PhilOT, or: It's Actually Called Elsaß-Lothringen

[Archangel]

Now this is basically just a test. The problem with Philo threads is that sometimes, composing an original post to be the basis of a good discussion is a lot of bloody work - nobody knows that better than yours truly. I also know that often, much of that work is wasted, because people only read what they want to read anyway. Yeah, not that I'm bitter, or anything.

But a lot of times, all you want is to ask a simple question, and see what other posters think. Not formulate an entire hypothesis, but just a little something that's been caroming inside your head for a while, and check out people's thoughts and reactions. Like a Q&A running thread, only a little, dunno, deeper. We'll let a discussion run its course, and when the original poster (or myself) declares the question satisfactorily answered, we'll move on to the next one. Levity is obviously good; levity while staying on topic is even better.


What this thread is NOT supposed to do, however, is detract from the rest of the section. I'll still post my rants from time to time, and more on-topic, in-depth discussion is obviously still very much encouraged. So let's just run with this, and see what happens. If it works out, cool; if not, no big deal.

[Archangel]

All right, I'll start.

Usually, isolationism leads to retardedness. Rednecks, Muslim fanatics and the French are as dumb as they are because they want nothing to do with the outside world.
But is that necessarily so? Aren't there conditions under which an isolated society can become highly civilised and intellectual? What are then the factors that make today's solipsistic societies as dumb as they are?

[Limp]

I'm not reading all that, Nazi.

[Archangel]

Okay, just for you:


Why are Texans such retards?

[Limp]

Why are Texans such retards?
Because that's the only Texans that try to get on TV. The rest of us don't like the media and avoid them at all costs.

[Axel]

Limpy, I could accept your claim that non-retarded Texans avoid the media, but than again, message boards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) are considered as media too, you know.

You might be in a kind of ambiguous position now.

[Limp]

I'm not a retard in real life, I just play one on the internets.

[Limp]

The internet is serious people playing a serious game that involves serious things. Seriously.

[mxlplkt]

Oggie in Philo OT!

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k290/carpelite6/ogbling.gif

[Archangel]

This isn't working out as planned.

[Mustard]

Fat in philosophy. Are the bets on or off? GO!

[Spanky]

this is gay.

[freegood]

All right, I'll start.

Usually, isolationism leads to retardedness. Rednecks, Muslim fanatics and the French are as dumb as they are because they want nothing to do with the outside world.
But is that necessarily so? Aren't there conditions under which an isolated society can become highly civilised and intellectual? What are then the factors that make today's solipsistic societies as dumb as they are?

Solipsistic societies need a point in time where they look back with triumph and glory. It usually starts with a highly prosperous capital that dictates perception and culture and filters out to backwaters where hicks are told how great their nations are without context of why it's great. Incidentally, that point in glory involves continuous contact with other countries which, at the very least, serve as a gauge on who is the most glorious.

As for nailing down the factors, this celebration of temporary glory is something a nation's rulers encourage and exploit. True encouragement of contemporary civility and intellectualism is usually done at the private level.

In other words, rulers tell us that better to be a 'good' and patriotic citizen than to be a sharp (open to new ideas) and honorable one. The shit hits the fan for everyone when the leader buys the lie.

[Nosebuckle]

But is that necessarily so? Aren't there conditions under which an isolated society can become highly civilised and intellectual? What are then the factors that make today's solipsistic societies as dumb as they are?

Maybe it's better to start with an example. Off the top of my head, Imperial Japan comes to mind, with their isolationist policies that characterized them in the 17th to 19th centuries. They didn't exactly rot while generally being cut off from any meaningful relations with the rest of the world

[freegood]

Maybe it's better to start with an example. Off the top of my head, Imperial Japan comes to mind, with their isolationist policies that characterized them in the 17th to 19th centuries. They didn't exactly rot while generally being cut off from any meaningful relations with the rest of the world

They were lucky to live in the shadow of China and benefited from the US's willingness to trade with autonomous partners rather than to subjugate them.

[Nosebuckle]

They were lucky to live in the shadow of China and benefited from the US's willingness to trade with autonomous partners rather than to subjugate them.

Tis true. Speaking of China during that period...talk about being unfriendly to the West (until the opium arrived).

[Charlatan]

All right, I'll start.

Usually, isolationism leads to retardedness. Rednecks, Muslim fanatics and the French are as dumb as they are because they want nothing to do with the outside world.
But is that necessarily so? Aren't there conditions under which an isolated society can become highly civilised and intellectual? What are then the factors that make today's solipsistic societies as dumb as they are?
I think it is necessarily so. Without a lot of new people and information, stagnation is inevitable.

[Insomniac]

Incest produces ugly offspring, intellectual no less than biological.

I'm a Texan, too, by the way, but the rural "open range" Texas people stereotype doesn't really exist now, if it ever did. Seventy-five percent of the population lives between Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. Austin is practically a colony of California. We have the petrochemical industry, NASA, Dell, and Texas Instruments, however much people like forgetting about these things.

Now politically, we've always been a one-party state (Democrats until the Civil Rights movement, Republicans after), but we're also culturally influenced by Mexico, the American West, Southwest, and South. There are stupid rednecks in Texas, of course, but no more than were cowboys in Texas in the 1800s. That's just the popular image people like to have.

[freegood]

Ann Richards?

[Archetype]

Boas says that cultures must have external stimuli to progress.

[freegood]

How the fuck do snakes know about culture?

[Archetype]

Genesis 3?

[Archangel]

I do agree that most high civilisation is stimulated by outside contact. Look at any centre of civilisation, and you will see a major crossroads of commercial and cultural exchange: Alexandria, Athens, Sicily, Rome, Paris, Florence, London, Vienna, Hong Kong, New York...

And yes, China's or Russia's dichotomy of relative isolationism and high cultural level can be attributed to those countries' enormous size and diversity - critical mass, if you will - and the more advanced Germanic tribes (Langobards, Ostrogoths, Franks, Normans) only got into this whole "culture" thing once they came into contact with other societies.

But Japan aside, are there really no examples for a culturally advanced society that kept mostly to itself?

[Axel]

Agree. Austria is even a better example: as soon as it lost its central position inside of a multiethnic, cosmopolitan empire, it slid down into a claustrophobic, redneck-ish, egocentric void.

[Archangel]

I blame the Serbs.

[Archangel]

By the way, it's funny how "Slav" and "Serb" are, historically/etymologically speaking, the same words as "slave" and "serf".

[Limp]

By the way, it's funny how "Slav" and "Serb" are, historically/etymologically speaking, the same words as "slave" and "serf".
Hilarious... a real knee slapper.

[Yelram]

I do agree that most high civilisation is stimulated by outside contact. Look at any centre of civilisation, and you will see a major crossroads of commercial and cultural exchange: Alexandria, Athens, Sicily, Rome, Paris, Florence, London, Vienna, Hong Kong, New York...

And yes, China's or Russia's dichotomy of relative isolationism and high cultural level can be attributed to those countries' enormous size and diversity - critical mass, if you will - and the more advanced Germanic tribes (Langobards, Ostrogoths, Franks, Normans) only got into this whole "culture" thing once they came into contact with other societies.

But Japan aside, are there really no examples for a culturally advanced society that kept mostly to itself?

Mayans, Incas, Olmecs

[Axel]

By the way, it's funny how "Deutschland" is, historically/etymologically speaking, the same word as “land of douches”.

Edit: Fuld can verify that!

[freegood]

I do agree that most high civilisation is stimulated by outside contact. Look at any centre of civilisation, and you will see a major crossroads of commercial and cultural exchange: Alexandria, Athens, Sicily, Rome, Paris, Florence, London, Vienna, Hong Kong, New York...

And yes, China's or Russia's dichotomy of relative isolationism and high cultural level can be attributed to those countries' enormous size and diversity - critical mass, if you will - and the more advanced Germanic tribes (Langobards, Ostrogoths, Franks, Normans) only got into this whole "culture" thing once they came into contact with other societies.

But Japan aside, are there really no examples for a culturally advanced society that kept mostly to itself?

The thing about China and Russia is that they went through a lot of wars and invasions/occupations to get to the size they were. Once they "got big" it wasn't like they could purposely make themselves disappear no matter how incompetent or arrogant their rulers wanted to. The bigger they are, the harder they fall...

As for Japan, they ripped off the Chinese's culture when it suited them. After the US opened their borders with a veiled threat, they went through a cultural and political revolution which again prompted them to rip off Western ideas.

[ElvisWong]

All right, I'll start.

Usually, isolationism leads to retardedness. Rednecks, Muslim fanatics and the French are as dumb as they are because they want nothing to do with the outside world.
But is that necessarily so? Aren't there conditions under which an isolated society can become highly civilised and intellectual? What are then the factors that make today's solipsistic societies as dumb as they are?


Can you explain why the French they don't open to the ouside world ?
When you talk about the french, you talk about french Canadian or Fench ?

[ElvisWong]

Incest produces ugly offspring, intellectual no less than biological.

I'm a Texan, too, by the way, but the rural "open range" Texas people stereotype doesn't really exist now, if it ever did. Seventy-five percent of the population lives between Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. Austin is practically a colony of California. We have the petrochemical industry, NASA, Dell, and Texas Instruments, however much people like forgetting about these things.

Now politically, we've always been a one-party state (Democrats until the Civil Rights movement, Republicans after), but we're also culturally influenced by Mexico, the American West, Southwest, and South. There are stupid rednecks in Texas, of course, but no more than were cowboys in Texas in the 1800s. That's just the popular image people like to have.

Good comment....Sometime, there is somepeople think who are intelligent. He talk about a subjet without know reality !!!!

Archangel do you recognize you ?

IF you repply, tell an intelligent comment !!! I know....my english is poor.

Stupid racist......Stupid dumb.....Loser

FUCK YOU !!!

[Pax Britannia]

But Japan aside, are there really no examples for a culturally advanced society that kept mostly to itself?

Switzerland?

[Limp]

Good comment....Sometime, there is somepeople think who are intelligent. He talk about a subjet without know reality !!!!

Archangel do you recognize you ?

IF you repply, tell an intelligent comment !!! I know....my english is poor.

Stupid racist......Stupid dumb.....Loser

FUCK YOU !!!

Fuck you Slanty.

Nip nong ding dong wing wan ching chog.

[Limp]

Lul... both arch and wong can read that...

[Archangel]

It's funny because he calls me a racist for calling him out on his wretchedly bad English.


Mate, English is my second or third language; and by the way, I'm half Asian myself. You dumb cunt.

[Limp]

Mate, English is my second or third language, and by the way, I'm half Asian myself, you dumb cunt.
How, do they, use commas, in your first, or second, language, because this seems, like too many.

[Archangel]

Better?


Wait.

Hey, I'M the grammar nazi here.

[Limp]

Hey, I'M the grammar nazi here.
(this has been don before.... right? I don't remember seeing one..)

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u63/Limp-pics/GMF/grammar-nazi-arch.jpg

[Archangel]

Yuo no do thsi too mi! Yuo racist! Loser! Loser!

[Archangel]

(this has been don before.... right? I don't remember seeing one..)

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u63/Limp-pics/GMF/grammar-nazi-arch.jpg

The funny thing is that he's writing "Esel" which means "ass/donkey"...

