’ve understood a single word I have said in this thread and this isn’t even… if you think this stuff is dense then I really don’t know where you’re at mentally. I feel I give people too much credit, instinctively.
I haven’t been rude or discourteous with you, and I see that the cognitive dissonance is getting you a little worked up. Maybe relax a little. And to phoneutria: you somehow associating anything I have said with the sovereign citizen movement or this guy. Look man, you really don’t seem to understand anything I’ve said either. Those guys believe that the Constitution is invalid (whereas I value it as the greatest legal document ever conceived and the basis of all US law) because there wasn’t a formal convention to disband the temporary government formed before the true Constitution was finally drafted up. I sit here just scratching my head that on a philosophy forum of all places, the idea of freedom and right is maligned? I don’t know what has happened to people. I have to argue against people about the fact that their rights, souls and freedom are… worth something?
" And because you agree, yes, you are trading “freedom for security”. Individual Rights are not absolute …"
I assumed you understood that the Federal and State level governments are… different, so I didn’t specify that point because it is elementary. I am sorry I gave you too much credit, but that doesn’t make my argument all over the place. I am not trading anything for anything, as you imply here. I am going to simplify what I said as much as possible because you’re still not getting it. Drugs should be legal at the Federal level because the Federal government was never invested with the authority, either by the Constitution or an Amendment, to make drugs illegal and violate an implicit right I have to ingest what I want. However, the State level government is free to create its own internal regulations about it. They are not given the power to make a drug illegal, but they are permitted to regulate its commerce. (They do this with alcohol and tobacco of course. One state could say you must be 18 to buy something, another that you must be 21, etc. The States do not have the authority to make a drug illegal- but, unlike the Federal government, they can regulate its commerce through internal laws.) And yes, my rights are absolute. Like I said, in a European state you have no rights as the US understands them. You merely have, like a child,- privileges, born out of a negotiation with the state- and privileges that the state can take away at any time, as Australia did when they criminalized firearms, as European states do all the time when they jail people for making a Nazi joke. So when you go on to say: “Because all actions, affect all others, no matter how small they seem.”
Well fortunately: unlike Europe, the US does not recognize the government as having either the responsibility or the power to engage in acts of social engineering “for our own good”. You see, we are granted freedom and self-determination here to form our own communities, states, and greater national identity from the ground up, without conformation to the totalizing vision of some governmental authority. Again, European governments work the way you seem to want this one to work.
“You may as well argue for your “individual right” to commit suicide, compared to narcotic or opioid drug consumption and abuse. Do you have a God-given-Right to commit suicide? To poison yourself? To self-harm or mutilate?”
Um, yeah?
youtube.com/watch?v=W1dXB_XpmXs
" Then I stipulated the primary reason for its illegality, not because of the nature of self-harm, but by the method these drugs are produced, controlled, traded, bought, sold, held, etc."
So it’s illegal because drugs are manufactured and sold nefariously when drugs are illegal. Man, that’s pretty stupid.
You skipped the part where, without having been modified by an amendment, the Federal government has no authority to pronounce a drug illegal.
You really need to stop assuming you know everything: or that you know anything.
So to unwrong: yeah you don’t understand the basic separation of Federal and State level authority. And to phoneutria: my paragraphs are too long. That all you got for me guys? It wasn’t uncommon for paragraphs to run for 1-3 pages in pre-1900’s English writing. Proust has single sentences that run that long. I am growing quite bored with the lack of challenge I receive on this forum, but then again, my own humor wasn’t my primary object in coming here. Apparently the most precious boons of the Life of the Mind have become despised and scary as of late, like our Freedom. I have come to defend such things for the benefit, perhaps not of those with “challenges” when it comes to attention span or education,- but of others
Phon - plenty of people here have already expressed admiration for his writing. Your modest intellectual capacities are not his fault, let alone obviously so.
Also this idea that you cant judge for yourself whether something is good, but have to rely on whether its published, that is like, only taking people seriously if they’re on tv. Not your friends, family, no they cant make sense, just your news anchor because he or she gets paid.
Anyway Im probably interfering here with P.
