A political dilemma about Human Logic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2016, 05:34 PM
RE: A political dilemma about Human Logic
(29-08-2016 04:20 PM)KerimF Wrote:  And this makes the men on power more powerful and richer everywhere Wink
For example, the brave American troops love their country and are always ready to fight for it and its people.
But at the same time they have, anytime they are commanded, to serve the agenda of some big bosses (the top decision makers; ruling behind their hired politicians, claimed elected or not).




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2016, 05:40 PM
RE: A political dilemma about Human Logic
(29-08-2016 07:57 AM)julep Wrote:  
(29-08-2016 03:13 AM)Vosur Wrote:  This forum is such a great place to have a discussion. The guy is completely civil and polite and people still pile up on him like a bunch of schoolyard bullies to insult and ridicule him and to attack his character. Shame on all of you.

He has termed the people who have replied to him in various threads stupid and inept at "logic" (quotes because KermF's logic is not what logicians would recognize as logic). He hasn't used profanity, but calling other people stupid is generally considered to be uncivil. He has also declined to engage with the facts, requests for clarification, and counterarguments made by multiple posters in previous threads (indeed, he mocked posters who told him they couldn't understand and asked him to explain his ideas more thoroughly). As productive response is essential to a discussion, and presumably Kerim understands that, his refusal is not one bit polite.

Not defending myself here. After our first couple of interactions, it became clear to me that Kerim had no intention of answering the questions he was putting to others himself. I have therefore made no attempt to be particularly polite or welcoming; I poke instead and will continue to do so when I feel like it. But many other posters showed extraordinary levels of patience and care with Kerim. Kerim has repaid with condescension and (admittedly profanity-free) insults: nothing civil or polite about it, IMO.

But you personally never gave me the real version as seen by you in order to correct any of the facts that I presented and you saw as being unreal or false to you.

In fact, I am real surprised that most members here fear saying clear things on their own as I do... at best, they provide links or quotations or take a shortcut by writing some innovative civilized insults Wink

Kerim

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2016, 05:51 PM
RE: A political dilemma about Human Logic
(29-08-2016 10:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(29-08-2016 03:13 AM)Vosur Wrote:  The guy is completely civil and polite and people still pile up on him like a bunch of schoolyard bullies to insult and ridicule him and to attack his character. Shame on all of you.

I am so ashamed for not piling on to insult and ridicule the moronic monkey man. ... Fascist asshole.

Please don't hesitate doing it.
Every modern free civilized person should insult and ridicule anyone whose views disagree with his; otherwise he would look, as you said: "a moronic monkey man".

Kerim

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2016, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2016 06:00 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: A political dilemma about Human Logic
(29-08-2016 05:51 PM)KerimF Wrote:  
(29-08-2016 10:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I am so ashamed for not piling on to insult and ridicule the moronic monkey man. ... Fascist asshole.

Please don't hesitate doing it.
Every modern free civilized person should insult and ridicule anyone whose views disagree with his; otherwise he would look, as you said: "a moronic monkey man".

Now you're talking sense. I am just a monkey man. Thumbsup




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2016, 06:11 PM
RE: A political dilemma about Human Logic
see you later

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2016, 06:28 PM
RE: A political dilemma about Human Logic
(29-08-2016 06:11 PM)KerimF Wrote:  see you later

Peace be with you.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2016, 08:24 PM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2016 08:48 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: A political dilemma about Human Logic
@KerimF

[quote uid=34473 name="Szuchow" post=1053046 timestamp=1472436793][quote uid=36421 name="Deesse23" post=1052987 timestamp=1472425666]When will you stop repeating your completely unfounded fantasies?[/quote]<br />
Only when/if he will be banned. Otherwise he will continue trying to enlighten poor peasants with his brand of Truth. <br />
<br />
Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka<br />
[/quote]<br />
<br />
What surprises me is that you keep reading my posts Consider<br />
And you even reply them, directly or indirectly!<br />
<br />
Please tell me, do you really think my words could have a real effect in a mind of any reader here?<br />
So again, where is the problem?!<br />
<br />
I wonder who stops you from ignoring my presence here?<br />
And I see you as talking in the name of all readers. I guess you know that they are as clever as you are and they can just ignore me and my fantasies if they see it necessary.<br />
<br />
If you are an atheist you should be expert in this respect Wink You deny even the idea that you and I were forced (that is without taking our individual permission first) to be born/exist in this life by a certain external will/power (external to our individual will/power). Therefore you didn't have the interest to search for it, even in your own way (after all, all non-human living things don't have this interest as well).<br />
<br />
Therefore, is it a fiction or fantasy that we are different?<br />
You likely insist that we should be similar (like you are of course), but in reality we are not... And I am very sorry for not being able to be like you, as it is impossible for you to be like me... I mean the way you use describing me Big Grin<br />
<br />
Kerim

I skim through them as you're repeating your conspiracy shit.

While your words won't convince others I think idiocy should be opposed, though I'm aware of futility of it; you're either troll or you believe in whatever you write too much.

You can see me writing in name of others but I'm not and I doubt that others see it like you.

It is reality that we are different. I'm not conspiracy theorist for example, neither I'm crank thinking that "personal logic" is sound basis for making judgement about things that I have no knowledge about. Without sources your claims about history are worth nothing. You're free to think otherwise but then we will end in realm of fantasy where all stories could be true.

