Brent <digital.brent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 9:58 pm, Alexander Kalinowski
> <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Brent <digital.br...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> > >Brent wrote:
>> >> >Alex wrote:
>> >> Brent wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Anything else is what the people of the
>> >> > > world do not want. Political power is nothing if you are
economically
>> >> > > domesticated. Give the reins of the economy to the *people* and
let
>> >> > > them decide what they want. Anything else implies a disdain for
the
>> >> > > rights of the common man.
>>
>> >> > Alex:
>> >> > I disdain some of the demands of some of the common man. Very much
so. I also
>> >> > consider it a nice rhetorical trick to phrase it the way you do it
here.
>>
>> >> I know you do.
>>
>> Alex:
>> No big feat as that is plain to see, given that I state so
forthrightly.
>
> I must say, it is refre****ng, if anything. In fact, even respectable,
> in comparison to the standard of denial plaguing the left on this
> topic.
Alex:
You should be more careful before applying cliches then. :-)
>>
>> >> I just wanted you to come out and say it,
>>
>> Alex:
>> Doesn't take much. Just start a conversation about pedophilia with me
and out
>> it comes all by itself. Let me repeat it: "I disdain some of the
demands of
>> some of the common man."
>
> Ah, but let us not equivocate away the frame of reference of your
> quote. We'd hate to take it out of context, wouldn't we?
Alex:
Ah ah. You should not leave unmentioned that in the post from which this
quote
comes I have repeatedly made reference to child **** as one of the
examples.
But you did that above - and that can only mean one thing: you have been
deliberately trying to take my words of context so that they appear to
mean
something different than what they were intended to mean. That is, you
have
been relying on *rhetorical tricks* to make your case.
> I spoke of
> the disdain for the rights of the common man inherent within making
> decisions for him. To which you made your admission of disdain.
Alex:
Ah ah. Where did I specifically say that this is what I am referring to as
opposed to the numerous mentions of child ****ography in the original
post.
Let me summarize it again for you: you have been praising the wonderful
mechanisms of the market, the wonderful meeting of supply-and-demand. I
have
been pointing out that I don't want certain supplies and demands to meet
and
I have specifically mentioning child **** in that regard repeatdely. Next
thing I know is that you take this out of context and ****tray it in the
next
post as if that was demasked me as an insincere self-professed champion
of the common man and now that I challenge you over it you step to me with
the
above crap.
That's not working well, as far as I am concerned. .-)
> The
> crux being that your statement is in direct reference to the
> unsuitability of people to choose what is best for themselves.
Alex:
Yeah, like a child-molesting pedophile. Nor do I think that Germans 70, 80
years ago knew what was best for themselves. It's simply *stupid* to
assume
that people are free of ignorance. History shows a certain learning cruve
in
Mankind. And yes, from the Holocaust Germans eventually learnt to value
the
peace and freedom. But somethings are better learnt through contemplation
rather than by painful experience. This indeed goes beyond that and
includes
the mechanisms of the market economy. Sure it might be possible that an
equilibrium gets established at some point. If Hitler had won, chances are
that
Germans would have eventually woken up to his madness too.
The question is if any Jews would have been left in the meantime.
> In an
> attempt to weave in an 'emergency exit' disclaimer, you included the
> word 'some'.
Alex:
That's an unsubstantiated assumption of yours. Namely that I have woven in
an
emergency exit and that what I have said wasn't instead a precise
expression
of my thoughts on the subject. :-) I fear you will have to by what I
express
as my opinion unless I say otherwise. If you don't, whatever you say about
you think I am expressing will have to be regarded as unsubstantiated
speculation, especially if I clearly state that you have got it wrong. :-)
> A dire mistake.
Alex:
I can't spot anything dire outside of your claims. :-)
> For, whilst definitely giving you more
> flexibility for later spin, it also posits an inflexible commitment to
> subjectivist elitism. To sup****t 'some' demands of 'some' people
> undeniable proposes a criteria to which people must measure before
> being allowed the fundamental human right of choice.
