In Praise of Tattoos

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Dachshund
Posts: 444
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Dachshund » June 30th, 2018, 5:40 am

Ouch!! Those "exocets to the heart", Hobbes !!

I knew that you wouldn't be able to handle the truth - its far too harsh and real for a faint-hearted ninny like yourself. Tell you what to do TH...go take a white "Valium", sit down with a cup of Chamomile tea and read some Marcuse; then you can forget all about the nasty Dachshund and his nasty truth, and drift off man, back to 1969 and the "Summer of Love" !

Dachshund
Posts: 444
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Dachshund » June 30th, 2018, 8:43 am

Plato and Aristotle were not Nazis, BTW, Hobbes. Ironically, German National Socialism was a by-product of the Enlightenment, and guess who was one of the foremost of the Enlightenment's founding fathers? Yes, that's right, the original Thomas Hobbes. The way it worked was that four major fools with overblown egos, namely: Hobbes, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza and Rene Descartes together succeeded in launching the Age of Reason in the 17th century, basically by declaring that everything from the past was now to be regarded as worthless rubbish and dumped into the trash can of history. This included the entire intellectual legacy of classical Athenian antiquity and, all of Western civilization's Judeo-Christian cultural traditions to date. Everything had to go to make way for their brilliant, new, progressive ideas that would, they believed liberate humanity from ignorance and superstition and light the way for man in his quest for ultimate Truth.

What actually happened, however, is that things didn't go quite the way they were planned and it wasn't long before the Enlightenment got out of hand and triggered French Revolution ( you know, "The Reign of Terror" and all bloody chaos it caused in Europe), but then things got even worse when the Enlightenment reasoning of the 18th century naturally morphed into a soulless, objective scientific rationality in the 19th century that spawned the Industrial revolution in England; suddenly, lots of "dark, Satanic, mills" started popping up all over the place - swallowing up poor people and converting them into sweat-shop slaves, but the worst was yet to come, because in the in the 20th century the original Enlightenment project begun by of Hobbes and Co shape-shifted yet again. This time it evolved into a kind of inherently megalomaniacal atheistic humanism that gave rise to evil totalitarian political ideologies like Bolshevism and, of course, Adolph Hitler's charming brand of National Socialism that wasted little time in declaring a war on the free world that ultimatelyresulted in the death of somewhere between 50 million and 80 million human beings.

So TH, before you condemn me for being a NAZI, it might serve you well to remember that it was the 17th century Enlightenment movement- spearheaded by arrogant idiots like your Liberal hero ( i.e. the real Thomas Hobbes) that, in fact, paved the way for Hitler and his murderous crew, and NOT the great (Conservative) philosophers of Athenian antiquity that I admire.

Regards

Dachshund

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Steve3007 » June 30th, 2018, 12:56 pm

Greta wrote:That is a different schism - conservatives are opposite to libertarians. Don't forget that common Latin derivation lib- from "liber", meaning "free" (or book ... free your mind, Neo, read books!). So liberals and libertarians both share the general view that individuals should be free rather than controlled by the state. Thus, each would have no judgement of tattoos. However, the Republicans - the GOP - are strong today purely through support of the evangelical Christian movement in the US, and they are of course famous for wanting to micro-manage people's personal lives...
Yes, all true. But in practice, even though the "lib-" in "liberal" and "libertarian" means "free", in practice the two words are used differently. "Neo-liberal" and "Libertarian" seem to me (from observing the way they're used) to indicate a belief in laissez-faire economic policy, low taxation, little or no welfare state etc. This is interpretted by those groups as giving people freedom/liberty. Obviously the extent to which that is true is debatable and has been debated a lot on this site. So the difference between "liberal" and "libertarian" stems from the difference of opinion as to what exactly it means to be free. I think a "liberal" (as that term is used in modern times) disagrees that this kind of minimal intervention approach leads to greater liberty.

