My take on post modernism.
potr...@gmail.com
According to Wikipedia recently....post modernism can be summed up as
follows.
-------------
A continual skepticism towards the ideas and ideals of the modern era,
especially the ideas of progress, objectivity, reason, certainty &
personal identity, and grand narrative in general (see
Counter-Enlightenment)
-------------
I love progress objectivity, reason, certainty, personal identity and
that other vague stuff sure sounds swell. I'm skeptical towards ideas
that threaten that.
-------------
The belief that all communication is shaped by cultural bias, myth,
metaphor, and political content. (see Cultural relativism)
-----------
Shaped yes with the caveat you are still saying there is still an
underlaying truth. I get a sense you have a little hostility to the
idea of truth. My guess is the idea of truth requires some
accountability and hurt feelings. I really do sympathize but not
everyone can get an A in every subject. If it's any consolation we can
still love those that don't.
-----------
The assertion that meaning and experience can only be created by the
individual, and cannot be made objective by an author or narrator.
-----------
Well again it depends what you mean. I can only experience things
subjectively... I am me after all. However I do believe if I eat
Fruitloops and I hand over the box to my buddy he too can experience
it. If I try explaining to him only...well them we may be in for some
trouble.
I'm 101% sold on the concept language is fucked up but unfortunately
I don't have the time to translate all your thick lingo to precisely
determine in what way you think that is and what should we do about it
(if anything). I understand the problem of doing this but until it's
done I suspect we are in a similar position here.
Try finding some way of translating concepts into concise terms
normal human beings could understand so maybe we could move on that.
Einstein managed e = mc2 so I imagine this is possible. I'd also
recommend many more controlled experiments with language to demonstrate
and measure the phenomena so ignorant dicks would stop arguing its all
my head You know little stuff like this but with a bigger sampling.....
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=rss.index
-----------
Parody, satire, self-reference, and wit.
-----------
Uhmmm... can you be a little more specific?
-----------
Acceptance of a mass media dominated society in which there is no
originality, but only copies of what has been done before.
-----------
Whatever dude. Has this ever been done before in history of the
universe?
Fafaef8ae1f8a7efa3ef78a1f38awef7a1fawe38f73a8f71af33fa7f1f7ae6f7a.f6aefa7fa
f79aef.afa9af9af79g
h7jdj97dyjy7j9j7eh8t1he6t3e1hrh31e8h6yh731876u13863k71k8kuk87o7i8pm8d73sh67
8h3se7813tg7rg6g7se3g8g3638rg3difaposdfawepfhoaufapofuepfuweerfqfoa8vcapeff
nhfpa79afpe0
256 characters
26 letters + 10 numbers = 36 combinations
36 to the exponent 256 = one big ass number that makes me pretty sure
this is an original work.
------------
Globalization, a culturally pluralistic and profoundly interconnected
global society lacking any single dominant center of political power,
communication, or intellectual production. Instead, the world is moving
towards decentralization in all types of global processes.
-------------
Well I have a different view on what "globalization" actually
means but if I take your definition.
The world is moving in all sorts of directions. Please quantify what
you mean by decentralization, your timeframe and provide me an
empirical study.
-------------
Some listed complaints of postmodernmism
-------------
Syncretism - why is this a complaint? Syncretism is fucking awesome
for creative purposes.
Bricolage - If don't like buffets then use your free will and just
order out.
"A generation raised on channel-surfing has lost the capacity for
linear thinking and analytical reasoning. " - What are you on crack?
This is the computer generation. We have done more to define AND OR XOR
NAND NOR than the rest of human history combined. We just need a
creative break during our fun time.
Sokal affair - One incident proves nothing. Shame on you for even
suggesting such a unscientific assertion. You forget about the Schön
scandal? Should we abandon science now? Just examples of a shitty peer
review process. I agree the "arts" can be flaky so let's keep everyone
honest and on their toes with some hard evidence not political
bullshit. Do an empirical study on the issue.
.......
Anyhow,
Perhaps if I studied post modernism in university I could tell you more
about the subject. Much like Objectivism I can only give an outsiders
view.
- I spent a few years at an existentialism forum and most of the
conversations seemed to revolve around countless scenarios of choice.
Mostly Camus, Kierkegaard , Nietzsche, and countless quotes from one
person or another.
- My hard look at Deconstruction was the result of looking for someone
that sounded credible.... that were similar to my existing
observations.
- I am part of a world that was heavily influenced by post modernism.
That's it (Sorry no evil henchman conspiring to rid the world of
capitalism)
Personally I'm more interested in being a freelancer than adopting
an existing belief system and get miffed when I hear post-modernists or
objectivists (or anyone else for that matter) take credit for
everything under the sun or start arbitrarily defining what I am. If
someone wants to define themselves in some matter... that's fine with
me... they have every right. Personally I don't view anyone as a
fucking toaster.
Human beings are the most complex system we know of yet in this
universe and I'm sure as hell not smart enough to completely reverse
engineer one into a single word.
Robert J. Kolker
> Sokal affair - One incident proves nothing. Shame on you for even
> suggesting such a unscientific assertion. You forget about the Schön
> scandal? Should we abandon science now? Just examples of a shitty peer
> review process. I agree the "arts" can be flaky so let's keep everyone
> honest and on their toes with some hard evidence not political
> bullshit. Do an empirical study on the issue.
Not so. Sokal proved to us that the emmporer has no clothes. The
non-scientific intellectual establishment of the U.S, Canada and most of
Western Europe is rotten to the bone. Which explains why the Eurotrans
are ... trash. American occassionally stands up, but for reasons of
religious insanity. Christian Fundies believe in Truth. Unfortunately
all their Truth is between the covers of the Bible. Western Civilization
is in an extremely precarious state. We are bracketed by folks who deny
objectivity and reality on the one hand and other folks who want us all
to come to Jesus. This is not a good situation.
Bob Kolker
Chris Cathcart
potr...@gmail.com wrote:
> According to Wikipedia recently....post modernism can be summed up as
> follows.
>
> -------------
> A continual skepticism towards the ideas and ideals of the modern era,
> especially the ideas of progress, objectivity, reason, certainty &
> personal identity, and grand narrative in general (see
> Counter-Enlightenment)
> -------------
Junk.
> -------------
> The belief that all communication is shaped by cultural bias, myth,
> metaphor, and political content. (see Cultural relativism)
> -----------
Crap.
> -----------
> The assertion that meaning and experience can only be created by the
> individual, and cannot be made objective by an author or narrator.
> -----------
Shit.
> -----------
> Acceptance of a mass media dominated society in which there is no
> originality, but only copies of what has been done before.
> -----------
>
> Whatever dude. Has this ever been done before in history of the
> universe?
>
> Fafaef8ae1f8a7efa3ef78a1f38awef7a1fawe38f73a8f71af33fa7f1f7ae6f7a.f6aefa7fa
> f79aef.afa9af9af79g
> h7jdj97dyjy7j9j7eh8t1he6t3e1hrh31e8h6yh731876u13863k71k8kuk87o7i8pm8d73sh67
> 8h3se7813tg7rg6g7se3g8g3638rg3difaposdfawepfhoaufapofuepfuweerfqfoa8vcapeff
> nhfpa79afpe0
>
> 256 characters
> 26 letters + 10 numbers = 36 combinations
> 36 to the exponent 256 = one big ass number that makes me pretty sure
> this is an original work.
Oh, my.
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
Malrassic Park
>Well again it depends what you mean. I can only experience things
>subjectively... I am me after all. However I do believe if I eat
>Fruitloops and I hand over the box to my buddy he too can experience
>it. If I try explaining to him only...well them we may be in for some
>trouble.
If one of you Randroids wants to try and demonstrate the connection
between this view and that of Kant's, be my guest.
potr...@gmail.com
---------
"kal proved to us that the emmporer has no clothes. The
non-scientific intellectual establishment of the U.S, Canada and most
of
Western Europe is rotten to the bone. Which explains why the Eurotrans
are ... trash"
Common Bob. You know a sampling of one proves nothing scientifically.
Fraud and incompetence happens all the time at all kinds of
institutions.
Again if you want to prove it's they are all about intellectual fraud
do some studies and make them accountable.
---------
We are bracketed by folks who deny objectivity and reality on the one
hand and other folks who want us all to come to Jesus. This is not a
good situation.
---------
No arguments here.
