You’re most very welcome.
Guerrilla insurrections don’t start out of nowhere. They have to start somewhere.
You both need to stop kissing each other’s asses and get a room together somewhere.
Name even one that counted for fuck-all in the modern era, in the US or Europe.
…that’s right.
How many guerrilla armies have decimated modern United States military forces?
How about Finland versus Russia in World War II? Idiot.
Um.
You seem confused. It’s ok.
Go back to your Dark Knight, drink a beer, you’ll feel better
That’s not an argument or rebuttal. I’ll just take your reducing conversation to insults your failure to even hold a debate.
Now, take your leave of thread. Move along now.
You know Heath Ledger is dead right?
I’m sorry, I was distracted with all that shit coming out of your mouth.
I’m starting to think the Juggalo kid believes that the Joker is a real person. I don’t know how you’re supposed to argue against that.
Geez, how many new assholes do we have joining ILP coming out of the woodwork?
Wait are you saying that out of character or are you still “Violent Chaotic Anarchist” or whatever? I just can’t imagine a villain whining about people being mean to them on a forum.
You’re going off subject of this thread in derailing it focusing on personal attacks that in no way bears resemblance to what is being discussed. A pathetic display.
If you’re going to be insulting at least try to remain on subject or point.
I of course troll now and then but at least there is some coherence to my trolling where I stay on subject by comparison.
You youngsters have so much to learn…
There’s a specific art form or eloquence to trolling that takes time to learn through experience.
Your kind of trolling lacks sophistication. It comes out unorganized, non-coherent, and looks like shit.
Bloody fucking amateurs…
You say that like you’ve been adding something to these discussions. You treat this more like a LARPing troop than a philosophy forum. I think it’s pretty safe to say any time someone says something reasonable or interesting you’ll pop up with a “Nahh way that’s true. Anarchy and chaos man. That’s why I wear eye shadow and cut my wrists. You sheeple just don’t get it. Have you heard the gospel of Nietzsche?” Throw in some dumb Joker images to compensate for your lack of depth. I’ve been back for 2 days and you’ve said nothing but nonsense. You dragged every interesting discussion into some bullshit about why you’re sad about life. I honestly can say, I don’t care. It’s boring. But whatever. You keep sticking it to the powerful. Throw yourself that troll award ceremony. Maybe if you put enough clown makeup on someone will notice you one day.
Then apparently you haven’t read what I’ve stated in the first couple pages of this thread.
It doesn’t surprise me in that you’re just another boring conforming and assimilating postmodern philosopher rehashing the same tired institutional bullshit like most. You all worship the cock of authority like the little authoritarian whores or cunts that you are.
Your trying to insult me and derail this thread doesn’t effect me. You’re wasting your time.
Nice to see absolutely no moderatorship here whatsoever.
Jakob, I’ll repost below my reply to your points, so you can skirt all the trolling,
Yes, worlds come from the collective actions of entities. The entity itself, beings, self-value and according to that activity there arise larger mutual conditions and cooperations, laws of violence and peace. The world is the sum collection of that kind of emergent activity of entities – however, each individual entity, not as sum but as single being, is embedded within the larger world and is relatively powerless to that total world. It is a contradiction: the world comes from individuals (en mass), but any ONE individual is basically powerless to change the world (I actually disagree with that, certain individuals can and do change the world, perhaps a lot more than we think or know; but my point is to outline here the distinction between the world qua sum activity of all entities vs. the individual qua world-embedded and world-produced.)
Those two distinctions are not at all mutually exclusive, in fact they need each other, and are two sides of one existential coin.
One can examine the ways in which individuals come into being, contrast against the ways in which worlds come into being. There are ranges of influence, beings, of various scope and degree in either case, and they aren’t all independent of each other nor categorically isolated. Basically philosophy is hopelessly incompetent and incipient when it comes to the real work, which is to say to proper existential and phenomenological understanding. Nietzsche and Husserl should have a love child.
I agree. The part is a whole, and the part is also ‘the whole’. Without central value of the part as such, wholes get de facto degraded and under-valued. Parts and wholes are decimated over time due to the degradation of realities, one of those realities being as you mention the fact that the basis ought to be set to the part as opposed to the whole. Ontologically speaking and despite the fact that each part takes shape from within the whole, the whole is nothing but “a bunch of parts”. Of course that isn’t entirely true since the whole in this fashion also becomes “part-like”, which is another fascinating phenomenological detour worth looking into.
Really there needs to be a constitutional society rooted in the rights and values of both parts and wholes. We aren’t there yet, but we are moving in the right direction, I think. What, maybe another 500-1000 years or so? Who knows. But I’m optimistic.
Yes – argument against argument is the greatest intensity known to humanity. Physical combat is only a kind of “argument against argument” anyway, and this can play out either in terms of bodies or in terms of minds.
Being is self-justifying, radically existential, and demands insanities and new vitalities. It demands to both be what it is and to refuse to be what it is, at the same time, under the same contexts and laws. Pretty fucking cool if you ask me.
Lawyers kick ass and take names.
Moderators are for censorship pussies.^^^^
That’s basically my point. In terms of how folks react to “the government” and “the law” much will depend on the particular historical and cultural context of “the case”.
And, with folks interacting in the same historical and cultural context, there will be any number of individual experiences [rooted in dasein] such that there will in turn be any number of conflicting political reactions that will emerge if the community is large enough and complex enough.
Which is why I always focus the beam here on three alternatives:
1] those in power get to say what the government can and can’t do; and what the laws shall or shall not be. And that is because no one can stop them. Short of a revolution.
2] the community agrees on the role of government and law because they are convinced that philosophically both reflect the inherent Good.
3] the community goes back and forth in political waves — sometimes reflecting the values of those on the left and sometimes reflecting the values of those on the right.
So, with respect to one of the issues I noted above, what policy in your view should the government embrace so as to embody “self-determination and the pursuit of happiness” most worthy of its citizens?
Folks like Marx and Engels however would argue that laws are not arbitrary at all. That, in fact, they are enacted by and large in order to preserve and then to sustain the economic interests of the ruling class. Where/how does “political economy” fit into VO?
What does something like this entail regarding an issue like gun control. What ought to be the role of government [made up of the “best people”] with respect to this issue?
What of the “conflicting goods” expressed here: prosandconsofguncontrol.net/
If you were influential in a particular government in a particular community how would these arguments then be distilled down to the optimal government policy, to the optimal set of laws.
I have to ask: Are you just being facetious here? Are you just putting me on?
A revolution in the USA would not need guns or any weapon. With a well timed , well coordinated effort , federal governing can easily be shut down. It would be about money.
The USA military is the one military least likely to turn on citizens, in fact I would wager most would side with the citizens.
When the money becomes worthless out comes the guns.