âMutual Reproductive Successâ
What is âmutually successfulâ when a horse mates with a donkey?
Can mules produce fertile offspring? Can drones?
Letâs ignore thousands of years of developing nothing, before evil whitey arrived.
By the wayâŠI was the first to criticize Greece⊠are you confusing me for something or someone else?
I am for truthâŠ
Self imposed in your head.
We are one species.
You are confused
no its you whoâs always gotta be right, even when he is proven wrong.
i AGREED we are all one species, ya numbnuts?
and when i say boundaries, i mean that is LITTERALLY the function of Consciousness, not politics, not race, but CONSCIOUSNESS itself⊠its how brains function, by delineating boundaries⊠otherwise brains cannot function, its how you determine what is an object is from background, by creating boundaries to define what the object is
you are asking to REMOVE functionality and REMOVE features, if they are features that donât agree with your woke racial theories
African advancements in graffiti are impressive.
Super soaker technologies will determine future geopolitical balances.
Remember âŠonly for ONE species this is soâŠ
What appears to be differentâŠis actually the same.
Sub-speciesâŠ
1 Like
LOL.
Aside from the basic confusion and inconsistency of definitionâŠ
Well this is priceless.
Read the captions to the image you posted!!
Thanks for proving my point
âSame species, same subspecieis, race isnât real, stop being a bigot.â
Way over your head, huh dude?
You donât grasp sarcasm?
Letâs ignore appearances because our senses evolved to fool us, only when it comes to ONE species.
Letâs ignore differences in academic and athletic performances.
Letâs ignore crime stats and average IQs.
Letâ ignore Noble prizes and participation in the high arts, technological innovationsâŠby equating graffiti with the sculpture of David, and super soakers with internal combustion enginesâŠ
Then, letâs ignore historical evidenceâŠthe absence of comparable civilizations, unable to even be placed on the same level in engineering, architecture, weaponry, navigation, husbandry, astrology, medicine, philosophy, the fine arts, physics, biology, economics, and on and on and onâŠletâs ignore all of itâŠand simply repeatâŠ
Race is a social construct. 
Letâs repeat it until we believe itâŠuntil we become stupid enough to believe itâŠbecause it feels goodâŠbecause it makes us feel just, and compassionate, and safe.
If I were you Iâd keep your head down.
I do not know where you got you pretty picture from, but its not even inherently consistent.
But thanks for verifying that all humans are a single subspecies.
Sculptor has issues understanding nuanced language.
He thinks this image supports his delusions.
But then, he thinks super soakers are comparable to muskets, because they made money.
This is how this idiot measures quality.
Nothing can cure that level of dumb.
See, there he goes again. He has no capacity [as far as I know] to connect the dots â empirically, experientially, experimentally â between the creation of matter itself and the human brain. He just believes what he does âhere and nowâ in his head. After all, itâs what he believes that makes it true.
Yes, we often define words. And, of course, we define them âas we doâ. But noting this is not the same as demonstrating that we define them autonomously. Again, unless he is prepared to describe how free will does unfold neuron by neuron, dendrite by denrite, cell body by cell body, axon by axon.
Satyr:
No dearâŠnot âas we doââŠwe use definitions to refer to what is independent from our subjective perceptions.
Down to earth, womanâŠyou know.
Start with actions, not words in books.
The perceived limits how we can define concepts, MaryâŠand thatâs what you dislike.You want them to remain âup in the skyâ dearâŠbecause then you can define them in whatever way suits your Marxist agenda.
Itâs your way, or the highway
Note to others:
Satyr likes to think of himself as a âserious philosopherâ. Yet over and again heâll post what I construe to be the equivalent of intellectual drivel above.
Yes, I know: If I do say so myself.
Same thing. The assumption is always that if you donât share his own value judgments [about every single thing under the Sun, to cite just one example] then that confirms all the more his assessment of you.
No, I have not settled for fatalism. I am no less drawn and quartered regarding determinism. But what I note here about myself is moot. Same for others. If what we post doesnât coincide with his own moral, political and philosophical prejudicesâŠ?
Forget about it!
Satyr:
The opposite in factâŠlying woman.
CompeteâŠgive me a value judgement relative to YOUR objectiveâŠ
My objective is truth.
Whatâs yours?
Mine is to note what I construe to be an important distinction between truth in the either/or world and truth in the is/ought world. Given aNo God universe. And, no, not up in the philosophical clouds either.
Satyr:
ALL VALUE JUDGEMENTS refer to an OBJECTIVE, dear.
Even your abortion evaluations.
Okay, letâs explore his own philosophical/moral/political assumptions about abortion. Mine are encompassed in the OPs here:
How are his own assumptions different?
Satyr:
Different objective create different value judgementsâŠand none of them are equal.
Whatâs the determining factor, which no subjective judgement can evade?
Nature.
For you the objective is inclusivity, equity, peace on earthâŠfor the conservative it is the welfare of society, dominance etc.
Different objectives create these disagreements, woman.
Nature. Yet he challenges anyone who is foolish enough to suggest his own assessment of nature is not correct. And going all the way back to the Big bang, no doubt. And my objective is to explore the possibility that âinclusivity, equity [and] peace on earthâ are within reach of either the philosophical community or the scientific community. Here and now however I remain fractured and fragmented, drawn and quartered, pulled and tugged ambivalently.
âHe wishes to see a world where races separate into communities of their own kind. How would he go about accomplishing this in terms of specific policies? Let him come down out of the philosophical clouds here and provide us with his own assessment of the best of all possible worldsâŠracially, ethnically, sexually and in regard to things like gender roles and Jews.
Or the part where he reacts to what many construe to be Trumpâs racist policies. Whatâs he doing right and what more needs to be done?
Satyr:
I donât give a shit about your America and Trump, woman.
I gave you an answer and you didnât like itâŠ
Tell me what answer you wantâŠ
Concentration camps and gas chambers?
Is that the ârightâ answer, dearâŠso I do not âwiggle wiggleâ?
How about torture chambers and furnacesâŠthatâll solve the problem.
Satisfied, Mary?
Is that the answer you wanted me to give?
Given the wide gap between how he and I construe âright answersâ here regarding race, and how race relations have unfolded over the centuries, I am curious as to how far he would take his âseparating the racesâ mentality. As of now, for example, can he assure people of color [black, brown and red in particular] that he would not pursue âconcentration camps and gas chambersâ as, historically, those racists like Hitler championed?
And would his own separation policies be voluntary? And what might be at stake for those who did challenge these polices?
Note to others:
Given that I donât read many of his posts here [and there], please link me to anything he has posted which does connect the dots between being a racist and specific policies he would enact once in power.
Satyr:
I told you what I would do if I were lord god of the cosmos, mutiple timesâŠhere it is again, pathetic femaleâŠ
Real diversity, not your fake American kindâŠ
Autonomy.
Let every ethnicity live in accordance with their values, in their own land.
If they criminalize abortions, then thatâs their provocativeâŠnot your way, your postmodern liberal American way.
Of course, any number of black folks in America are here only because any number of white folks took them away from their own land. Made them slaves in our land. Then the part where the white race practiced âmanifest destinyâ here and all but wiped out American indians. The red race.
And [as always] back to the part whereby, even if the white race did separate themselves and formed their own community in a Satyr nation, they would still be expected to cohere entirely to his own racial dogma. Not to mention everything pertaining to gender roles and Jews and human sexuality.
Satyr:
The only kind of diversity you dumb Americans udnerstand is fashion, menu options, brands, music genresâŠthatâs not diversity, dear.
You want every city in the world to have a McDonaldâs and a WalmartâŠI donât.
I want TRUE diversity.
I want Tokyo to be something completely different from LAâŠand Karachi to be nothing like Detroit.
Ethnic, cultural diversityâŠeach living in accordance to their own values, not your pseudo-Democratic, American liberal valuesâŠ
Back to this then:
Over and again, he will post things like this. You tell me what it has to do with my point above. The suggestion that, as with Ayn Rand, he champions the individual over the collective, but all of the individuals in his clique/claque are required to think exactly like he does at KTâŠor else they are banned from the discussions themselves.
Satyr:
Idiotic womanâŠI am not an individualist.
I know itâs hard for you to understandâŠafter years of reading my posts, you still know nothing about my views.You want me to be a defender of Capitalism, and American individualism, like Rand, because thatâs the only thing you udnerstandâŠor a Nazi, with a âfinal solutionââŠyou udnerstand nothing else.
What I still donât understand is how his own racialist/racist mentality would actually unfold existentially if he did walk his talk politically.
Given a particular moral conflagration, how would he âfor all practical purposesâ make a distinction between the individual and the collective? between I and we and all that are deemed to be Other? between âone of usâ, and âone of themâ?
