ProfessionalTeabagger Posted November 26, 2014 Author Posted November 26, 2014 Awesome. Which show is this from? The most recent call-in show. http://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_2849_Sunday_Show_23_Nov_2014.mp3
Ken Cotton Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 At last we arrive at the core sentiment behind it all. Violence forever. The eternal struggle. FUCK YOUR ENEMY! You are me if I push you hard enough. You always were, you always will be. 1 5
PGP Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Nice work. The sight of Scarlett "profit from the occupation of the West Bank" Johanssen sets it back a bit at the end though. Yes, I am picky. But, fuck it!!!
shirgall Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 At last we arrive at the core sentiment behind it all. Violence forever. The eternal struggle. FUCK YOUR ENEMY! You are me if I push you hard enough. You always were, you always will be. My favorite version of this is when George Carlin says we should take movies and change every instance of "kill" with "fuck". "Well, sheriff, we're gonna fuck you now. And we're gonna fuck you slow." 1
Ken Cotton Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 My favorite version of this is when George Carlin says we should take movies and change every instance of "kill" with "fuck". "Well, sheriff, we're gonna fuck you now. And we're gonna fuck you slow." It's a blatant reference to rape as a display of power and sexual subjugation. There's no way you can say "FUCK YOU" to an idea without completely removing any human element of the idea and reducing it to something much more base. It's an instinctual, meat driven instinct behind virtually every inhumane atrocity in human history. Destroying someone or their idea in a dispassionate and reasonable way is decidedly impersonal and universally less evil. When you kill a violent psychopath that is attacking you or you take apart a falsehood its regarded as an expression of reality, like gravity. When you cross the line and say FUCK THAT CRIMINAL or FUCK THAT IDEOLOGY you aren't protecting yourself anymore. The male interpretation of fucking is inherently aggressive. Whether that invasion, aggression, and conquest is welcome and enjoyed or non-consensual and terrible is the difference between people enjoying it and hating it. When you cross into the territory of saying FUCK IT you aren't repulsing it anymore, you're trying to get into it. You're trying to assert yourself in the format of inserting yourself into your enemy. You want to destroy them from within and plant your own traits in them or their land, and raise people in your image. FUCK RELIGION, raise reason. FUCK THE STATE, raise free men. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. Kill the men physically or intellectually that oppose you, steal their women, and raise kids that are more like you. It's decidedly base and universally human. 1 3
Wuzzums Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 The male interpretation of fucking is inherently aggressive. Whether that invasion, aggression, and conquest is welcome and enjoyed or non-consensual and terrible is the difference between people enjoying it and hating it. When you cross into the territory of saying FUCK IT you aren't repulsing it anymore, you're trying to get into it. You're trying to assert yourself in the format of inserting yourself into your enemy. You want to destroy them from within and plant your own traits in them or their land, and raise people in your image. 4
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 That picture cracks me up every time. 2
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted November 27, 2014 Author Posted November 27, 2014 At last we arrive at the core sentiment behind it all. Violence forever. The eternal struggle. FUCK YOUR ENEMY! You are me if I push you hard enough. You always were, you always will be. No Ken. Fuck evil, not fuck your enemy. Here's the difference: YOU = My enemy is evil because it is my enemy. ME= Evil is my enemy because it is evil. Do you understand the logical distinction? Do you understand why I can never be like you no matter how hard you push? 1
Ken Cotton Posted November 27, 2014 Posted November 27, 2014 No Ken. Fuck evil, not fuck your enemy. Here's the difference: YOU = My enemy is evil because it is my enemy. ME= Evil is my enemy because it is evil. Do you understand the logical distinction? Do you understand why I can never be like you no matter how hard you push? I'm just going off what he said, fuck the nazis, fuck the communists, fuck this and that. A lot of Nazis at the end ( and during ) WWII were butchered or tortured simply for being German citizens. The vast majority of Germans were less aware of the concentration camps and intricate details of the Nazi regime than modern Americans are aware of Guantanamo Bay. As a result of that basic, craven "FUCK THE NAZIS" style of revenge