Debating The Old Goat

Yes, objectivists and universalists deny natural reality however by doing so they supplant this natural reality with their own constructed rendition of it.

Nihilism for me reaffirms this natural reality by deconstructing the constructed artifices of objectivists and universalists.

Natural reality is a void and is absent of meaning, value, or purpose. The nihilist reaffirms that position where as the objectivist or universalist does not.

Your idea of morality here is the moral objectivist idea of morality.
Boxed in champ.


It sounds like a debate based in ego [like your last response and your confrontational stance here, simply because you made an opinion and NOT an argument] which would be not unlike one at kt, but if we must then so be it. My complaint was that you didn’t answer to my short reply, so an at length debate doesn’t sound very appetising. What would we debate? My stance is not one where I am going to try to back up existing anarchist arguments, because I actually listen to people and have changed.

you could have just apologised or not bothered with a reply.

No, my idea of morality is that it doesn’t exist. It’s nonexistent.

That’s the complete opposite of objectivists that posit the existence of morality.

You’re all confused champ. :wink:

Like I said, this thread isn’t about anarchism. You can create a thread where we can discuss that as much as you want.

I don’t have anything to apologize for.

R u a parrot.

Man this stuff gets old!!!

I fucking solved the meta solution to objective ethics!!

You destroy everything you can and make it as easy for everyone else to destroy everything they can…

Whatever is left is objectively purposeful in life …

But that’s just objective tooth and claw or natural selection ethics…

The full solution which doesn’t distill purpose but actually adds it to the system, is to add so much purpose to existents that a person who would destroy something external and/or refuse to kill themselves when they otherwise would (when it’s as easy as possible to do ) is the second part of the solution, and completed the meta solution to ethics…

Authority !!! Fuck you, have authority over yourself you shitheaded douchbags, that shit will get you laid, but fuck!!! Seriously, we already know women provide so little purpose in life that if suicide were easy a billion men in a decade would do it, and men provide so much purpose, that only 2 million women would do it…

Stop being a dickhead and join philosophy!!

By the fucking way, all you subjectivist Fucks, pansies !!! You do realize when you make an argument we objectively agree that the words exist…

That’s right!!! You see… When something gives a response in a particular way to output… Two subjectives make an objective!!

Sorry… People have been getting their kicks from being morons on this board for a few months, and it’s getting old!

You’re getting worse, Ec. That’s plain to see. You need to refill some prescriptions maybe, or up some dosages.

While you may be kidding, I think he should take your advice seriously. His latest post are even more insane and disordered than usually.

There’s no contradiction in my post!

There are in your replies …

I’ll take this to debate if anyone ways…

You’re annoying me. Go away fly.

I’m serious, but I also think it’s funny. Not sure if that means I’m kidding or not. He’s clearly in need of some help he isn’t getting, lol.

I don’t know why you’d want to debate people that think you’re a retarded crazy person.

But you have, several times, and the result has been that those same people all still think you’re a retarded crazy person.

I know that won’t give you pause for thought, but it would if you weren’t a…see above.

Sure … Uccisore…

If I had always said that I think god may have given me these messages, you’d say I was a genius, go republicans!! Lol… I am neither retarded nor crazy!

I believe there’s some small part of you that wishes you were a competent intellectual, instead of merely shrieking that you are in a dark corner of the internet like this.

I believe there’s a part of you that wishes your insights and arguments could provoke something other than laughter and pity in the people who read them.

As it stands, right now, people only read or reply to your posts out of a morbid curiousity about the extremes of human mental disfigurement.

Are you happy with the idea of being the internet equivalent of a five-legged fetus in a pickle jar? Because that’s your legacy if you keep down this track.

If you were merely wrong, I wouldn’t say this sort of thing. You aren’t just wrong (though you certainly are wrong), you are clearly mentally handicapped.

If you got some help, it would be a step towards becoming what you vainly insist that you are. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Uccisore you moderate ALL social science!!!

What’s the only non warlike species we know of on earth???

That’s right, not the seahorse, the bonobo!!

So let’s see how big of an idiot I am???

When over a million species have been categorized as warlike, except for one, and we all know the controlling variable is sexual stratification, what conclusion do you draw??

This is a sociological fact… Sexual stratification causes war and homicide!!

But you are full of it, you are not one if the top 1000 sociologists, anthropologists or evolutionary psychologists on earth… You have your little forum to bluster your ego, AWAY FROM A FACT!!!

So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Morality is an ideal, a Platonic idealistic abstraction that supposedly does not exist in space or time yet is entirely non physical and non mental. In other words, a pervading myth with no material basis or evidence to observe and thereby nonexistent.

It’s supposed to be descriptive of behaviors but like the religious concept of original sin which was also a behavioral description is built upon various ridiculous absurdities, assumptions, and speculations.

You’re sounding like an objectivist the more you write and post old man.

Imagine a male hospital orderly fantasizing himself noble and an original kind of aristocrat daydreaming or longing to be an elite member of society in what he refers to as the perfect social order…

Who are you talking about? Yourself? :smiley:

Still talking about yourself?

I know he isn’t talking about me since I am not a Marxist.

You confuse leadership and a centralized bureaucracy together. You cannot not tell the difference between simple basic leadership and what a government is. This only reaffirms to me that beyond philosophy you’re an economic and historical illiterate.

Yes, when centralization of power collapses there is more individual autonomy for everybody.

Yes, let’s talk about Sparta and how the Spartans had their asses handed to them eventually like that of all empires where they declined eventually collapsing indefinitely. Even the democratic Athenians defeated the so called mighty Spartans.

Human beings existed in perpetual anarchy our first ten thousand years of existence before civilization even existed.

Civilization is just barely three thousand years old.

Anarchism existed well before Christianity, Islam, Marxism, and all this other nonsensical bullshit you’re spouting out as wisdom.

Individualism isn’t an American concept and you’re a damn fool for saying so.

Want to talk about sheep? Let’s talk about your obsession with laws and you’re notion of a tightly controlled organization of shepherds leading people by the nose.

Cultures come and go. Nothing is permanent and you cannot grasp that your beloved Spartan culture is extincted where you’re trying to revive it from the grave in resurrection showing everybody how you truly are a romanticist.

Abstracted resources, money, and all of that are state creations having nothing to do with anarchism.

What’s the opposite of individualism? Collectivism? Are you a collectivist now?

Hierarchies exist everywhere however hierarchy exists in anarchism also.

This whole entire notion of no hierarchy in anarchism is a Marxist invention within the anarchist community and does not reflect the attitude of all anarchists like myself.

There is a difference between the hierarchy of nature and other animal species compared to the state government organizations of today’s human societies.

Nature is naturally anarchic and when civilization collapses which it inevitably will human beings will return back to their natural wild or feral anarchic existence. Human beings will revert back to their primordial based animal instincts.

The type of social order you and others propose never last very long.

You confuse natural hierarchy with government commanded hierarchy. They are not the same thing.

The universe is creation and destruction where for every order that is devised there is disorder.

is there nothing in culture you consider valuable?

By this I mean that it seems like you would be satisfied if we became, basically, feral humans. Very smart primates with some tool use, but having no need for technological advances, complicated music and art, etc. Does a kind of base neolithic lifestyle offer you enough?

And even if it does, is there something necessarily wrong in your mind, with people wanting something more than this? I don’t mean wrong in some objective moral sense, but like they are making an error, sacrificing the fundamental joy or vitality of pure animal being or some such.

A lot of your debate(s) with Satyr seem to gloss over a similar reaction to modern society, but he is much more attached to what very complicated social structures can create. You often criticize him as merely aristocratic and there is some merit in this - and it needs to be pointed out that one need not share his values, nor Western societal ones, and still feel like a chaotic stone age existence is missing a great deal.

I get that you see him as setting up a new hierarchy, and one in which you and those like you, would be offered pawn roles to his king role. So you want to role back even further in time before the nobility appointed itself and began myth building. Fine. But there were parallel achievements in society, even making possible your use of the Joker archetype, and these seem the baby to the bathwater in what you will throw out.

How does your post-collapse ideal offer the full range of human achievement?

I do not mean that we have to have pyramids, but great works of art require complex infrastructures to make them. Even comic books and movies about serial killers - what passes for culture on the internet - require very complicated societal structures, human relations, and even in the building up stages, pedagogy, liesure time with access to resources not found in the woods.

You seem like a very focused on FREEDOM FROM. And while I would like to be free from a society with Satyr on top, I share his reaction to your yearning for the destruction of much of the FREEDOM TO.

Saying no, the rebel stance, is valid and useful. But what is the yes. Survival and a very limited range of hedonism? I mean, even pleasure gets limited to simple forms in a post collapse chaos.

If you are going to resurrect some form of post-collapse structure, how will this not be you as a kind of barbarian Satyr, should you manage to be in charge of some region?

Note: this is not to say he is right in his solution to the dilemma. We do not need to replace this guilt ridden culture with a thug shame based one - his forum gives good signs of the shunning, shamed based interactions of any little cosa nostra type subculture. And there is something Platonic about it, I agree, not that he shares Plato/Socrates temperment.

So don’t let this be a false dichotomy. He and Western Civ must be wrong so my solution must be right. And I am not asking you to give up your no…at least until you are satisfied. Just pointing out how I see your as not offering a solution, even for yourself.

You have society as Daddy. You find a new Daddy who also hates society. You realize that this new rebel Daddy wants to set up a new system which you may have some common values with, but overall you sense the new rigidity and new shame based forms of anti-freedom in it
and rebel again.


But no is a limited way of getting to a vital self. It’s a start.

(and my Oedipal quicktake does not mean I see you the way Freud would - the hysterical fantasy of the child, children can be spot on about dad - nor that parents somehow are not fantasizers and trying to control ward off their children with their hallucinations. This all happens too.
but I would rather see you too debate after you’ve gone a few round in a ring or in an alley, because you need to hit each other so fucking much first or all your debates are going to degenerate into…well…where they do.