At least you admit that your comment is meaningless.
My comment is a short enough response; you ought to be able to understand it. THe trouble is that you do not even understand the meaning of your own remark. If you did you would perfectly understand my response to it.
Seriously man, where did you copy it from? It’s liek a perfect peive of nonsensical postmodern obscurantism.
I did not bother with this next bit. Maybe you would like to explain that too? Sorry, had to find a erasing necerry to include .
Someone has to place the generally defined public good over it’s now defunt antithesid
Off the start, I neither admit any thing of the sort implied in your message, nor do my editing problems need faze you since they’re usually gotten through my rough draft that appear at first glance, before editing.
Secondly, I have absolutely no intent either to respond to such as you mention,only an inking, nor to imply that faults are found , matter of course as more anchored in and through efforts to gain something , for reasons unbeknown.
In mentioning the disingenuous in bringing primary structural problems as products of such minute epistomological and ontological difference ; as to convey psychopathic and sociopathic appearances, may convey which may undervalue the overlap that has become commonplace among all kinds of people who become involved in this type of
… I don’t really understand the lack of empathy that shows some missed measure of compassion which people like take for granted as the source of their intrinsic knowledge, that generate antipathy that goes against the grain of the theme that this forum concerned with.
Attitude matters more , especially here at ILP then even than descriptions’ of reception of such messages, if such are expressed honestly,
That’s true everywhere to a certain extent, and no apologia takes away that hard to miss intent.
So no, please consider the possibility that the good and bad in everyone is basic, and more consistent than mere appearances.
Your points may be valid patently? but may be amiss substantively.
If you want to use fancy words you would be well advices to use them in ways that you, yourself understand. Most of what you do is to trying an impress others by yout use of clever words. But the statement I was referring to above was gibberish. You cannot slime your way out if it by pretending typos and drafing mistakes.
I feel it is from a lack of confidence that you select your postmodernist obscurantist lexicon, rather any need to apply 4 syllable words, which onscure clarity, and add meaningless verbage.
This is the verbage that I thought so amusing:
It’s so easy to get bogged down in the kind of definitions that could ignite widening a dogmatic rhetoric which devalue the idea of a much more anti deritive/ deontological sensibility that positivists the world over have been clamoring for since the Great world wars.
If you want some help with your English I can show you where there are redundancies, bad parsing, and how the statement is simply nonesense.
As you will recall my response was “no they did not”. And you did not know what the fuck I was talking about because you did not understand your own statement.
“Positivists” have not been clamoring since the Great War, for the verbage you posted. NO one knows what deritive/deontological sensibility is, because it is a bollocks phrase. No only because “deritive” is not a word, but even if it is meant to be “derivative” the sentence would still not make sense.
Do ytou even know what deontological means? It has no relevance here at all.
It’s so easy to get bogged down in the kind of definitions that could ignite widening a dogmatic rhetoric which devalue the idea of a much more anti deritive/ deontological sensibility that positivists the world over have been clamoring for since the Great world wars.
What might be recovered from the mess of this word salad?
The now defunct and discredited “Logical Positivists” have certainly been clamoring for something since WW1. But whatever that is, I do not think it can be described as definitions that dogmatic rhetoric (which devalue an incomprehensible “sensibility”), could be thwarted by anything such as getting bogged down.
Positivist have sought clarity, and one thing this statement has is a complete lack if that quality.
The fact is that Positivist were masters of a dogmatic rhetoric because of their pathological need to define everything out of existence. The essence of their failures was in fact their dogmatic need to pull the breaks on the evolution of langauge in their attempt to seal it in vitro for all times, demanding dogmatically that definitions comply with their edicts.
So the text is backwards. Positivists had no interest in a “much more anti deritive/ deontological sensibility” (whatever the fuck that might mean. They wanted to arrest linguistic change and mathematise their lexicon providing hard and fast (dogmatic) definitions.
Postivists failed in this because words can only be defined by other words, and those words are subject to change in meaning. So unless a word refers to a material concept such as hydrogen, which can be defined my material reality, they found themsleves looking silly.
Basically, you said that they are irrational because they don’t agree that existence isn’t good yet.
When are you going to demonstrate that they truly believe that? When are you going to demonstrate that people who say “It’s a good day today” truly believe that “existence is good” on that day where by “existence is good” we mean “everyone is getting everything they want at noone’s expense”?