Chris Cathcart
potr...@gmail.com wrote:
> ---------
> "kal proved to us that the emmporer has no clothes. The
> non-scientific intellectual establishment of the U.S, Canada and most
> of
> Western Europe is rotten to the bone. Which explains why the Eurotrans
> are ... trash"
> ---------
>
> Common Bob. You know a sampling of one proves nothing scientifically.
> Fraud and incompetence happens all the time at all kinds of
> institutions.
That the Sokal argument was even *considered* into discussion, instead
of laughed off right at the outset, shows what a pretentious fraud the
whole postmodernist exercise is. These worthless wankers -- heads of a
vanguard publication of the whole pomo enterprise -- couldn't tell a
parody of their nihilistic garbage from the real thing.
There's a reason for that: postmodernism is a grotesque parody of
serious ideas in and of itself. These pomo-fucks have anti-ideas
pseudo-intellectual brethren going way back when; they are only the
most recent and fashionable manifestation of the basic idea. Back in
ancient Greece, they were known as Sophists.
They are cowards, first and foremost. They have given up on the idea
of truth, the good, or *anything* that could be considered taking a
stand. They have given up on the prospect that they could muster the
intellectual resources to make an argument that could stand up. With
such low self-esteem, they seek solace in wanking for their fellow
wankers, all referencing one another in their own pitiful little
circle, all doing their pitful damnest to construct pseudo-arguments
for why there shouldn't be arguments. They are the lowest form of life
on earth (next to Islamothugs). They are not even human fucking
beings. They are nothing but unorganized grabasstic pieces of
amphibian shit. They do not pack the gear to serve in our beloved
corps.
> Again if you want to prove it's they are all about intellectual fraud
> do some studies and make them accountable.
Accountability? That's a capitalist prejudice.
Reggie Perrin
Chris Cathcart wrote:
> [...]
> That the Sokal argument was even *considered* into discussion, instead
> of laughed off right at the outset, shows what a pretentious fraud the
> whole postmodernist exercise is. These worthless wankers -- heads of a
> vanguard publication of the whole pomo enterprise -- couldn't tell a
> parody of their nihilistic garbage from the real thing.
The Sokal affair provides a good lesson in how not to run a journal.
I'm not convinced it supports the broader conclusion that postmodernist
philosophy is worthless.
Acar
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ede7rl$6o8$1...@victor.killfile.org...
I went to elementary school and high school in Guayama, a town of about
20,000 near the southern coast of Puerto Rico. I mention this in order to
convey that I'm talking about an obscure town in what was then a near-third
world economic environment. The importance of this context is that I
remember my teachers as superb examples of what a teacher should be, without
any exception that I can think of. The schools were well run, the physical
plants were fine, the equipment was adequate and the teachers were well
educated and well trained, consummate professionals. Even I served a stint
as a summer high school chemistry teacher in one of my vacation returns to
the island.
That is why I was a little bit shocked and disappointed when I met some of
my children's teachers in the US. The idea is not establish a comparison
between Puerto Rican schools and US schools. The idea is to establish a
contrast between then and now.
What explains the difference between then and now? IMO a large part of the
explanation rests on the "education explosion". Universal education is a
without a doubt a moral imperative. But like everything else that is good
about human existence it is not without objectionable consequences. What I
see as an objectionable consequence of the education explosion is the
creeping prevalence of mediocrity in intellectual institutions and endeavors
that in less populist circumstances used to typically deliver the excellence
that was expected of them.
This creeping infiltration of mediocrity has to do with the limited
intellectual capacities of individuals that through ambition and hard work
manage to achieve for themselves visibility and status in the intellectual
vanguard. So IMO there's unquestionably more junk flowing out of high
places, which puts an even greater responsibility on the individual to
examine the product before committing to it. The source, whether an
institution or a journal, is no longer the same bastion of reliability that
may have been the case in the past.
What about consensus? This state of affairs deteriorates the quality of the
consensus at a certain level, but the truly talented ones, that fortunately
will always exist, will inevitably steer the ship in the right direction,
albeit with greater effort, and their consensus will eventually prevail.
Mike
But consider the reaction of the pomo community to the parody. When
science fraud is committed, scientists are the first to condemn it. If
a journal publishes substandard or fraudulent work, scientists are the
first to criticize the journal and implore the journal to get their act
together and improve their standards. Those who work to understand
scientific truths find it extremely irritating when they have to get
sidetracked by false data. But the pomos defended Social Text and
collectively acted very defensive about the public exposure of their
complete lack of intellectual standards.
Anyways, more significant than Sokal's original hoax is the fire storm
caused by the book "Intellectual Impostures" that he coauthored with
Bricmont. If you have not yet read the book I recommend that you do.
Also you can find a bunch of essays about the implications of the hoax
on Sokal's webpage.
If you do not find postmodern philosophy worthless, can you offer a
single example of anything even slightly worthy that can be called
postmodern?
Reggie Perrin
Mike wrote:
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > The Sokal affair provides a good lesson in how not to run a journal.
> > I'm not convinced it supports the broader conclusion that postmodernist
> > philosophy is worthless.
>
> But consider the reaction of the pomo community to the parody. When
> science fraud is committed, scientists are the first to condemn it. If
> a journal publishes substandard or fraudulent work, scientists are the
> first to criticize the journal and implore the journal to get their act
> together and improve their standards. Those who work to understand
> scientific truths find it extremely irritating when they have to get
> sidetracked by false data. But the pomos defended Social Text and
> collectively acted very defensive about the public exposure of their
> complete lack of intellectual standards.
I think you are being both too generous to scientists and too harsh on
the pomos. Consider the debate, such as it is, amongst scientists about
global warming. Assuming that both the skeptics and the believers have
the requisite knowledge, it must be the case that one side is
deliberately deceiving their colleagues and the public. The collective
condemnation of fraud you describe only occurs where there is
sufficient consensus about what is true. As for the pomos, my
understanding is that there was no great rallying round the editors of
Social Text. You can see from the responses reproduced on Sokal's own
web page that the editors came in for criticism from all sides. So I'd
have to see more evidence on that one.
It's interesting to note that Sokal himself says:
[quote]
"From the mere fact of publication of my parody I think that not much
can be deduced. It doesn't prove that the whole field of cultural
studies, or cultural studies of science -- much less sociology of
science -- is nonsense. Nor does it prove that the intellectual
standards in these fields are generally lax. (This might be the case,
but it would have to be established on other grounds.) It proves only
that the editors of one rather marginal journal were derelict in their
intellectual duty, by publishing an article on quantum physics that
they admit they could not understand, without bothering to get an
opinion from anyone knowledgeable in quantum physics, solely because it
came from a "conveniently credentialed ally'' (as Social Text co-editor
Bruce Robbins later candidly admitted), flattered the editors'
ideological preconceptions, and attacked their "enemies''.
[/quote]
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/noretta.html
FWIW, I think that the standard of scholarship displayed in some
"postmodernist" history/sociology of science is appalling. But I also
know that the likes of Foucault and Derrida were astonishingly erudite
people.
> [...]
> If you do not find postmodern philosophy worthless, can you offer a
> single example of anything even slightly worthy that can be called
> postmodern?
Foucault's _Birth of the Clinic_, _Discipline and Punish_ and _Madness
and Civilization_. Rorty's _Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature_, plus
some of his collected papers that I am reading at the moment. There are
others I could name, but their relevance depends on how broadly you
wish to define "postmodernism" (a term I have always been suspicious
of).
Reggie Perrin
Agent Cooper wrote:
> [...]
> But the kind of problem that SocialText represents is not specific
> to "postmodernism"--it is endemic in academia: incompetence.
Exactly. This is one of the points I intended to raise.
x
x
x
x
x
x
Chris Cathcart
Only that Pomo is the extreme manifestation of this incompetence. Not
even the rest of academia takes them seriously.
John Alway
There is a difference between incompetence, and deliberate
obfuscation. Postmodernists use rhetoric to confuse. There have been
examples cited in this forum from time to time. Wasn't it JARS that
had all kinds of postmodernist analyses of Ayn Rand's work? I haven't
seen reference to that website in a long time.
...John
Reggie Perrin
John Alway wrote:
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > Agent Cooper wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > But the kind of problem that SocialText represents is not specific
> > > to "postmodernism"--it is endemic in academia: incompetence.
>
> > Exactly. This is one of the points I intended to raise.
>
>
> There is a difference between incompetence, and deliberate
> obfuscation.