Satyr:
Then she returns to her spiel, as if Iâve posted nothing.
âI was born a daughter of a middle class familyâŠblah blah blahââŠthe same mantra for years..
Right, like he hasnât spewed his own philosophical, moral and political prejudices for years. Here, of course, though especially there.
Again, given his reaction to the arguments I raised in the OP above regarding abortion, how are his value judgments derived differently? Instead, in my view, the main difference between us is that I acknowledge just how profoundly problematic my own conclusions are here, while he is ever and always huffing and puffing whenever encountering challenges to his beliefs.
Just out of curiosity, will he acknowledge that in regard to his own moral and political convictions, he has been wrong in the past? Will he go there? Because once you admit that you were wrong about an important frame of mind in the past, you are acknowledging that you may be wrong about other important things here and now as well.
I merely note how I came to understand this more clearly [existentially] in regard to my own evolving value judgments.
Satyr:
Thatâs why she doesnât want her will to be freeâŠbecause her own is trapped in a loopâŠa holeâŠand she is terrified of getting out.
Her understanding of Dasein is âthrown into the worldâ, âworldâ meaning âsociety.â
World = societyâŠand man is a Tabula Rasa.
Man is whatever culture made himâŠ
This is how dumb this woman is.
This is so far removed from how I would describe myself, I wonât waste my time âcorrectingâ him. That would be like âcorrectingâ Immanuel Can over at the PN forum. Meet Mr. Wiggle there in regard to the Christian God. And meet Mr. Wiggle here in regard to dasein.
Okay, okay: if I do say so myself.
Let him choose a moral conflagration that is of particular importance to him. We can then exchange moral philosophies. That way as I go about posting there, he can note more specially all the things he accuses me of.
Satyr:
I already have woman.
Letâs stay with abortion.What is your objective when you want to give women the ability to abort the fetus when they made a mistake or changed their mind?
What will be the impact on society?
How will it affect demographics and a societyâs ability to maintain itself and to compete with other societies?
What kind of psychology will it cultivate among women, and men, knowing that they can take a pill or visit a clinic to abort the fetus any time they want?
More to the point [mine] are those dogmatists all up and down the moral spectrum who will insist their own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices are anything but that. Whether in regard to God or Ideology or Deontology or Biological Imperatives, only their own conclusions are likely to be confirmed once we have finally pinned down how âthe human conditionâ fits into a comprehensive understanding of existence itself. In other words, I suspect, long after he and I are dead and gone.
[b]Itâs the fact that neither philosophers nor scientists have come together to provide us with a definitive assessment of race that speaks volumes.
Satyr:
I would be worried if they did, Mary.
No, in my view, he would only be worried â not to mention entirely outraged â if the consensus rejected his own âmy way or the highwayâ dogma here and chose another One True Path instead. Whereas if they rejected mine it wouldnât surprise me at all. I often reject it myself from time to time. And even the parts Iâm most linked to here.
Actually, in my opinion, none of us here are able to explain why [ultimately] anything exists at all, let alone how, over billions of years, it evolved into us.
Satyr:
Wrong!
WomanâŠthat life exists is obvious.
We donât need to know how it started to know it exists.
Right, what could an understanding of existence itself possibly have to do with us today? Nothing? A little? A lot? Everything?
Satyr:
That morality exists, is obvious, if we start with the moral act, not words in books, or chiseled on stone tablets.
We witness moral acts: acts of compassion, of love, of altruism, in many speciesâŠnot only our own.
And even though any number of these folksâŠ
âŠwill insist that only their own assessment of how moral convictions are intertwined in genes and memes count. This, however, is what makes them morons. And [trust me] makes him a flat-out moron to some of them as well.
Satyr:
That we âwillâ (choose, act intentionally) is obvious. We experience it daily.
That you CHOOSE to define these concepts abstractly,⊠rather, that you choose a definition, because you are too dumb to define anything on your own, that keep these concepts up on the âskyhooks,â is your Choice, based on YOUR Marxist objectives.
Simply ridiculous. And I suspect a growing part of him recognizes just how ridiculous others might construe it to be. But heâs been stuck now for years defending his own rendition of the âpsychology of objectivismâ above. Thus, itâs not what he believes so much as the fierce conviction that what he believes is not just the best of all possible worlds, but the only truly rational account there can ever be of it.
To the extent that someone is not willing to acknowledge the gap between what they think they know âin their headâ about the universe, about gravity, about QM, about the human brain, etc., and all that there is to know about them going back toâŠto what? to where? to when? to how? to why?
Satyr:
And thatâs what philosophy is about.
Determining which theory is more probable and which is not.Itâs called the scientific methodâŠempiricism, woman.
Never heard of it?
It deals in theories, not certainties.
This does not mean every theory is equally probableâŠ
Where even to begin [again]âŠ!
Notice how his focus is on determining which theory regarding things like race is more correct. Whereas my focus is more on the extent to which conflicting theories about it are brought down to Earth, confronting actual ongoing social, political and economic interactions that revolve around race.
As for the scientific method dealing in theories rather than certainties, sure, the further out on the limb that we go [ i.e. the world of the staggering large and the staggering small], the more uncertainty is sustained. On the other hand, look around you at all of the astounding engineering feats and all of the extraordinary technologies science has brought into existence.
Where is the philosophical equivalent of this in regard to value judgments in conflict?
AgainâŠ
To the extent that someone is not willing to acknowledge the gap between what they think they know âin their headâ about the universe, about gravity, about QM, about the human brain, etc., and all that there is to know about them going back toâŠto what? to where? to when? to how? to why?
Well, itâs justâŠjustâŠjust there.
Come on, why on Earth do you suppose that millions and millions of men and women around the globe still fall back on God and religion to explain us? Got a soul? Okay, then thank the Lord.
HeideggerâŠwasnât he a Nazi?
As for it being crap, I donât deny that it certainly might be completely wrong. Itâs just my âbest guessâ given all the variables in my life that predisposed me existentially to believe some things and not others. Same with him and everyone else here. Unless, of course, Iâm wrong.[/quote]
Satyr:
Thereâs the Nazi thing, as predicted.
YesâŠand so heâs wrong, right?Now you can take his cocnept, Dasein, and define it in whatever way you likeâŠbecause heâs a NaziâŠandâŠthe Holocaust.
|20x20Come on, what Iâve asked of him in regard to race is to note the parts that, in his view, Hitler and the Nazis got right, and the parts they got wrong. And many I suspect would be considerably less inclined to call him a Nazi if he assured them that he has nothing in mind in regard to âfinal solutionsâ.
Yes, I have managed to think myself into believing what I do âhere and nowâ regarding âIâ in the is/ought world. No God and it just makes sense that morally and politically we exchange ever conflicting existential assessments rooted historically and culturally and [in terms of our own unique personal experiences] experientially in dasein.
Satyr:
More of her gibberishâŠ
After years of this crap, itâs becoming tiresome to wade through it.People stopped talking to herâŠas did I.
But nowâŠI want to trigger herâŠand receive the predictable results.
As always, I am more than willing to encourage others here to make up their own minds regarding this exchange. Taking into account, of course, the âpoliticsâ involved.
But to argue that I âlikeâ how my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that a fractured and fragmented moral philosophy seems reasonable in a No God universe and that death equals oblivionâŠ? That speaks far, far more about him than it does me.
Satyr:
You donât even know what my positions are.
You are debating these mysterious Nazi ObjectivistsâŠand if the other doesnât play along, heâs wigglingâŠ
This woman thinks Iâm an individualist, as her American mind understands itâŠthis is how pathetic she is.
Hell, Iâm the first to admit that my assumptions here in regard to conflicting value judgments are no more than what I construe to be my own philosophical, political and moral prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.
All thatâs then left [in my view] is this part:
Well, if he is willing to compare and contrast moral philosophies with me in regard to particular sets of circumstances, we can explore the existential dynamic between words and worlds. Between âthis is what I believe is trueâ and "this is what I can demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to accept as true.
Satyr:
[b] Your brainwashing is the issue, Mary.
On the other hand, how many men and women does he know who, as children, were not brainwashed? He was brainwashed himself as a child, of course. Also, like all the rest of us, he is a product of a particular historical and cultural context whereby he accumulated any number of uniquely personal experiences that the rest of us may well have had no experience regarding whatsoever.
Satyr:
MaryâŠjust admit itâŠyou are a communist.
Say it, openly and proudly.
Okay, back to it all being a âconditionâ then? Fine, that works for me.
Satyr:
So, you are a Communist who wants to change the world, right?
All those years projecting this upon others was a lie.
For whatever reason, he seems compelled to post preposterous things like this. What, is he being provocative for its own sake?
And in regard to thisâŠ
And there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became a moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented âIâ in the is/ought world.
âŠI note how my own value judgments have shifted over the years. I didnât think of them as âliesâ however. Instead they reflected a genuine commitment to them âat the timeâ. Lies were what all those who refused to think exactly as I did âat the timeâ were spouting. And even now with my focus on the existential implications of moral nihilism, I note how I am unable to demonstrate this empirically, experientially or experimentally. In fact, my main aim is to explore this with the moral objectivists. Iâm hoping to bump into someone able to provide me with arguments that enable me to yank myself up out of the hole Iâm in in regard to meaning and morality.
Satyr:
You are the one who wants to change the world.
No, Iâm the one who âhere and nowâ is intent on examining not what others believe about the world â about conflicting goods, about race â but the extent to which they are able to demonstrate why their own assessments reflect that which all rational men and women are obligated to accept in turn.
And then the extent to which they recognize the role that dasein plays here.
Right, like he hasnât spewed his own philosophical, moral and political prejudices for years. Here, of course, though especially there.
What does âpolitical prejudiceâ mean, Mary?
Not aligned to conventional ethical standards?
Not in agreement with conventional beliefs?
Unpopular?
What are my political motives, miss Land?
My only motive is truthâŠand you are prejudiced against it, so anyone speaking the truth is, according to you, promoting a political agendaâŠbecause you use yourself as a standard, abed you project.
When I insist that race is genetic, it isnât to promote any agenda, pathetic woman, it is to reveal the truth to those living in lies.
If I say species, and sub-species exist, am I saying some ought to be exploited or slaughtered?
Stop using your subjective understanding of yourself to project into whatever threatens it.
Truth is, and will remain, my only agenda, miss Land.
If it hurts your feelings, it is not intentional.
Just out of curiosity, will he acknowledge that in regard to his own moral and political convictions, he has been wrong in the past? Will he go there?
Where, Miss Land, have I been wrong?
Thatâs up to you to prove and offer a âcorrect alternative.â
All you do is patronize, mock, and declareâŠbecause you cannot rationalize your own collectivist objective.
All you can do is undermine, hoping that this will promote what you cannot defend.
My position is that morality evolved to facilitate cooperative survival strategiesâŠand that ALL VALUE JUDGEMENTS including morals, HAVE AN OBJECTIVE.
Moralityâs primal objective is survivalâŠby disciplining individual actions to collective needs.
No god required.
If you have a better explanation, then present it MaryâŠthen explain how this morality was imposed on the entire world, for so long, and why all ethical systems share similar rules.
Then explain upon what standard your critique of Hitler and Rand is based, since you are âamoral.â
Why is Hitler âevilâ Mary, if morality is a social construct, as well, and nobody has a real choice?
What are you accusing him of, Mary?
Mary, I was wrong many times in my lifeâŠone was taking you seriously, early on.
Wonât make that mistake again.
You have become my means⊠
You arenât interested in truth, Mary, the object of philosophy, you are interested in promoting your collectivist utopianism. It is you has a political agenda, not I.
Your way or the highwayâŠpie in the skyhooks. It is YOU who wants to âchange the worldâ, isnât it Miss Land?
This is so far removed from how I would describe myself, I wonât waste my time âcorrectingâ him.
Wait a minute, MaryâŠif thereâs no objective truth and free-will is an illusion, how can I be âincorrectâ? 
How is your assessment of yourself superior to my own?
My assessment is predictive. I decipher your Mary Land terminologies, belowâŠ
PredictableâŠrepeating, consistentâŠunchangingâŠ
Okay, okay: if I do say so myself.
There you go with the spiel, Mary.
Your mind is stuck in a loop, not a holeâŠyou are loopy.
A repeating loop of feminine defensive nonsense.
How many years have you been repeating the same damn things, Mary?
3? 6? 10?
Canât stop the loop, can youâŠand so you feel like you have no choice, and that this is universal.
Nobody even responds to you, do they?
Not here, not on PNâŠyouâve become a joke.
More to the point [mine] are those dogmatists all up and down the moral spectrum who will insist their own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices are anything but that. Whether in regard to God or Ideology or Deontology or Biological Imperatives, only their own conclusions are likely to be confirmed once we have finally pinned down how âthe human conditionâ fits into a comprehensive understanding of existence itself. In other words, I suspect, long after he and I are dead and gone.
What does science do to resolve disagreements, Mary?
What does it use as its standard?
Subjectivity?
Might is Right?
How does science, and philosophy, determine which perspective is more probable?
Sorry, simple womanâŠsubjectivity does not equalize all perspectives.
Right, what could an understanding of existence itself possibly have to do with us today? Nothing? A little? A lot? Everything?
Wow!
What? 
That, about, sums up your anti-philosophical nature, dearâŠ
A woman who comes here to spread her feel-good agendaâŠwith no understanding of what philosophy is, and how it is relevant, across the agesâŠ
We still refer to philosophers, guiding us to this day, in the âhere and now,â but Mary can find no value in philosophyâŠno objective utility.
Code forâŠshe canât fit it into her nihilistic method of promoting her collectivist agenda.
Simply ridiculous. And I suspect a growing part of him recognizes just how ridiculous others might construe it to be.
Mary, once more projects her emotional state as a universal truth.
Classic female.
More of a hope, than a fact.
She cannot rationally respond, so she must revert to her feminine tactics, somehow drafting popular opinion on her side.
Shallow and presumptuous.
Notice how his focus is on determining which theory regarding things like race is more correct. Whereas my focus is more on the extent to which conflicting theories about it are brought down to Earth, confronting actual ongoing social, political and economic interactions that revolve around race
Yes Mary, and this is a major factor in what is occurring in the world, because of the central role this lie plays in the USâŠa superpower that was controlling the worldâs narrative for decades.
The Empire of Lies, has indoctrinated dimwitrs and midwits, in its dominionâŠlike you, Mary.
The subject has an additional utilityâŠit exposes minds that cannot think outside the ethical and ideological boundaries of their upbringing - their indoctrination.
People, like MaryâŠDasien, in her mind. Her condition described below.
This is Maryâs confession.
She been using a variant of it for a decade.
What does Mary imply with this?
That men are âthrown into the worldâ - Dasein - by âworldâ she means a culture, a society, not the world outside all cultures and societies? Sheâs a Marxist.
Does she imply that, like her, men become trapped in the ethical and ideological beliefs of their time and place?
Thatâs not what Schopenhauer says about genius. He says a geniusâ mind is not bound by any place and time, and so it can formulate timeless insights.
But if it is so, then how can Mary explain progress?
If men are trapped by their culture and social beliefs, then how does progress even occur?
Mary started as a Christian, then moved to Marxism and is now a PostmodernâŠthe same paradigm binds her tiny mind.
Sheâs trapped in a loop.
She prefers to believe, she CHOOSES to believe this is a universal factâŠ
All men are trapped in the ethics and beliefs of their time and place, right Mary?
They have no way of breaking freeâŠergo no free-will.
How do men question the beliefs of their upbringing, Mary?
What standard breaks them out of their societyâs lies or errors or superstitionsâŠlike ârace is a social constructââŠor âgod created the worldââŠor âthe earth is flatâ?
For Mary, objectivity is a slurâŠit refers to Capitalism, because Mary was told Rand used it and titled her beliefs Objectivism.
Mary has associated objectivity with capitalism, ever since.
Nothing you tell her will break her out of her subjective loop.
This is all Mary understands of objectivity.
In Miss Landâs feminine mind, âsubjectivityâ is the proletariat, the collective, the victims of exploitation, the ones who suffer the âmight is rightâ of the evil onesâŠobjectivists, capitalists.
This is the extent of her understandingâŠlimited by her prejudices, as is the concept of âdasein.â
Her linguistic entrapment must become a universal truth.
This is what she means by her mantra, posted above.
Come on, what Iâve asked of him in regard to race is to note the parts that, in his view, Hitler and the Nazis got right, and the parts they got wrong. And many I suspect would be considerably less inclined to call him a Nazi if he assured them that he has nothing in mind in regard to âfinal solutionsâ.
What Hitler got right about race is that it is not a âsocial constructâ and that this lie was propagated by specific people, with an agenda, similar to miss Landâs.
What he did about it, is another issue.
But Mary, nobody believed that crap, back thenâŠor everâŠuntil modern times.
Itâs only recently that the lie that ârace is a social constructâ has been propagated through the US and its world dominance.
Have you read what the founding fathers had to say about race and about Negroes? 
Have you read what people way before Hitler was born, had to say? Were they all Nazis, Mary?