thought many relatively innocent people died for things they were both unaware of and not consenting to. If it's "fuck nazis lol who cares" in a flippant manner like an expression of their irrelevance or "who cares" that's a lot different from "FUCK NAZIS" or an expression of hatred. There are kinds of people who will show up at neo nazi rallies in this day and age and like, throw bricks at them and tell them they're scum who should die and all that. Now, I'm not saying that because I think they deserve pity. I'm saying that to show how hatred ( even against nazis ) can result in people wanting to infringe upon basic freedoms in America. Many antis quoted will say that they don't think X people should be allowed to speak Y. That's pretty dangerous for a nation whose original character was liberty and freedom. I think you'll find, in the end, there are always disagreements about what is and isn't evil. You have principles about evil and realities about evil. Stefan said himself that your relationship with advanced physics, the universe, dark matter/energy etc is all really irrelevant. The same is ultimately true about your relation to good and evil in an immense universe of indestructible energy. You have no real enduring connection to the core universal principles of good and evil, only a fleeting and subjective connection to the human beings around you. The laws of gravity seem universal and unavoidable, and yet human beings have developed cheats to bypass the places where gravity inhibits us. We can fly planes around the world not because we escape gravity, but because we bend the rules and tilt and the table. The state similarly can be designed to afford us great heights, pleasures, and successes not by ever escaping your definition of evil, but by flirting with it. I for one think this is a very interesting development. 1 3
PGP Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 The same is ultimately true about your relation to good and evil in an immense universe of indestructible energy. You have no real enduring connection to the core universal principles of good and evil, only a fleeting and subjective connection to the human beings around you. Is it your position that everything is relative? ie people disagree on what is evil and it cannot be defined therefore.....? Afaik, there was actually a position taken in the Nuremburg trials on evil. Officers that were "just carrying out orders" were tried for crimes against humanity. In your opinion, should they have been tried under such a charge? They were just having fleeting and subjective connections to those around them I suppose and in an immense universe of indestructible energy whom is to say what is good and what is evil or if they even exist or if it matters.
Leevan Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Is a contrarian among contrarians a conformist? I'm lookin' at you, Cotton!
Ken Cotton Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Is it your position that everything is relative? ie people disagree on what is evil and it cannot be defined therefore.....? Afaik, there was actually a position taken in the Nuremburg trials on evil. Officers that were "just carrying out orders" were tried for crimes against humanity. In your opinion, should they have been tried under such a charge? They were just having fleeting and subjective connections to those around them I suppose and in an immense universe of indestructible energy whom is to say what is good and what is evil or if they even exist or if it matters. Good and evil are relative, yes. Can you discern net advantages for a whole from certain activities? Yes. We have pretty much come to the conclusion that rape is a net negative to human beings and we call it evil. That doesn't mean that rape is intrinsically evil, because evil is just a word we've made up to encompass things that make US uncomfortable. We don't consider the fact that animals regularly engage in non consensual sex to be "Evil" because it doesn't really bother us. The Nuremburg trials were just a display of power and a warning by the victorious powers of the war against the defeated. Human rights and crimes against humanity were just the words used to grease the wheels on the trials. I'm sure that there were many people at that time that felt genuine anguish and had real grievances, but objectively speaking it didn't have a lot of real legitimacy. How many people have committed "crimes against humanity" since and not paid for it, or even been charged on it? How many people in the Allied forces were tried with crimes against humanity for the things they did in the war? http://ironcladfuture.blogspot.ca/2014/11/principles-and-magnitude.html Guilt is the determining factor behind whether genocide is acceptable or not, not the logistical reality of the number of people who are guilty. Is a contrarian among contrarians a conformist? I'm lookin' at you, Cotton! "QUESTION AUTHORITY!" "Why?"