[Pax Britannia]

Oh the irony.

[Archangel]

Fuck you, Welsh sheep fucker.

[Pax Britannia]

We may fuck them but your the ones who eat them after we're done!

[Archangel]

I fucking hate mutton. Now lamb, that's a whole different thi...


Wait.


PAEDO!!!

[Pax Britannia]

mmmmm tender

[Archangel]

I'm afraid to ask what's in this mint jelly.

[Pax Britannia]

THE MINT JELLY IS PEOPLE!!!

[Limp]

THE MINT JELLY IS PEOPLE!!!

THE PEOPLES IS MINT JELLY!

[Pax Britannia]

Gotta put those English tourists to some use.

[ElvisWong]

It's funny because he calls me a racist for calling him out on his wretchedly bad English.


Mate, English is my second or third language; and by the way, I'm half Asian myself. You dumb cunt.

Happy to know that you are a little bit educate !!!

By the way.... I don't care if you pass your time for leave to me negative rep !!!!

Loser !!!

[Insomniac]

The thing about China and Russia is that they went through a lot of wars and invasions/occupations to get to the size they were. Once they "got big" it wasn't like they could purposely make themselves disappear no matter how incompetent or arrogant their rulers wanted to. The bigger they are, the harder they fall...

As for Japan, they ripped off the Chinese's culture when it suited them. After the US opened their borders with a veiled threat, they went through a cultural and political revolution which again prompted them to rip off Western ideas.

And let's not forget, any time they were able to isolate, stagnation usually followed. If the Chinese hadn't been so damned secure, they wouldn't have thought themselves secure enough to dismantle all of their fleets and the Western Hemisphere would be speaking Chinese.

[Archetype]

Mayans, Incas, Olmecs
Mayans and Incas seem like terrible examples. Mainly because both were essentially empires that absorbed other cultures. The Olmec though, that might work. From the sounds of it, their growth was dependent on the rich resources and capabilities their environment allowed for. I wonders.

[Archetype]

And let's not forget, any time they were able to isolate, stagnation usually followed. If the Chinese hadn't been so damned secure, they wouldn't have thought themselves secure enough to dismantle all of their fleets and the Western Hemisphere would be speaking Chinese.
Did that actually happen? I heard about that in a comic but couldn't find anything on it, just assumed it was a made-up story element. I hate Chinese history, there's too much damned shit there.

[Insomniac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

He was a eunuch, and the Confucians were competing with eunuchs in the court. The fleets were dismantled in part because they were linked with eunuch prestige and the Confucians were in power.

Such a thing could never happen in Europe and a state hope to survive for very long.

[Insomniac]

Why have the Jews been hated so historically and vehemently throughout the years, and yet at the same time managed to be relatively successful everywhere?

What is it about them culturally that keeps them from assimilating, or nations from letting them assimilate? Is it just religious belief and faith in being a chosen people, or is it something more?

[Oggie]

Oggie in Philo OT!

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k290/carpelite6/ogbling.gif
Awesome.

[Morfin]

Why have the Jews been hated so historically and vehemently throughout the years, and yet at the same time managed to be relatively successful everywhere?

What is it about them culturally that keeps them from assimilating, or nations from letting them assimilate? Is it just religious belief and faith in being a chosen people, or is it something more?

Personally, I think this is a great topic for a thread. It is a question that I have asked myself and have no real answer to. Why is it that there seems to be a faction hating the Jews everywhere, whether it is Christian, Nazi, Catholic, Muslim, or even American Blacks. It obviously is no so simple as just to say that Jews are disliked because "They killed Christ," because that cannot be supported in non-Christian beliefs.

[Phil Theehor]

That is a good topic.

Througout the middle ages, they were not confined by the christian ban on usury. Because they were able to charge interest, they were the majority of the bankers. That helped maintain a lot of the resentment.

Where the resentment initiated is really good question, though.

[Morfin]

Ah, but they got into those businesses because the Christians did not allow them into the guilds. The Christians giggled and giggled that they had beaten them dirty Jews. But then, the Jews took their lemons and made lemonade, thriving in these businesses shunned by those Christians. The Christians were left to grumble again about those dirty Jews controlling all the money.

[Archangel]

Tell everyone that you, as a tiny minority, are the chosen people, and people are going to resent you. Back that up with three millennia of education and learning, and people will envy you. Get rich by using the loopholes in the laws that such resentment and envy spawned, and people will hate you.

[Axel]

Why have the Jews been hated so historically and vehemently throughout the years, and yet at the same time managed to be relatively successful everywhere?

What is it about them culturally that keeps them from assimilating, or nations from letting them assimilate? Is it just religious belief and faith in being a chosen people, or is it something more?Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ of any ethnic group because of the highest eugenic pressure they had to endure throughout the history. European Jews have been exposed to all kind of ordeals, from expulsions, pogroms, inquisition to ban from common professions - only the fittest of them were able to pass their genes.

Ironically, our European lack of cultural and religious tolerance made them what they are now.

[Insomniac]

You think the need to study the Bible, be able to read it, and think about it had something to do with them being better educated and "smarter" than everyone else?

[Archangel]

Yes. It's telling that "rabbi" means "teacher", isn't it? Jews HAD to be literate, and while philosophical schooling only truly became a part of Christian theological studies in the 12th century, Talmudic scholars were well versed in such matters throughout history. Platonian maieutics, Aristotelian ethics discussions, etc: Their average Joes were literate when nobody was, and their spiritual/scholarly leaders were usually head and shoulders above the Christian ones.

Also, because Talmudic scholarly tradition was far more based on debate than the Christian kind, people were more well-versed in the exchange of ideas, almost on an Attic level.

[Pax Britannia]

Has anyone seen the film 'Conspiracy'? It's about the Wannsee conference that decided the fate of the Jews in the Nazi occupied territories. I think it's very interesting to see the differing views of the Jew from a mindless party thug and an educated man.
vMGbZswSz_w

Skip to 1:35 to avoid the legal babble.

[NOTKyle]

Question: How can people believe in god and not Santa Clause?

You never see any proof that either exists, and you see equal proof for them NOT existing. (parents hand out presents, bad things happen to good people)

The only differences are that eventually your parents tell you that Santa doesn't exist, while the only people whose parents tell them god doesn't exist are the children of devout atheists.

[Yelram]

Yes. It's telling that "rabbi" means "teacher", isn't it? Jews HAD to be literate, and while philosophical schooling only truly became a part of Christian theological studies in the 12th century, Talmudic scholars were well versed in such matters throughout history. Platonian maieutics, Aristotelian ethics discussions, etc: Their average Joes were literate when nobody was, and their spiritual/scholarly leaders were usually head and shoulders above the Christian ones.

Also, because Talmudic scholarly tradition was far more based on debate than the Christian kind, people were more well-versed in the exchange of ideas, almost on an Attic level.

They must have ignored the part about usury. It also has alot to do with Hebrew being numerically based that led to success. They were oftentimes money keepers because noone knew math. It also proves that inbred populations do not always lead to a lack of intelligence.

[Archangel]

Question: How can people believe in god and not Santa Clause?

You never see any proof that either exists, and you see equal proof for them NOT existing. (parents hand out presents, bad things happen to good people)

The only differences are that eventually your parents tell you that Santa doesn't exist, while the only people whose parents tell them god doesn't exist are the children of devout atheists.

Disregard this question, please, on grounds of it being stupid.

If you want a discussion on the existence of God, theodicy, and the merits of atheism, there are two threads on that topic somewhere else in this section, and about a million of them on the old boards.




But I will give you one answer.

Because the world isn't America, and thus can distinguish between a 4,000-year-old metaphysical construct, and a Coca-Cola advertising mascot. When someone of Paul's or Ibn Rushd's calibre starts seriously thinking about Santa Claus, we'll talk again.

[Yelram]

Question: How can people believe in god and not Santa Clause?

You never see any proof that either exists, and you see equal proof for them NOT existing. (parents hand out presents, bad things happen to good people)

The only differences are that eventually your parents tell you that Santa doesn't exist, while the only people whose parents tell them god doesn't exist are the children of devout atheists.

Bad things happening to good people proves theres not a God? Where did you read under this definition of God "Thing that allows good people to have good things all the time"?

[Yelram]

Disregard this question, please, on grounds of it being stupid.

If you want a discussion on the existence of God and the merits of atheism, there are two threads on that topic somewhere else in this section, and about a million of them on the old boards.



But I will give you one answer.

Because the world isn't America, and thus can distinguish between a 4,000-year-old metaphysical construct, and a Coca-Cola advertising mascot. When someone of Paul's or Ibn Rushd's calibre starts seriously thinking about Santa Clause, we'll talk again.
You really need to cut this elitist bullshit, you sound like a fucking NAZI. You really think your population is so much more intelligent than the American population? Are you that full of yourself?

[Morfin]

You really need to cut this elitist bullshit, you sound like a fucking NAZI. You really think your population is so much more intelligent than the American population? Are you that full of yourself?

Then stop constantly providing him with data supporting his proposition.

[Archangel]

You really need to cut this elitist bullshit, you sound like a fucking NAZI. You really think your population is so much more intelligent than the American population? Are you that full of yourself?

Regarding religion, the answer is an unequivocal YES. We have no idiots waving "God hates fags" signs, no redneck preachers talking about bombin' them there ragheads, and no candidates for high political office telling people that Jesus rode a Triceratops to Jerusalem. Also, damn near every preacher here is a graduate student; with some preachers over there, I honestly doubt their literacy.

We're dumb in many other ways, granted; but thank God, the Anglicans and Holy Mother Church kicked most of the religious idiots out in time.

I wonder where they went.

[Pax Britannia]

Question: How can people believe in god and not Santa Clause?

You never see any proof that either exists, and you see equal proof for them NOT existing. (parents hand out presents, bad things happen to good people)

The only differences are that eventually your parents tell you that Santa doesn't exist, while the only people whose parents tell them god doesn't exist are the children of devout atheists.

In the spirit of the impending holiday of Halloween:

All I know is that when there are supernatural forces at work only the word of God and the name of Christ can have any effect.

Whether or not things like hauntings and posessions are caused by the human psyche I cant say for sure. The one thing I can say however is religion does have an effect. Maybe it's just cultural conditioning or something higher....

Santa on the other hand is entirely fictional. We know this because people made him up. Unless someone unearths a 5000 year old copy of the new testament with the preface "dedicated to my darling Katy, all characters and situations are entirely fictional" the element of mystery with the bibile will remain.

[Archangel]

Also, the rest of the world usually jokes about us invading France, not us being unable to find it on a map. It's a generalising stereotype (tautology ftw), sure, but most of those are rooted in some kind of truth.

[Archangel]

Okay, fuck it, discussion can go on; might even be fun with both Yelram and Morfin around.


But if iolas or crack post in here, I'll go shoot Kyle.

[Yelram]

Regarding religion, the answer is an unequivocal YES. We have no idiots waving "God hates fags" signs, no redneck preachers talking about bombin' them there ragheads, and no candidates for high political office telling people that Jesus rode a Triceratops to Jerusalem. Also, damn near every preacher here is a graduate student; with some preachers over there, I honestly doubt their literacy.