The coalition between libertarians and conservatives (e.g. in the US Republican Party) seems to me to result from the shared belief in what they would see as individual self-reliance. As you've said, conservatives want to conserve old ways of doing things. And old ways of doing things (if you go back far enough) didn't involve a welfare state and the level of taxes we pay now. Hence the coalition. But (as you've also said) there are apparent contradictions between the two ideologies over issues like abortion. In that particular case I think the problem results from the impossibility of objectively answering the question of when a human life comes into existence. Libertarians believe in (what they see as) freedom for individual people. But if it can't be agreed what constitutes a person then it's difficult to agree exactly who or what should have these supposed freedoms protected. A lot of Christian conservatives would assert that a fertilized embryo is a person and would then apply their libertarian colleagues' principles of individual freedom to argue that such embryos should have their "right to live as they wish provided they do not harm others" (a key libertarian principle) respected.
The evangelicals want life in prison for first degree murder for women who have abortions; they want each dying person to suffer enough that they reach out for God (or anything/anyone) in desperation; they want a ban on non-Christian immigration and a closing of mosques; they want teens to be completely controlled to avoid even a hint of sex, drugs and naughty music (beware the tritone!); they want gays sent to conversion therapy or imprisoned; they want women's rights rolled back and for more harsh penalties and policing for drugs and crime.
Yes. Many of those apparently interventionist views are difficult to reconcile with the concept of individual liberty for individual people that libertarians believe in. But some, like abortion and views about young people, stem at least partly from the problems of deciding when a person becomes one of these "individuals" whose right to do whatever they want (so long as they don't harm others) is deemed to be so important.
In other words, they want to return to the mores before the 1960s somewhat woke up half the world's population. That is, indeed, a form of conservatism - to conserve old values. However, what of those seeking to conserve the old, now "traditional" in some circles, values of the 1960s? They too would, strictly speaking, be holding a classic conservative stance - let's not lose this [insert valued concept] to modernity!

So the idea of conservative really only refers to the wish to conserve a culture of a particular time. A true conservative, on the other hand, would be one wanting to conserve more of nature - but they are today considered to be wild and crazy radicals.
If we see "conservative" as simply meaning "wanting to conserve things from the past" then, as you've suggested, its definition becomes vague. It depends entirely on what we mean by "the past". It could mean the 19th Century. It could mean the 1960's. It could mean last Tuesday. And if it even more simply means "wanting to conserve things" then it's even more vague. It could mean the environment. It could mean strawberry jam. It could mean slavery and burning witches.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7231
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Greta » June 30th, 2018, 7:14 pm

Dachshund wrote:
June 30th, 2018, 4:52 am
Greta wrote:
June 29th, 2018, 7:07 pm
So liberals and libertarians both share the general view that individuals should be free rather than controlled by the state.
I'm going tell you the truth of the matter, Greta. You will not like it, you will not like it at all but that's "tough-titty" as far as I am concerned; its high time someone knocked some sense into your thick skull.
I am realistic enough to know that no amount of knocking at this point in your life will knock sense into your own bone-laden cranium. You will need to wait until a point where you truly feel disempowered to start comprehending what is real.

Of course humans are not free. Despite the boffins' desperation not to portray humans as being animals, our societies are clearly a variant of the eusocial model, and that specialisation means humans are reliant on others, and thus not free due to the exchange involved in such entwined lifestyles.

Some may devise philosophies that justify only the taking without giving back, and that is understandable. The ape's advantage was trickery, and self-justifying ideologies are simply one more Machiavellian device amongst many that people use to gain a competitive edge. Life is hard so "dirty play" abounds - such as right wing ideology.

However, it is our very captive nature, along with an intelligence not found in other colonial species, that makes the concept of freedom important. Without a measure of freedom, humans become dysfunctional. Thus a society with freedom curtailed beyond certain levels becomes easy pickings for more motivated, spontaneous, flexible and creative opposing forces.