PGP Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Good and evil are relative, yes. Can you discern net advantages for a whole from certain activities? Yes. We have pretty much come to the conclusion that rape is a net negative to human beings and we call it evil. That doesn't mean that rape is intrinsically evil, because evil is just a word we've made up to encompass things that make US uncomfortable. We don't consider the fact that animals regularly engage in non consensual sex to be "Evil" because it doesn't really bother us. The Nuremburg trials were just a display of power and a warning by the victorious powers of the war against the defeated. Human rights and crimes against humanity were just the words used to grease the wheels on the trials. I'm sure that there were many people at that time that felt genuine anguish and had real grievances, but objectively speaking it didn't have a lot of real legitimacy. How many people have committed "crimes against humanity" since and not paid for it, or even been charged on it? How many people in the Allied forces were tried with crimes against humanity for the things they did in the war? In line with what I think you are saying, why is rape a net negative? If a man/woman derives subjectively more pleasure from raping than the rape victim derives pain, then it may be desirable. As a human interaction with no connection to good or evil, it is relative, is it not? I'm not sure using the example of non-human animals is relevant. After all, if it doesn't bother the animals, why would it bother us? AFAIK, Nuremburg was quite specific to the extermination issue. They drew the line at this. Nonetheless, it seems your position here is that evil exists but that it wasn't applied as a charge in a consistent manner. It was a win/lose situation and the morality was applied differentially. The recognition of the morality was there and the recognition of evil was there. Nuremburg was "legitimate" in and of itself, there were crimes committed. The failure is that this is not applied in a wider sense as it should in order to be consistent. Would you agree?
Peaceful Parent Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Good and evil are relative, yes. Can you discern net advantages for a whole from certain activities? Yes. We have pretty much come to the conclusion that rape is a net negative to human beings and we call it evil. That doesn't mean that rape is intrinsically evil, because evil is just a word we've made up to encompass things that make US uncomfortable. Evil = Uncomfortable ?
Ken Cotton Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 In line with what I think you are saying, why is rape a net negative? If a man/woman derives subjectively more pleasure from raping than the rape victim derives pain, then it may be desirable. As a human interaction with no connection to good or evil, it is relative, is it not? I'm not sure using the example of non-human animals is relevant. After all, if it doesn't bother the animals, why would it bother us? AFAIK, Nuremburg was quite specific to the extermination issue. They drew the line at this. Nonetheless, it seems your position here is that evil exists but that it wasn't applied as a charge in a consistent manner. It was a win/lose situation and the morality was applied differentially. The recognition of the morality was there and the recognition of evil was there. Nuremburg was "legitimate" in and of itself, there were crimes committed. The failure is that this is not applied in a wider sense as it should in order to be consistent. Would you agree? Rape is a net negative because the results of it are a net negative for the people involved or observing. Human beings have a common desire to avoid being raped or to be upset when someone they love is raped. This is relative to humans though. In the human context rape is evil, but objectively rape is not evil. I'm willing to set aside the discrepencies and other failings of the trials themselves and agree that yes, they had an idea of evil and crimes as it pertained to their worldview. 1 2
NotDarkYet Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 Ken, An apologist for rape doesn't belong here. I would prefer that you don't post on FDR anymore. 2
J. D. Stembal Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 We finally succeeded in down voting him below the threshold, and everyone is quoting him in their replies now? Some of my thoughts regarding rape: 1) Parents often rape and sexually abuse the children that they claim to love. 2) Men and women sometime fantasize about being raped. See point 1 above. 3) Months after my girlfriend raped me, I confronted her about it, and she claimed to have persuaded me into having intercourse because she was feeling unloved and unwanted.
PGP Posted November 28, 2014 Posted November 28, 2014 We finally succeeded in down voting him below the threshold, and everyone is quoting him in their replies now? Fair point. I had seen a few of Ken Cottons posts and he seemed to want to play "devils advocate". This seemed to amount to not applying any schema of morality and having relativism as a backstop and then even nihilism. I was fascinated by his posts on this thread, like a chimp fixated on a tiger in the brush I guess. I wasn't really sure why he was partaking in a philosophy forum tbh. I took the bait.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 7, 2014 Author Posted December 7, 2014 I hope Ken can come back. At least he is open about the terrible things he believes.
Recommended Posts