Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 605935606132113409
it isnt willingly if you are corrupted. And if you are doing it willing ly totots because you want to. You stil want it or do it because eiter your expirances or your biology. You are not free
And even more so if you have litteral oppresors like you walink around stamping ppl evolution and revolution of mind because you dont liked their gods
And how in the world are you implying that i have even a thought of nirvana whilst saying this.
I am been logical and realistic.. Your gods idea is unrealistic . Yet you accuse me of tnirvane fallacy
you are such a jew
Holy shit what the fuck is this
^
hes a troll that reads things and uses terms he remebered incorrectly as he doesnt knows what they mean
Nirvana fallacy comparing actaul things with fantasy
lol
im liek saying all this factual measurable stuff. ehe talks about stomping ppls god with a fluid state of gnetic biology or some shit
its entertaining in a fucked up way
```Dude, you manage to do it every time
read one line
bam its something not logicial nor sound
"And what constitutes 'oppression'? Following a collective goal wilfully?"
it isnt willingly if you are corrupted.
```
And **yet again**, what's 'corruption'? Do you mean to say that it's 'doing whatever one doesn't want to do' or 'the wrong thing'? __Then there is INFINITE corruption if one takes a god's-eye-view because there is always something that one is doing 'wrong' by any metric.__ You know very well where this will go since you accuse me of taking such a position when I am in fact describing your own. You also assume that people aren't actively involved in reproducing their conditions of survival and lifestyle - you hide behind 'muh social engineering' for this, but this still dodges the point. Remember the 'infinite studies' argument? I used that to show that human behaviour cannot be wholly and causally attributed to anything beyond human subjectivity itself. So even if people are tossed into the Matrix, there is still something about the Matrix that they want to keep. Will is *always* involved in some way, regardless of how miniscule that way is.
**It's uncontroversial between us that some things are better to pursue than others and that there can be a sense of 'corruption' which works. The issue is about what constitutes this 'corruption', which you don't want to talk about apart from abstract definitions which you can bend in any way you arbitrarily choose. *How does your sense of 'corruption' help to justify your racial-segregationist and class-society politics? Why do you say that trying to abolish this and destroy gods in the process requires 'corruption'?***
Of course, I already know the answer: ***__for you, the gods are inherently parts of people, and to go against that is what you mean by 'corruption'. You assume that misidentifications of oneself and one's struggles as being exclusive are the highest possible conclusions of what they want and how they should act. For you, class politics is not just 'inevitable': it's DESIRABLE.__***
```
And if you are doing it willing ly totots because you want to. You stil want it or do it because eiter your expirances or your biology. You are not free
```
Nobody causally wants to do things because of their biology - *want* (just like any other kind of thought) is registered on a psychoanalytic level, i.e. with regards to *reasoning* rather than processes which do not rely upon reason (such as biological processes). STEM models can approximate If I ignore this, you're now just regurgitating my argument and dodging the actual controversy here again: if people do things which are by some metric 'self-destructive', then one must have an idea of what's 'constructive' and build a moral system on whatever basis. I can pull out an infinitely-growing array of things which we're doing against an infinitely-growing array of principles! So by your pie-in-the-sky definition of 'freedom', absolute freedom is not only impossible for us, but a self-defeating illusion altogether.
***As I have said before, though, I was never talking about this 'freedom'. You continue to accuse me of talking about this 'freedom', but it's actually a case of me accusing you of talking about this even though I've made myself clear many times over.***
```And even more so if you have litteral oppresors like you walink around stamping ppl evolution and revolution of mind because you dont liked their gods
```
You speak like a 'post-colonial' theorist. Look at you saying 'oh, we need this diversity of thought, we need to respect gods'! No, thought is not nearly diverse enough. Many thought systems share similar reactionary cores and fit an array of familiar rubrics. There are some things which are beyond any possible controversy at the present moment and can be realised through the lens of multiple philosophical systems and traditions. Ignoring that, one can still say that critiques of common failures of all of these systems are key to generating new systems altogether. This was the style of argument of many among the Young Hegelians, for example: they singled out those who called themselves 'atheist' as still clinging onto superstitions which had been given a secular character.
**But let's ignore all that. What about the idols of anti-racism and diversity? What say you about those? You are a racial segregationist, are you not? Oh, suddenly that's 'corruption'. But you still have to oppose this corruption, do you not? How do you do that while respecting those gods? *The answer: you don't, because you are picking and choosing when your own system of thought disallows you from doing that. __So even in your assburgerian political world, you're no less 'fascistic' than I am.__***
```And how in the world are you implying that i have even a thought of nirvana whilst saying this.
I am been logical and realistic.. Your gods idea is unrealistic . Yet you accuse me of tnirvane fallacy
you are such a jew
```
Go back to Hollywood. ***You're the one inserting your god's-eye-view concepts into your straw man of my points while I've consistently said that such an idea of 'freedom' is impossible and thus not really anything to give a shit about. __It's why I constructed a definition which requires provisionality and historical context.__*** I accuse you of the Nirvana fallacy because your own position is that while saying that all concrete systems cannot include this impossible ideal 'freedom', you pretend that a *concretely-limited* system is what's best. We don't have to be racist and we're not condemned to being so. We don't need a sustained and self-reproducing class society even if we can never get rid of specialisation (class is not reducible to specialisation).
```hes a troll that reads things and uses terms he remebered incorrectly as he doesnt knows what they mean
Nirvana fallacy comparing actaul things with fantasy
```
Even if I'm not using conventional definitions, why do you insist on inserting your own definitions (conventional or not) into everything I say after I warn you not to do so (because you'll end up spouting uncontroversial shit while leaving the real controversies untouched) and I make myself clearer on what I mean? Maybe it's because you'd rather forget the actual points that I'm making and then pretend that you were saying them all along while I backpedalled to agree with even though I'm still claiming that we're not in agreement?
```im liek saying all this factual measurable stuff. ehe talks about stomping ppls god with a fluid state of gnetic biology or some shit
```
You keep missing out what isn't measurable and you pretend that your assumptions regarding what all that data means with regards to creating a political programme are all true. From causality and the actual nature of politics and the social world (against which I launched the 'infinite studies' and split-subject arguments) to the laughable standard of 'corruption' that you've advanced.
```its entertaining in a fucked up way
```
If you know it's fucked up, why are you doing it? Are you being 'corrupted'?
***You got surprise buttsecksed.***
its true you know
So no you all the dudden accept that the self can be corrupted in to having a choice made that isnt theres
intresting backpeddal
\ i post the wiki definitions, so try again bud. It is you who changes up the meaing of things by making something up that fits your narrative
I never said that true freedom coudl be obtained. unless you are god. there are to many limitations to man . you will never be free
I also stated thare is a gradiant of freedom
here again you are arguing against me ion bias and assumtion when in reality you agree with me
funny
Every one is racist
Racism: the recognizing of the inherent differences among the various racial groups
Not every one is racially discrimative , racuially predejudges or racially bigoted. These terms are conjoined and they meansomething differnt when they are appart
And you accuse me not knowing basic things
racial micing is genocide
diveristy is un obtainable if you mix ppl