But Hitler and the Nazis is the propaganda Mary had shoved into her tiny brainâŠand sheâs trapped there.
She has no alternative. Her will is unfree.
As always, I am more than willing to encourage others here to make up their own minds regarding this exchange. Taking into account, of course, the âpoliticsâ involved.
Taking into account the Truth, MaryâŠnot politicsâŠthe TRUTH.
Truth is indifferent to politics and ideologies.
Hell, Iâm the first to admit that my assumptions here in regard to conflicting value judgments are no more than what I construe to be my own philosophical, political and moral prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.
Thereâs the cassette replaying the same songsâŠa loop. A loopy mind, trapped in a self-referential linguistic hole.
She doesnât want to escape her proverbial wombâŠshe wants to pull the world in, with her.
She wants the world to fall in line with her inter-subjective, self-comforting, anti-nature idealistic lies. She has a political agenda.
Her method was given to her: linguistic subversion.
On the other hand, how many men and women does he know who, as children, were not brainwashed?
And thatâs philosophyâs objective, Mary.
What standard does it use to evaluate which perspective is most probably objectively true, and which is not?
One person, one thinker, presents his evidence, his arguments, his reasoning, and then the other respondsâŠ
But you have no reasoning, no evidence, no argumentsâŠall you have is a methods of subversionâŠand a mantra to wear the opposition downâŠa loopy-loop, trying to attrit like a twit; wear down what you cannot defeat directly, honestly, with superior arguments evidence and reasoning. Feminine to the core.
No, Iâm the one who âhere and nowâ is intent on examining not what others believe about the world â about conflicting goods, about race â but the extent to which they are able to demonstrate why their own assessments reflect that which all rational men and women are obligated to accept in turn.
Then watch and shut the fuck upâŠyou are distracting me with your nonsenseâŠforcing me to use you as an example of western intellectual degradation and linguistic infection.
You offer nothingâŠbut entertainment and distraction.
My assessment of the symptomsâŠ
Diagnosis 
Severe Abrahamic ethical infection. An Afro-Asiatic strain, metastasizing into Marxism and then postmodernism.
A girl that cannot recover from her childhood infections, exploiting her weak constitution.
PrognosisâŠnot good.
Terminal.
Godot!!!
Youâre quoting scientists to make an argument from authority â which, to be clear, is perfectly legitimate in context: youâre citing a source as having specialized knowledge on a subject about which neither of us have specialized knowledge. But that type of argument depends on the validity of the authority, and so itâs also valid to point out that no, these are not impartial experts dispassionately presenting evidence, these are strongly motivated individuals presenting evidence that confirms what they already believed.
To the extent that our credence depends on the reliability and trustworthiness of this source, we should consider how reliable and trustworthy Nazi-founded race science journals are on the subject of race science.
I didnât claim this. My point was that when you say ârace existsâ and Sculptor and I say ârace doesnât existâ, we are pointing to two different concepts using the word âraceâ (and probably also two different concepts referred to by âexistâ).
If we arenât just doing rhetoric, we should be able to say the same things, point to the same concepts, using clearer language. (Even in Kirkegaardâs blog post, he clarifies that heâs talking about âsocial raceâ, because âraceâ alone is ambiguous and doesnât only refer to genetic categories.)
This is wrong in a couple of ways. The process of determining genetic relatedness can be done entirely by looking at the genome, we could cluster organisms by genetic relatedness even if we didnât know what kind of organism they were. Determining intelligence based on genome requires associating genotypes with phenotypes, which is immediately much more difficult and imprecise.
Further, for a complex trait like intelligence, the phenotype can have multiple unrelated genetic correlations â consider that both fragile x and Downâs syndrome have significant effects on intelligence but are genetically distinct.
Genes associate with intelligence are also highly pleiotropic: a single gene can encode multiple phenotypes depending on both environmental and genetic influences (i.e. one gene can change how another is expressed). This is part of the reason that, to the extent we can estimate intelligence from genes at all, we can only do it within individuals with similar ancestries.
And as a result, determining intelligence from genes is much, much less reliable. Weâre not even sure how much of intelligence is genetically determined. Itâs more than nothing, but much, much, much less than the relationship between genes and ancestry.
They estimate the heritability coefficient, and they donât do so perfectly. They suggest about 50% heritability, but gene studies only find about 10% of variance explained by genes â and again, these studies are not using a globally representative sample, theyâre using relatively closely related individuals from a single relatively homogeneous country. By definition, intelligence will be less heritable, and genes will explain less of the variance, in larger and more diverse populations.
But âgene groups that are identified with high intelligenceâ are only identified with high intelligence in Europeans.
To give an analogy: pale skin evolved multiple times in multiple places. If you did a genetic study of Europeans and found genes associated with pale skin and then tried to use those genes to estimate the prevalence of pale skin in Asian populations, your results would be bullshit. In Asian populations, those genes arenât associated with pale skin, a different set of genes is.
And thatâs true for simple, low-pleiotrophy traits like skin pigment, it is very likely to be true for genetically complex traits like intelligence.
Is it jumping through hoops to point out that âthere are meaningful genetic differences between racesâ and âobserved differences in this specific trait are nearly fully determined by the genetic differences between racesâ are very different claims that require very different evidence?
Youâre caricaturing my claims because you want to make the question look easy, and the answer obvious. It isnât, and itâs a weakness of your position that you canât acknowledge that.
There are at least two claims in this thread that should be treated differently.
- My claims around the connection between race and intelligence is weaker than your paraphrase:
1(a): We donât have strong enough evidence to conclude that the observed differences between social races are primarily a result of genetic differences.
1(b): Iâd also endorse a stronger claim: we donât have strong enough evidence to conclude that the part of observed differences that arenât already explained by well-known environmental influences like nutrition and education are primarily a result of genetic differences. - Separately, I donât think natural selection among early humans is a likely causal mechanism for any differences that do exist.
1(a) isnât particularly controversial. Twin studies suggest heritability around 50%, but itâs nearly zero among the poor, and the latter is probably closer to what youâd expect between groups and especially between countries. And despite the 50% prediction, GWAS have only been able to explain 10% of variation within relatively homogeneous groups in a single country (on par with parental wealth).
1(b) is a much stronger claim, given that weâve already explained a lot of the between-group difference in measured intelligence with non-genetic explanations (nutrition, disease, stress, etc.). But itâs still a weak claim in that itâs only a claim about a lack of evidence, and leaves open the possibility that additional evidence could be found. I think thereâs good evidence for a genetic component to intelligence in individuals who share common ancestry, but I donât think we have very reliable information about the genetic component of differences in intelligence between groups of humans (and itâs very likely that different genes encode for high intelligence in different populations).
Point 2 is a separate question. It seems very unlikely that anything that happened among illiterate bands of humans tens of thousands of years ago has fuckall to do with how well modern humans can take an IQ test today. The things that would have helped early humans survive the winter donât seem meaningfully related to the things that would help a modern human sit at a desk and fill in a bubble about tetris pieces or whatever. Itâs a just-so story.
To claims like 1, I donât understand the appeal to being âscience-mindedâ etc. My position is the current scientific consensus, and yours is a do-your-own-research conspiracy theory pushed in Nazi-founded, non-peer-reviewed rags. Scientific consensus isnât gospel, and itâs likely sanitized through the liberal bias of academia, but I think the truth is closer to the current consensus than to the hereditarian line.
I do have a strong prior in favor of equality. Theories of racial superiority have been debunked over and over again throughout history â and Iâm sure being Irish has something to do with it, because the kind of claims made about black people by hereditarians were made about the Irish, who famously saw a dramatic increase in IQ when they stopped being subjected to genocide. Itâs also based in personal experience: a hereditarian model would seem to predict that the sheer number of people Iâve met in contexts filtered for IQ â who I have good independent reason to believe are brilliant â is statistically impossible.
The hereditarian story just looks like racism in a lab coat. Why are they talking about social race at all? Members of a social race have some genetic relationship, but we have 23 and Me, why not just talk about haplogroups or clades? It makes sense if you want the headline to be about racial superiority, but not if you are impartially investigating the genetics of intelligence.
So my priors are strong, but not unreasonably so. Iâm open to evidence, Iâve looked into the question and updated somewhat, but the evidence we have doesnât come close to compelling for the very strong hereditarian claims advanced in this thread.
WowâŠ
Exists = is present. Past made present, perceived as the apparent.
Dynamic, interactiveâŠdeterminingâŠnot determined.
Is not an illusion. Is not fantasyâŠis as different as it appears to be.
Our senses did not evolve to fool usâŠonly when it comes to one species, Careless.
What appears to be differentâŠis actually different.