We're dumb in many other ways, granted; but thank God, the Anglicans and Holy Mother Church kicked most of the religious idiots out in time.

I wonder where they went.

If you believe those things represent the bulk of America, you assume far too much by watching American media. I'm sorry, we never had textbooks teaching kids that Hitler was the second coming of Christ, or that Jews were an inferior race that killed Jesus, and actually had people believing it to the point of genocide, but go ahead, pay attention to these tiny fringes in our population, and make your broad generalizations of things you know nothing about, it suits your elitism nicely.

Oh wait popluation of Germany -
82,400,996

Population of the US
301,139,947

Yeah, we have a few more people. If you dont stop this crap, i'm going to start a whole thread devoted to stupid German people.

[Archangel]

Yeah, not like I've told you about 50 times that I lived in America, and saw for myself. With you it's always about me watching evil liberal American media - mate, we don't fucking GET NBC Nightly News here.

Oh, and you had plenty of books talking about the inferiority of negroes, whom you murdered - or let rot to death on the slave ships, sorry - in pretty large numbers, so don't you fucking dare lecture me.

[Archangel]

Also, I never said that they represented the majority of America. But even if you had only ONE person waving "God hates fags" signs, ONE redneck preacher talking about Jayzus wantin' God-fearin' people bombin' them there ragheads on Cuber, and ONE VP candidate talking about dinosaurs living in medieval castles (well, I guess there only is one of those, thank Christ), it would be exactly ONE MORE than the entirety of Germany.

[Yelram]

Yeah, not like I've told you about 50 times that I lived in America, and saw for myself. With you it's always about me watching evil liberal American media - mate, we don't fucking GET NBC Nightly News here.

Oh, and you had plenty of books talking about the inferiority of negroes, whom you murdered in pretty large numbers, so don't you fucking dare lecture me.

You living in America means nothing. Media does not mean liberal or conservative, I mean media, they dont go to every normal church on sunday and take video, they go to protests where morons show up with signs. Well lets see how those two differing arguments can be compared.

Compare all of the Jews in the world, and their respective income level, achievements, etc. And compare all of the Africans worldwide, and their income level and achievements. And who has more of an argument? White people werent hanging black people because they had all the money, or because they took their job (a problem that the US has never had with black people). Either way, Germans are not somehow a cut above Americans, they just arent, people are people, you live in a different country, get the fuck over it.

[Pax Britannia]

Yelram has a point on some levels. Before Bush came to power I dont recall seeing one documentary about America's crazy evangelicals. These days on Channel 4 (most left wing network on British TV) you cant go 2 weeks without a new 'documentary' about how Americans are violent religious bigots.

It'll be interesting to see how the liberal media in Britain will try and reverse the damage they've done over the past 8 years once Obama becomes president.

[Archangel]

Me living in America means nothing. Yeah, that makes sense.


And I never said we were better than you, only that our religious folk are less retarded, which is a fucking fact. It's like saying that your basketball players are more athletic. Fucking deal with it.

You are a fanatic, and usually have no argument whatsoever, mainly because you go off at certain key words without bothering to read what your interlocutor actually said.

To Pax: I was very much aware of Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan and the like before the Bush era, and already laughed at them back then.

[Yelram]

Also, I never said that they represented the majority of America. But even if you had only ONE person waving "God hates fags" signs, ONE redneck preacher talking about Jayzus wantin' God-fearin' people bombin' them there ragheads on Cuber, and ONE VP candidate talking about dinosaurs living in medieval castles (well, I guess there only is one of those, thank Christ), it would be exactly ONE MORE than the entirety of Germany.

Thats because they would be arrested. I dont see how you are somehow saying that dinosaurs existing at the same time as humans, is somehow the same as dinosaurs existing at the same time as Jesus.

[Archangel]

But just so you are happy:

American people are the smartest in the world, there is not one idiot, let alone a retarded religious fanatic in the entire United States, and America has never done anything wrong and unjust in her entire history; and if she did, it was always for the right cause. Nice cotton shirts, for example. Compared to America, all countries are shit, populated by smelly illiterates. Which is why every rich person in the world drives an American car and wears an American watch and American suits and dresses.

Go USA, and the rest of us should kill ourselves for sucking so hard.

Since I just recited the extent of your personal philosophy, there's really no need for you to post here anymore.

[Yelram]

Me living in America means nothing. Yeah, that makes sense.


And I never said we were better than you, only that our religious folk are less retarded, which is a fucking fact. It's like saying that your basketball players are more athletic. Fucking deal with it.

You are a fanatic, and usually have no argument whatsoever, mainly because you go off at certain key words without bothering to read what your interlocutor actually said.

To Pax: I was very much aware of Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan and the like before the Bush era, and already laughed at them back then.

I have no argument? My only argument at this point is against your arrogance which makes its own argument. See above ^^

Oh i'm sorry I forgot to be fanatic.

[Pax Britannia]

To Pax: I was very much aware of Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan and the like before the Bush era, and already laughed at them back then.

But like you said: You lived there for years.

I'd only been there a couple of times and was vaguely aware of TV preachers and some nutty creationists. I had no idea of the super churches preaching gays are burning in hell or to vote on abortion rights alone.

I dont pretend to talk for Europe i'm just talking about the British experience. If you asked people pre-Bush to describe an American they probably would have said a fat cowboy. These days they would probably say evanglical bigoted war monger.

[Archangel]

Thats because they would be arrested. I dont see how you are somehow saying that dinosaurs existing at the same time as humans, is somehow the same as dinosaurs existing at the same time as Jesus.

Who would be arrested?


Jesus Christ, tell you what.

If you are representative of the American populace, I'll say that a seven-year-old Turkish immigrant knows more about the rest of the world than the average American.

[Archangel]

I have no argument? My only argument at this point is against your arrogance which makes its own argument. See above ^^

Yeah, I'm the arrogant one here.

But just so you are happy:

American people are the smartest in the world, there is not one idiot, let alone a retarded religious fanatic in the entire United States, and America has never done anything wrong and unjust in her entire history; and if she did, it was always for the right cause. Nice cotton shirts, for example. Compared to America, all countries are shit, populated by smelly illiterates. Which is why every rich person in the world drives an American car and wears an American watch and American suits and dresses.

Go USA, and the rest of us should kill ourselves for sucking so hard.

Since I just recited the extent of your personal philosophy, there's really no need for you to post here anymore.

[Archangel]

His next rant should be priceless. I'm bracing for the spittle already.

[Archangel]

Has anyone noticed that Yelram's responses to any criticism of America are remarkably similar to how Muslims react, on the net at least, when you dare suggest that Islam is anything but flawless? First reaction is always calling you a racist/nazi/fascist, then it's telling you how your people did something far worse, and then it's more ad hominem stuff, and dismissing every argument as invalid. Never once actually respond to what the other has said.

Lulz.

[Pax Britannia]

Has anyone noticed that Yelram's responses to any criticism of America are remarkably similar to how Muslims react when you dare suggest that Islam is anything but flawless?

I'll tell ya when Yelram blows up an embassy.

[Yelram]

Who would be arrested?


Jesus Christ, tell you what.

If you are representative of the American populace, I'll say that a seven-year-old Turkish immigrant knows more about the rest of the world than the average American.

If you cant see your blatant hypocrisy, I dont know what more to say to you.

[Yelram]

Has anyone noticed that Yelram's responses to any criticism of America are remarkably similar to how Muslims react, on the net at least, when you dare suggest that Islam is anything but flawless? First reaction is always calling you a racist/nazi/fascist, then it's telling you how your people did something far worse, and then it's more ad hominem stuff, and dismissing every argument as invalid. Never once actually respond to what the other has said.

Lulz.

Dude, you seriously are an asshole, i'm just letting you know this, maybe when you rant on about how bad America is you hear something different in your head, but it comes off very condescending. You are just a little brat, we have tons of them here. You are spoiled, you dont have to work, and everyone who doesnt have your level of education is automatically "stupid". Its probably why you spend most of your time in "computer land" where people are allowed to be assholes.

[Archangel]

Actually, I spend most of my time out drinking with those other spoilt rich kids, where we laugh about half your country cheering on somebody who couldn't tell Bosnia form Bolivia to be the vice president.


Yelram, the class warrior.

They said that there is a communist in all of us, but damn...

[Yelram]

Actually, I spend most of my time out drinking with those other spoilt rich kids.


Yelram, the class warrior.

They said that there is a communist in all of us, but damn...

No I just think you dont know what the real world is.. PERIOD. I think apart from words on paper, the closest you come to "producing" anything is the spit you jackoff with.

[Archangel]

Best rep comment ever:

http://forum.gorillamask.net/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif PhilOT! (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=171842#post171842) 10-13-2008 11:51 PM The Sink (http://forum.gorillamask.net/member.php?u=986) Jesus Christ on a cracker... you should bill GMF for putting up with that fucking child.

I really need to talk to Rich about this.

[Archangel]

No I just think you dont know what the real world is.. PERIOD. I think apart from words on paper, the closest you come to "producing" anything is the spit you jackoff with.

What, shit in a hole? Till the soil, make bread by the sweat of my brow? Live in a log cabin? Talk about Noah (sorry, not Jesus, that would obviously be ludicrous) going "hi ho raptor!"?

Fuck that shit.

My real world is in the 21st century, I can't help it if yours is in the 18th.

[Yelram]

What, shit in a hole? Till the soil, make bread by the sweat of my brow? Live in a log cabin? Talk about Noah (sorry, not Jesus, that would obviously be ludicrous) going "hi ho raptor!"?

Fuck that shit.

My real world is in the 21st century, I can't help it if yours is in the 18th.

WTF are you even talking about? No I mean like work, I know thats an 18th century concept to rich spoiled brats, but in the 21st century, it kind of pays the bills(those things they send in the mail you have to pay... I mean your daddy has to pay)

[Archangel]

Dude, I don't know how to tell you this, but writing smart stuff actually IS considered working in some parts of the world.

And seeing as how I voluntarily joined the Army at age 18 to get a taste for hard physical work, you are kindly invited to suck my balls.

[Yelram]

Dude, I don't know how to tell you this, but writing smart stuff actually IS considered working in some parts of the world.

And seeing as how I voluntarily joined the Army at age 18 to get a taste for hard physical work, you are kindly invited to suck my balls.

Yeah i'm sure thats exactly how it went.

[Archangel]

Well, actually, you're gonna have to take my word for it. Since I graduated HS abroad, I wasn't even registered for the draft; I wouldn't have had to serve, yet I did.

So once again, fuck you.

[Yelram]

Well, actually, you're gonna have to take my word for it. Since I graduated HS abroad, I wasn't even registered for the draft; I wouldn't have had to serve, yet I did.

So once again, fuck you.

Wait, you didnt go to a superior German highschool, and get a superior German degree?

[Archangel]

No, I went to a German school in Italy, and got some shit grades.

I know, the whole concept of foreign countries is a bit alien to you...

[Yelram]

No, I went to a German school in Italy, and got some shit grades.

I know, the whole concept of foreign countries is a bit alien to you...

Yeah because all the states are the same.... You drive a few hundred miles you are in a different country, I drive a few hundred miles, I went through 4 states, I dont understand your point. I would be better off if I lived in Central America and could go through 3 countries within a few miles?