Yes, but is it a significant difference? I've lost count of the number
of times I've read some "critique" or other where the author either
hasn't read the stuff he is criticising or presents a particularly
wispy straw-man version of it. I work squarely within the analytic
tradition BTW, so I'm talking about writing that is not *obscure*, but
is nonetheless wrong.
I guess I just don't see a lot of difference between wrong and
obscurely wrong -- it's all a waste of my time.
potr...@gmail.com
-------------
Well again it depends what you mean. I can only experience things
subjectively... I am me after all. However I do believe if I eat
Fruitloops and I hand over the box to my buddy he too can experience
it. If I try explaining to him only...well them we may be in for some
trouble. If one of you Randroids wants to try and demonstrate the
connection between this view and that of Kant's, be my guest.
-------------
I wish to further clarify my position based on this reply.
My understanding of Kant (perhaps mistaken) is that he believes
dialog itself creates "objects". In other words a baby perceives the
world as noise and we teach it to perceive things. Although I believe
in a physical world...I also believe this is true to an extent.
My guess is babies at first think of the universe as (mostly) one big
two dimensional canvas with colours and sounds splattered on it. They
have difficulty understand they own their hands as their sense of the
meaning and shapes to these colours is not assigned yet.
Thus how we might arrive at Kant's view.
However I think it mostly ends there as there is obviously a genetic
predisposition to objectify things that goes beyond training. If not..
by defintion we could not have this conversation that deals with terms
that try to contain the universe around us in descrete chunks. There
would have been no egg to have the chicken.
I believe where we end up wasting energy getting into these types of
arguments is that we are using certain critical words differently and
aren't always patient enough to pick up on this. This is why I tend to
default to the idea language itself is the problem.
Physicality "exists" but when we try to describe things in philsophical
generalities things can fall apart.
Again... I'm not saying nothing is coming through. I believe in the
value of science and trade etc... I'm just saying that it's corrupted
enough to cause friction... which can end up bruising egos... which can
end up leading to conflict.
The answer of course is to fix language and standards but
unfortunately the solution is not so easy to apply to humanity as a
whole It won't bring utopia but at least it will help narrow the gap
between what we are trying to express versus what is heard by someone
else.
potr...@gmail.com
Again... several postmodernmists have told me I don't represent their
views so take this with a grain of salt. I'd just like to add a few
more thoughts.......
When I speak to people that identify themselves as postmodernists I
get a sense of textualized Karate..... by this I mean "open text".
There ultimately is no "point" to the discussion persay.
It's an endless stream of words with no container except those of a
few "experts" that are also vague because they too are engaged in
endless ethical conversations and possibilities. It leans towards a
piorii and tries to avoid the accountabilitity of empericism.
It's actually become quite evident to me why some Objectivists are
so hostile to them. Objectivism seems to function entirely on trying to
captualize everything. They are theoretically the antithesis of
postmodernists (although no one is absolutely one way or another)
If I had to say what is the most critical "point" of postmodernism it
would be the idea of disassembling points. That's where I would put my
container around it. (although they of course don't wish it to be
contained because that's exactly the point)
This of course is inefficient and mostly useless for practical
living in a modern world. When I order out for pizza... they wish to
know my precise ingredients... not get into an endless debate about
one's experiences with magic mushrooms.
However observation has also shown me this mode of thinking can most
certainly have useful applications.
Emotionally if one is free from precise moral and intellectual
boundries one cannot be a failure, judged and villanized... thus it
instantly gains wide appeal to the masses because it allows them to be
happy with themselves.
Uncertainty also allows one to explore creative avenues that being
"sure" about things does not. It's logical that mixing and matching
seemingly unconnected issues or questioning seemingly obvious truths
might lead to new approaches for doing things. My guess is this is why
the postmodernist perspective is so widely adopted in the arts.
My personal position on it....
It is an interesting place to visit and bring some trinkets home from
but wouldn't want to live there.
John Alway
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > > Agent Cooper wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > But the kind of problem that SocialText represents is not specific
> > > > to "postmodernism"--it is endemic in academia: incompetence.
> > > Exactly. This is one of the points I intended to raise.
> > There is a difference between incompetence, and deliberate
> > obfuscation.
> Yes, but is it a significant difference? I've lost count of the number
> of times I've read some "critique" or other where the author either
> hasn't read the stuff he is criticising or presents a particularly
> wispy straw-man version of it. I work squarely within the analytic
> tradition BTW, so I'm talking about writing that is not *obscure*, but
> is nonetheless wrong.
You know what, with philosophy, when it becomes thoroughly unmoored
from reality, it really is a crap shoot. So, I see you're point in
that way. Still, all else being equal, when a writer makes an honest
effort to be rigorous and accurate, he's going to have a better chance
of getting things right than when he attempts to obfuscate.
...John
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Foucault is mostly a victim of his fans stateside. He's just a
> historian ultimately, and his topics are quite interesting. Charity
> toward him is more complex because I see him and having gone through a
> significant gradual evolution toward the light, somehting his fans
> haven't done.
>
> "Pomo" is a stereotype, and like all stereotypes, there's a kernel of
> truth in it, but it can't possibly do justice to individuals, and in
> the end, individuals are all there is.
Stephen Gould deals with issues like this in his posthumous book "The
Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister's Pox". You might find it interesting.
Bob Kolker
Reggie Perrin
Agent Cooper wrote:
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > John Alway wrote:
> > > obfuscation.
> >
> > Yes, but is it a significant difference? I've lost count of the number
> > of times I've read some "critique" or other where the author either
> > hasn't read the stuff he is criticising or presents a particularly
> > wispy straw-man version of it.
>
> ably cool
> friend)]
Just to be clear -- I was talking there about rotten critiques of
analytic philosophers by analytic philosophers, not of or by pomos.
It's a bit of a bugbear with me, because people working in my
particular field seem to attract a hell of a lot of them, and
consequently I have to spend a lot of time debunking them. I imagine my
experiences generalize.
potr...@gmail.com
--------------
Just to be clear -- I was talking there about rotten critiques of
analytic philosophers by analytic philosophers, not of or by pomos.
It's a bit of a bugbear with me, because people working in my
particular field seem to attract a hell of a lot of them, and
consequently I have to spend a lot of time debunking them. I imagine my
experiences generalize.
--------------
Philosophy is a funny field like that. Studiing philosophy makes not
a philosopher.
Remembering facts about what so and so said about life is
meaningless without delving into one's personal perceptions of the
universe. Just because Aristotle, Derrida, Kant or Rand said this or
that... so what? Who cares other than those that have the interest to
pause five seconds and translate the thick goober.
Even then we may or may not understand depending on what source did
the translating for us, how great our effort trying to decompile their
perceptions and how we perceive words.
Any philosopher that requires one spend their entire lifetime
translating is useless.
Philosophy that can't be understood and utilized by the masses soon
after birth is useless. The best philosophers all have ideological
nuggets that we munch on but as far as I can tell none reign supreme
alone.
potr...@gmail.com
I should add...
this is why I believe postmodernism is so dominant in our society and
will remain so.
No one trusts one person for all their answers regarding what defines
"reason".... and what defines "objectivity". This fragments our
philosophical outlook into a thousand thousand pieces. Without clear
concise defintions we are all speaking apples and oranges.
Anyone you talk to says they represent the wise philosopher king and
us mere mortals should trust their mystacism without any evidence or
understanding.... only a blanket of thick words.
Physicists delivered the atom bomb... thus we trust their words.
Philosophers have become a useless pretentious lot that hide in
universities pretending they actually have done something. Well...
where is it? Where are the deliverables? Where is our atom bomb?
And you wonder why guys like me pop out of the woodwork? It's guys
like me that questioned the arrogant and useless church of five hundred
years ago and were strung up for it as heretics.
The status quo will remain the case until standards are put in place
and language is corrected to make up for these inefficiencies. To be on
the same page... we need to be on the same page.
A is A..
potr...@gmail.com
John Alway
Agent Cooper wrote:
[...]
> My lengthy post was meant to develop this point: first we can set aside
> the little also-rans. That leaves the Big Fish. Now I didn't comment on
> Lyotard or Baudrillard because I think they are rather littler than
> their name recognition indicates. The big three are Derrida, Deleuze
> and Foucault. The critiques tend to mush them together (imagine an
> Islamic critique of "Westernism" that mushed together Plato, Locke,
> Kant, Hitler and Dale Carnegie together into a system which then gets
> critiqued). I understand and in a sense find rational the impatience
> people like John feel--it is not worth his time to sort this out from
> an economic perspective.