Simply, it's in both the collectives' and individuals' interest to promote good morale, and that cannot happen when the weak are targetted. You can see this phenomenon in schools, where severe bullying of a few can disrupt an entire form.
Dachshund wrote:The ancients were also correct when they argued that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior - the master over the slave, the husband over the wife and the wise few over the vulgar many.
Alas, now we have a lying, ignorant psychopath leading the free world. The system broke thanks to a corrupt self-interested media with too many unpublicised fossil fuel interests for our own good.

Alas too (for you), men are far from superior to women. Our conversation alone makes that clear.

You are akin to a chess player who thinks one move ahead, innocently assuming that those who are several steps ahead of you don't think ahead at all.
Dachshund wrote:The 1960s ... the roots of profound evil.
:lol: :lol:

Do you think Karen Silkwood would agree that the natural order of her powerful assassins was good while the attempts to expose the lies and hypocrisy behind white picket fences was evil? The 60s was a time of transparency. What you decry was what was already happening behind closed doors in the first half of the century (and long before) - but not admitted.

You are basically saying that it was evil to expose the marital abuses that deservedly eventually resulted in "divorce, family breakdown, a crisis of domestic violence". You would rather the beating, bullying and raping of women and children be kept behind closed doors - kept in the family. No doubt you'd prefer that the church's paedophilia not be exposed too.

As for "antisocial delinquency, crime, disrespect for the rule of law", this was deserved because the laws were corrupt.

... "rampant drug abuse and a soaring prevalence mental illness in chronic anxiety and adjustment disorders [and] severe clinical depression," were already rampant in the 50s, but not reported.

You clearly have a tribal allegiance and you would prefer to see that prosper than for their flaws and covert wickedness be made transparent. Yours is exactly that of the priests who covered up for paedophilia in the ranks for so long, facilitating incredible damage and suffering ... keep it quiet, brush it under the carpet, deny everything.

Dachshund
Posts: 444
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Dachshund » July 2nd, 2018, 1:20 am

Greta wrote:
June 30th, 2018, 7:14 pm
. the roots of profound evil.
:lol: :lol:
Yes, that's right Greta, it's all highly amusing isn't it - real "laugh out loud" stuff; I mean the reality of the late West's industrial-scale abortion industry. The reality of clinical mass slaughterhouses of the unborn. The brutal truth that these "dark, Satanic, mills" of death were erected by modern Liberals in the name of "freedom". They screamed and ranted and raved and marched and protested until they got their way, and YOU were one of them. So, tell me, are you pleased with what you, and Germain Greer, and all the rest of your righteous mob achieved, Greta ? Does it not never prick your conscience, darling (?) - the stark, bloody horror; the unspeakable human tragedy of it all ?

Or "climate change", that's good for a giggle, right Greta? Its not really the most profound and urgent moral question that civilized humanity has ever faced is it ? In any case it was all caused by nasty, greedy, male capitalist pigs like Rupert Murdoch and Co ! If only modernity had listened to CLEVER, enlightened, progressive, liberal thinkers like YOU and Bob Dylan and John Lennon, well... the world wouldn't be threatened by any "Global Warming" crisis !! Isn't that right, Greta ?

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7231
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Greta » July 2nd, 2018, 1:44 am

Dachshund wrote:
July 2nd, 2018, 1:20 am
Greta wrote:
June 30th, 2018, 7:14 pm
. the roots of profound evil.
:lol: :lol:
Yes, that's right Greta, it's all highly amusing isn't it - real "laugh out loud" stuff; I mean the reality of the late West's industrial-scale abortion industry. The reality of clinical mass slaughterhouses of the unborn. The brutal truth that these "dark, Satanic, mills" of death were erected by modern Liberals in the name of "freedom". They screamed and ranted and raved and marched and protested until they got their way, and YOU were one of them. So, tell me, are you pleased with what you, and Germain Greer, and all the rest of your righteous mob achieved, Greta ? Does it not never prick your conscience, darling (?) - the stark, bloody horror; the unspeakable human tragedy of it all ?