I want Phoneutria to respond to what I said. I already got in touch with publishers- three times during the last 10 years I have spent putting my 10-volume work together, so I already know that people can handle a large paragraph. Paragraphs have become these little four sentence blurbs in modern times, but I mean. It isn’t uncommon to have a paragraph go on for 1-3 entire pages without interruption in pre 1900s English writing. Proust had single sentences that ran that long. (What are you going to do with a 3-4 page long paragraph full of untranslated Latin quotations and academic jargon to boot Phone! I looked through your user posts and, you don’t really have anything. I am not trying to be aggressive but it is clear that this stuff isn’t your thing, so if you’re not interested in humbling yourself and learning like my signature says *Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat." and you also have no interest in this kind of academic level writing, then what do you want exactly? Arrogance in a female is one of the few truly unforgivable faults in their nature, and I would only suggest that you simply not make your asinine connection of anything I have said with the natural man thing if you are not willing to, again citing my signature: Be silent or learn. I searched through your entire user post record and it is very clear to me that this really isn’t your thing, so: Be silent or learn, or go back to whatever it is you do on this forum and don’t unnecessarily derail my thread. ) Does phoneutria, just. Is she not familiar with that? Anyway, I simplified my posts as much as possible in my last one, and I would like to see both Unwrong and Phoneutria respond to it. If you two still cannot understand what I am talking about after that, then I will have to politely suggest that you simply leave the thread.
Whether drugs are illegal via State or Federal laws is not the same topic or matter of fact whether you have an individual right to consume illegal substances by means of Constitutionally granted individual Rights, and especially not furthermore, by mere personal opinion as to the interpretation of those “God-given” rights, which was the center of your presentation and argument.
If you can’t stay-on-point, then no amount of convolution is going to help your case.
“Whether drugs are illegal via State or Federal laws is not the same topic or matter of fact whether you have an individual right to consume illegal substances by means of Constitutionally granted individual Rights,”
Yes… yes it is, man. Unwrong, it is the same topic. Jesus Christ. And the term is implicit right. I have an implicit right to self-medication, therefor: while an individual state can create internal legislation about the commerce associated with drugs, or with anything else, it cannot revoke my right to self medication, nor does the Federal government have the authority to revoke or modify any implicit or explicit right that I have, at least not without an Amendment that would grant it the extra power required to do so. Unwrong, the legality and constitutional viability of drug laws is the same topic as my implicit protections in using, buying, or selling said drugs. And Phoneutria, I will be waiting on your response.
And this isn’t my “interpretation.” Lets read the Bill of Rights unwrong:
[b]
"Article the eleventh… The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth… The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."[/b]
So the first one says that other rights are retained by we the people and the fact that the Bill, Constitution, and Declaration only have a few explicitly written down, should not be taken as implying that our implicit rights are any less protected. Then the second one there says that any power not granted to the Feds by the Constitution (like assigning drug laws) is what- what does it say? Reserved to the states. Any objection Unwrong?
Here’s what you missed, and I don’t like repeating myself. The Constitution also does not say “you need to be 18 years old before you are afforded your Individual Rights”. Thus, by your interpretation and opinion, a teenager or child could also handle narcotics, opioids, alcohol, and other hard substances, and it would be allowable and justified as accord to the US Constitution. Well, you’re wrong. And you are apparently missing common sense. It doesn’t explicitly state that such “Rights” are for Adult-White-Males-Only, which has been the Jurisprudence for centuries. So you seem to skip-over the gap between Theory and Practice.
Drugs are illegal for children, to use, to hold, to receive, to administer, etc. Yet they too have a “God-Given-Individual-Right”, don’t they? So which is it? Should it be illegal, or not, for children to consume hard substances?
You will say, “it should be illegal”, I presume. So the brunt of your argument thus far, is contradicted. There are common sense restrictions as to the matter of Self-Poisoning via substance abuse, as there are many, many other reasons for its restriction and illegality, especially involving its manufacture, administration, and distribution, as I mentioned, you ignored, and now I’m repeating myself, which is very annoying.
“Thus, by your interpretation and opinion, a teenager or child could also handle narcotics, opioids, alcohol, and other hard substances, and it would be allowable and justified as accord to the US Constitution”
Unwrong, please. Just read what I said. What I have said 10,000 times. I just quoted the two articles that cover all of this. The US constitution has to do with proscribing the powers of the Federal government: they do not have the power to make a drug illegal. I just quoted the actual Bill of Rights articles that state this. But it also states that regulation of something like drugs falls to the State level government. So the US constitution does not allow the FEDERAL government to make a drug illegal, but it does allow THE STATES to determine what ages they can be sold at, (yes, if a state wanted to make drugs allowable for sell to any age- even a child, they could. Another state could say you had to be 15, one 18, another 21 etc.) the nature of the commerce surrounding them, etc. Please, man. I have said this 1,000 ways and I don’t like repeating myself either. Why are you having trouble understanding this? The Federal and State level governments are separate in our country and they work in tandem like that.
Federal Laws supercede State Law since the Civil War.