The problem is time, and that fact that there are so many more
worthwhile reads, such as Aristotle and even Plato. Not to mention
things like Feynman's lectures on physics.
But, anyway, what you have to do is look at campuses across America
(the World), that teach environmentalism, multculturalism, and
feminism. Those ideas are taught with a vengance daily, and this is
where the rubber meets the road. So, you may find value in some of
the writings of some of these people, which is fine, but the most
important thing to me are the essentially anti-Western, anti-man ideas
coming out of this movement. This is what needs to be countered if
we are to survive.
...John
Chris Cathcart
Agent Cooper wrote:
> "Pomo" is a stereotype, and like all stereotypes, there's a kernel of
> truth in it, but it can't possibly do justice to individuals, and in
> the end, individuals are all there is.
So happens that the individuals at Social Text fit the stereotype to a
"T".
potr...@gmail.com
-----------
"This is what needs to be countered if we are to survive."
-----------
Define "we" please.
John Alway
potro...@gmail.com wrote:
> @john
> Define "we" please.
"We" who value the Western values of individualism, life, liberty,
science and reason.
...John
potr...@gmail.com
----------
"We" who value the Western values of individualism, life, liberty,
science and reason.
----------
So let's suppose someone value all those things but differs on
outlook on how things should be achieved. Are they we?
Robert J. Kolker
Humans who value their liberty and do not wish to grovel. Humans who do
not want their grandchildren sticking their asses in the air five times
daily in the Shadow of the Mosque.
This clearly does not include you. If you have children and
grandchildren (God forbid) you will sacrifice them to your Ba'al of
Pacifism and your Moloch of cowardice. You are a faux human.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
The Pacifists of the world are in thrall to evil, by virtue of their
passivity. They are not only of no use in the fight for liberty, they
are a positive detriment.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
------------
The Pacifists of the world are in thrall to evil, by virtue of their
passivity. They are not only of no use in the fight for liberty, they
are a positive detriment.
------------
True.... they are no use in the "fight" for liberty. Their usefulness
is in liberty itself.
Robert J. Kolker
Liberty is bought with blood. It does not come for free. Thet Tree of
Liberty must be nourished by the blood of Tyrannts and Patriots --
Thomas Jefferson.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
Nice quote.
Is that the same Thomas Jefferson that owned many many slaves?
Here's another quote from one of his peers that was abolitionist long
before it became fashionable. Unlike Jefferson he actually got rid of
his own slaves rather than live with the convenience and irrational
hypocracy.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Robert J. Kolker
> Nice quote.
>
> Is that the same Thomas Jefferson that owned many many slaves?
The very one.
>
> Here's another quote from one of his peers that was abolitionist long
> before it became fashionable. Unlike Jefferson he actually got rid of
> his own slaves rather than live with the convenience and irrational
> hypocracy.
>
> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Franklin never owned a slave in his life. He also did not live in modern
times.
During WW2 Americans gave up liberties, which they got back when the war
ended. The Draft was slavery. The people put up with it for there was
not much choice but to lose. Prices were controlled by the OPA for 5
years. Gasoline, tires and food were rationed. So much for the free
market. Trains were scheduled with military necessity as the prime
consideration. So ownership of the railroads were hedged by government
management.
U.S. citziens gave up some liberty (essential ones, such as not being
dragooned into servitude). They won the war and the ended up Safe. So
much for you quote. It simply does not correspond to the facts.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
potr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Nice quote.
> Is that the same Thomas Jefferson that owned many many slaves?
He was born into the situation. He is the man who did more than
almost any other man in history to fight slavery, and was successful in
the end. I doubt you are 1/10th his moral equivalent. You are
promoting it by not fighting the bad guys.
...John
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> He was born into the situation. He is the man who did more than
> almost any other man in history to fight slavery, and was successful in
> the end. I doubt you are 1/10th his moral equivalent. You are
> promoting it by not fighting the bad guys.
He did a piss poor job. George Washington freed his slaves before he
died and he lead the army that won independence for the United States.
Jefferson did diplomatic service in France.
Jefferson was a spendthrift and perpertually in a cash bind. He
frequently had to go into debt to get money. If he had sold his slaves
he could not have produced an income from his plantation. Jefferson gets
an A for theiry and a D for practice.
Washington, on the other had was a succesful land speculator and was
always in a good cash position. He could affort to free his (actually
his wife's) slaves. Washington acquired his slaves through marriage. So
Washington was, in a practical sense, a proto-abolitionist. He also took
the first steps to included black troops in the revolutionary army. It
was not his passion to do so, but he needed the bodies.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > He was born into the situation. He is the man who did more than
> > almost any other man in history to fight slavery, and was successful in
> > the end. I doubt you are 1/10th his moral equivalent. You are
> > promoting it by not fighting the bad guys.
> He did a piss poor job. George Washington freed his slaves before he
> died and he lead the army that won independence for the United States.
> Jefferson did diplomatic service in France.
Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and fought to have
them freed at that point, and he fought for freedom of slaves both in
Virginia and in the U.S. intellectually. He fought as a lawyer to free
the slaves. In the end, the ideas he penned resulted in the freeing of
slaves.
I believe, also, he promoted the placement of certain rules in the
Constitution to push toward freeing slaves, such as the number of votes
a slave would count for to determine number of representatives in a
state.
Fighting with guns is the final stage, the real battle is the
ideas, and this is where Jefferson, in the end, won out.
...John
John Alway
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> potr...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> > Here's another quote from one of his peers that was abolitionist long
> > before it became fashionable. Unlike Jefferson he actually got rid of
> > his own slaves rather than live with the convenience and irrational
> > hypocracy.
> > "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> > temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
> Franklin never owned a slave in his life. He also did not live in modern
> times.
Sure, but Franklin is right there. Where are we giving up essential
liberty by promoting fighting the bad guys?
...John
potr...@gmail.com
"Franklin never owned a slave in his life"
Check your sources.
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/franklin/
http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitionist.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
-------
During WW2 Americans gave up liberties, which they got back when the
war ended. The Draft was slavery. The people put up with it for there
was not much choice but to lose. Prices were controlled by the OPA for
5 years. Gasoline, tires and food were rationed. So much for the free
market. Trains were scheduled with military necessity as the prime
consideration. So ownership of the railroads were hedged by government
management. U.S. citziens gave up some liberty (essential ones, such as
not being
dragooned into servitude). They won the war and the ended up Safe. So
much for you quote. It simply does not correspond to the facts.
-------
Half truths.
Yes... they did give up liberty but they were fortunate enough to get
it back.
You already forget about the Germans though? You know the ones that
also gave up their liberty for security? They apparently were not so
lucky with that plan.
Of course that could never ever happen to Americans. It is written in
holy scripture somewhere right? Bush trying to consolidate the
national guard, NSA creating dossiers on Americans, the executive
exempt from laws... all represent the spirit of freedom correct?
Were we to give up our liberties for every threat on the horizon not
only would we live in utter paranoia of one another but we would risk
death at the hands of those constantly seeking to reorganize the world
in various Aryanish ways. What makes us better is our open minds and
our acceptance of others ways... even if they are intolerable to us
personally at times.
The key word in freedom is FREE. Not as in free to do and think what
you want.
This is not always convenient and quite often makes one an easy
target. Freedom is exposure. Freedom is trust. You are free to argue
what you wish. I am free to argue what I wish. No one goes to jail...
no one is treated like a traitor... no one is treated like a second
class citizen. Woman, Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Christians. Atheists,
idiots, funny looking people.... EVERYONE... gets a tiny bit of
unedited say.
This is why true Liberty is a historical anomaly. If we risk such a
fragile thing in the infancy of it's rebirth... history shows us there
are countless tyrants lined up all ready to show us all how they
deserve to rule us... how their one grand vision of the world is better
than the visions of a billion individuals.
They too will say we are free no doubt... as they tell us how we should
behave and think.
I will not willingly give up my liberty... to save my liberty.
Someone needs to remain sane.. someone needs to not live in the fears
of the moment... someone needs to cherish this incredibly important
thing we have been given by countless generations that died and
suffered to achieve an ideal that some of us would cavalierly throw
away.
Its obvious that should someone attack us others would inevitably
gain the influence to take our freedoms to respond in retaliation.