[Kerjack]

Yelram you are have quite the opposite effect on the the USA's image that I think you intended.

[Pax Britannia]

The new title for this thread is very appropriate.

[Kerjack]

Agreed

[Yelram]

Yelram you are have quite the opposite effect on the the USA's image that I think you intended.
You arent helping my case much either. Arch and I have enough things to disagree about, we dont need your verbs disagreeing with eachother.

[Kerjack]

You arent helping my case much either. Arch and I have enough things to disagree about, we dont need your verbs disagreeing with eachother.

Wut?

[Archangel]

Well, this has been colossal fun, but alas, I have to go to bed.

[Yelram]

Well, this has been colossal fun, but alas, I have to go to bed.

Wait, its not even 7 yet, you go to bed that early (sarcasm)

[Kerjack]

Found this cool procedure that I think Yelram might be interested in. He seems to be the perfect candidate.

Meet Dr. Freeman (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lobotomist/program/index.html)

[Yelram]

Found this cool procedure that I think Yelram might be interested in. He seems to be the perfect candidate.

Meet Dr. Freeman (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lobotomist/program/index.html)

I are have no sure to tell you way you dumb are!!

[Archangel]

Wait, its not even 7 yet, you go to bed that early (sarcasm)

EST? Weird, I'd always figured you for an MST guy, Central at most.

Shows you what I know.

[Yelram]

EST? Weird, I'd always figured you for an MST guy, Central at most.

Shows you what I know.

Within 40 miles of one of the major East coast cities, only 6 hours from NYC.

[Insomniac]

They must have ignored the part about usury. It also has alot to do with Hebrew being numerically based that led to success. They were oftentimes money keepers because noone knew math. It also proves that inbred populations do not always lead to a lack of intelligence.

I wonder about that. Did it actually help them with math, and if so, why were Arabs (or at least Muslims) the ones to really move math foreward into the modern era?

[Yelram]

I wonder about that. Did it actually help them with math, and if so, why were Arabs (or at least Muslims) the ones to really move math foreward into the modern era?
There was never a large "Jewish" empire, so to speak.

[Insomniac]

Yeah, but what's empire got to do with it? Jews made disproportionate advances elsewhere and at later in history. The science of the 19th and 20th centuries is practically owed exclusively to Jews, particularly European ones.

[Yelram]

Yeah, but what's empire got to do with it? Jews made disproportionate advances elsewhere and at later in history. The science of the 19th and 20th centuries is practically owed exclusively to Jews, particularly European ones.

And there are those who argue that we are now within the "jewish" empire, post diaspora..

[Insomniac]

And those people are silly.

[taters]

WHY was I not included in this list? Mother FUCK!

[Limp]

Mods hate N*********

[Insomniac]

Two William Barclay quotes:

There are two great days in a person's life -- the day we are born and the day we discover why.

Now here is a great uplifting truth. What we call temptation is not meant to make us sin; it is meant to enable us to conquer sin. It is not meant to make us bad, it is meant to make us good. It is meant to make us emerge stronger and finer and purer from the ordeal. Temptation is not the penalty of being a man; temptation is the glory of being a man.

[Archangel]

And the implied question would be...?

[Satan]

lolhaha

[Archangel]

Ayn Rand was a fucking idiot, and shouldn't have been allowed an opinion on anything but her wardrobe. Calling her a philosopher is like calling dog food "dinner".

Discuss.

[Archangel]

Okay, for Pharon: Personally, I believe her fame went to her head, and she self-aggrandised herself from a cra... uh, mediocre writer to Nietzsche's second coming.

What I fail to understand is how so many people fell for her rubbi... uh, ideas.

To me, it's the philosophical equivalent (Hesse being the literary) of Madonna's superstardom. I simply don't get it, yet millions of people, some of them apparently quite clever, do; I know for a fact that there are people here who think that that dreadful driv... uh, controversial oeuvre of hers is the bee's knees, so I'd like to be enlightened as to the why.

Better?

[Archangel]

Because, I just read THIS (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1506), and it's not only in total antithesis to her ideas, it's also 10x smarter, more cultured, wiser and just downright better than any of her stuff I'm familiar with (which is admittedly not all that much)...

[Pax Britannia]

It's ok to admit you were scared by Bioshock Arch.

[Archangel]

I tried to read The Fountainhead like 3 years before the release of that game. Some excerpts from Atlas Shrugged, too.

Also, System Shock 2 >>> Bioshock.

[Pax Britannia]

Also, System Shock 2 >>> Bioshock.

Ya sure.

I'll check with you again once you've completed it.

[Archangel]

Beg your pardon?

[Pax Britannia]

Beg your pardon?

Sorry. I was under the impression you were still playing it because I havent met anyone who hasnt finished that game thinking it was one of the best ever made.

To each his own though.

[Archangel]

Bioshock IS brilliant: But I do consider System Shock 2, its template and direct predecessor, to be a better game, and as a matter of fact one of the best in its category ever.

Can we get back to bashing Andrew Rya... uh, Ayn Rand now?

[Pharon]

Okay, for Pharon: Personally, I believe her fame went to her head, and she self-aggrandised herself from a cra... uh, mediocre writer to Nietzsche's second coming.

What I fail to understand is how so many people fell for her rubbi... uh, ideas.

To me, it's the philosophical equivalent (Hesse being the literary) of Madonna's superstardom. I simply don't get it, yet millions of people, some of them apparently quite clever, do; I know for a fact that there are people here who think that that dreadful driv... uh, controversial oeuvre of hers is the bee's knees, so I'd like to be enlightened as to the why.

Better?
Better, perhaps, but still not good.

Here's the thing, Arch. If I came on here and started spouting off about how Plato was a fucking moron -- and then admitted that all I had read of his works was the first 10 pages of Euthyphro -- you would (and rightly so) tear me a new asshole. So why should I even bother to take the time to post anything substantial to your "criticism"?

Here's what she's written -- 5 fiction, 7 non-fiction. If you want to have a serious conversation about her, then take the time to read at least one cover-to-cover (I've read them all):

Fiction:

Night of January 16th (1934)
We the Living (1936)
Anthem (1938)
The Fountainhead (1943)
Atlas Shrugged (1957) ** my favorite **

Nonfiction:

For the New Intellectual (1961)
The Virtue of Selfishness (with Nathaniel Branden) (1964)
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (with Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, and Robert Hessen) (1966)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (1967) ** my favorite **
The Romantic Manifesto (1969)
The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (1971)
Philosophy: Who Needs It (1982)

Until then, it would just be a complete waste of time. Seriously.


Edit: You may also want to consider checking out Nathaniel Branden's works -- he was brilliant, and not only picked up where she left off, but also helped identify some of her faults, which I tend to agree with. After all, she wasn't perfect (no one is, except me of course).

[Claydon]

Ayn Rand was a fucking idiot, and shouldn't have been allowed an opinion on anything but her wardrobe. Calling her a philosopher is like calling dog food "dinner".

Discuss.

Ayn Rand made my life pure fucking hell for 2 months. I've never been so fucking depressed and angry with a class in all my life as I was when I had to read Ayn Rand.

So fuck her

[Pharon]

For those who prefer the Reader's Digest version, here's a great article on the topic by Nathaniel Branden:

The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand (http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html)

[Claydon]

I would rather read Whitman than Rand. yes I know different subjects, but both are exceedingly dull

[Pharon]

I would rather read Whitman than Rand. yes I know different subjects, but both are exceedingly dull
Atlas Shrugged -- and to a lesser extent, The Fountainhead -- were the most captivating books I have ever read. Nothing else has ever come close to influencing the way I think. And most people have very strong reactions to them -- they either hate them (Arch) or love them (me).

If you think they're dull, it's because you lack the intellectual capacity to understand them. That's all.

[Claydon]

Atlas Shrugged -- and to a lesser extent, The Fountainhead -- were the most captivating books I have ever read. Nothing else has ever come close to influencing the way I think. And most people have very strong reactions to them -- they either hate them (Arch) or love them (me).

If you think they're dull, it's because you lack the intellectual capacity to understand them. That's all.

Nice way to be a woman and jump to a conclusion. I just don't care for Rand, that does not mean I lack the intellectual capacity, quite intolerant for an obama supporter.

[Pharon]

Nice way to be a woman and jump to a conclusion. I just don't care for Rand, that does not mean I lack the intellectual capacity, quite intolerant for an obama supporter.
My observation is centered in common sense. There is nothing dull about her ideas. And if you think so, then you don't understand them. Simple concept. Especially considering that her ideas are completely consistent with your political beliefs (and yes, I think I know you well enough to determine that). Just because you had a boring teacher doesn't mean the subject itself is boring.

So for once, maybe you could stop pretending to have an opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about.

I know, wishful thinking on my part. Dare to dream.

[Pax Britannia]

My observation is centered in common sense. There is nothing dull about her ideas. And if you think so, then you don't understand them.

That reminds me of my eternal argument with soccer fans:

Me: "Soccer is boring"
Soccer fan: "Thats because you dont understand the game, let me explain...."
(minutes of rules, leagues and players later)
Me: "Soccer is still boring"

You can fully undertsand something and still think its boring.

[Claydon]

My observation is centered in common sense. There is nothing dull about her ideas. And if you think so, then you don't understand them. Simple concept. Especially considering that her ideas are completely consistent with your political beliefs (and yes, I think I know you well enough to determine that). Just because you had a boring teacher doesn't mean the subject itself is boring.

So for once, maybe you could stop pretending to have an opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about.

I know, wishful thinking on my part. Dare to dream.

Jesus titty fucking christ you are on the rag. I read Ayn Rand, did not care for Ayn Rand. It is not a treatise on my intellect or yours, what it is a fucking opinion that I did not care for her work.

[Archetype]

Okay, for Pharon: Personally, I believe her fame went to her head, and she self-aggrandised herself from a cra... uh, mediocre writer to Nietzsche's second coming.

What I fail to understand is how so many people fell for her rubbi... uh, ideas.

To me, it's the philosophical equivalent (Hesse being the literary) of Madonna's superstardom. I simply don't get it, yet millions of people, some of them apparently quite clever, do; I know for a fact that there are people here who think that that dreadful driv... uh, controversial oeuvre of hers is the bee's knees, so I'd like to be enlightened as to the why.

I haven't read any of her works, so I won't comment on her writing skill, but I think it's the same deal as Dawkins. She happened to be talking about certain issues at the exact right time.

[Pharon]

Here are some cliff notes for anyone who's interested (from the Branden article I just posted):

Objectivism teaches:

1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone’s beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions—that existence exists, that A is A;

2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;

3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;

4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;

5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather “Man’s life,” that which is objectively required for man’s or woman’s life, survival, and well-being;

6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;

7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;

8. That no individual—and no group—has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;

9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;

10. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights.

[Archetype]

That sounds awfully contradictory.

Wait a minute, is Rapist Wit really Ayn Rand??

[Pharon]

She died in 1982, so I'm gonna go with 'no'.

He does seem to be a pretty die-hard fan, though.