Or "climate change", that's good for a giggle, right Greta? Its not really the most profound and urgent moral question that civilized humanity has ever faced is it ? In any case it was all caused by nasty, greedy, male capitalist pigs like Rupert Murdoch and Co ! If only modernity had listened to CLEVER, enlightened, progressive, liberal thinkers like YOU and Bob Dylan and John Lennon, well... the world wouldn't be threatened by any "Global Warming" crisis !! Isn't that right, Greta ?
How much are you enjoying eating dead pigs, cows, sheep, goats, lamb
and octopi? Those tasty carcasses once housed exponentially more sensate and intelligent beings than first trimester foetuses (which form the great bulk of all abortions formed).

Your comments are simply silly and somewhat hysterical (hence my amusement) and I would thank you if you you remove your hand from your trousers and attempt to re-engage your brain.

Are you really going to be yet another brain-dead nincompoop using the problems of overpopulation to "support" your political cause? Or are you going to use your mind as (theoretically) befits a philosophy forum?

Breakdown of environmental systems was always inevitable, given humanity's dominance. There was never anything stopping us from breeding and breeding and breeding some more. It's not our fault. Despite our affectations, we are still animals and we do as animals do. So it was always inevitable.

Thus, aside from luck, the difference between delayed change that can allow for a relatively "soft landing" and rapid change providing a "hard landing" is how intelligently we engage the problem. Unfortunately, the world's leadership has been stupid - slow to recognise issues in advance and slow to respond, inflexible and at least somewhat corrupt, preferring to play political games for short term gain than to have the vision to think about the future.

Thus we reap what they sow. C'est la vie. The weak are meat and the strong do eat, as it's always been. Intelligent humans have tried to be inclusive but when groups become huge, as with our cities, then large groups of ostensible compatriots don't know each other at all and cannot relate to each other. So systems of support and cooperation will start to break down as jurisdictions splinter (and of course, a decade or two afterwards the slits the new respective heads of state will figure that it's a terrific idea to amalgamate and exploit economies of scale ... until that new entity becomes to large and ...).

Dachshund
Posts: 444
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Dachshund » July 2nd, 2018, 3:08 am

Steve3007 wrote:
June 30th, 2018, 12:56 pm
If we see "conservative" as simply meaning "wanting to conserve things from the past" then, as you've suggested, its definition becomes vague. It depends entirely on what we mean by "the past". It could mean the 19th Century. It could mean the 1960's. It could mean last Tuesday. And if it even more simply means "wanting to conserve things" then it's even more vague. It could mean the environment. It could mean strawberry jam. It could mean slavery and burning witches.
Steve,

The traditional Conservative is a politician whose basic argument is that wherever we have extant in our present State,any customs, traditions and institutions that have endured the test of time - that have survived the turmoil of great social change over the centuries - and continue to provide a satisfactory service to our society, then it is very reasonable for us to regard them as being worth preserving. In short, where we have in our current State, social structures/ social manners and mores, customs and institutions that have withstood the vicissitudes of the centuries (or even millennia) past, and do still, today, render us sound service, then it is prudent for us to treat them with great respect. It is prudent for us to believe that any such social structures/practices that we have inherited are - for the simple reason they have stood the great test of time - well worth preserving /conserving and well worth defending when they are challenged by those who would seek to radically change, diminish or destroy them.

It makes perfect sense to me. It is the reason why traditional social Conservatives are not, for example, supportive of gay marriage. The institution of marriage in civil law as a sacred bond between a man and a woman is one we inherited from our ancient forebears; it is a Christian institution that has served Western society well for countless centuries past. To radically alter the traditional meaning of marriage in the West by changing civil law in a manner that extends the institution to include homosexual couples, is, a Conservative would argue, extremely unwise and disrespectful. I agree 100%; nothing good can come of it.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2633
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Burning ghost » July 2nd, 2018, 3:34 am

Marriage is not a “Christian institution.” Christian marriage is Christian, and on those grounds,- and those grounds only - you have a reasonable position to work from.

I do find it a little strange for a gay to be Christian, and I find it a reasonable position to take for the church to open its doors to modern life rather than relying on older prejudices.