Until that time arrives....I will continue to kick, scratch and claw
with my arguments to keep myself a free man. I treasure my ability to
speak and hear uncensored every day.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and fought to have
> them freed at that point, and he fought for freedom of slaves both in
> Virginia and in the U.S. intellectually.
But not his own slaves. How odd.
He fought as a lawyer to free
> the slaves. In the end, the ideas he penned resulted in the freeing of
> slaves.
But not his own slaves. Take note.
>
> I believe, also, he promoted the placement of certain rules in the
> Constitution to push toward freeing slaves, such as the number of votes
> a slave would count for to determine number of representatives in a
> state.
The 3/5 compromise gave the Southron States muscle and made them the
politically dominant section of the U.S. It was a sop to the slave owners.
>
> Fighting with guns is the final stage, the real battle is the
> ideas, and this is where Jefferson, in the end, won out.
Jefferson was a summer time warrior. He was a spend thrift and he did
not free his own slaves. He preferred fucking some of them.
Jefferson talked the talk, but he did not walk the walk. What a
disappointment! If he had freed his slaves he would have been a god.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Sure, but Franklin is right there. Where are we giving up essential
> liberty by promoting fighting the bad guys?
Funny. Americans agreed to slavery during WW2. It was called the draft
then. The also gave up some rights to their property. They also gave up
freedom of speech. Some American citizens were imprisoned in detention
camps without trial. The OPA set prices for five years and detrmined
material allocation and production schedules to benefit the military.
Not a single private passenger car was manufactured in the U.S. from
1942 to 1946. Freedom of speech was curtailed. Anyone demonstrating
against the war was put where the sun don't shine without the benefit of
a trial. In fact, low level demonstrators were drafted into the military
where they could be controlled and shut up. Fortunately the war lasted
less than five years and we got back the liberties wesurrendered. So
much for the famous Franklin quote. It is nifty rhetoric but lacks
factual content.
The shortness of our wars and the limited period of time in which we
surrender our liberties makes it possible to take them back without too
much difficult. However, our current opponents, the Ummah of Islam,
think in terms of Forever Wars. Wars of generations and epochs. We
cannot surrender our liberties on that time scale for we shall never see
them again unless we fight bloody battles to get them back. That is why
we have to keep our wars short. Which means we have to kill our enemies
NOW.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> -------
>
> Half truths.
Whole truths. You just don't like facts, you yellow belly coward.
>
> Yes... they did give up liberty but they were fortunate enough to get
> it back.
It wasn't luck. It was a quid pro quo. We give up some of our liberties
for the duration of the war, on the understanding we get them back when
the war is done. The bargains was struck and the word was kept.
>
> You already forget about the Germans though? You know the ones that
> also gave up their liberty for security? They apparently were not so
> lucky with that plan.
That is because the lost. And they give up their liiberty long before
there was a world war. The liberty of Germans was eaten up by the thugs
and the Freikorps during the 20's and 30's.
>
> Of course that could never ever happen to Americans. It is written in
> holy scripture somewhere right? Bush trying to consolidate the
> national guard, NSA creating dossiers on Americans, the executive
> exempt from laws... all represent the spirit of freedom correct?
No, it represents the force of necessity. You are a fucking coward. You
don't care if your granchildren and mine have to stick their asses up in
the air and live in the Shadow of the Mosque. You have foresworn and
consideration.
See how much freedom you will have or your children or your
grandchildren when the Immams take over. Can you spell Taliban? Sure you
can.
Bob Kolker
Matt Barrow
"John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157684027....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> > "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
>> > temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Part two: "The best way to remain safe is to never be secure" (ie,
apathetic).
>
>> Franklin never owned a slave in his life. He also did not live in modern
>> times.
And he did not live on a plantation that would be the prime industry for
slaves.
>
>
> Sure, but Franklin is right there. Where are we giving up essential
> liberty by promoting fighting the bad guys?
Don't feed the trolls, John!
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)
potr...@gmail.com
-------------
You are a fucking coward. You don't care if your granchildren and mine
have to stick their asses up in the air and live in the Shadow of the
Mosque. You have foresworn and
consideration
-------------
Your the one who lives in fear not me..
Robert J. Kolker
Fear of harm. You bet. Anyone who is not afraid of harm coming to
himself or his children is not whole.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and fought to have
> > them freed at that point, and he fought for freedom of slaves both in
> > Virginia and in the U.S. intellectually.
The overriding point is that before the Founders slavery was barely
questioned. With men like Jefferson, it was fought seriously for the
first time.
> But not his own slaves. How odd.
Yes he did. He fought for the freeing of all slaves, which includes
his own.
> He fought as a lawyer to free
> > the slaves. In the end, the ideas he penned resulted in the freeing of
> > slaves.
> But not his own slaves. Take note.
Yes he did.
> > I believe, also, he promoted the placement of certain rules in the
> > Constitution to push toward freeing slaves, such as the number of votes
> > a slave would count for to determine number of representatives in a
> > state.
> The 3/5 compromise gave the Southron States muscle and made them the
> politically dominant section of the U.S. It was a sop to the slave owners.
Doesn't jive with my readings.
Walter Williams said the following:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=10
[quote]
It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political
power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their
slave population in determining the number of congressional
representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to
slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.
[/quote]
> > Fighting with guns is the final stage, the real battle is the
> > ideas, and this is where Jefferson, in the end, won out.
> Jefferson was a summer time warrior. He was a spend thrift and he did
> not free his own slaves. He preferred fucking some of them.
He did free his own slaves at his death, and he did more than most
anyone else to get all slaves freed.
Back in Jefferson's day it was dangerous for slaves. Free them and
a brutal owner could come take them. Jefferson considered these
sorts of things.
Btw, I note that Washington didn't free his slaves until his death
either. He did so in his will, just as Jefferson did.
Also, note this paragraph on Washington:
http://www.free-essays-free-essays.com/dbase/7c/svn25.shtml
[quote]
If the laws were not so stringent regarding the freeing of slave
Washington might have freed more slaves during his life time. Since the
laws were stringent regarding the freeing of slaves it made it
difficult for anyone to free slaves during the colonial era up until
his death.
[/quote]
This is what I've mentioned to you before. The laws in that day,
and the atmosphere made it very difficult to simply free slaves.
...John
potr...@gmail.com
-----------
Fear of harm. You bet. Anyone who is not afraid of harm coming to
himself or his children is not whole.
----------
I touch on politics but this post is really about Bob.
I get a sense of hysteria when I speak to you. "the world is
ending" punctuates your every sentence. As I said in my previous post I
think this comes from your sense of persecution. This is why you
constantly compare this conflict to WW2 at every opportunity when it
shares almost nothing in common from a military or political
standpoint. By comparing it to WW2 though you become the innocent
holocaust victim. This in turn emboldens you to suggest killing
hundreds of millions of innocent people is "rational" when clearly
this is insane by any accepted human metric. Even most Jewish people
think you're crazy Bob.
What it comes down to no one shares your extremist views except for
a few crackpots. You've been involved in hating Arabs so long due to
the Israel/Palestine issue you've lost touch with the rest of world's
sense of reality. The world and now even Americans have caught on to
this trip your on.
No doubt we still need to deal with terrorism and radical Islam.
There are more 9/11s on the horizon too but a couple of buildings every
7 years makes not genocide by any stretch of the imagination. If one
day they get enough fissionable material to nuke a city... they'll be
destroyed many times over. That's it. There are countless details and
skirmishes in between but it really isn't more complicated than that.
We are not willing to be the monster in advance of this because you
are. Most of us now recognize we have our crackpots over here trying to
instigate all out war just as they have their crackpots over there
doing the same thing. At the moment there is a loopy President in
office which sees this as a sign of the Apocalypse. He's going to try
his best to start sometimes but next election him and his cronies are
gone. Even if Bush attacks Iran the American public has lost interest
in fighting a sustained war. It doesn't make economic sense and no one
wants to send their kids off to some strangeland to be killed for
questionable theories of impending doom.
What's funny is you may be right about everything. There really is no
way to know because of so many variables. What you don't get though is
that we aren't willing to kill a billion innocent people and give away
our liberties for highly questionable theories coming from individuals
that are clearly bigots and have serious emotional baggage. You'd kill
me.. you'd kill muslims... you'd kill Christians.... you'd kill
postmodernists... you'd kill pacifists... you'd kill
<insertsomeenemyhere>,
That's what being crazy is all about. No judgment. No sense of scope.