One state cannot say or state that drugs are ‘legal’ for pre-teens. So it is within the power of the Federal Government to impose such laws against the authority of individual states. Thus, yes, a drug can be ‘illegal’ federally. It’s rarely the case, so again I question the nature of your grievance, as I did 5 responses ago. Nobody, and not even judges, have much against an individuals self-harm within the privacy of his own home. That’s a moot point and non-issue. The many reasons why a drug is illegal, by state or federal, has little or nothing to do with your “Individual Right” to abuse it. I already argued such. I already argued that the main reason for its illegality, is its commerce.
By the way, States cannot enforce commerce from state-to-state, which is why such matters become Federal in the first place. Because a drug-trafficker that goes through 2, 3, or more states, selling and transporting drugs, is a Federal matter. This too, should be common sense. For the third time, I question your real grievance here.
What’s your point?
"Federal Laws supercede State Law since the Civil War.
One state cannot say or state that drugs are ‘legal’ for pre-teens. So it is within the power of the Federal Government to impose such laws against the authority of individual states. Thus, yes, a drug can be ‘illegal’ federally"
Unwrong… yes, federal laws do supersede state laws. But Federal Law is not granted the power to make a drug illegal, as the two Bill articles I quoted just stated. Are… are you okay? Do you… do you think that the government is allowed to just make any law they want and impose it on the states from the federal level down? Are you insane? Federal law supersedes state law but federal law must still conform to the Constitituon and the Bill of Rights articles I just quoted: and making a drug illegal does not conform to them.
I’d suggest taking the conversation about writing style to a new thread to avoid derailing this one from its original purpose.
I’m on a phone now though, so I’ll do my best to respond
.
They also did not have computers. They had to write everything as it came to them, and then edit as little as possible, because any little change meant writing or typing one entire page by hand.
It costs you nothing to edit your writing. You don’t waste a single piece or paper or jar of ink, and the time is a fraction of what it would have been in the past.
A text is not made better by deliberately making it less readable.
And, once again with the slight insult, as if it made your point better.
I do not want to be spoon-fed. I want for people to consider my time as valuable as I do.
You have all of these things at your disposal. You have a quote button that you can use to reference people and make it more likely that they’ll see it. You have an theoretically infinite amount of white space that you can use to separate different subjects, and you have a fucking enter key on your keyboard.
If you go out of your way to make it worse, then clearly you do not value my time nearly as much as I do. I’d go as far as to say that is disrespectful.
I skimmed it, for the reasons above. Every minute that I spend not coding, I loose 1USD (minus tax). I like to use that to actually gain something that to me is worth more than 1USD/min.
I believe that I also have not been discourteous with you, and if you feel that I have I sincerely apologize.
I don’t get worked up. You can call me stupid all you want.
This particular guy is very much into the Constitution. When asked to stand up to be handcuffed, he said
“I cannot give you recognition, I am constrained by the United States Constitution of 1789.”
He was cited for fishing without a license.
Who said that? Are you sure you are not building a strawman?
In the case of self medication, naturally there are rules in place with the objective to prevent an excessive burden to the health system by intoxication, as well as the various side effects and interactions of mixing multiple chemicals without any idea of what they will do when combined, but it is not as though there is a guard in your house watching what you put in your mouth.
It appears that the rest of your post is not addressed to me, so I will stop here. So much for clarity.
By the way, notice how my post is clear, spaced out, properly quoted, and each thought has its paragraph?
You’re welcome.
It’s “insane” for the Feds to make cigarettes illegal for purchase by teenagers and alcohol for those under 21?
No, it’s common sense. People don’t want teenagers and children using and abusing hard drugs. You should have figured that out by now.
Well the reason paragraphs were so much longer- the reason why Proust for example wrote page long sentences, has nothing to do with them wanting to, what? Make it easier without having a computer to use? Is that what you think they wrote in that manner for? I do not find it less readable to have monolithic text like that. I use paragraphs, not to make things easier to read, but to separate one idea from another, and a paragraph might run for five pages. The annotations to it might run for five pages. That is how I use them, and what I have in mind when I edit. Like I said, I found a few publishing houses that didn’t have an issue with it and still, contrary to your point with the no computer bit, text is still formatted that way in academia. Thus your assumption that this style of monolithic text is outdated isn’t true, first of all; secondly, your explanation as to why text was once written like that is silly. I remember in high school they told us: Paragraphs! 4-5 sentences! We’re not in high school anymore, well at least I am not. It’s great that you’re into coding. I am sure you know quite a bit about it. I know quite a bit about a few things too: I wrote 10 five-hundred page volumes of philosophy while exiled into my cloister, during which I didn’t leave a single room for nearly 15 years and did nothing but that, save for reading (2-3 books a day) and learning other, foreign languages. I was happy to find publishers that were still interested despite by distended and sometimes antique style, and it gave me hope about the state of the modern reader too: but even if I hadn’t, I wouldn’t have cared. I do not go out of my way to make things more difficult than they are, but I also don’t go out of my way to make them easier. And at bottom: I am not trying to best any modern writer- only a few have even drawn my respect. I have greater challenges with which I have honed my razors. For I have not designed to be a fad. Perhaps my readership will be smaller than it could be due to my resistance to prune myself to the pitch of the modern ear: but modern authors blossom quickly and are blown away like fallen leaves even more so. Writing has become a fad. I am here to stay, and I would prefer a smaller and more dedicated readership that will spread my name after my death, and in this way continue to grow, then a larger one now that fades away and leaves my name in the dust. You do you.