[kid_vidrio]

Ayn Rand.
None of her ideas were new, hence I agree with Arch that some of her hero worship is unwarranted.
She had a particular literary style through which she communicated some ideals that many people, particularly the kind of idealist American Arch praised in his little 'America is a concept' riff can relate to (which is also why a pansy like Claydon prolly no likey.)
I mean, I still want to fuck Dagny Taggart and or Dominique Francon. What a threesome!
I think Hank Reardon was cooler than John Galt. Ann kinda lost me when they all flew to Denver. But Wesley Mooch? Fuck that cocksucker, and for that matter, most of Congress today. And not in the way that I want to lay the wood to Dagny.
I think working in a quarry for a while should be mandatory. I think building amazing things as a testament to humankind is where it's at.
I digress.
My point being, she was no philosopher, but she made rugged individualism the domain of anyone who could read. She personalized a certain American ideal in the form of a Harlequin romance which come to think of it was a quite a feat.

[Archetype]

She died in 1982, so I'm gonna go with 'no'.

He does seem to be a pretty die-hard fan, though.
Reincarnation then?

The thing that gets me about the philosophy, well, at least in so far as it's written there, is that 1, 6, and 10 don't really go together all that well. It's like empiricism plus existentialism, saying that there's an objective reality, but it doesn't really matter because you exist for your own sake. 10 is just a little gray, I'd like to hear what's proposed as the individual's rights, plus individualism seems too closely connected with existential ideas.

[taters]

Rand had a near neitzschean sorta ubermensche worship that I didnt care for, but she did present interesting ideas (even if they were stolen). She was like the "Sublime" to Hegel, Neitzsche, and Kroplotkins "peter tosh/the clash/toots and the maytals". Old stuff mixed together in a new way to make it cool.

[Archetype]

http://www.horizonzero.ca

I like that site. Discuss?

[freegood]

My observation is centered in common sense. There is nothing dull about her ideas. And if you think so, then you don't understand them. Simple concept. Especially considering that her ideas are completely consistent with your political beliefs (and yes, I think I know you well enough to determine that). Just because you had a boring teacher doesn't mean the subject itself is boring.

So for once, maybe you could stop pretending to have an opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about.

I know, wishful thinking on my part. Dare to dream.

Have some respect now. Claydon took one class on the subject at Burgerland Community College so that he wouldn't have to be spoken down by you.

[Claydon]

Have some respect now. Claydon took one class on the subject at Burgerland Community College so that he wouldn't have to be spoken down by you.

CSUN actually cock sucker.

[Archangel]

As I said, she reminds me of Hermann Hesse. There was a time when he was worshipped like a god, the fact notwithstanding that he was a very average writer, and despite the fact that there are about 200 German writers who kick his arse all over Mt Helicon (or Parnassus, as the case may be).

And Pharon, I disagree. I mean, I have read a large part of Aristotle's works, and the fact that I disagree with a lot of his ideas doesn't mean that I don't understand them, or that I think that he wasn't very smart: By the same token, Ms Rand appears to have gotten a lot of her ideas from Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche, whom - despite a million differences in our ways of thinking - I utterly admire as a thinker, philologist, and writer, among whom he was a titan.

But, see, I'm just reading the major works of European Humanism and German Idealism, and compared to those notions of community, of love for mankind, her worldviews seem... petty. Small-minded. Limiting to the human spirit. That's why I don't agree with the whole premise to Atlas Shrugged: Most people who actually DID advance society were idealists. Boccaccio did more for the advancement of Western thought than a million Rands could have; confronted with her views, he'd laugh at her.
E pluribus unum is a pretty good motto for a country to have: If Ms Rand had had her way, one should think that it would be "fuck you, I'ma do me".

[Menace2Sobriety]

Because, I just read THIS (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1506), and it's not only in total antithesis to her ideas, it's also 10x smarter, more cultured, wiser and just downright better than any of her stuff I'm familiar with (which is admittedly not all that much)...
Is that a scientific measure?

[Archangel]

No, my personal opinion.


But then again, my hard-on for Thomas Jefferson is well known...




Dear Sir,—The copy of your Second Thoughts on Instinctive Impulses, with the letter accompanying it, was received just as I was setting out on a journey to this place, two or three days' distant from Monticello. I brought it with me and read it with great satisfaction, and with the more as it contained exactly my own creed on the foundation of morality in man. It is really curious that on a question so fundamental, such a variety of opinions should have prevailed among men, and those, too, of the most exemplary virtue and first order of understanding. It shows how necessary was the care of the Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our constitution as that no errors of reasoning or of speculation might lead us astray from its observance in practice. Of all the theories on this question, the most whimsical seems to have been that of Wollaston, who considers truth as the foundation of morality. The thief who steals your guinea does wrong only inasmuch as he acts a lie in using your guinea as if it were his own. Truth is certainly a branch of morality, and a very important one to society. But presented as its foundation, it is as if a tree taken up by the roots, and its stem reversed in the air, and one of its branches planted in the ground. This, too, is but a branch of our moral duties, which are generally divided into duties to God and duties to man. If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to-wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation that the love of God.

The [Arch Edit]To Kalon[Greek for "the beautiful"] of others is founded in a different faculty, that of taste, which is not even a branch of morality. We have that of taste, which is not even a branch of morality. We have indeed an innate sense of what we call beautiful, but that is exercised chiefly on subjects addressed to the fancy, whether exercised chiefly on subjects addressed to the fancy, whether through the eye in visible forms, as landscape, animal figure, dress, drapery, architecture, the composition of colors, &c., or to the imagination directly, as imagery, style, or measure in prose or poetry, or whatever else constitutes the domain of criticism or taste, a faculty entirely distinct from the moral one. Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, with last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed it is exactly its counterpart. It is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others. Accordingly, it is against this enemy that are erected the batteries of moralists and religionists, as the only obstacle to the practice of morality. Take from man his self propensities, and he can have nothing to seduce him from the practice of virtue. Or subdue those propensities by education, instruction, or restraint, and virtue remains without a competitor. Egoism, in a broader sense, has been thus presented as the source of moral action. It has been said that we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, bind up the wounds of the man beaten by thieves, poor oil and wine into them, set him on our own beast and bring him to the inn, because we receive ourselves pleasure from these acts. So Helvetius, one of the best men on earth, and the most ingenious advocate of this principle, after defining �interest� to mean not merely that which is pecuniary, but what ever may procure us pleasure or withdraw us from pain, [de Pesprit 2, I] says, [ib. 2,2] �the humane m an is he to whom the sight of misfortune is insupportable, and who to rescue himself from this spectacle, is forced to succor the unfortunate object. This indeed is true. But it is one step short of the ultimate question. These good acts give us pleasure, but how happens it that they give us pleasure? Because nature hath implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses, and protests against the language of Helvetius [ib. 2, 5,] �what other motive than self-interest could determine a man to generous actions? It is as impossible for him to love what is good for the sake of good, as to love evil for the sake of evil.� The Creator would indeed have been a bungling artist, had he intended man for a social animal, without planting in him social dispositions. It is true they are not planted in every m an, because there is no rule without exceptions; but it is false reasoning which converts exceptions into the general rule. Some men are born without the organs of sight, or of hearing, or without hands. Yet it would be wrong to say that man is born without these faculties, and sight, hearing, and hands may with truth enter into the general definition of man. The want or imperfection of the senses of sight and hearing in others, is no proof that it is a general characteristic of the species. When it is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education, by appeals to reason and calculation, by presenting to the being so unhappily conformed, other motives to do good and to eschew evil, such as the love, or the hatred, or rejection of those among whom he lives, and whose society is necessary to his happiness and even existence; demonstrations by sound calculation that honesty promotes interest in the long run; the rewards and penalties established by the laws; and ultimately the prospects of a future state of retribution for the evil as well as the good done while here. These are the correctives which are supplied by education, and which exercise the functions of the supplied by education, and which exercise the functions of the moralist, the preacher, and legislator; and they lead into a course of correct action all those whose disparity is not too profound to be eradicated. Some have argued against the existence of a moral sense, by saying that if nature had given us such a sense, impelling us to virtuous actions, and warning us against those which are vicious, then nature would also have designated, by some particular ear-marks, the two sets of actions which are, in themselves, the one virtuous and the other vicious. Whereas, we find, in fact, that the same actions are deemed virtuous in one country and vicious in another. The answer is that nature has constituted utility to man the standard and best of virtue. Men living in different countries, under different circumstances, different habits and regimens, may have different utilities; the same act, therefore, may be useful, and consequently virtuous in one country which is injurious and vicious in another differently circumstanced. I sincerely, then, believe with you in the general existence of a moral instinct. I think it is the brightest gem with which the human character is studded, and the want of it as more degrading than the most hideous of the bodily deformities. I am happy in reviewing the roll of associates in this principle which you present in your second letter, some of which I had not before met with. To these might be added Lord Kaims, one of the ablest of our advocates, who goes so far as to say, in his Principles of Natural Religion, that a man owes no duty to which he is not urged by some impulsive feeling. This is correct, if referred to the standard of general feeling in the given case, and not to the feeling of a single individual. Perhaps I may misquote him, it being fifty years since I read his book.

The leisure and solitude of my situation here has led me to the indiscretion of taking you with a long letter on a subject whereon nothing new can be offered you. I will indulge myself no farther than to repeat the assurances of my continued esteem and respect.

And bloody hell, the man spoke some fucking English.

[Menace2Sobriety]

Yah, I read the link

[Archangel]

Just putting it out there for the guys who don't like links.

[Insomniac]

I'm just impressed people used to be able to quote books they read fifty years prior.

[Archangel]

People had better memories in those days. It's said that Giacomo Leopardi could recite The Iliad, The Odyssey, and Dante's Comedy by heart...

[Insomniac]

On Russians:

I think the Russians are the only culture left that understands the human mind, the role of religion, the soul, and human psyche. I was at a east meets west philosophy, theology, and neuroscience conference today and these Russians were spot on. Not to mention Dostievsky being one the fathers of psychology and Solzhenitsyn is just a fucking genius.

So my question, are the Russians really that unique in their world outlook?

[Archangel]

They certainly have a habit of bringing forth some seriously smart people.

Pain births thought. Look at Europe after the Black Death.
And no people have suffered like them.

[Archangel]

But back to Rand, was she just in the right place at the right time? Is that it?

[Pax Britannia]

Heres a better question: If I built a retro 1950's high technology city under the sea would you guys come live there?

[Archangel]

Are there gonna be comely naked ladies?

[Pax Britannia]

Yes. There will be brainwashed lingerie models acting as perfect stepford wives.

[Archangel]

I'm so there.

[Pharon]

But back to Rand, was she just in the right place at the right time? Is that it?
I can't speak well enough to say whether or not she stole all her ideas from Nietzsche, since I haven't read anything by him yet. But I can say this about her -- maybe what she did was take some of the Aristotlean/Nietzschean ideas of the past and articulate them clear enough for the masses, and in fiction -- for better or worse -- and those ideas resonated substantially with 1950s American individualism. Sure, she had the ego the size of Canada, but I don't think her presentation should be harshly judged just because some people thought she was an asshole. That's all.

[Archangel]

You could have just said "yes", you know.