No sense of the pain and suffering you'd cause others. Everything is
about me me me.
You'd feel exactly the same if it wasn't for the fact you're so
personally invested in this issue. In fact my bet is your intelligent
enough that you'd be the first to call yourself absurd and a monster
were Bob not Bob.
Robert J. Kolker
> @Bob
>
> -----------
> Fear of harm. You bet. Anyone who is not afraid of harm coming to
> himself or his children is not whole.
> ----------
>
> I touch on politics but this post is really about Bob.
>
> I get a sense of hysteria when I speak to you. "the world is
> ending" punctuates your every sentence.
The correct message is that our world is in peril and we must do what we
must to defend it. Caving in to attackers which is your craven cowardly
proposal virtually guarantees that our grandchildren their children will
be sticking their asses into the air five times daily. You would consign
you descendents, your flesh and blood to the Imams. Worse, you would
consign MY flesh and blood to the Imams.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
--------------------------
You would consign you descendents, your flesh and blood to the Imams.
Worse, you would consign MY flesh and blood to the Imams.
--------------------------
Bottom line.... you'd kill a billion people for unprovable long term
theories. Utter lunacy.
I often wonder how many Muslims have visited this fourm and read in
horror your "final solution". No doubt a portion of them now have a
distorted image of what being Jewish means just as you have a distorted
image of what Muslims are about. The Muslims I've known have all been
nice people... just as nice as the Jewish people I've met.
Neither group is about being the KKK (which is effectively what you've
allowed yourself to become in hate and paranoia).
Not only are you not helping your cause.... your hateful extremist
words act to motivate extremists that target Jewish people everywhere.
No doubt radical Islamists look for websites like this to find "proof"
that everyone in the west is out to get them just as much as you scour
the news to find "proof" that all Muslims think about is trying to kill
you.
Reality check.
Only fanatics spend all day long worrying about who's might kill them
today. Most of us worry about loving our family, trying to grow as
human beings and making a living.
Robert J. Kolker
> @Bob
>
> --------------------------
> You would consign you descendents, your flesh and blood to the Imams.
> Worse, you would consign MY flesh and blood to the Imams.
> --------------------------
>
> Bottom line.... you'd kill a billion people for unprovable long term
> theories. Utter lunacy.
Not lunacy. Self defence. Better a billion of THEM should die than one
of MINE suffer tyranny.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
More reality check.
There is a saying that goes "show me who your friends are....I'll
show you who you are." Here is how low your political alliances have
stooped.
http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2006/09/attention_godle.html
potr...@gmail.com
"Better a billion of THEM should die than one of MINE suffer tyranny."
Spoken like a true bigot.
Robert J. Kolker
> @Bob
>
> --------------------------
> You would consign you descendents, your flesh and blood to the Imams.
> Worse, you would consign MY flesh and blood to the Imams.
> --------------------------
>
> Bottom line.... you'd kill a billion people for unprovable long term
> theories. Utter lunacy.
Protection one's own is now lunacy?
>
> I often wonder how many Muslims have visited this fourm and read in
> horror your "final solution". No doubt a portion of them now have a
> distorted image of what being Jewish means just as you have a distorted
> image of what Muslims are about. The Muslims I've known have all been
> nice people... just as nice as the Jewish people I've met.
>
> Neither group is about being the KKK (which is effectively what you've
> allowed yourself to become in hate and paranoia).
>
> Not only are you not helping your cause.... your hateful extremist
> words act to motivate extremists that target Jewish people everywhere.
> No doubt radical Islamists look for websites like this to find "proof"
> that everyone in the west is out to get them just as much as you scour
> the news to find "proof" that all Muslims think about is trying to kill
> you.
There is a difference. The Jihadis ARE out to get the Jews. If they
would stop that there would be no issue between them and Jewss.
>
> Reality check.
>
> Only fanatics spend all day long worrying about who's might kill them
> today. Most of us worry about loving our family, trying to grow as
Taken literally you must object to police, guards and soldiers who
patrol the boundries.
> human beings and making a living.
Very nice and when the world is put into ship shape we can all enjoy
ourselves. Until then we must do what we must against the evil doers who
would harm us.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
---------
Protection one's own is now lunacy?
---------
If you define that as "killing a billion people to save one"?
Absolutely. At least in this respect.. you are nuttier than a peanut
bush.
---------
There is a difference. The Jihadis ARE out to get the Jews. If they
would stop that there would be no issue between them and Jews.
---------
The Jihadists aren't equal to all Muslims. There is no nice way to
say this. You're the equivalent of a southerner circa. 1859 that refers
to all Muslims as "niggers" then wonders why they hate you. That's not
the same as selfdefense... that's stereotyping and hate measured by
virtually every accepted standard in modern society.
Why the heck am I saying all this? Why am I wasting my time arguing
this? I don't hate the west. I love Western ideals. Uhmmmm.... I come
from a culture that is largely responsible for helping define those
ideals remember?
Your problem is you function almost entirely on stereotypes. You even
think all pacifists think the same. My pacifist views aren't geared
towards doing nothing. They are only geared towards reacting to events
in a non-leathal way. Use non-leathal weapons and techniques that save
lives and I will applaud you. Purposely treat people like cockroaches..
you will only get more arguments.
It's more than the fact that lives would be saved it's the message
that we would be sending to these groups that hate us. We would be
saying we value their lives more than they do. This is an ideological
atom bomb that would eventually wear down the radical recruitment
process. I can't be sure until more people take this seriously enough
to try the experiment. We both know that current techniques haven't
worked. Good science is trying new approaches to problems.
Your a perfect example why most people generally hate athiests.
Athiests tend to be too efficent and people want something more
empathetic to the inefficiencies of the human condition. I'm trying to
be that Bob. I'm trying to be that middle ground that doesn't just view
people as unfeeling objects in a universe of eat-or-be-eaten. Putting
aside issues of determinism... from a conscious perspective it is
apparent to me that if I can successfully choose to carry my throughts
in this place it therefore follows others can too.
Matt Barrow
>
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>> John Alway wrote:
>
>
>> > Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and fought to have
>> > them freed at that point, and he fought for freedom of slaves both in
>> > Virginia and in the U.S. intellectually.
>
>
> The overriding point is that before the Founders slavery was barely
> questioned. With men like Jefferson, it was fought seriously for the
> first time.
>
>> But not his own slaves. How odd.
>
> Yes he did. He fought for the freeing of all slaves, which includes
> his own.
Since they were part of the plantation (Monticello) they were mortgaged and
thus he could not free them if he wanted to -- they we're not HIS property.
Bob, this has been pointed out to you before, so pull your head out of your
ass and STFU, you POS troll. You really should look into Dr. Kevorkian's
replacement as your personal physician.
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
> > > I believe, also, he promoted the placement of certain rules in the
> > > Constitution to push toward freeing slaves, such as the number of votes
> > > a slave would count for to determine number of representatives in a
> > > state.
>
> > The 3/5 compromise gave the Southron States muscle and made them the
> > politically dominant section of the U.S. It was a sop to the slave
> owners.
>
> Doesn't jive with my readings.
>
> Walter Williams said the following:
> http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=10
> [quote]
> It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political
> power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their
> slave population in determining the number of congressional
> representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to
> slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.
> [/quote]
Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. He was in France
at the time.
The 3/5 rule was a strictly political compromise. The Southern states wanted
slaves to count in determining representation in Congress, but not count for
taxation. The Northern states wanted slaves to count for taxation but not
for representation. Counting 3/5 of the slaves for both purposes kept both
sides moderately satisfied, enough to get a majority of the delegates to sign
the Constitution. But the compromise wasn't for the benefit of the slaves,
it was simply the result of the balance of power between the regions.
The only thing in the Constitution as originally ratified that could
reasonably be construed as limiting slavery was the expiration of the ban on
limiting the importation of slaves in 1808. That's a pretty minimal
limitation. On the other hand, the requirement that fugitive slaves be
returned to slavery was a major benefit for slave holders.
--
Mark Sieving
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Since they were part of the plantation (Monticello) they were mortgaged and
> thus he could not free them if he wanted to -- they we're not HIS property.
Like I said. He NEVER freed his slaves. Fact. Fact. Fact.
He talked the talk and he did not walk the walk. That was because he was
a spendthrift and did not know how to manage money.
Apparently he fucked a mortaged chattel. I wonder if the debtholders
objected?
Bob Kolker
Mark N
> Bob, this has been pointed out to you before, so pull your head out of your
> ass and STFU, you POS troll. You really should look into Dr. Kevorkian's
> replacement as your personal physician.
Ouch.
Mark
potr...@gmail.com
You can hide and be the general in this little corner of cyberspace
all you want but apparently you're the unthinking "troll" with a
lobsided view of the world once you step one inch outside of your home.
The facts according to most of your fellow Canadians and 77% of people
from Quebec. (a supprisingly astronomical number actually)
The only people that are after Muslims as a whole (rather than just
the Islamic radicals) are a few bigot extremists that just happen to
have some political pull with the evolution deniers in office in
America at the moment.
Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are playing your emotions like a fiddle and
turning themselves into the absurdity of heroes because of idiots that
claim to represent freedom and reason.... while shuting down honest
objective dialog at every opportunity.
You don't believe in freedom. You are a wannabe tyrant and prove it at
every opportunity someone says something you don't agree with.
Robert J. Kolker
I cannot understand Barrow's annoyance. I correctly pointed out the
disjuntion between Jefferson's fine words, and his lack of matching deeds.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
Awwwww..... shit. I just read your reply to Bob.
OK I still think Bob has a right to speak but your not one of the
ay-ay-ya kill em all crowd.
I apologize for my strong words.
Reggie Perrin
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >
> > Since they were part of the plantation (Monticello) they were mortgaged and
> > thus he could not free them if he wanted to -- they we're not HIS property.
>
> Like I said. He NEVER freed his slaves. Fact. Fact. Fact.
But according to Matt Barrow, they weren't *his* slaves. So it's *not*
like you said.(Assuming that his info is correct, of course).
John Alway
Mark_S...@yahoo.com wrote:
> John Alway <jal...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> > Walter Williams said the following:
> > http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=10
> > [quote]
> > It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political
> > power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their
> > slave population in determining the number of congressional
> > representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to
> > slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.
> > [/quote]
> Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. He was in France
> at the time.
That's not true. Jefferson and Madison were in constant contact, and
this is one of the issues they discussed (The Constitution).
Jefferson is a big reason there is a bill or rights in the
Constitution.
> The 3/5 rule was a strictly political compromise. The Southern states wanted
> slaves to count in determining representation in Congress, but not count for
> taxation. The Northern states wanted slaves to count for taxation but not
> for representation. Counting 3/5 of the slaves for both purposes kept both
> sides moderately satisfied, enough to get a majority of the delegates to sign
> the Constitution. But the compromise wasn't for the benefit of the slaves,
> it was simply the result of the balance of power between the regions.
I've read this, but clearly Walter Williams and some Constitutional
scholars don't agree with it. Check the link with the Williams quote
and you'll also see a quote from a Constitutional scholar on the same
point.
...John
Robert J. Kolker
>
> But according to Matt Barrow, they weren't *his* slaves. So it's *not*
> like you said.(Assuming that his info is correct, of course).
They were his slaves before he pawned them. Like I said, he never freed
his slaves. Rather than free them, he put them in hock. What I said is
correct. If he was so hot for these truths we hold which are self
evident, he should have manumitted them, then put his real property in
hock and hired his former slaves back as wage labor.
Jefferson is such a disappointment.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> That's not true. Jefferson and Madison were in constant contact, and
> this is one of the issues they discussed (The Constitution).
> Jefferson is a big reason there is a bill or rights in the
> Constitution.
Jefferson was not in attendence at the constitutional convention in
Philadelphia. Constant contact? It took a letter a month to get from
France to America and month do come back.
Franklin had more to say about the Constitution than did Jefferson. Ben
Franklin was consider the Sage.
>
>
> I've read this, but clearly Walter Williams and some Constitutional
> scholars don't agree with it. Check the link with the Williams quote
> and you'll also see a quote from a Constitutional scholar on the same
> point.
It does not matter. W.O. the 3/5 compromise the Southrons would never
have signed on. The follow on effect was to give the Southron States
substantial political clout which they used until the eve of the Civil War.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
"Jefferson is such a disappointment."
I agree. Having many slaves is no minor point for someone that
allegedly lives to protect freedom. Franklin and Washington had some
meat to them. They too could have continued to profit off of slavery
and no one would have said anything as it was the norm. However they
acted out of principle. Very honourable.
Jefferson no matter how much he moaned and groaned over the issue by
his actions defined himself as an opportunist. We aren't talking about
someone trying to survive and making tough choices or a bad call in the
midst of war. We are talking about someone that owns slaves simply to
sustain the highlife he was used to enjoying.
There was no regret or repentence later in life. He went to the grave
with his collection of human toasters and washboards. No doubt he
consoled himself by believing he was a fine master that treated his
slaves with dignity by barely using the whip when they got out of line.
The Sophist in you is what thought it reasonable to pull out a quote
from him.
John Alway
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > That's not true. Jefferson and Madison were in constant contact, and
> > this is one of the issues they discussed (The Constitution).
> > Jefferson is a big reason there is a bill or rights in the
> > Constitution.
> Jefferson was not in attendence at the constitutional convention in
> Philadelphia. Constant contact? It took a letter a month to get from
> France to America and month do come back.
I don't know exactly when he was in France, but I do know that
Jefferson was adamant that a Bill of Rights be included in a letter to
Madison. Madison and Jefferson were the best of Friends.
...John
John Alway
potr...@gmail.com wrote:
> @Bob
> "Jefferson is such a disappointment."
> I agree.
Well, yeah, but you're pretty much given to such prejudices.
He was a great man, who did more to fight slavery than most in
history.
He continually pushed for the complete ending of slavery, but wasn't
successful at it, but nonetheless, he pushed for it.
He decided that it could only be done piecemeal, so he enacted
various laws to slowly bring it to an end.
For instance
"In 1778, the legislature passed a bill he proposed to ban further
importation of slaves into Virginia;"
" In 1784, Jefferson's draft of what became the Northwest Ordinance
stipulated that "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude" in any of the new states admitted to the Union from the
Northwest Territory [34]. "
"In 1807, he signed a bill abolishing the slave trade. Jefferson
attacked the institution of slavery in his Notes on the State of
Virginia (1784):"
All above are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
...John
potr...@gmail.com
Look,
I know about his wishes to eliminate slavery and no doubt he was a
very clever bloke to make it to President and help figure out the
Constitution (incidentally I really think it is a fine document....
along the lines of the Magna Carta.... especially to have withstood two
centuries of punishment)
Now we begin our dance of words.
On one level I say to myself... f`ck give the guy a break. What have I
done remotely so notable for humanity lately? And in this sense you are
wholeheartedly correct.
However if I stick to my analytic side... did power alone define him as
great? I don't think so. Somebody is playing that role at all times.
Somebody is busy writing rules all the time.
As Bob said absolutely nothing was preventing him selling his slaves
and rehiring them with wages. Therefore (in my eyes) he's the
classically flawed hero.... not the awe inspiring man god. This robs
him of status in the pantheon of ultimate superstars.
Aka.... he's Pete Rose... not Babe Ruth.
Uber-ness requires uber-action. Anything else doesn't make sense. You
can be flawed but it needs to be limited to minor or excentric crap. (A
drinking problem.... a womanizer.... talking to your dog)
He's admirable for his achievements but his own actions knock him a
few rungs down the ladder. I really would feel different about it if
none of his peers acted in a superior fashion. However as it turned out
though he was a laggard to real idealists like Washington and
Franklin.... that were more devoted to ideas in practice not only
words.
I have yet to meet a person that isn't a hero in words.
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
>
> Mark_S...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > John Alway <jal...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Walter Williams said the following:
> > > http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=10
> > > [quote]
> > > It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political
> > > power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their
> > > slave population in determining the number of congressional
> > > representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to
> > > slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.
> > > [/quote]
>
> > Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. He was in
> France
> > at the time.
>
> That's not true. Jefferson and Madison were in constant contact, and
> this is one of the issues they discussed (The Constitution).
> Jefferson is a big reason there is a bill or rights in the
> Constitution.
How could Jefferson and Madison remain in constant contact during the
Convention? There were no telephones or trans-Atlantic telegraphs in the
18th century. Communications between America and Europe took weeks.
Madison and Jefferson had many discussions on political philosophy both
before and after the Convention - they were close fiends after all. But
Jefferson had no input into the wording of the Constitution.