The degree to which it appears to be different, is the degree of its difference.
Race = sub-species of homo sapient.
Many species have sub-speciesâŠnot for you ideological knaves.
Only for one species what appears different is âsuperficialââŠor an illusionâŠit is actually the same.
You need a sanctioned âexpertâ to validate your comforting mythologiesâŠbecause society could not endure this truth.
Only for one species, there are no sub-species, even though we can perceive themâŠand they perform differently in academics and athletics, and have higher crime rates, and they mature at different rates, and can be identified as being different from their bonesâŠand historical evidence proving they are the same is contradicted by historical facts.
Lets ignore the apparentâŠmaking all sorts of excusesâŠclaiming it is all superficial because environment only affects the body and not the mindâŠonly for ONE species.
We donât apply this delusion anywhere but only when it comes to this one species.
Letsâ ignore performative differences, using Marxist excusesâŠignoring tens of thousands of years of natural selection before there were even any settlementsâŠor trade.
Lets ignore the historical evidenceâŠand the absence of comparable civilizations, comparable engineering, comparable art, technologies, no philosophy whatsoeverâŠnothing coming closeâŠbefore colonization even started.
Letâs ignore all that⊠and lets formulate excuses, imaginative explanations to dismiss all this evidenceâŠsacrificing our intellectual integrity in the name of our comfort.
Are you truly a philosopher Careless?
You are more of an activist.
You donât care about the truthâŠyou care about preserving your comforting lies.
Do you think the truth will align with your naive desires, Careless?
Do you think the world cares about what you want to be true?
Letâs sample the systemically sanctioned experts to validate our shared mythologies, because their careers can survive challenging this established lie, used to harmonize heterogeneous populations.
Letâ's surrender to the comforting lie.
Right, like he hasnât spewed his own philosophical, moral and political prejudices for years. Here, of course, though especially there.
Satyr
What does âpolitical prejudiceâ mean, Mary?
Not aligned to conventional ethical standards?
Not in agreement with conventional beliefs?
Unpopular?
More to the point [mine] are those among us who argue that their own value judgments are not political prejudices. Instead, they insist they are objective because they are derived from one or another God, or one or another political ideology, or one or another deontological philosophy. With Satyr it revolves around the assumption that how he construes the relationship between genes and memes is the one and the only manner in which to truly understand the human condition.
Satyr
What are my political motives, miss Land?
My only motive is truthâŠand you are prejudiced against it, so anyone speaking the truth is, according to you, promoting a political agendaâŠbecause you use yourself as a standard, abed you project.
Simply unbelievable.
Really, does anyone here actually believe that? Instead, his motive seems to revolve around just how much vitriol he can level at those who dare to challenge [or even question] his own dogmatic outbursts. In other words, how far can he go before getting banned.
He posts here [and there] in part because racists are tolerated here [and there]. Whereas in The Philosophy Forum [and other venues] they are not:
"Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc. : We donât consider your views worthy of debate, and youâll be banned for espousing them."
Satyr
When I insist that race is genetic, it isnât to promote any agenda, pathetic woman, it is to reveal the truth to those living in lies.
If I say species, and sub-species exist, am I saying some ought to be exploited or slaughtered?
Stop using your subjective understanding of yourself to project into whatever threatens it.
Truth is, and will remain, my only agenda, miss Land.
If it hurts your feelings, it is not intentional.
Now, itâs the Truth. On the other hand, itâs the Truth for any number of these folks as well:
Just out of curiosity, will he acknowledge that in regard to his own moral and political convictions, he has been wrong in the past? Will he go there? Because once you admit that you were wrong about an important frame of mind in the past, you are acknowledging that you may be wrong about other important things here and now as well.
I merely note how I came to understand this more clearly [existentially] in regard to my own evolving value judgments.
Satyr
Where, Miss Land, have I been wrong?
Thatâs up to you to prove and offer a âcorrect alternative.â
My point is that in regard to conflicting goods, there are any number of objectivists of his ilk who will insist he is the one who is wrong/incorrect because he refuses to toe their lines.
They all canât be correct [if any of them are] about race. Yet to a clique/claque, they will all insist it really is âmy way or the highwayâ. Itâs just that some racists refuse to stop there. The highway takes them all the way to, among other things, a reeducation camp, a gulag, a killing field, a death camp.
Satyr:
All you do is patronize, mock, and declareâŠbecause you cannot rationalize your own collectivist objective.
All you can do is undermine, hoping that this will promote what you cannot defend.
I know, I know: right back at him.
Satyr:
My position is that morality evolved to facilitate cooperative survival strategiesâŠand that ALL VALUE JUDGEMENTS including morals, HAVE AN OBJECTIVE.
Moralityâs primal objective is survivalâŠby disciplining individual actions to collective needs.
No god required.
No God, perhaps, but any number of objectivists among us preach the gospel embedded in one or another One True Path.
Satyr
If you have a better explanation, then present it MaryâŠthen explain how this morality was imposed on the entire world, for so long, and why all ethical systems share similar rules.
Then explain upon what standard your critique of Hitler and Rand is based, since you are âamoral."
Actually, my explanation revolves around the assumption that those of Satyrâs ilk start with the assumption that only their own explanation encompasses The Truth. But what, in my view, most exasperates them are those like me. With others, they can at least expect them to believe in turn that in regard to race, The Truth does exist. It might come from God or ideology or deontology or idealism or biological imperatives, but it certainly does exist. With me however everything eventually comes back around to all that we still donât know about existence itself. All of the things that we donât even know that we donât even know about it.
Then this part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGqFGefMp1A
Satyr:
Why is Hitler âevilâ Mary, if morality is a social construct, as well, and nobody has a real choice?
What are you accusing him of, Mary?
Above, I noted that I do not construe either racism or racists to be inherently good or evil. Instead, I am more inclined to accept Nietzscheâs suggestion that in a No God universe, human interactions in the is/ought world are themselves âbeyond good and evilâ.
Same with Hitler. I have my own political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein. But thatâs not the same as me demonstrating that he is necessarily evil.
And there he goes again claiming that I donât believe anyone has a real choice. Instead, here and now, Iâve taken an existential leap to determinism while acknowledging thatâs all it is. Of course we may have free will. And I certainly post here as though I do. But that doesnât make this partâŠ
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was âsomehowâ able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter âsomehowâ became living matter âsomehowâ became conscious matter âsomehowâ became self-conscious matter.
âŠgo away.
Let alone this part:
Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?
Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.
Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.
Satyr:
You arenât interested in truth, Mary, the object of philosophy, you are interested in promoting your collectivist utopianism. It is you has a political agenda, not I.
Your way or the highwayâŠpie in the skyhooks. It is YOU who wants to âchange the worldâ, isnât it Miss Land?
All I want is a way to convince myself that my own existence is not essentially meaningless and purposeless, that my moral philosophy need not be âfractured and fragmentedâ and that perhaps my death might not entail falling over into the abyss that is nothingness.
This is so far removed from how I would describe myself, I wonât waste my time âcorrectingâ him.
Satyr:
Wait a minute, MaryâŠif thereâs no objective truth and free-will is an illusion, how can I be âincorrectâ?
One More Time:
What I believe about objective truth and free will âhere and nowâ are no less entirely subjective assumptions predicated on the manner in which existentially my understanding of them unfolds given the life Iâve lived. The experiences I had, the relationships I sustained, the information and knowledge I came upon.
Satyr:
There you go with the spiel, Mary.
Your mind is stuck in a loop, not a holeâŠyou are loopy.
A repeating loop of feminine defensive nonsense.
How many years have you been repeating the same damn things, Mary?
3? 6? 10?
Canât stop the loop, can youâŠand so you feel like you have no choice, and that this is universal.
Nobody even responds to you, do they?
Not here, not on PNâŠyouâve become a joke.
Back to this:
Note to others:
Satyr likes to think of himself as a âserious philosopherâ. Yet over and again heâll post what I construe to be the equivalent of intellectual drivel above.
More to the point [mine] are those dogmatists all up and down the moral spectrum who will insist their own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices are anything but that. Whether in regard to God or Ideology or Deontology or Biological Imperatives, only their own conclusions are likely to be confirmed once we have finally pinned down how âthe human conditionâ fits into a comprehensive understanding of existence itself. In other words, I suspect, long after he and I are dead and gone.
Satyr
What does science do to resolve disagreements, Mary?
What does it use as its standard?
Subjectivity?
Might is Right?
How does science, and philosophy, determine which perspective is more probable?
Right, like there is an actual consensus among philosophers and scientists regarding race. And, of course, Satyrâs own mantra here revolves around âright makes mightâ. And once you are convinced of your own Kingdom of Ends is right the slope between means and ends can get considerably problematic.