The argument could go that marriage is about creating a family unit and producing children and an appropriate environment for them. The primary caregivers for children are their parents. A man and a woman are te normfor this both biologically and traditionally; BUT, and it is a big but, have mother and father doesn’t necessarily make a child’s life better because there are bad parents, and logic follows that a couple could provide a much better environment (although it would undoubtedly be harder work to do so.)

So, if a couple wish to get together and form a family unit and they are the same sex then they have to accommodate for the missing sex, and failing that bolster there relatives families too (if they choose not to have children themselves.) In this sense we find ourselves not adapting to new circumstances, but simply recognising them and being responsible about it. Ostracising people doesn’t seem resdonable to me if they are part of human culture. The step by the church has upset some people, and I understand why, but if two people want to be together so be it. If they are religious or not that shouldn’t stop them from making a legsl snd public commitment to each other.

The other option woudl be to create s “Gay Church” for gay Christians. That seems like a bad idea to me because I’d rather religious orgsnisations were inclusive not exclusive.
AKA badgerjelly

Dachshund
Posts: 444
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Dachshund » July 2nd, 2018, 3:55 am

Greta wrote:
July 2nd, 2018, 1:44 am
Breakdown of environmental systems was always inevitable, given humanity's dominance. There was never anything stopping us from breeding and breeding and breeding some more. It's not our fault. Despite our affectations, we are still animals and we do as animals do. So it was always inevitable.

Thus, aside from luck, the difference between delayed change that can allow for a relatively "soft landing" and rapid change providing a "hard landing" is how intelligently we engage the problem. Unfortunately, the world's leadership has been stupid - slow to recognise issues in advance and slow to respond, inflexible and at least somewhat corrupt, preferring to play political games for short term gain than to have the vision to think about the future.

Thus we reap what they sow. C'est la vie. The weak are meat and the strong do eat, as it's always been. Intelligent humans have tried to be inclusive but when groups become huge, as with our cities, then large groups of ostensible compatriots don't know each other at all and cannot relate to each other. So systems of support and cooperation will start to break down as jurisdictions splinter (and of course, a decade or two afterwards the slits the new respective heads of state will figure that it's a terrific idea to amalgamate and exploit economies of scale ... until that new entity becomes to large and ...).


Thus we finally see you nail your true colours to the mast, Greta... the nihilism, the despair, the hopelessness the moral cowardice of the Godless liberal humanist, she who is the first rat to abandon her own sinking ship.

In short, it seems to me - if I may quote the venerable Barbey D'Aurevilly - that the woman who wrote the remarks above has left herself with only one choice, Greta.... "either the muzzle of a pistol or the foot of the Cross ! "



Regards

Dachshund

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Steve3007 » July 2nd, 2018, 4:57 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:No one os interested in your fascist state. You'll just have to continue to oppress your own mind.
I have to say I disagree with you on this point Tom. I think extremist views are usually quite interesting to observe, once we've established to our own satisfaction that they are, on the whole, sincerely expressed and not merely someone striking a pose. Also, crucially, when they have been "de-fanged" either because the holder of the views is long dead and we are studying them as history, is far away or is unlikely to exercise much power. Hence the fascination of old documentaries about the nazis and TV shows like "Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends". I suppose it's a bit like rubber-knecking when passing road traffic accidents. Most people love to indulge in a bit of extremist tourism. Maybe it should be regarded as a guilty pleasure.

In the case of Dachshund I think his confessions in this particular thread about his extreme fear of people who are different from himself (far in excess of what might be regarded as natural fear of the stranger in the general population) perhaps shed some light on his past remarks. Clearly there is a deep sense of alienation from the people around him, and from the modern world in general, which has found an outlet in places like this, where he can comfort himself with what are essentially revenge fantasies: the notion that these strange and frightening different people (e.g. the men with tattoos, the young women with dyed hair and people with different coloured skin) are mentally retarded and will therefore always ultimately be crushed and dominated by the christian, white, male, European, tattoo-free, hair-dye-free ubermenschen.