> > The 3/5 rule was a strictly political compromise. The Southern states
> wanted
> > slaves to count in determining representation in Congress, but not count
> for
> > taxation. The Northern states wanted slaves to count for taxation but
> not
> > for representation. Counting 3/5 of the slaves for both purposes kept
> both
> > sides moderately satisfied, enough to get a majority of the delegates to
> sign
> > the Constitution. But the compromise wasn't for the benefit of the
> slaves,
> > it was simply the result of the balance of power between the regions.
>
> I've read this, but clearly Walter Williams and some Constitutional
> scholars don't agree with it. Check the link with the Williams quote
> and you'll also see a quote from a Constitutional scholar on the same
> point.
Better yet, I've read Madison's "Notes of Debates in the Federal
Convention". The arguments in the debates for including slaves in the
population for determining representation were that slaves, as property,
contributed to the wealth of the state. Most of the argument for only
counting 3/5 of the slaves revolved around the contention that slave labor
was less productive than free labor.
Madison, by the way, wasn't much involved in the debate. His only
contribution was the suggestion that representation in one house of Congress
be based on the free population of the state, while representation in the
other house be based on the total population, including slaves.
--
Mark Sieving
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
Jefferson returned after the Convention. He was around for the debates on
ratification of the Constitution.
Why would Jefferson care if a Bill of Rights was included in a letter to
Madison? You'd think he'd want it included in the Constitution. :)
--
Mark Sieving
John Alway
[...]
> > That's not true. Jefferson and Madison were in constant contact, and
> > this is one of the issues they discussed (The Constitution).
> > Jefferson is a big reason there is a bill or rights in the
> > Constitution.
> How could Jefferson and Madison remain in constant contact during the
> Convention? There were no telephones or trans-Atlantic telegraphs in the
> 18th century. Communications between America and Europe took weeks.
> Madison and Jefferson had many discussions on political philosophy both
> before and after the Convention - they were close fiends after all. But
> Jefferson had no input into the wording of the Constitution.
Check this link:
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0950.htm
[quote]
"I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly
and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, protection against standing armies, restriction against
monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus
laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land and not by the law of nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James
Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government
should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James
Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:440
[/quote]
...John
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
>
> Mark_S...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > John Alway <jal...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > > That's not true. Jefferson and Madison were in constant contact, and
> > > this is one of the issues they discussed (The Constitution).
> > > Jefferson is a big reason there is a bill or rights in the
> > > Constitution.
>
> > How could Jefferson and Madison remain in constant contact during the
> > Convention? There were no telephones or trans-Atlantic telegraphs in the
> > 18th century. Communications between America and Europe took weeks.
>
> > Madison and Jefferson had many discussions on political philosophy both
> > before and after the Convention - they were close fiends after all. But
> > Jefferson had no input into the wording of the Constitution.
>
> Check this link:
> http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0950.htm
>
[Jefferson quotes about a bill of rights deleted for brevity]
These quotes are from a letter to James Madison, dated December 20, 1787.
The Constitutional Convention closed September 17, 1787. That Jefferson
expressed his opinion on the Constitution three months after the Convention
closed does not show that he had any input on the writing of the
Constitution.
Remember, the Bill of Rights was not written until after the Constitution
had been ratified.
Incidentally, Jefferson was still in France when he wrote his letter to
Madison. That it took him three months to comment on the Constitution gives
you an idea of what "constant contact" meant in the 18th century.
--
Mark Sieving
Malrassic Park
>@Mal
>
>Well again it depends what you mean. I can only experience things
>subjectively... I am me after all. However I do believe if I eat
>Fruitloops and I hand over the box to my buddy he too can experience
>it. If I try explaining to him only...well them we may be in for some
>trouble.
>-------------
> If one of you Randroids wants to try and demonstrate the
>connection between this view and that of Kant's, be my guest.
>-------------
>
> I wish to further clarify my position based on this reply.
>
> My understanding of Kant (perhaps mistaken) is that he believes
>dialog itself creates "objects". In other words a baby perceives the
>world as noise and we teach it to perceive things. Although I believe
>in a physical world...I also believe this is true to an extent.
I believe that the world "for us" starts out as an incoherent blur
which then comes into finer resolution on its own as we develop.
This process is innate. When we grow old enough to converse, then
some of that cognitive growth may be encouraged through dialogue.
But the important thing to remember is that there is a distinction
between a "for us" and an "in itself." And that, although I do believe
there is a physical space in which things take residence, that is not
the same as the space "for us" which we use to cognize these same
things qua appearances. If all appearances were located in physical
space, then even experience itself would be problematic; but as long
as the space remains formal, then there are no difficult cognitive
ramifications. Things, in that case, simply are what they are, A is A.
However, we must not remain on that so-called Objectivist level
which is, nevertheless, thoroughly subjective, if we want to truly
claim objectivity. Following Objectivism's lead will take us right
back into Berkeley's philosophical arms once again. So, if I were an
Objectivist I would simply bypass all philosophical problems and start
with some simplistic version of cog-sci, as you will find in ITOE,
ignoring all other formal system of cog-sci extant and castigating
them for being "too difficult" or "a great Kantian evil." All
Objectivists I have seen are ignorant of everything outside of the
formal walls of their pet philosophy. They are kept ignorant like
religious purists who were taught to eschew contact with any "evil"
influences foreign to their tiny perspective on the universe of human
thought.
What was needed to solve some ancient problems was not the same old
Aristotelean logic, but a new logic based on a new idea. We derive
logic from assuming that the thing-in-itself is a stable entity, yet
all we can really know, at this stage in the discussion, is that our
representation of the thing-in-itself follows certain laws of logic
governing appearances. Logic cannot govern the thing-in-itself, that
would be subjectivism at its finest.
> My guess is babies at first think of the universe as (mostly) one big
>two dimensional canvas with colours and sounds splattered on it. They
>have difficulty understand they own their hands as their sense of the
>meaning and shapes to these colours is not assigned yet.
>
>Thus how we might arrive at Kant's view.
Except that's not how Kant arrived at his own view.
> However I think it mostly ends there as there is obviously a genetic
>predisposition to objectify things that goes beyond training. If not..
>by defintion we could not have this conversation that deals with terms
>that try to contain the universe around us in descrete chunks. There
>would have been no egg to have the chicken.
>
> I believe where we end up wasting energy getting into these types of
>arguments is that we are using certain critical words differently and
>aren't always patient enough to pick up on this. This is why I tend to
>default to the idea language itself is the problem.
>
>Physicality "exists" but when we try to describe things in philsophical
>generalities things can fall apart.
>
> Again... I'm not saying nothing is coming through. I believe in the
>value of science and trade etc... I'm just saying that it's corrupted
>enough to cause friction... which can end up bruising egos... which can
>end up leading to conflict.
>
> The answer of course is to fix language and standards but
>unfortunately the solution is not so easy to apply to humanity as a
>whole It won't bring utopia but at least it will help narrow the gap
>between what we are trying to express versus what is heard by someone
>else.
potr...@gmail.com
Thanks for the interesting read. I plan to go over it several times
more as I work out some of your references.
Just for the record again I did carefully qualify. "perhaps
mistakenly" when I mentioned Kant. Also I can see how my wording might
lead you to believe I suggested that my reasoning represented how Kant
arrived to this view. What I was trying to say is why I might get to
what I perceive as Kant's view.... not why Kant did. (which I have no
idea without studying him)
Any how,
from my perspective that's part of the problem with philsophers today.
They are so bogged down in details and obscure references of who said
what in history versus focusing on what philsophy should really be
about.....sucking up new developments in economics, neurology,
psychology, physics, linguistics, politics and various other fields to
try and formulate coherent arguments about how humans should function
and think.
Where I think older philsophers matter is from a historical
perspective, a little bit to put philosophy in some context and perhaps
most importantly.... to inspire us.
I don't quite think of philosophy as eternal truths though. It's a
moving target that changes with the times and with our perception of
language. Our monkey ancestors had something they considered an ethos
too but it is largely useless to our perspective today. Much like
people and civilizations... philosophies have a limited livespan and
are then discarded as language and practical realities make their
usefulness expire. In fact I think religion itself was the philosophy
of it's day but the term "god" has been slowly supplanted by the less
abstract and less generalized term "philosophy" (for the more clever
amongst us :). Sometimes I think the term philosophy itself is doomed
to the same fate with the word "science".
No matter what someone believes, one thing seems pretty consistant.
We all want the algorythms to define how we should think and exist.
Cheers. (taking a break :)