[kid_vidrio]

But back to Rand, was she just in the right place at the right time? Is that it?
Check the popularity of daytime and evening 'dramas' or soaps. People love that shit.
She took egoism and 'rugged individualism' and pitched them against 'the man' in a romance novel.

[Yelram]

People had better memories in those days. It's said that Giacomo Leopardi could recite The Iliad, The Odyssey, and Dante's Comedy by heart...

I dont think its memories, as much as attention spans. I know people who could tell you every line to just about any episode of ATHF, but obviously that doesnt exactly benefit your educational development.

[Pax Britannia]

Arch will love this
JUH1H-b-N5o

[taters]

Were Rand not so loudly anti-communist, she would never have gained her fame. Thats not saying she didnt deserve it, or was a great philosophical writer, but the western media was searching for an anti-communist intellectual, and her writings fit the bill.

This fits more in the game section, but has anyone ever played the game bioshock? It has a shit tone of Rand-ish ideals incorporated into it.

[Archangel]

Have you looked at the thread title, or at the dialogue between Pax and myself?

[Morfin]

I know that I am repeating much of what Pharon has already posted, but my opinons echo those. I read Atlas Shrugged and thought that, aside from writing which is mediocre at best, it was the most-influential book I had ever read -- like a whole new door had been opened. The Fountainhead was close behind, and I believe it is a much better novel than Atlas Shrugged.

Ayn Rand as a deity, this has always rubbed me the wrong way. I am suspect of anyone who creates a cultish following, whether it is Jim Jones, Ayn Rand, Madonna, Jim Morrison, whoever. And that includes anyone who allows such a cult to exist. Rand's cult of Brandon, Greenspan and others scares me just as much as Manson (Charles, not Marilyn), the only difference being that she led her cult toward a philosophy of life and society, and Manson, well, led his elsewhere. I chose to disregard these aspects of her life and career to focus on the actual philosophy.

In regard to her philosophy, I find her philosophy to almost (and I stress almost) duplicate my own. I believe all individuals should be allowed to succeed and flourish and should not "owe" society anything. The concept of John Galt and the successful industrialists being allowed to do what they can, to excell at the competition of the open market of capitalism is absolutely correct. These are the people who change the world, who force the world to advance, and, more importantly, employ the masses and create the ancillary (or tickle-down) wealth and spending. Without people like Henry Ford, Gates, etc. society would not be where it is today.

I will add to this when I am more informed.

[taters]

Apparently someone has noticed the Rand in bioshock

[Menace2Sobriety]

Wow, this guy is insightful.

[Archangel]

Simple question.

Hitler murdered a shitload of people, tried to take over Europe, succeeded for the most part, bringing war and suffering to the entire continent, finally got his arse kicked in Russia, and died in infamy.

And he is rightfully reviled as one of the greatest monsters mankind has ever produced.


Napoleon and his predecessors invented scheduled mass executions and murdered a shitload of people; then he tried to take over Europe, succeeded for the most part, bringing war and suffering to the entire continent, finally got his arse kicked in Russia, and died in exile.

And the French celebrate him to this day as their greatest leader.


Why the fuck are they allowed to?

[Phil Theehor]

The "allowed to" part of that question disturbs me, Arch. A sovereign nation can celebrate whatever is pleases.

Now, given the paralells you draw, the question of "why does the rest of world not revile Napoleon and shame France away from celebrating him?" is legit.

[Archangel]

No, it's a legitimate question. After Germany's total defeat, the "victors" (namely the 3 countries who actually fought, and France) took over and told us that we were the scum of the earth, and that anything regarding Hitler had to be stamped out, and with good reason. France, having been absolutely instrumental in beating Germany, suggested turning Germany into a totally agrarian 3rd world country.

In the end, the right choices were made, but they were made by the victors. Not by us, because we were not a sovereign nation until 1948. By the way, the Allies didn't do the same - for whatever reason - in Austria, with the consequences still visible to this day.


At Vienna, after France's total defeat, the victorious powers (none of whom had been hiding under others' skirts going "hit him!" like France did in WWII) could have done the very same thing with France at their mercy, but didn't. They were allowed to continue worshipping that murderous war-mongering bastard. We were de-nazified; they weren't de-napoleonified. Hell, his nephew was allowed to try and crown himself "emperor" (and start another war) again.

[Pax Britannia]

Napoleon never committed mass genocide on a scale not seen before in human history. I've always said that if the Nazi's hadnt had their genocidal streek Hitler would be remembered as a German Napoleon.

[Archangel]

I'm pretty sure that in the early 19th century, the atrocities committed by the French Revolution were among the worst instances of mass murder and terror the world had ever seen. Sure, their crimes are peanuts when compared to the nazis', but back then, when you thought "genocidal horrors", you thought "French Revolution". Just like Zyklon B, the Guillotine was invented and used to kill as many people as possible, as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

Oh, while we're at it, why do the French celebrate the day that made it possible for a murderous fucking nutjob like Robespierre to take over as if it had been the most joyous occasion ever?

[Pax Britannia]

I'm pretty sure that in the early 19th century, the atrocities committed by the French Revolution were among the worst instances of mass murder and terror the world had ever seen. Sure, their crimes are peanuts when compared to the nazis'

I think you just made my point and found your answer. No atrocities in mankind can match what Hitler unleashed upon the world save for maybe Stalin and Mao. Except they won their wars and victors write the history.

[Phil Theehor]

No, it's a legitimate question. After Germany's total defeat, the "victors" (namely the 3 countries who actually fought, and France) took over and told us that we were the scum of the earth, and that anything regarding Hitler had to be stamped out, and with good reason. France, having been absolutely instrumental in beating Germany, suggested turning Germany into a totally agrarian 3rd world country.

In the end, the right choices were made, but they were made by the victors. Not by us, because we were not a sovereign nation until 1948. By the way, the Allies didn't do the same - for whatever reason - in Austria, with the consequences still visible to this day.


At Vienna, after France's total defeat, the victorious powers (none of whom had been hiding under others' skirts going "hit him!" like France did in WWII) could have done the very same thing with France at their mercy, but didn't. They were allowed to continue worshipping that murderous war-mongering bastard. We were de-nazified; they weren't de-napoleonified. Hell, his nephew was allowed to try and crown himself "emperor" (and start another war) again.


Okay, I see it. Interesting question.

The difference lies in the eras in which the wars were fought.

Before WWI, war was not reviled (by governments, at least) the way it was later. Frankly, it was seen as just an agressive form of statecraft. (In the case of you folks and the French, Alsace-Lorraine was usually the prize).

In his era, a funny little man in long blue coat trying to take over the civilized world would be seen as an annoyance, yes, but not the anti-christ. His offenses warranted a slap on the wrist for France in that time period.

Fast forward to the Total War of the 20th century and the devastation it brought, attitudes towards wars of agression had changed (especially about euros fighting euros). The Allies take advantage of their total victory to try to remove the threat of a European war ever taking place again-- hence the total de-Nazification.

[Archangel]

I think you just made my point and found your answer. No atrocities in mankind can match what Hitler unleashed upon the world save for maybe Stalin and Mao. Except they won their wars and victors write the history.

Yeah, but in 1815, nobody knew what Hitler would have done 125 years hence. Back then, that was the most horrible example of mass murder people had witnessed or heard about.

[Phil Theehor]

Yeah, but in 1815, nobody knew what Hitler would have done 125 years hence. Back then, that was the most horrible example of mass murder people had witnesses.

Pax is probably nervous that a Robespierre conversation will lead to a Cromwell discussion. Cromwell was one of the worst guys in history.

[Pax Britannia]

Yeah, but in 1815, nobody knew what Hitler would have done 125 years hence. Back then, that was the most horrible example of mass murder people had witnesses.

The reason Hitlers crimes still resonate with people today is they were conducted in what we can relate to as the modern world. The 30's and 40's were a long time ago but the governments and the warfare we can still relate to. So it's even more awful to us that a man rose up through a western democracy and started a policy of racial discrimination and genocide almost unchallenged for years. Hitler and the Nazi's were worse than the French Revolution and Napoleon, thats my opinion but I dont think i'm alone in thinking that.

What the Germans did was bring human suffering to an industrial scale. We had never seen before such a slaughter of humanity. Thats why he's remembered for the monster he is and Napoleon is remembered as a French Caesar.

Maybe one day if a totalitarian regime comes to power and causes an even greater amount of slaughter Hitler will lose a bit of his demon status but until then he will remain the wests bogeyman.

[Archangel]

You don't get it, and keep judging from our perspective; I'm trying to figure out what they were thinking in 1815.
We today know that Hitler was far worse than the French Revolution, But Castlereagh, Metternich and Hardenberg didn't. TO THEM, the horrors of the 1790s were the worst example of genocidal atrocity around. TO THEM, the Guillotine was as the gas chambers were to the witnesses at Nuremberg.

And yet, they let the French go on celebrating those very same atrocities.

[Pax Britannia]

You don't get it, and keep judging from our perspective; I'm trying to figure out what they were thinking in 1815.
We today know that Hitler was far worse than the French Revolution, But Castlereagh, Metternich and Hardenberg didn't. TO THEM, the horrors of the 1790s were the worst example of genocidal atrocity around. TO THEM, the Guillotine was as the gas chambers were to the witnesses at Nuremberg.

And yet, they let the French go on celebrating those very same atrocities.

Oh I see. I thought you were complaining that the French get to worship Napoleon and you guys have to revile Hitler.

Well people at the time were pretty disgusted by the French Revolution and the slaughter that ensued. It even turned off some revolutionaries in Britain. As for the Napoleonic Wars I agree with what Phil said, it was just a war. It was the biggest most destructive war of the time but Napoleon never tried to annhilate any race.

[Phil Theehor]

Nah, Arch. I think to the victors, Madame Guillotine was just an expedient way for the French to settle internal disputes and dispose of political dissidents.

I can't speak for the rest of the countries, but the British did have their own recent experience with a beheading-happy-post-revolution-political-power-consolidator. In the context of the era, I don't think that Napoleonic France looked all that monstrous to them.

[freegood]

You don't get it, and keep judging from our perspective; I'm trying to figure out what they were thinking in 1815.
We today know that Hitler was far worse than the French Revolution, But Castlereagh, Metternich and Hardenberg didn't. TO THEM, the horrors of the 1790s were the worst example of genocidal atrocity around. TO THEM, the Guillotine was as the gas chambers were to the witnesses at Nuremberg.

And yet, they let the French go on celebrating those very same atrocities.

Yeah, but they were stuffy aristocrats who felt the French rabble were willing to destroy the Divine order by executing anyone who resembled like the establishment. To top it off, the French were proclaiming that they were going to export their ideology wholesale.

The French Revolution should be stained for a different crime: the birthplace of modern terrorism.

[Insomniac]

The French Revolution gets judged much in the same way Nat Turner's slave rebellion does. Nothing justifies butchering, outright butchering, men, women, and children because they're white. But, these were slaves, so even though we say it doesn't justify their behavior, we act as though it does. In the same way, we all have a soft spot for French peasants, even though we know it was people much better off than them directing the atrocities.

Even so, the existing order did regard the French Revolution as the worst thing to ever happen. They killed the king! But Napoleon was a sort of king, wasn't he? An emperor anyway. So he was the enemy, but not despised in the same way the revolutionaries were because in some ways, he represented the old order.