Alex:
That's right. That criteria could be for example called "the law". :-) I
don't
grant pedophiles the human right of choosing to abuse children. At least
not
without the fear of consequences. Why? Because I say so. Anybody who does
that or who acts in defense of such acts is risking life and limb. No
negotiations possible. If you interested in such I have two advices for
you,
don't get caught and get armed. :-)
> Rights are a funny thing, Alex. You see, they are of no value
> whatsoever unless they are applied indiscriminately, (without conflict
> to themsleves).
Alex:
Yeah but rights can collide. That's why you have a juidicial system among
other things. Judges determine whose rights supersede in such a clash of
rights. As I have said: your understanding of economics is better than
that
of politics or society as a whole.
> Either everybody has the same rights, or nobody does.
Alex:
Again: you have a habit of stating that which is obvious to everyone as if
it
was something deep and profound that only you have discovered. :-)
> Anything else does not qualify as a right, but is instead, a
> privilege. Now whether or not rights are as worthwhile as we are told
> is another argument altogether. Nevertheless, the entire point of my
> emphasis on your admission is your open opinion of choice and self-
> determination to be privileges, not rights.
Alex:
Rights within certain bounds. As with cla****ng interests, cla****ng rights
have to be resolved. For the former you have politics, for the latter you
have courts.
>>
>> >> rather than
>> >> posing as some champion of the common man,
>>
>> Alex:
>> Nowhere did I do that. However what I said above doesn't contradict
being a
>> champion of the common man either. I said: "I disdain some of the
demands of
>> some of the common man." I also gave an example: pedophilia. Now you
have two
>> choices: either you lend your sup****t to the cause of pedophiles or you
have
>> to face the accusation that your words are being an actual
mischaracterization
>> of my words. :-)
>>
> Ouch, the false dichotomy/fallacy of association one-two combo. *duck,
> dodge* I lend my sup****t to the status of freedom of choice and self-
> determination as a fundamental right. Yes, even to pedophiles, nazis,
> commies, gingers, and the french. You see, the freedom to decide what
> is good for oneself, as I propose, is a negative right. Wanting to
> insert your ***** into the fresh young buttocks of a 6 year old boy
> may be disgusting, but it violates no rights of anyone else.
Alex:
Not even the right of the 6 year old boy who is screaming and wailing
because
he doesn't know what is happening is scared and hurt? Like I have said: if
you stand up for that, prepare to be subjected to repercussions. In case
you
didn't notice most people agree that such behaviour (child abuse) is
intolerable and needs to be severely punished. Should I ever have any
solid
proof that you're involved in such acts or that you are an accomplice in
such
acts, you're freedom/physical safety is in grave danger. I know people who
have been abused as child and I have no mercy on people who engage in
such.
If that is where you are at, you may consider this a threat, not a
warning.
:-)
> The same
> goes for perception of the jews as an inferior race, wanting to get
> something for nothing, having orange hair and freckles, and wearing a
> stupid hat.
Alex:
Yeah people like you can only think in terms of high and mighty
principles,
in terms of black and white, forever doomed of being incapable of
*differentiatng* between harmless self-expression and self-expression that
is linked via a chain of cause-and-effect to the suffering of others,
thereby
infringing their rights.
You don't understand the nature of law and democracy. :-)
> The fact is, one cannot champion the common man if you hold nothing
> but the utmost disdain for his ability to discern and choose what is
> best for himself.
Alex:
According to your theory.
> That, my friend, is oppression
Alex:
You err. Hat is weighing the rights of different people against each other
and
coming to a sane conclusion instead of chasing after high and nighty
principles
to satisfy one's ego for having understood such high-and-mighty
principles.
Which is the whole purpose of the exercise, no? You're talking about being
champion of the common because you're involved in trying to be a champion
of
your own vanity. And you are trying to exploit the causes of the common
man to
that end - their cause is only means to an end to you, no? A vehicle to
satisfy your vanity, eh? :-)
> (Not trying to be
> facetious, I am actually starting to like you).