Alienation, it seems, can have terrible effects if the person who feels alienated feels unable to confront their fears through the normal channels - making real-life personal connections with other human beings.

Dachshund
Posts: 444
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Dachshund » July 2nd, 2018, 5:26 am

Greta wrote:
June 30th, 2018, 7:14 pm
Of course humans are not free.
That's right. They are not created free; the human condition is one of universal subordination to the rightful authority of a higher moral order of being.

What you now need to understand is that in the same way human beings are not greatred free, they are not created equal either. That was the great mistake of Enlightenment liberalism - i.e. the presumption (of the assumption) that all men and women possessed in EQUAL measure a fundamental, non-fungible, inalienable, universal and absolute dignity.

They do not.

The ancients - Aristotle and Plato - understood this. They knew that in any human society there are those who are truly wise and virtuous, but they are always few in number, while the vulgar and innately ignoble are many. Ideally, they argued, the wise few ought always rule the many - that an Aristocracy of "Philosopher Kings" was the most desirable form of human government.

They were right.

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 214
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by chewybrian » July 2nd, 2018, 9:00 am

Dachshund wrote:
July 2nd, 2018, 5:26 am
That's right. They are not created free; the human condition is one of universal subordination to the rightful authority of a higher moral order of being.
People are created free. What chains of subjugation hold back any young child, other than those put upon them by arrogant, would-be "philosopher-kings" Subordination is common but not universal, and never desirable, and always put upon people, never inbred.

Who is to decide which moral order is highest? "Blondie: You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig." <This is how the decision is made, and there is no 'moral order' in this method.
Dachshund wrote:
July 2nd, 2018, 5:26 am
What you now need to understand is that in the same way human beings are not greatred free, they are not created equal either. That was the great mistake of Enlightenment liberalism - i.e. the presumption (of the assumption) that all men and women possessed in EQUAL measure a fundamental, non-fungible, inalienable, universal and absolute dignity.
Neither are people born without dignity. They lose it to bullies. Abilities in all areas need not be equal in order to make every person worthy of respect (until they prove otherwise). I'd sooner be friends with a moral janitor than a racist senator.
Dachshund wrote:
July 2nd, 2018, 5:26 am
The ancients - Aristotle and Plato - understood this. They knew that in any human society there are those who are truly wise and virtuous, but they are always few in number, while the vulgar and innately ignoble are many. Ideally, they argued, the wise few ought always rule the many - that an Aristocracy of "Philosopher Kings" was the most desirable form of human government
For every Marcus Aurelius, there may be a hundred Neros. Worse yet, there may be a thousand with the heart of Nero and the outward appearance of Aurelius. Certainly, one assumes you consider yourself worthy to be among the privileged elite, or these arguments would not appeal to you. Yet, you clearly lack the humility, sound judgment, and care for others that would make Marcus Aurelius worthy of such a position. So, how would you feel about your brave new world if you were counted among the subjugated?

You clearly overestimate yourself and underestimate all others. The problem is not that they are all too dim to behave properly. It is due to the very fact that they have been subjugated they behave immorally, not that they must be subjugated because of their immorality. People behave incorrectly out of ignorance, and because they have been humiliated and pushed around by bullies and tyrants. Had they been treated with respect and educated properly from day one, they would be different and better people on the whole.

The job of the enlightener is a difficult one. Justice, self-respect, wisdom, tranquility, happiness...these things are hard-earned and take time to sink in. But the job of the bully is easy by comparison. Fear is sexy; it demands an immediate response and spreads quickly. Scapegoats absolve us of responsibility. The easy way out has great appeal over the more difficult but more proper path.