All such terms: sociopathy, psychopathy, are judgements about how the mainstream think that society should be run and how people should behave.
They are there to define certain aspect of peri-normal behaviour.
A sociopath is not an essential human quality, but a value judgment.
Detecting a sociopath will always rely on current and accepted defintion from recieved opinion.
Is this thread any further along than it was at the start?
Or is it just bickering about definitions?
It might be useful to reflect that before the beginning of the 20thC, we have no use for such a terms and it immediately came in to use to castigate homosexuals and what was seen as sexual deviants such as fallators and cunniliguists.
Additionally sociopathy was also recruited to describe political activism, such as suffergettes.
You don’t say that a wolf is mentally ill merely because what he’s doing isn’t good for you (e.g. killing your sheep.) You say that he’s mentally ill if and only if you think that what he’s doing is not good for him. And both “psychopathy” and “sociopathy” are defined as mental illnesses. Thus, when someone says that you’re a sociopath, they are saying that you’re doing something that is bad for you. That’s why noone wants to be called one. But none of that is particularly relevant because this thread is really only about the argument that Ecmandu presented in his original post. Thus, the most important thing is the manner in which he defines these terms, regardless of whether or not they align with the manner they are defined by other people.
As far as I am concerned, it did move forward a bit. But as far as you are concerned, it didn’t. And it didn’t because you don’t care about it.
Definitions aren’t a trivial matter if you want to understand what someone else is saying. You don’t care what Ecmandu is saying, so you don’t care about definitions. But that’s your problem (and that’s why you should be kicked from this thread, and this board in general.)
My use of sociopath is clearly directed at someone who wants their consent massively violated forever, and others should as well. At least an empathetic sociopath (a masochist).
All of a sudden, those people aren’t using definitions correctly.
Everyone has a way to have their consent violated… and all those ways are different.
It follows from the undeniably grounded definition of consent violation (just asking yourself “do I want this or not?” If not, it’s a consent violation if it occurs.)
It follows that people who claim to appreciate consent violation for themselves are not using definitions correctly, and if they deem it correct in a meta sense upon others, they are not empathic, feeling the hurt they inflict on others and enjoying it… they are sociopathic on a continuum.
It also follows from this that the only possible definition of a good day, not pathological, is that nobody has their consent violated ever again.
If you have an empathetic sociopath … they are masochists. But even the most severe of masochists can have their consent violated. They just get cocky because it hasn’t happened to them yet.
1.) nobody wants their consent violated
2.) everyone can have their consent violated
3.) people who claim to want their consent violated aren’t using definitions correctly
4.) good is defined as no further consent violation
5,) claiming good when a consent is violated is not using definitions correctly
Oh well. It is easy to reduce people with inflammatory rhetoric to a level they think they should descend to, in order to get to trigger their illogical reflexive counterpositions, so as to prove to themselves that their method of thinking is preferable, with the use of strung together voluminous at times superfluous facts.
Well that is one way of avoiding the structural and analytical basis of the historically significant content; but it obviously unworkable, since words, salad or not, do tend to stick to the palate, but they do not conform, mostly the way they are used.
And what happens is that gaps appear in a conscious awareness in a progression of the streams in which awareness travels.
Generally, a reversal begins, and unfounded guesses as to what the other may be thinking appear, renting the veil of impressions to shreds, and at the critical point , the stark edifice of a second rate thinker appears.
Sorry Sculptor, but one never sees themselves circumstantial as others may, and I am the first to admit that. No one has perfect awareness, and truly the denial of that little buzz fly is what is pathological.
To get angry over arguments and seek retort is what is consistent with such effort
Tautoloical thinking brings back projected charges all the way to an intended target, but it usually reverts back to the one sending it with a whammy.
I suppose it might help if you did not talk a lot of bollocks.
You seem to have collected a lots of words but you do not really understand them and overuse them. It just makes you look absurd, when you think it makes you look clever.
more verbal dioreah.
You are not even fulfilling the most basic rules of sentence construction.
I doubt you are reading this, but look at the above text.
“Well that is one way…”
The “that” is unspecified. ANd what ever "THAT might be what the fuck has history got to do with it. Then you continue to blather on with “they” - again unspecified.
There you go again. “IT” - what “it”?
More BS
gibber, gibber, gibber
gibber, gibber, gibber
You are living in your own tiny world.
You are not making ANY arguments.
Are you a BOT?
You must be one of those postmodern BS generating bots.