Alex:
I can't return that favor though. :-)
> Instead, you want to
> tell him what is good for him, and what is bad for him. What he wants,
> and doesn't want. All you have to do is listen, and he will tell you
> what he wants himself.
Alex:
No, I am expressing my opinion which is one of many voices in a
pluralistic
society. If you'd care to nice: the common man doesn't speak with one
voice
to begin with. There are many conflicting demand, interests and rights
which
are constantly wrestling with each other in the real world (beyond your
pretty
much useless theories which do not apply to real life).
>> >> when you only serve to
>> >> domesticate him to your demeaning agenda. All leftists have nothing
>> >> but the sincerest disdain for the common man, realised or not.
>>
>> Alex:
>> Given that I have voted the CDU (even for a CSU candidate) in the last
two
>> national elections, your accusations of being leftist is pretty
baseless.
>
> I care not for which puppet of statism and oppression you 'choose'.
Alex:
Oh, you don't have to. How relevant your voice is in the midst of all
this, or
even the outlook on economy, politics, society you take a stand for is yet
to
be determined. :-)
> Rather, I base your economic 'leftism' on you disdain for economic
> freedom as a whole, and specifically that of choice.
Alex:
That would be a mistake though. My economic disdain is based on the fact
that
some people have become so rich that they don't know what to do with their
money while others are starving in the meantime. Or that football players
earn a mani-, manifold in a year of what an honest garbageman might earn
in
his whole life in spite of doing good, honest, hard work. This gap in
income
is solely due to the free play of supply-and-demand and I think that it is
a gap that needs to be artificially closed by politics (through taxation)
if
necessary.
And it is by no means certain but yes a possibility that at one point a
majority of people might wake up and simply stop watching football or
buying
Microsoft products to correct a situation. However that is a very slow
response and who knows how many will have starved in the meantime.
Therefore
there needs to be intervention of responsible politicians in time to
prevent
such from happening.
And if you're interest is one of the free play and free expression, you
can
go and argue for that. The democracy I am living in allows for that. But I
predict that you are going to experience that there will be the interests
of
some common men cla****ng with yours. You're free to make your case and
have
your view prevail in democratic elections. I would also prepare for
disappointment if I was you in that case. :-)
>> It's just that you have glorified your own perception of market economy
as a
>> vehicle to boost your own ego, ie it leads to you backpatting yourself
for
>> being so clever for having discerned the alleged grandness of the
market
>> economy.
>>
> Nice sentence.
Alex:
Nice evaluation in order to insinuate a superior positioning, as if you
was
teacher and I was pupil or something like that. I fear such rhetorical
tricks
are going to not help your case in the long run. :-)
> Well written and everything, but it just doesn't follow
> from any previous point made.
Alex:
It follows the contents of your posts in here *overall*. It is the essence
of
your posting here, thus a vary valid point to give rise too. More than
anything else we've been talking about otherwise as it is the engine
behind
this conversation from your side. It's what drives you here. :-)
> It is actually a prime example of a
> baseless accusation.
Alex:
It's not baseless at all. You have been using certain words to describe
the
market mechanisms which one can lead one only to classify it as
glorification.
Now since there is much suffering being caused through the very same
market
mechanisms, the question then is why someone would prefer to overlook that
and still paint the market the way you did. The logical conclusion
following
that is that something personal must be at stake. And what could that be?
Well,
if the market was indeed perceiced by more people the way you ****tray it
here,
it would be logical to conclude that this would increase your status in
those
people's eyes for having recognized it before them, for being a
protagonist.
This is what I think to be the case. Just ask for my reasons for claiming
something about you, I can tell you. :-)
> Perhaps there is a base, perhaps not, but you
> certainly haven't tied anything to this conclusion.
Alex:
Well, that's what happens in a dialogue. You can't seriously expect
everything
to be said at once. People get clarified further and further through
exchange
of thoughts.
> Anyhow, getting
> back to it, I criticise you as a leftist not due to my love affair
> with the market economy, but instead due to (a) your status as a
> leftists,
Alex:
Lol, where do you derive that one from?
