Broad sweeping statements

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

MrAuthoritarian:
The technocrats keep telling us they’re going to replace us all in planned obsolescence.

All of humanity except a token privileged few is being phased out to be obsolete everywhere, what then of I.Q. at that point?

K: Now Mr. A. is not the only around here who practices
making ‘‘Broad sweeping Statements’’ but he uses it as
much as anyone around here, so I shall use his words
as an example…

so, he says, ‘‘Technocrats’’… which ones, name names
and give us some evidence that this is true…
But the fact is that Mr. A. can’t name names for the
simple reason is that he is making broad statements
that only exists within his own head…

it is rather common around here to bash Liberals
by making up broad sweeping statement allegedly
made by Liberals…

‘‘Liberals say they want violence’’

and I therefor ask which liberal, tell us the exact quote
and who said it and when, what, where, how and why…
it is just assumed that is what Liberals want, but
that is ignoring what Liberals actually practice and preach…
another example I read not too long ago, says this:

‘‘Liberals/liberalism killed Charlie Kirk’’

NO, a Mormon from Utah, in a family where not a
single democrat resides, killed him… but hay,
let us propagate a conservative fantasy about liberals
killing Kirk… which has nothing to do with the actual
truth…and this is way, WAY more common than
one would think on a Philosophical website…
where brain dead fantasies like a ‘‘liberal killed Kirk’’
can be practiced, spoken of as if, as if it has some
truth to it… spoiler alert, a diehard republican/conservative
killed Kirk…

But why is this even a deal? Why the need to lie about
facts of life that even a simple search will reveal the truth…
It goes to a mindset that is far more important than the ‘‘truth’’
the ideology, the conservative mindset must be protected
over the ‘‘truth’’ which to me anyway, violates the basic
proposition that we are seeking the truth, not constantly
lying about the truth, as those who claim ‘‘Liberals killed
Kirk’’ do… and lying about the truth comes from those
who believe in the ideology, the isms are the important
part, not the truth… the ism is what counts, not reality…

and that belief that the ism is what matters, not the truth,
has contaminated thought for thousands of years…
examples of this is the religious context which says,
there is a god, and we derive our words and actions
based on this lie… the ism counts, not the truth…

The entire Enlightenment period was one big attempt to
discover the truth, not practice the ism or the ideology,
but to exam those isms and ideologies for any truth within
them… the Enlightenment period was about an examination
of values, what values are really the important ones,
and what values were we indoctrinated into as children…
there is a god is one such value that was indoctrinated into
us as children…

It is far easier to simply repeat the indoctrinations, instead
of seeking out the truth of the matter… alleged truth like,
"Liberals killed Kirk’’ is simply a lie put out because
it protects the ism/ideology over seeking out what actually
happened…

For me anyway, the truth matters far more than
protecting the ism/the ideology… unlike the
vast majority of ILP… in which the ism/the ideology
is more important than the truth… and the lies
made are to protect the ism’s/ideology, not to find
the truth… in a philosophy website, one would think
the engagement is with the truth, not the ism’s/
ideologies that one practices and defends by smearing
and/or lying about liberals and liberalism…

what do you engage with, the isms or the truth?

Kropotkin

1 Like
2

Wrong.

1 Like
3

there are two distinct thoughts here…

One, (and this one pleases me no end) I wrote that
the killer of Kirk was a conservative/republican…
and Ich wrote that I was wrong because the cause
for the murder was supposedly the ‘‘hate’’ that
Kirk preached… the idea that because Robinson was
anti-hate, that he must have been a democrat/liberal…
that Ich believes that it is the democrats/liberals
are the ones advocating non-violence…
that because it is conservatives/MAGA types that
engage with violence, both in practice and in actions,
that is why Robinson is a liberal/democrat…
he is anti-hate… he says so quite clearly…
and that must make him liberal/democrat…
as Ich assumes… but can’t a conservative also
be against ‘‘hate’’… Ich never assumes/believes that…
even Ich believes that the right commits to and preaches
violence… not the left… otherwise, Ich would have
said so…

the other aspect is just how sure that because
he… Robinson engages in anti-hate, that the only
possible response available is violence… but that isn’t
true…as a Liberal, violence is a recourse is that is
best avoided… for the result of violence is just
more violence… just as the seeking of money is
only money… and the seeking of the trinkets of
existence can only lead us toward that thing…
those who seek out fame, only gets fame as a reward,
and those seeking out titles and material goods, gets
no other reward than those things they seek… there is
nothing past that… the seeking of money doesn’t lead
one to peace, or comfort or happiness… in fact,
I would argue that the search for money and fame, titles
material goods and power, receive nothing of value for
that search… because those searches leave us with
nothing of value… because they are, as I have already
called them, empty promises, that have no value even
if we were to gain them…

but given all of this, the search for ‘‘non-violence’’’ is
an acceptable search because the creation of
non-violence is a positive… it has other uses besides
just avoiding violence… we can build on peace far more
than we can build on violence… peace can lead us
to a better life, both individually and collectively…
Thus, Robinson’s quest for being against ‘‘hate’’
is a great one, but he resorted to violence, and that
negated his being against hate… for violence, in all
its forms is part and parcel of hate… If you are against
hate, then the answer is not and cannot be violence…
for violence is just another form of hate…
and hate leads us no where… just as the trinkets of
existence, money, fame, titles, material goods and power,
also lead us nowhere…

Kropotkin

1 Like
4

Peter one day you asked me about what a neoliberal is. I sent you an in-depth video and you didn’t watch it because watching videos isn’t your “thing”.

I suggest from here on forward, that you make it your “thing”. Because when you make statements such as “Tyler Robinson was a conservative” it makes it sound like you don’t watch any videos, about anything, ever.

Tyler Robinson was very much a liberal. He didn’t kill Charlie Kirk, but I won’t go into that since I assumed you haven’t watched any videos about that either.

5

…why are you so goofy?

6

Why do you know nothing about firearms?