And then there are two very important things about that situation. First, records. Written words are important, and helped us keep track of how many the Nazis killed after the fact, but there aren't photos of the French Revolution, or movie reels showing all the people Napoleon slaughtered. Anything that happened away from France, the French didn't really find out about or have to think about, so it receded from memory.

Second, there was no way France could be ruled as totally by the victors as the Allies could and did the Germans. So we could tell you you'd been bad, and if you didn't believe us, we could show you pictures of what Hitler done, and if you didn't believe that, you could talk to your parents who had seen the camps with their own eyes and who had come back to a country almost completely and utterly destroyed by one man's ambitions.

Also, Napoleon was nice to the Jews, and that counts for a lot.

Personally, I'd be more ticked off by the Belgians and King Leopold.

[Morfin]

I think the difference stems (at least in part) from the technology of the age. With WWII, there are photos and videos of the genocide -- the pictures made it real. The mass communication brought it home to everyone because of the prevalence of mass communication and because a very high percentage of people could read it, see it on TV, or hear it on radio.

In the early-19th Century, there was none of that. Yes, there were newspapers, but because much of the population did not live in urban centers, the proliferation of information was sporadic, and many people could not read. Plus, life was much more parochial -- people cared little for what was going on in areas that did not directly affect them.

One needs to only look at the fact that Stalin was responsible for many more deaths -- of his own countrymen even -- than the Holocaust. Yet, due to the closed-off nature of Russia, this fact was not generally known at the time and, I am willing to bet, a comparatively-small number of people realize it or were taught this in school.

Finally, the genocidal nature of Hitler's actions cannot be understated. The fact that he tried to take over Europe is not the reason he is demonized. Hell, others tried it, even in WWI and no one comes close to Hitler's infamy. It is the intent to exterminate a race of people, along with how ... (I don't want to use the word "successful"), far he got with his plan that is the reason for the infamy.

[freegood]

I'm sure we have a healthy distaste for stalin in the US of A.

[Insomniac]

Is there more or less intimacy in today's society, and is intimacy possible between strangers?

[Archangel]

Isn't an intimate stranger sort of, dunno, oxymoronic?


And personally, I think it's stayed about the same.

[Insomniac]

I've run into some old buildings where the bathrooms are apparently unchanged from when they were installed. The pissing troughs aren't that odd, but the toilets without stalls or dividers, that's kind of odd. And yet people used to shit in front of one another without much or any embarrassment. In the army, I think it's still that way. It isn't shameful, it's accepted.

Then you think about families that used to live in one room together. It wasn't just nakedness that was common, parents would have sex in front of their children. It wasn't for them, but do that today and it's child abuse, right?

I'm not saying the past was better because people had to shit in front of one another, but the fact that we can afford to live so privately today makes me wonder if we aren't missing something from the forced closeness of before.

[Archetype]

I'd say there's greater distance between people, and it's easier to keep that distance. Take for instance the Post Office back home, those ladies were ridiculously nice and friendly. Basically, just average older ladies who grew up in the area, knew everyone. Go to the nearby city, them ladies were just cold. They had to deal with more people every day, always new people, maybe a couple regulars.

The sense of community is straining as populations grow, but then again, new communities then form within those communities. But I think it's still slowly declining, I'm in the elevator everyday now, and sometimes people will start up conversations, but usually I have to be the instigator, or stand there in awkward silence. Same goes with laundry, watching TV in the lounge, etc. Hell, the only time I even hear anything like music or people in the hall, they're drunk. Or there's the old subway example, where most people just put on headphones. I remember one of my profs talking about these two asian, or european girls sitting back to back, typing to each other, because they found that an easier way to talk.

There is an odd sense of overt divide I think.

[Phil Theehor]

Is there more or less intimacy in today's society, and is intimacy possible between strangers?

What's funny is that the very medium through which we communicate has, I think, made partial intimacy among strangers possible.

I'll skip the whole thesis (I am sure you have all read it) about how we, in this age, work diligently to ignore the immediate world and the thrush of strangers we encounter daily, only to jump on to sites like this and share very personal information.

I can testify to that. The anonymity of this place (not so much to each other, but to the real world) allows for honesty that we don't often use in real life. I do not know if I am alone in this, but I divulge things here that I would not IRL.

[Insomniac]

Archetype had a really good post (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=253455&postcount=28) in the ideal religion topic quoting Tolstoy. tl;dr, people naturally have selfish love, so when you attach this to something larger they identify with themselves, like family, tribe, race, nation, probably class and sports teams as well, it works. But to have that love, you really need something else to hate.

That last bit is my addendum, I don't think Tolstoy said that, at least not in there. My question, then, is do you think people could embrace humanity as a whole if there was some other for us to hate? Temporarily, it's very easy for us to do this when there's some impending natural disaster or disease or somesuch. But for a more permanent basis, do you think that if we had aliens or in any case some other form of beings that posed a real threat to us as a whole, do you think we could embrace humanity, call it us, and live in peace with our malice directed elsewhere?

[Archangel]

Short answer: Yes. Conservatives and liberals, blacks and whites, rich and poor, smart and dumb, old and young, male and female, Mac users and PC users, they are all united as Yankee fans when the Red Sox are in town.

If you declare something to be one huge irreconcilable difference, then that is what defines the people on either side of that gap: The fact that you are not them. The one big difference makes the differences within the respective groups look small.

I'm pretty sure that the civil rights movement happening in the middle of the Cold War was anything but a coincidence; in the same manner, neither is the whole red state/blue state divisiveness happening after it ended.


If mankind had a common outside enemy towards whom to focus its search for differences, it would be the most united since the day the second man was born.

[Morfin]

I'd say there's greater distance between people, and it's easier to keep that distance. Take for instance the Post Office back home, those ladies were ridiculously nice and friendly. Basically, just average older ladies who grew up in the area, knew everyone. Go to the nearby city, them ladies were just cold. They had to deal with more people every day, always new people, maybe a couple regulars.

The sense of community is straining as populations grow, but then again, new communities then form within those communities.
There is an odd sense of overt divide I think.

Short answer: Yes. Conservatives and liberals, blacks and whites, rich and poor, smart and dumb, old and young, male and female, Mac users and PC users, they are all united as Yankee fans when the Red Sox are in town.

This question occurred to me while reading these posts, though I don't know if it is related or not:

I think it is fair to say that European soccer fans are as rabid as American football fans (especially college). Each group lives and dies for their teams. Yet, while Europe (and largely England) has a problem with hooligans, we in the States have virtually none of this. I can't think of the last time that a group of opposing fans had a melee. Why is this?

One thought of mine is the distance factor. In England, you have all of these rabid fans and it is no big deal (especially around London) to hop on a train and go to the opposing team's stadium to attend the game; in the U.S., many times distance prohibits this, at least in terms of the NFL. In terms of college football, the games are usually within a few hours' drive. Yet, there is no fighting. There is no hooligan class. Generalizing, I think Americans are able to understand that, deep down, it is just a game, whereas that same realization does not seem to fit with the hooligan class of "fan" in Europe.

Thoughts?

[Archangel]

You partly answered the question yourself. Football over here was born as a working class sport - a sport for the rabble while the posh people were enjoying, say, rugby, tennis or cricket - whereas football over there became popular on universities. And while the average US college student today might not be the most civilised creature in the world (<3), maybe things were different back then. So here, there was a tradition of football fans being dock workers and the like, drinking beer and looking for a fight, whereas in America, it at least started off as a sport for people who were supposed to know better, and was thus never marred with the tradition of violence.

But on the flip side, your sports songs, such as there are, for the most part suck arse.

City or neighbourhood rivalries obviously play a big role, too. I mean, rivalries such as Chicago-Detroit or New York-Boston really don't count here: Here, the rival club usually is 20 minutes away, not 200 miles. I mean, how many fans does the away team have at any given American sports game? Hell, half the Bundesliga comes from within 70 miles of Cologne - Cologne, Gladbach, Leverkusen, Dortmund, Schalke, Bochum... Basically, every other match here is Carolina v Duke.

[Archangel]

Look at NASCAR or wrestling fans in America, and tell me that there are no fistfights and the like among them.

[Pax Britannia]

One thing I always find amusing as a Welshman is how many of my compatriots will actively root against England in international football championships yet spend hundreds of pounds a year to go and see their favourite English premiership clubs play.

It boggles the mind.

[Morfin]

Look at NASCAR or wrestling fans in America, and tell me that there are no fistfights and the like among them.

Fair point about NASCAR, and the allegiances to driver and manufacturer run rather deep to some of those people. Still the organized "fan clubs" don't exist here.

As for the songs, that is a valid point as we American fans do not, in any sport, sing songs about the opposition or opposing players. The closest we get are the college basketball fans and their cheers, but they are one-liners, not songs.

I will say that, having attended a Big Ten school, each school has bastardized versions of the other schools' songs. For instance, "Hail to those old cocksuckers; Hail to those motherfuckers; Hail; Hail to Michigan, the cesspool of the land." But no one signs the at the games -- we, strangely enough, sit and watch and cheer.

Not exactly Philo, more like sociology or anthropology.

[IdiotBrain]

I've never heard of NASCAR fans or wrestling fans fighting over it....

Although last year when the Lakers won the NBA championship I was in my local bar and there was someone from California talking shit and being obnoxious to some guy, getting up in his face and all that shmuckery. Without warning a friend of the guy who had the tard Californian in his face delivered the most impressive open-handed slap I believe I've ever seen. The californian went down and started crying like a bitch. It was quite amusing.

[Archangel]

Look at NASCAR or wrestling fans in America, and tell me that there are no fistfights and the like among them.

Fair point about NASCAR, and the allegiances to driver and manufacturer run rather deep to some of those people. Still the organized "fan clubs" don't exist here.

As for the songs, that is a valid point as we American fans do not, in any sport, sing songs about the opposition or opposing players. The closest we get are the college basketball fans and their cheers, but they are one-liners, not songs.

I will say that, having attended a Big Ten school, each school has bastardized versions of the other schools' songs. For instance, "Hail to those old cocksuckers; Hail to those motherfuckers; Hail; Hail to Michigan, the cesspool of the land." But no one signs the at the games -- we, strangely enough, sit and watch and cheer.

Not exactly Philo, more like sociology or anthropology.

Dunno, at a given 1. FC Köln match, you'll hear at least 5 different fan songs...

And beautiful ones about the competition:

"Ihr steht auf Schwänze
Und nicht auf Busen:
Ihr seid die Fans von Bayer Leverkusen
(you guys love cock instead of tits: You must be Leverkusen fans)"

It's the same in Italy and Britain...

[Archangel]

R5QFghpqSPo

And yes, I know it's a bastardised Scottish song.

[Pax Britannia]

Rugby chants tend to be a bit more biblical:

England - Swing low sweet chariot.
Wales - Bread of Heaven.

[Morfin]

R5QFghpqSPo

And yes, I know it's a bastardised Scottish song.

Two things: 1) that is so cool; I wish our fans did that. I could really see Oakland Raiders fans getting into something like that.

2) The fans are better singers than clappers.