Your "enlightened" attitude of superiority is a much greater threat to humanity than the ignorance, inability, or apathy of those you wish to subjugate. The difference is that, given time and attention, THEY could learn and improve. You are the problem, not the solution.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by ThomasHobbes » July 2nd, 2018, 5:17 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
July 2nd, 2018, 4:57 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:No one os interested in your fascist state. You'll just have to continue to oppress your own mind.
I have to say I disagree with you on this point Tom. I think extremist views are usually quite interesting to observe, once we've established to our own satisfaction that they are, on the whole, sincerely expressed and not merely someone striking a pose. Also, crucially, when they have been "de-fanged" either because the holder of the views is long dead and we are studying them as history, is far away or is unlikely to exercise much power. Hence the fascination of old documentaries about the nazis and TV shows like "Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends". I suppose it's a bit like rubber-knecking when passing road traffic accidents. Most people love to indulge in a bit of extremist tourism. Maybe it should be regarded as a guilty pleasure.

In the case of Dachshund I think his confessions in this particular thread about his extreme fear of people who are different from himself (far in excess of what might be regarded as natural fear of the stranger in the general population) perhaps shed some light on his past remarks. Clearly there is a deep sense of alienation from the people around him, and from the modern world in general, which has found an outlet in places like this, where he can comfort himself with what are essentially revenge fantasies: the notion that these strange and frightening different people (e.g. the men with tattoos, the young women with dyed hair and people with different coloured skin) are mentally retarded and will therefore always ultimately be crushed and dominated by the christian, white, male, European, tattoo-free, hair-dye-free ubermenschen.

Alienation, it seems, can have terrible effects if the person who feels alienated feels unable to confront their fears through the normal channels - making real-life personal connections with other human beings.
So, in short, you actually agree with all I said. Deutschound is his own one man ever decreasing circle.
What he needs is a good slapping, then put in a situation where is life depends on being nice to a black person.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by ThomasHobbes » July 2nd, 2018, 5:18 pm

Dachshund wrote:
July 2nd, 2018, 5:26 am
The ancients - Aristotle and Plato - understood this. They knew that ....

Dachshund
LOL. What all of them?

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7231
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: In Praise of Tattoos

Post by Greta » July 2nd, 2018, 7:37 pm

Dachshund wrote:
July 2nd, 2018, 3:55 am
Greta wrote:
July 2nd, 2018, 1:44 am
Breakdown of environmental systems was always inevitable, given humanity's dominance. There was never anything stopping us from breeding and breeding and breeding some more. It's not our fault. Despite our affectations, we are still animals and we do as animals do. So it was always inevitable.

Thus, aside from luck, the difference between delayed change that can allow for a relatively "soft landing" and rapid change providing a "hard landing" is how intelligently we engage the problem. Unfortunately, the world's leadership has been stupid - slow to recognise issues in advance and slow to respond, inflexible and at least somewhat corrupt, preferring to play political games for short term gain than to have the vision to think about the future.

Thus we reap what they sow. C'est la vie. The weak are meat and the strong do eat, as it's always been. Intelligent humans have tried to be inclusive but when groups become huge, as with our cities, then large groups of ostensible compatriots don't know each other at all and cannot relate to each other. So systems of support and cooperation will start to break down as jurisdictions splinter (and of course, a decade or two afterwards the slits the new respective heads of state will figure that it's a terrific idea to amalgamate and exploit economies of scale ... until that new entity becomes to large and ...).
Thus we finally see you nail your true colours to the mast, Greta... the nihilism, the despair, the hopelessness the moral cowardice of the Godless liberal humanist, she who is the first rat to abandon her own sinking ship.

In short, it seems to me - if I may quote the venerable Barbey D'Aurevilly - that the woman who wrote the remarks above has left herself with only one choice, Greta.... "either the muzzle of a pistol or the foot of the Cross ! "
Actually, you and your Trumpian friends are the nihilists, constantly fighting against any positive action to treat the environment sustainably so as to hasten the Biblical apocalypse and sooner bring in the promised new golden era of God's rule.

I seeing everything as a living system and am excited by the idea of extended evolution in the future - what we can become. This is not actually the same as nihilism. I look forward to your admission that you erred - on the 12th of Never :roll:

Post Reply