âŠwhat could an understanding of existence itself possibly have to do with us today? Nothing? A little? A lot? Everything?
Satyr:
Wow!
What?
That, about, sums up your anti-philosophical nature, dearâŠ
A woman who comes here to spread her feel-good agendaâŠwith no understanding of what philosophy is, and how it is relevant, across the agesâŠ
All I can say is that if it is not a âconditionâ he is afflicted with, it will do until one shows up.
Then itâs just more of the same Stooge Stuff from him,
Satyr:
Mary, once more projects her emotional state as a universal truth.
Classic female.
More of a hope, than a fact.
She cannot rationally respond, so she must revert to her feminine tactics, somehow drafting popular opinion on her side.
Shallow and presumptuous.
Enough said?
Notice how his focus is on determining which theory regarding things like race is more correct. Whereas my focus is more on the extent to which conflicting theories about it are brought down to Earth, confronting actual ongoing social, political and economic interactions that revolve around race.
Satyr
Yes Mary, and this is a major factor in what is occurring in the world, because of the central role this lie plays in the USâŠa superpower that was controlling the worldâs narrative for decades.
The Empire of Lies, has indoctrinated dimwitrs and midwits, in its dominionâŠlike you, Mary.
Off the deep end again. Unless, of course, someone here is willing and able to explain what the above has to do with my point.
Whatâs most mind-boggling here perhaps is that he actually believes âthe psychology of objectivismâ above is applicable to someone who describes himself as âfractured and fragmentedâ morally, politically and spiritually! Also, the part where I donât exclude myself from my own point of view. The irony being that I come here in part in hopes of finding someone who might actually convince me to abandon these grim assumptions.
Satyr
What does Mary imply with this?
That men are âthrown into the worldâ - Dasein - by âworldâ she means a culture, a society, not the world outside all cultures and societies? Sheâs a Marxist.
Does she imply that, like her, men become trapped in the ethical and ideological beliefs of their time and place?
Thatâs not what Schopenhauer says about genius. He says a geniusâ mind is not bound by any place and time, and so it can formulate timeless insights.
And letâs not forget this part:
Satyr
But if it is so, then how can Mary explain progress?
If men are trapped by their culture and social beliefs, then how does progress even occur?
See what he does here [over and over and again]? On the one hand, he embraces progress, but then on the other hand itâs only progress as he encompasses it. Thus America is making progress in regard to race because Trump â a racist â is back in the White House.
Then back to Stooge Stuff on steroids:
Satyr
How do men question the beliefs of their upbringing, Mary?
What standard breaks them out of their societyâs lies or errors or superstitionsâŠlike ârace is a social constructââŠor âgod created the worldââŠor âthe earth is flatâ?
For Mary, objectivity is a slurâŠit refers to Capitalism, because Mary was told Rand used it and titled her beliefs Objectivism.
Mary has associated objectivity with capitalism, ever since.
Nothing you tell her will break her out of her subjective loop.
This is all Mary understands of objectivity.
In Miss Landâs feminine mind, âsubjectivityâ is the proletariat, the collective, the victims of exploitation, the ones who suffer the âmight is rightâ of the evil onesâŠobjectivists, capitalists.
This is the extent of her understandingâŠlimited by her prejudices, as is the concept of âdasein.â
Her linguistic entrapment must become a universal truth.
In fact, when it comes to Stoogery, no one now comes close to him here. Well, now that iwannaplato hasâŠretired? Or was IWP one of his sock puppets?
Come on, what Iâve asked of him in regard to race is to note the parts that, in his view, Hitler and the Nazis got right, and the parts they got wrong. And many I suspect would be considerably less inclined to call him a Nazi if he assured them that he has nothing in mind in regard to âfinal solutionsâ.
Satyr
What Hitler got right about race is that it is not a âsocial constructâ and that this lie was propagated by specific people, with an agenda, similar to miss Landâs.
What he did about it, is another issue.
Thatâs why Iâm so curious regarding the parts he thinks Hitler got wrong. What wouldnât he pursue in order to sustain a community where the races lived apart from each other? Especially in regard to those who organize politically to prevent this.
Satyr
Have you read what the founding fathers had to say about race and about Negroes?
Have you read what people way before Hitler was born, had to say? Were they all Nazis, Mary?
Start here: âIn fact, 17 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned a total of about 1,400 slaves. Of the first 12 U.S. presidents, eight were slave owners. These men have traditionally been considered national heroes.â
And how on Earth could anyone become a Nazi until historically, the party was created in 1919.
On the other hand, how many men and women does he know who, as children, were not brainwashed?
Satyr
And thatâs philosophyâs objective, Mary.
What standard does it use to evaluate which perspective is most probably objectively true, and which is not?
No, thatâs the objective of those philosophers who insist that only their moral philosophy counts. Though they wouldnât use a word like brainwashing of course. Instead, their aim is to enlighten us regarding The Truth.
Indeed, just run that part by these guys and gals: List of philosophies - Wikipedia
No, Iâm the one who âhere and nowâ is intent on examining not what others believe about the world â about conflicting goods, about race â but the extent to which they are able to demonstrate why their own assessments reflect that which all rational men and women are obligated to accept in turn.
Satyr
Then watch and shut the fuck upâŠyou are distracting me with your nonsenseâŠforcing me to use you as an example of western intellectual degradation and linguistic infection.
You offer nothingâŠbut entertainment and distraction.
Note to others:
There is the possibility that all of this is âbeyond his controlâ. So, heâll always have that to fall back on.
Naturally?
I am sure Iâm not the only one here who thoroughly enjoy this endless Silenus/Iambiguos debate.
A study in stubbornness.
No godâŠyour perspective is quintessentially politically prejudiced, Mary.
You are the poster girl of neo-Marxist postmodernism.
Who are you trying to lie toâŠme or yourself?
There are no different truths, miss LandâŠonly different levels of acknowledgement and acceptance and awareness.
You donât live in your own truth, sad woman.
That you are sheltered from the consequences of your stupidity, is evident.
The only reason you can come here and spew the nonsense you do is because you are protected by a system. Protected from your own idiocy.
In nature or other systems, if you ever attempted to live by your own truths, you would soon find out what the cost truly is.
Of course, Miss LandâŠ
My positions on morality have not been contradictedâŠbecause they are based on observation, not text in books.
Do you even udnerstand what I am saying?
But that doesnât mean Iâm not objective, pathetic womanâŠyour trite inclusions of
âI may be wrongâ are not evidence of your openness and objectivityâŠitâs evidence of your womanly mind-games.
Being in error is implied, MaryâŠbut you have to prove it, in regards to my viewsâŠnot I.
YOU, sad woman, have to show me where and whyâŠnot simply declare that I might be wrong, because nobody is omniscient.
Thatâs part of natural selection, you dumb fool.
You have to show where and why I am wrongâŠnot simply state that I am.
You have to offer a superior alternativeâŠnot parroting your mantra, like a stupid girl.
I gave my thesisâŠyou critique it by understanding it and offering an antithesis.
Your inane commentary, youâve been posting for years, is ridiculousâŠ
All you do is vaguely subvert everything that makes you feel uncomfortable or prevents your objective from being realizedâŠlike free-will, or moralityâŠor competing truths.
Who are you talking about, you sad girlâŠwhat âone true pathââŠthere are mutiple paths. That doesnât mean they exist in their private reality.
They exist in the same reality.
Some are good paths, some are bad pathsâŠsome are easy, some are difficultâŠsome lead you astray, some lead to where you are goingâŠsome have destinations that exit in fantasy maps, others have destinations existing in the real world.
Then show us where it is wrong and give us a better explanation, you pathetic woman.
Donât just bitch about itâŠ
Show us.
And then you contradict yourself, woman, by constantly referring back to Hitler and the Nazis and the Holocaust as the only atrocity humans ever conductedâŠyou ignore the one occurring as we speakâŠAS WE SPEAK, you hypocrite.
So brainwashedâŠso communistâŠthe only âevilâ she can recognize goes back to WWII.
Yes, the Nazis were communismâs greatest enemyâŠand coincidentally for the JewsâŠand thatâs why you were brainwashed, miss Mary LandâŠnear Washington DC, the heart of the beast.
Youâre lying, MaryâŠyou want to wallow in your misery.
Are you not physically handicapped?..and mentally, I would add.
Youâve dug a linguistic hole and wrapped yourself in semiotic dirtâŠa proverbial womb, you pretend you want to escape, and be rebornâŠbut itâs your trap. Your retribution on the world that made you as you are: gullible, not very bright, impressionable, feebleâŠand now crippled.
YesâŠthis is true of YOUâŠnot everyone, you dumb woman.
Not everyone becomes trapped in the culture they were born in.
I didnât.
Men question the beliefs their mommy and daddy teach themâŠusing what, Mary?
How do men break out of their cultural bubbles?
If a man is born int a fundamentalist Christian culture, how does he ever manage to become an atheist?
Think you stupid womanâŠwhat did you lack?
Why was your will imprisoned, whereas anotherâs was not?
Thereâs notâŠand we donât need it.
What do our eyes reveal?
What does Darwin tell us?
Combine the twoâŠuse your own reasoning.
You rely on authorities, womanâŠbut all woman are like you.
Women need guidance and consensusâŠunable to doubt popular beliefs, unable to challenge authorities.
Thereâs the tapeâŠthat loopy loop cassetteâŠof the 80âs and 90âs.
Thatâs all she hasâŠthose golden oldiesâŠfrom her youth.
Many blacks want to segregate, MaryâŠbut they know that if they do they will fuck it all up, because of how they areâŠlow IQ, high impulsiveness, low self-controlâŠ
If they could they would have, already, in AfricaâŠthousands of years before white men arrived.
Have you heard of many Negroes being given the Nobel Prize in physics, or chemistry?
Any remarkable technological innovationsâŠother than Sculptorâs super soaker and graffiti innovations? 
TwerkingâŠyesâŠtheyâve made great progress in gorilla signalling.
No, womanâŠIâm not telling you MY moral standards, but what morality is.
You donât even know what my moral standards areâŠ
Iâve only explained that morality does not require a god, nor is it imposed by the powerful on the powerless.
Morality is innate in all social speciesâŠbecause without it their cooperative methods would not succeed.
SeeâŠlike I, predicted.
You canât help yourselfâŠitâs written on the cassetteâŠyou cannot end the playbackâŠyou have no cassette other than the one they gave you.
You cannot stop replaying the same tunesâŠpress fast forward to âLook what I reduced him toââŠthen back to âNote to OthersââŠcatchy tune, then forward again to âwiggle wiggle.ââŠmore upbeatâŠfor dancingâŠthen back again to âDaseinââŠclassyâŠ
How do technologies and modernism affect society?
Is homosexuality, transsexual, pedophilia, paraphilic sexual practices in general, abortions, contraceptives, multiplying promiscuity harmless developments?
Americanism & Family Values
What does historical precedent tell usâŠ
Miss Land is having the same effect in every forum that gives her the leeway not given to anyone else.
She goes through her playlistâŠand then declares victoryâŠmisconstruing frustration for capitulation to her formidable argumentsâŠyou now the playlist:
Press play⊠
*Desein - Euro-pop
*Huffing & Puffing - dance
*Wiggle wiggle - dance
*Look what Iâve reduced him to - bluegrass
*I was born a coal-miners daughter - country
*Rummy Rules - country pop
*Note to Others - soft-pop
*Didactic Pedantic Clouds - waltz
*Conflicting Goods - grunge
*His way or the Highway - country
*Objectivism - industrial
Iâll be adding to the list as I hear them played.
Satyr:
That you are sheltered from the consequences of your stupidity, is evident.
The only reason you can come here and spew the nonsense you do is because you are protected by a system. Protected from your own idiocy.
But that doesnât mean Iâm not objective, pathetic womanâŠyour trite inclusions of
âI may be wrongâ are not evidence of your openness and objectivityâŠitâs evidence of your womanly mind-games.
Thatâs part of natural selection, you dumb fool.
Your inane commentary, youâve been posting for years, is ridiculousâŠ
Then show us where it is wrong and give us a better explanation, you pathetic woman.
Donât just bitch about itâŠ
Show us.
Youâre lying, MaryâŠyou want to wallow in your misery.
Are you not physically handicapped?..and mentally, I would add.
On and on and on he goes in the same Stooge Stuff vein.
How obsessed is he with me?
To witless:
Click.
Just for the record, some here [and others there] have accused me of being obsessed with Satyr. Itâs actually just the opposite.
I first encountered him years ago at ILP. By then though the âwarâ between ILP and KT had resulted in him being banned. Why? Because he simply cannot, will not tolerate anyone who refuses to agree with everything that he says. He is the personification of the didactic/pedantic bully.
I became a âuserâ at KT. I would effectively challenge what I deemed to be his arrogant, autocratic dogmas until one day I came upon this:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forumHe tossed me into the âdungeonâ. Where over and over and over again I continued to make a fool out of him.
Okay, okay: if I do say so myself.
Satyr:
âShe speaks for millions, in her head, directing her comments towards unseen audiences, in the form of ânotesâ and patronizing rhetorical questions directed towards invisible receivers.
Text after text, repeating an encoded message to an imagined audience.
Sheâs a Borg Queen. First among equals â one of many drones.
She has adopted the feminine tactic of linguistic sparring, never positing any arguments, any reasoning, but only insinuating in her condescending tone, undermining the psychology of her interlocutors, she hopes. Itâs all subjective, so her hopes are as good as truths. If she thinks so, it is so; it is so for her and her collective, who share her psychosis, her desire to disappear in a collective â cease to be individuals.
She calls her inability to rationalize her positions her âfracturing & fragmentation,â knowing that the adversary is too superior to deal with on his level. She knows that she is incapable of abandoning her emotional crutches, so she demands that they prove them to her, placing herself at the center of all dialogues, bringing them down to her level â the final arbiter. Sheâs made herself the standard, the one who will decide right from wrong, whilst pretending she has no preferences and no ethics. But she does, and it shows.
Every dialogue she converts to a discussion about her, and how others must prove themselves to her, as if she were a âphilosopher queen,â and yet, if she is personally attacked or critiqued, she turns to her patronizing accusation âstooge,â â demeaning, patronizing â and if the insults become too hurtful, âhuffing & puffing,â â dismissive â and if the critiques cut too close to the bone, she resorts to the infantile â look what Iâve reduced him to,â always directing her commentary to the unseen collective in her hive mind. She wins, no matter what. If she does not reduce you to a drone, she reduces you to a manimal.
She must make herself the final arbiter, and yet nobody can critique her, nor speculate about her motives. They must, only prove themselves to her. Her subjectivity will determine if the arguments are good or bad. Her subjectivity will determine who is the stooge and who is the âcleverâ one, focusing no the speaker not the spoken.
If you cannot convincingly explain your positions to her, then your theories are too âabstract,â âup in the skyhooks,â meaning they are incomprehensible to her, therefore they are nonsense; if you cannot convince her, then nothing you say is true. Her and her collective, will be the ones who decide, âcompelledâ by fate to be the final judges â chosen, by unknown agencies.
Her intelligence is now the standard, and yet she admits that sheâs confused and subjective, so her confused subjectivity is the final standard. Her emotions, her interests, her feelings, her comprehensions⊠she says it straight out. Itâs not how Heidegger meant âDaseinâ itâs how she understood it, âhere and now.â
All must be brought down to her level of confused subjectivity. And if you turn away and ignore her, she will follow you around, taunting, patronizing, implying, commenting, until you pay attention to her, as if she mattered, as if her subjectivity had to be overcome, seduced, convinced, otherwise everything being stated is of no significance.
And others fall for it⊠are pulled into her âup in the skyâ orifices, not realizing that her subjectivity can never be swayed, because it has a secret agenda⊠and is not âfractured & fragmented,â at all. Sheâs a Marxist, a collectivist, but she will never admit it.
Her pretence is meant to wear you down, and pull you into her gaping orifice, her âhole.â
Sheâs the Borg Queen⊠of the Borg collective. âResistance is futile,â she believes⊠because she will ware you down until you surrender. Taunting, patronizing, undermining, condescending⊠until you turn on her in frustration, âhuffing and puffing,â to be âreduced,â by her formidable feminine tactics, to an emotional wreck, primed for capitulation. Then, she will declare victory, and move on, until she returns, again, and again, to toy with you. Sheâs succeeding, she believes, and her subjective belief is all that matters.
Sheâs made objectivity a slur, associating it with Ayn Randâs âobjectivismâ and its defence of capitalist ideals, implying that objectivity, as an intellectual approach, is brutal, confronting her comforting subjective shelters, associating it with triggering events and injustices, like the holocaust, or with abortions denied to women who have made a terrible mistake, or have been victimized, and want to âcorrectâ it with a quick and easy operation, just to repeat it in the future.
All errors can be collectivized, so that everyone is made equal â I am a drone, my brotherâs keeper. Their pains are my own. Their mistakes, are my own.
Philosophy is about becoming objective, but not for her. Objectivity is now authoritarian, totalitarian, another term for âevilâ â might is right.
Sheâs not really a âphilosopher,â even if she throws the term around, like all the other crap she throws around; sheâs an ideologue, masking as some two-bit internet âintellectual,â with a secret agenda. Objectivity is her nemesis, and thatâs why sheâs demonized it. All must become subjective, where emotions and self-interests, stupidity and ignorance, hedonism and ego dominate. There, she hopes, she can assimilate her victims, into the collective, her collective.
She calls it âcompromising,â and it is how she will eliminate wars and conflicts. All will become automatons in the collective â drones, with no free-will.
Thatâs the issue. Thatâs what prevents her collective from becoming cosmic. Free-will and âself.â
She claims to be amoral, but her methods always employ indirect shaming, using ethical triggers, trying to convert by reducing others into submissive automatons, following her collectivized ethical standards â this is why the holocaust, and Nazis, and mass shootings, and abortions, are continuously brought up as âcontexts,â for her faked amorality to unload its moralizing tactics. Itâs those damn objectivists, and their unemotional criteria, see?
Itâs those objective males, and their reasoning, that stands in the way of universal assimilation.
If she were truly amoral, the Nazis, and their victims, denying abortions to women, victims of paternalism, would not be such an emotional issue, to her.
Under what principle would a true amoralist claim that such actions were wrong?
She denies morality to conceal her own moralizing practices, subverting by casting doubt into the minds of those who do not want to wrong people â those with morals and principles, otherwise why would the predicament of some theoretical Mary, and her unwanted pregnancy, matter? On what grounds would Mary deserve to be helped, in a world with no âethical authorityâ? Everything has to be made into a âsocial constructâ to justify her collectiveâs planned social engineering? In a âno god worldâ where ethics are invented, out of nothing, men can step in and create their own, right?
Right is Might is inverted to Might is RightâŠand the only âethical mightâ is the one practiced by a collective. Her objectives are certainty not rational, because then she would argue them. But she canât and will not, for this will expose her and her quality of mind and her agenda. Every time she tried, in the past, when she was still an âobjectivist,â herself, she failed to defeat those with better counterarguments â she failed when trying to impose her subjectivity on real objective minds. She had no arguments worth stating. So, she stopped arguing, using reasoning, and started undermining, using emotions⊠as she was taught. She emasculated herself, adopting feminine strategies. Tactics that do not require reasoning, or evidence, or objective standards, or logic, nor definitions of words. Entirely feminine; psychological tactics. Tactics on how to defeat masculine reasoning⊠those evil objectivists, who are not to be called âevil,â because this would expose her foundational ethics â the same ones that verbally manipulated her into joining Abrahamism, and then Marxism, and now postmodernism. Now she will assimilate others, as she has been assimilated; the ideology âcompelsâ her, to indoctrinate as she was; to manipulate, as she was.
Maryâs sexual mistakes are not hers alone, they are the entire collectives mistake, or they ought to be so, in an âis/oughtâ world, with âno god.â A world with no absolute authority, she believes, subjectively.
Her amorality conceals a deep moral foundation⊠based on her Abrahamic upbringing. It has been absorbed into her updated collectivism. Sheâs progressed from spiritual towards ideological collectivism, rejecting all biology-based categories. Ironically? Predictably.
There are good & evil collectives, and any collective identifier, based on biology, is âevil,â but must be called âobjective,â because it is, and objectivity is, by her own subjective definitions of Dasein, âevil,â or ââwrong,â or âimmoral.â But she will never say so. She will simply imply, and patronize, and ridicule⊠until you get it, see? Like she did.
The all-inclusive ideological collective is now her god. It is intentional, willful, so no individuated Will, ought to, be tolerated in the Borg collective. The Borg Queen speaks on its behalf. Itâs not her, she is âcompelled,â as all are, she believes in her subjective mind.
No arguments required. It is so, because she believes so, and she is part of a collective.
There is no free-will so nobody has a choice; they are all compelled, and she just happened to be compelled by the âgood side.â Sheâs been chosen, by fate, luck, chance, cosmic, or comic, forces, to be on the right side of history. Sheâs been directed, chosen to do this work. Itâs not her choice. She has no choice. She one of the fortunate ones.
If not god, then who or what is compelling us all? She cannot say, without exposing her ethics and motives. All drones must be made to feel equal to all others, for the collective to remain stable; no personal identify will be tolerated; no personal beliefs. No hierarchies. No divisive categories. No divisive collectives. Her collective is universal. All will inevitably submit and be assimilated. There is no choice. Resistance is FUTILE!
She just laughs, knowing that all who resist will succumb, will be assimilated.
Natural selection must, ought to, be replaced by social selection, governed by Borg principles and collectivized ethics. All must, ought, to identify with the all-encompassing universal collective, i.e., âselfâ must be denounced and rejected. But she cannot explain and convince, using reason and rational arguments, so she must use psychological means to subvert all concepts that resist, demanding that others prove them to her⊠since she is the final subjective arbiter, and if you fail to convince her subjectivity â as you inevitably will â then âselfâ is disproven, she believes⊠she has been compelled to believe. Itâs not her fault.
She didnât even have to rationalize her disproof. She simply chipped away at the imperfections in all theories about âself,â all definitions, leaving the nothing, the absence⊠where anxiety takes over, and individuals seek comfort in collectives. She learned these techniques from others. Her collectivized brethren. From the hive⊠the Borg collective mind, replacing the god of Abraham.
She denies self, so as to imply that sheâs channelling a cosmic agency, when it is collectivism, she is trying to channel. There is no ârightâ or âwrong,â there is no choice, leaving the option of being collectively wrong as the only option. Letâs be collectively wrong, erasing all social and natural disparities â letâs reduce it all down to a level where uniformity is possible.
Itâs inevitable⊠The cosmos will become âhealedâ of its multiplicities and its conflicts. It will become uniformly perfect. Tikkun Olam.
Sheâs a Marxist, or a cultural Marxists, or a postmodern, but she will never admit it.
She will pretend that sheâs undecided, fractured & fragmented, battling with these complex issues, unable to decide who is correct, when sheâs already decided â the collective mind decided it for her â using this pretence as a way of pulling others into her linguistic traps â given to her. Infantile, but effective, around certain types. Her radicalized selective skepticism ought to be universalized. Radical and very selective. Applied âhereâ but not âthereâ; ânowâ but not âafter.â
Doubt only your senses; doubt only certain issues, having to do with human identity and the human condition. Always remain within the human. Never apply this strategy outside human systems.
Her goal is to undermine confidence, because she is unable to confront the ideologies directly. She can only chip away at their imperfections. Her methods do not even require a high IQ, or knowledge of the ideologies, themselves. Her ignorance and simplicity are an advantage. She can never be swayed by reason nor by anything complex. She is immune to the underlying implications.
She, routinely tries to turn others against each other, so that she can glean something from the exchange, otherwise she remains oblivious to everything other than her repetitive devices.
Nothing she is told has ever affected her. She is too thick, too indoctrinated to be affected.
The ideology has âcompelledâ her to think and do what she does. Making others debate, while she watches, also reinforces her role as the final arbiter. She will be the one who decides the winner, and the criteria will be subjective, i.e., emotional, self-serving, not objective.
Her words donât even require definitions, because these would create objective foundations from where dialogue can proceed. Her objectives will be thwarted by such objective clarity. She needs it all to remain as subjective as possible â in other words, obscure, chaotic, uncertain, vague, emotionally driven, egotistical, self-serving, hedonistic. The pleasure principle must be paramount â she must reduce all to a manimal state, where pure subjectivity can reign.
By the time these victims of her bad faith become aware of her methods and motives they will have wasted away hours rummaging through her garbage for something valuable.
I doubt most of them will ever realize what she is and what she is doing. They will simply become increasingly frustrated and confused by her repeating tactics, as if nothing they said registers; her responses never altering. It does not matter what reasoning and evidence they present, she will ignore it, because her subjectivity is the final standard.
She is compelled to hammer away, not letting them alone, until they capitulate and assimilate.
They call it nagging, for her its an effective strategy. She will never abandon it.
She is unable to exit from the nihilistic continuity, connecting Christianity with Communism and now Wokism. This time it will work, she believes.â
There are so many preposterous claims about me hereâŠand I suspect that he knows it. He just canât help himself though. He seethes when someone dares to challenge him. Most here know what I am talking about.
Now, if he is ever willing to dispense with the caustic eruptions that revolve almost entirely around what a fucking moron I am, we can perhaps sustain an exchange that really does revolve instead around connecting the dots between philosophical assessments of conflicting goods/racism and the manner in which theory here might be reconciled with the enormous complexity of human social, political and economic interactions.
Until then, ta ta.