[You see how I break the paragraph here. That’s because I have moved on to the next idea from the subject of writing, in this post. Perhaps you would find it easier if you put down your phone and tried reading this on a monitor.]
“This particular guy is very much into the Constitution.” Oooh Phoneutria, he’s into the constitution! So scary isn’t it! Phoneutria,
“I believe that I also have not been discourteous with you, and if you feel that I have I sincerely apologize.”
I don’t bother with the quote feature because I rarely find more than a sentence or two in someone’s post worth quoting or responding to. And nah, that bit was directed to the other guy, Unwrong. (my using the phrase (and to phoneutria) a second after that sentence should have, you know. Implied that. See this is what I am talking about spoon-feeding. I’ll keep in mind your “difficulties” next time. And more to him: [TO UNWRONG]
"It’s “insane” for the Feds to make cigarettes illegal for purchase by teenagers and alcohol for those under 21? No, it isn’t insane it’s just illegal. "
The Federal government is granted the power to regulate commerce between states, yes; (not within them when an internal commercial affair does not cross state lines, at least according to many interpretations of the clause we are now talking about) however, an agency like the DEA is not legitimate constitutionally and besides, if you are going to attempt to make the asinine case that this clause concerning transportation and sale of said substances is the basis of our drug laws (which aren’t based in the Commerce Clause but on the Nixonian Controlled Substances Act, so it would be factually incorrect to make that case) then you would be left with the fact that personal use and possession would not be covered by it, which is what 99.9 percent of people who have ever been prosecuted when it comes to drugs, were prosecuted for.
Once again, you can address my criticism, or simply say that you disagree, without making any assumptions about my intellect. It would be more correct, as you know nothing about my intellect.
Not that I care.
I know my friends and family.
They are exactly who I go to, for referrals.
Did I not say I’d read Parodites on your recommendation?
Here you go Phoneutria- is this easier to read on your Iphone? :
Well the reason paragraphs were so much longer- the reason why Proust for example wrote page long sentences, has nothing to do with them wanting to, what? Make it easier without having a computer to use? Is that what you think they wrote in that manner for? I do not find it less readable to have monolithic text like that. I use paragraphs, not to make things easier to read, but to separate one idea from another, and a paragraph might run for five pages. The annotations to it might run for five pages. That is how I use them, and what I have in mind when I edit. Like I said, I found a few publishing houses that didn’t have an issue with it and still, contrary to your point with the no computer bit, text is still formatted that way in academia.
Thus your assumption that this style of monolithic text is outdated isn’t true, first of all; secondly, your explanation as to why text was once written like that is silly. I remember in high school they told us: Paragraphs! 4-5 sentences! We’re not in high school anymore, well at least I am not. It’s great that you’re into coding. I am sure you know quite a bit about it. I know quite a bit about a few things too: I wrote 10 five-hundred page volumes of philosophy while exiled into my cloister, during which I didn’t leave a single room for nearly 15 years and did nothing but that, save for reading (2-3 books a day) and learning other, foreign languages.
I was happy to find publishers that were still interested despite by distended and sometimes antique style, and it gave me hope about the state of the modern reader too: but even if I hadn’t, I wouldn’t have cared. I do not go out of my way to make things more difficult than they are, but I also don’t go out of my way to make them easier. And at bottom: I am not trying to best any modern writer- only a few have even drawn my respect. I have greater challenges with which I have honed my razors. For I have not designed to be a fad.
Perhaps my readership will be smaller than it could be due to my resistance to prune myself to the pitch of the modern ear: but modern authors blossom quickly and are blown away like fallen leaves even more so. Writing has become a fad. I am here to stay, and I would prefer a smaller and more dedicated readership that will spread my name after my death, and in this way continue to grow, then a larger one now that fades away and leaves my name in the dust. You do you.