[Insomniac]

City or neighbourhood rivalries obviously play a big role, too. I mean, rivalries such as Chicago-Detroit or New York-Boston really don't count here: Here, the rival club usually is 20 minutes away, not 200 miles. I mean, how many fans does the away team have at any given American sports game? Hell, half the Bundesliga comes from within 70 miles of Cologne - Cologne, Gladbach, Leverkusen, Dortmund, Schalke, Bochum... Basically, every other match here is Carolina v Duke.

What you're saying about the proximity in sports, I don't know if it holds up. People get really, really serious about high school football in West Texas, and the only people who fight are the high school students in the parking lots of restaurants after the game.

It's just that for adults, even drunken adults, fights don't happen over sports teams.

[Insomniac]

What's fundamental to communicating well? Some people can't explain themselves to anyone, while others seem to be able tell people things they never realized they already knew, and do so across time, cultures, and languages.

How to you speak in universals, or at least what makes a statement universal?

[Archangel]

On the previous topic:

Proximity is in as much a factor as one team might be from a working-class area of a city, while the other side may be from a more well-to-do neighbourhood. That breeds rivalry. Also, two major cities within 20 miles of each other will be rivals no matter what.

Also, one factor might be the exclusivity that football enjoys here. Most American sports fans root for several teams in several sports, often with the same passion: Here, football reigns pretty much supreme. Our equivalents of Sportscenter are 40 minutes football, 5 minutes all other sports. You will hardly ever see a topic other than football on the front pages of La Gazzetta dello Sport, L'Equipe or Sport Bild. Maybe Formula 1, but never Euroleague basketball or some such.

Imagine if all you had was Major League Baseball. I'm pretty sure fans would be a bit more rabid, as well.

[IdiotBrain]

Diversify, bitches.

I am jealous of your coverage of Rally racing, though. We're severely lacking in that dept. in the US.

[Archangel]

Hey, I watch Bundesliga, Serie A, Champions League, UEFA Cup, international football, F1, some DTM and WRC, a shitload of NBA and the occasional Broncos game (time zones are killing me there).

I'm diversified to Hell and back.

[Claydon]

Hey, I watch Bundesliga, Serie A, Champions League, UEFA Cup, international football, F1, some DTM and WRC, a shitload of NBA and the occasional Broncos game (time zones are killing me there).

I'm diversified to Hell and back.

you can't just record the games?

[IdiotBrain]

I wish they would bring back Group B Rally.
Shit was awesome.
Evidence:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYhiJeRPgdw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYhiJeRPgdw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Archangel]

What's fundamental to communicating well? Some people can't explain themselves to anyone, while others seem to be able tell people things they never realized they already knew, and do so across time, cultures, and languages.

How to you speak in universals, or at least what makes a statement universal?

If, as Plato says, the visible world consists of manifestations of underlying universal ideas (something that makes sense to me), then those most successful at communicating would be those who transmit to their interlocutors not just observations of the symptoms, but glimpses of those very ideas, as found in the deepest reaches of their selves.

It's the difference between pretty words and poetry.

[Archangel]

you can't just record the games?

Hard to record something your TV stations don't show.

With the NBA, I subscribe to League Pass Broadband International, so I can watch every game live and for 24 hours after it's finished, which is pretty cool.

[Claydon]

you can't just record the games?

Hard to record something your TV stations don't show.

With the NBA, I subscribe to League Pass Broadband International, so I can watch every game live and for 24 hours after it's finished, which is pretty cool.

kind of a slick deal. although as you well know watching a game live is always better than a recorded game. I work fri - sun when the majority of the golf matches occur. I record them but its just not as fun as watching it live. (yah yah I know, golf sucks and im a faggot, i get it...)

[Archangel]

It's a beautiful thing.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2vbps8i.jpg

[Mustard]

Ew. Vista?

[Archangel]

Yeah, and?

[Mustard]

I'd rather have XP.

[Insomniac]

If, as Plato says, the visible world consists of manifestations of underlying universal ideas (something that makes sense to me), then those most successful at communicating would be those who transmit to their interlocutors not just observations of the symptoms, but glimpses of those very ideas, as found in the deepest reaches of their selves.

It's the difference between pretty words and poetry.

If we could speak in triangles, we wouldn't need the Pythagorean theorem. But is the theorem the approximation of the ideal or the only way our minds can create a true ideal?

[Archangel]

My brain just exploded.

[Archetype]

If we could speak in triangles, we wouldn't need the Pythagorean theorem. But is the theorem the approximation of the ideal or the only way our minds can create a true ideal?
I'd say it's more of an only way our minds can approximate the ideal.

[Mustard]

I can attest that I have never once every even thought about speaking in triangles.

Well played Insomniac. Very well played.

[Archetype]

I spoke in tongues once. Delicious, sauteed tongues.

[Mustard]

I spoke in tongues once. Delicious, sauteed tongues.
I have been in the presence of Holy Rollers speaking in tongues. It was frightening and yet strangely funny all at once.

[IdiotBrain]

Absolutely downright hysterical if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong, I grew up a christian, but... the whole "I YELL GIBBERISH SO TEH DEVIL DON'T KNOW!" concept is a little bit fucking mutarded.

[Archetype]

Holy Rollers? Like Priests on Wheels?

[Archangel]

We only think in approximations; that is why we are unable to comprehend something entirely new, something that defies categorisation via a trope.

It's funny that - Wittgenstein, was it? - said that the mind can only comprehend through metaphor or metonymy, when almost 2000 years before, some 30-year-old Jew used the simplest allegories in the world to explain the most complex concepts in metaphysics, the essentially unexplainable.

I'm certain that at the Linguistic Turn, Jesus was looking down, going, "duh".

[Mustard]

Holy Rollers? Like Priests on Wheels?
No, like people who are so overcome with the spirit of the Lord they flop on the ground like fish on a boat and spout unintelligible bullshit like a bunch of retards off their meds.

What kind of a God does that to his people? I mean fuck Enlightenment, I'm gonna flop on the ground like a seizure victim and make an ass of myself...

[Archangel]

On the topic of glossolalia, I suggest you all go and read THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash), because it's fucking awesome.

[IdiotBrain]

A holy ass.

Get it?

[Archetype]

No, like people who are so overcome with the spirit of the Lord they flop on the ground like fish on a boat and spout unintelligible bullshit like a bunch of retards off their meds.

What kind of a God does that to his people? I mean fuck Enlightenment, I'm gonna flop on the ground like a seizure victim and make an ass of myself...
Well, when you put it that way...


BTW, the Romantic period >>> the Enlightenment period.

[Mustard]

A holy ass.

Get it?
Now this is a holy ass...

http://i36.tinypic.com/2q1uuww.jpg

[Archangel]

Enlightenment is pretty much the worst thing that happened to mankind, ever.

[Morfin]

I thought that was the Internet. Sort of like giving handguns to toddlers.

[Archangel]

Stickied.

[Pox]

I'm having this argument with a friend... is the point of war to benefit economically, or to better position oneself for future wars?

Or is there no point in parsing the two?

[freegood]

If we could speak in triangles, we wouldn't need the Pythagorean theorem. But is the theorem the approximation of the ideal or the only way our minds can create a true ideal?

I don't know but the Golden ratio would be a surefire way to get laid.

[Archangel]

Would I be wrong in pinpointing the general inability of people today to go beyond the literal meaning of a text as the main reason that the discussions on religion - especially in America - are held at what's basically a 4th grade level?

[Archetype]

I don't think it's just America. Take the Irish, for instance.

[Insomniac]

Would I be wrong in pinpointing the general inability of people today to go beyond the literal meaning of a text as the main reason that the discussions on religion - especially in America - are held at what's basically a 4th grade level?

I think in general, people are only willing to say something isn't literal once it's been shown false. Now from what I understand, the Jews were never really sticklers about the historicity of talking snakes and prophet-eating fish, but they very definitely believed in a literal Messiah that would save them from Rome and establish a Kingdom of Heaven on earth. When this didn't come to pass, the Christians explained this was not a kingdom of the literal, physical sense, and Jesus brought it. The entirety of the Old Testament was reinterpreted to shew this hidden truth.

No doubt, many early Christians took the statement that some among them would be alive to witness the Second Coming to be very literal and straightforward. Christ was coming back very soon. Two thousand years later, obviously there was some deeper, hidden meaning.

I expect that if the historicity of Christ were ever definitely disproven, Christianity would survive with Jesus as an allegorical figure representing love, forgiveness, etc.

I'm not saying the allegorical component is nonexistent, but people only seem to try looking for them once their initial assumptions of straightforwardness no longer seem valid.

[Phil Theehor]

Would I be wrong in pinpointing the general inability of people today to go beyond the literal meaning of a text as the main reason that the discussions on religion - especially in America - are held at what's basically a 4th grade level?

I've said this before, but it bears mentioning again, Arch. That's an awfully broad generalization. Great swaths of the USA are not dominated by mega-churches and evolution-deniers. Because those cave-dwellers are the loudest, it may give off the impression that Americans view religion that way. Talk to anyone with a Jesuit education and you will see differently.

[Morfin]

I think you have to look at what the people are being taught. If they are taught that there is something beyond the literal text, then they will understand that. But to the extent that the people are taught all their lives, and by the ministers whom they respect, that the Bible is literal, that the World was created in 7 24-hour days, blah, blah, blah, what do you expect them to believe?

Take it out of the religious context and look at racism. If white kids grow up with their parents constantly telling them that blacks are sub-human, or black kids grow up with their parents constantly saying that the Man is trying to keep them down and that all Whites hate Blacks, then, a lot of those kids are going to grow up with that mindset -- yes, some will realize it's wrong, but many will not. Whose "fault" is that?

I share your disbelief at how many Americans really believe the crap that most recently came to light with the Sarah Palin nomination -- it is terrifyingly mind-boggling. But note how, at least in the last election, those people were viewed largely as nuts. In time (and I am speaking decades, probably) their numbers will dwindle until they will represent a very small, politically-impotent group.

[Phil Theehor]

I would like to agree with you, Morfin, but I'm not sure I do. I think that the numbers of those about whom you speak are growing. Maybe it's broader reporting today, but I don't remember this faction being as large (and loud) as it is growing up.

I find it baffling, truth be told. It seems that a large part of our country is going backwards while the rest of the country develops.

[Archangel]

I've said this before, but it bears mentioning again, Arch. That's an awfully broad generalization. Great swaths of the USA are not dominated by mega-churches and evolution-deniers. Because those cave-dwellers are the loudest, it may give off the impression that Americans view religion that way. Talk to anyone with a Jesuit education and you will see differently.

I never said all American Christians were like that, and I am aware that places like Boston College are home to the best theological faculties in the world. I am Jesuit educated myself, btw...

But theology hardly even figures in the religion discussion in America; the religious folk bring forth idiocy like creationism, while the atheists criticise the literal meaning of biblical passages without a single thought to allegoresis or epistemology. Which, in light of the fact that the Bible is made up mostly of allegories, is like judging Hesiod based on God of War.
The problem is that the idiots are the loudest. People who have problems decyphering a phone book have no business discussing what is one of the most complex and intelligent books in human history; we don't let illiterates analyse and define Kafka or Chaucer, so why are we letting people who can't spell exegesis take over Bible discussions?