> (b) my dislike for leftism and it's implications regarding
> economic freedom, personal freedom, and preferences toward heavy
> statism,
Alex:
I have been leftist green party-sympathisizer in the 90s. Since the turn I
am
no longer part of that crowd and indeed I have my own disdain for parts of
the leftist crowd, especially the fa****on-pacifist. You're application of
stereotyping to me is blind and unwarranted.
> (c) This is an arguement, and I feel obliged to criticise you
> position (what can I say?).
Alex:
I can tell you: "I have been wrong, I apologize, I will withdraw now and
contemplate our exchange." That would be most preferrable.
>>
>>
>> >> > The marketplace has obviously its place - of making supply and
demand meet.
>> >> > Where the marketplace needs to be regulated however - there will
be
>> >> > regulations, even if that means that some demands will not be met,
as is
>> >> > inevitable. :-)
>>
>> >> The arguement is all but over for me, now. I have said what I wanted
>> >> to say, and shown what I wanted to show.
>>
>> >> Just one more time before I leave:
>> >> >I disdain some of the demands of some of the common man. Very much
so.
>>
>> >> Take care now.
>>
>> Alex:
>> As you can see: I have no problem with your repeating what I have said
as I
>> stand to it and can explain it. I'd only have a problem if you tried to
make
>> it look like to say something different from what it was actually
supposed to
>> say. :-)
>>
> Said the pot to the kettle. Seriously, in context, your remark
> responded to the freedom of choice.
AleX:
No, this is how you choose to interpret it in spite of my saying otherwise
because you hope it will give you leverage in criticizing me. :-)
> Now you talk of pedophilia.
Alex:
You want to count how many times I have been talking about child **** in
the
aforementioned post of mine?
> Anyhow, there does not seem to be too much disagreement here. Well,
> there shouldn't be. As both a statist and a leftist,
Alex:
Lol!
> you should be
> quite comfortable with comprimising the rights of the individual for
> the sake of the interests of the state (and those that define it). As
> such, there should really be no arguement. I sup****t the freedom of
> the individual, you sup****t the supremacy of your idealogy. You can't
> have both, as your ideaology infringes upon the rights of the
> individual. Now, admittedly, I was a little vivid in my depiction of
> you as some kind of hypocrite. It doesn't have to be that way. Should
> you simply maintain that rights are immaterial in light of a
> subjectively state-determined 'greater good',
Alex:
That is the problem I am having: your state-determined is actually
something
that is being agreed to by an overwhelming majority of the common man.
It's
like - you can't drive in traffic in old way it pleases you. That is bound
to
end up in disaster.
What you don't get is: with freedom comes *responsibility*. There's two
kinds
of enemies to freedom:
1) Those who want dispose of it for self-gain, ie Hitler, Stalin, Saddam,
etc.
2) Those who don't want to impose a dictator****p of self-interest but who
make
use of their personal freedom without caring about what consequences it
might
have for others. People who go too far, people who don't know where to
stop.
And you can't have responsibility without actually holding people
accountable,
which is what law-enforcement and courts are all about.
> then there is no
> hypocrisy whatsoever. In fact these are the leftists I respect. The
> ones who can drop the charade and show their true colours. It reminds
> me of the homeless guy I see on the way to work with a sign that reads
> 'Need money for booze'.
>
> Anyhow, it's not like 'rights' are some objective gold-plated standard
> of divinity. They are just another BS concept whipped up by the
> renaissance. It just so happens that I sup****t them due to their high
> conduciveness to a decentralised individual-based economy. The two
> just click. Rights really only get in the way of organisational and
> hierarchical systems (usually to be tossed away, with the false
> impression of the continued presence casted by those who eliminated
> them in the first place).
>> --
>> Waiting for you to return.
>> --
>> To email me, please have 'alt.suicide.holiday' as the subject line.
>
--
Waiting for you to return.
--
To email me, please have 'alt.suicide.holiday' as the subject line.
|