Lastly I'm not sorry that you aren't like me. Your stupidity isn't a burden to me after all, it is you who must live with it.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
29-08-2016, 09:44 PM
RE: A political dilemma about Human Logic
(29-08-2016 05:40 PM)KerimF Wrote:  
(29-08-2016 07:57 AM)julep Wrote:  He has termed the people who have replied to him in various threads stupid and inept at "logic" (quotes because KermF's logic is not what logicians would recognize as logic). He hasn't used profanity, but calling other people stupid is generally considered to be uncivil. He has also declined to engage with the facts, requests for clarification, and counterarguments made by multiple posters in previous threads (indeed, he mocked posters who told him they couldn't understand and asked him to explain his ideas more thoroughly). As productive response is essential to a discussion, and presumably Kerim understands that, his refusal is not one bit polite.

Not defending myself here. After our first couple of interactions, it became clear to me that Kerim had no intention of answering the questions he was putting to others himself. I have therefore made no attempt to be particularly polite or welcoming; I poke instead and will continue to do so when I feel like it. But many other posters showed extraordinary levels of patience and care with Kerim. Kerim has repaid with condescension and (admittedly profanity-free) insults: nothing civil or polite about it, IMO.

But you personally never gave me the real version as seen by you in order to correct any of the facts that I presented and you saw as being unreal or false to you.

In fact, I am real surprised that most members here fear saying clear things on their own as I do... at best, they provide links or quotations or take a shortcut by writing some innovative civilized insults Wink

Kerim

Your first reply to me, ever, insinuated that I wasn't rational; posts asking you to clarify your big ideas and revelations were met by evasions rather than clarifications. By the time you finally started expanding on your conspiracy theories, my main interest was in figuring out which set of masterminds you were going to select to blame.

To address some points that you keep bringing up:

1) Yes, I was watching TV and heard Bush make his first statements about the 9/11 terrorist attacks; since I have a working brain, I did not think that those statements were in any way factually definitive. I can believe that someone (Cheney?) helped Bush with what to say, since I'm not sure Bush can successfully tie his shoes unassisted.
2) I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004 and regard him as having stolen the election in 2000; I didn't support the Iraq war and was vocal against it at the time and ever since. I think Bush and Cheney (Cheney is the closest thing to one of your masterminds that we have available) would be charged with war crimes and regard them as (at the minimum) jointly, personally responsible for every American death in that war. However, I also, sometimes reluctantly, believe that an election result is an election result, and that one's best choice if the election doesn't go your way is to work to sway public opinion to your side in the election or be a conscientious objector, depending on the cause. In my country (USA), I have the opportunity to vote in not just presidential elections, but also state and town elections, places where it's much more possible for the voters to effect change. I don't think the rule of law and democracy is perfect, but I haven't found something preferable yet.
3) While all presidents have speechwriters and policy advisers, I do not find it credible that every US president is a puppet. Your imagined positioning of the US as benefiting from every international crisis does not resonate with the reality, but the relative differences can be attributed, among other things, to geographical isolation of the US.
4) I do not believe in successful, long-term international conspiracies. It is possible to devote years of effort and tons of money to "fixing" an election and still wind up with the wrong US president (ask Karl Rove, who spent something like a billion dollars and yet--Obama). Conspiracies are fun, but generally fictional.
4) The Holocaust happened. In my real life I have met Holocaust survivors and Germans who were alive during WW2. I found their testimony credible. I would be interested in hearing what personal evidence you have that there was no Holocaust.
5) There is no such thing as a bunch of people who are "sleeping" and will be awakened to be terrorists (an old movie called "The Manchurian Candidate" has this plot). There are plenty of reasons for people to become terrorists other than brainwashing by Illuminati/International Jews/Oil Oligarchs/Koch Brothers. I'm not sympathetic to terrorists or fundamentalists or fanatics of any stripe (except musicians), but people don't have to be brainwashed by a conspiracy to do horrid things to other people.

Your points about religion and politics being complementary/interchangeable opiates of the people have been made often. I would generally disagree that all of the leaders/movers of the world are cynical opportunists who set things up solely to be of benefit to themselves. By leaders I mean your definition of leaders, the movers behind the scenes. Instead, I think that many (not all) of these leaders have wholeheartedly believed that their power and influence were god-given. This is a self-serving belief not necessarily supported by data, of course, but the people who hold that "a rising tide floats all boats" or "what's good for General Motors is good for the country" don't all do so cynically. Many are sincere. Limited and wrong, but sincere.

I think your personality and personal situation have led you to be angry, which is understandable, and in need of something to blame. So you have invented what are essentially supernatural reasons (all-powerful conspiracies) for why things are so awful for you. I can't say that in your situation, I would do differently, because I don't know what I would do. I hope I wouldn't retreat into fantasy in the way you have. Finally, I contend that your continued appeal to the fruits of actions as indicating intentions is wrong-headed and, fatally, ignores the real-life fact that consequences are often unpredicted, unexpected, and/or unwelcome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like julep's post
30-08-2016, 05:11 AM
RE: A political dilemma about Human Logic
(29-08-2016 08:24 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  Your stupidity isn't a burden to me after all, it is you who must live with it.

Let's be fair, Szuchow. Kerim is clearly quite intelligent. The problem is one of indoctrination-- he has had such bad information, from such bad sources, for so long that he can no longer distinguish between testable reality and the ideas he has formed from those sources of propaganda. Then, ironically, he must Project that failure onto others who have a broader perspective on things.

The term you are looking for is "willful ignorance", not stupidity.

Stupidity is not a burden to the stupid because they are incapable of thinking beyond their present horizons.

Willful ignorance is a burden to both the afflicted and their audience, and I cannot understand how someone like him can bear such weight. Julep did an excellent job of breaking this down, in her most recent post, here... my hat is off to her!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
30-08-2016, 05:33 AM
RE: A political dilemma about Human Logic
(29-08-2016 09:44 PM)julep Wrote:  4) I do not believe in successful, long-term international conspiracies.
What about the global surveillance network that Edward Snowden famously exposed a few years ago? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: