BF2S Forums America is Real-Life 1984.

i don't moralise, sorry. people can legally do what they want. having heated discussions about music and matters of culture is not 'moralising'. moralising is when you wish to control or limit someone else's choices or conduct. i am not trying to ban dubstep. similarly my position on drug and other social behaviour, which is strictly liberal, can hardly be said to be 'moralising'. it is the opposite of infringing on other's people's freedoms, or forcing your views on anyone else. my only position is that i think people should be able to do whatever they want with their own person in the safety of their own homes. if you want to somehow view that as a 'moral crusade', be my guest, you fucking gomp.

and i only vote for myself and my nearest? my family are loaded, and privileged. 70% of the people in my (mother's) home constituency, not cheltenham, where my father's side of the family are from, are working-class. 50 years ago the place had mines, for fuck's sake. the real reason i vote labour there is because the current tory MP wants to sell off all of the woodland - the UK's second biggest forest, and it's greatest ancient wood - to property developers and business interests. so yes, i vote labour. guess i'm just so self-interested. how the fuck would me voting for labour be in my self-interest, in any way? they are against public schools and all forms of class inequality. they would tax the shit out of my family.

http://www.handsoffourforest.org/

derp derp derp dilbert.

i never twisted the socratic method, either, here we go again. you constantly trying to make out i am misrepresenting it, when i'm the only one here that has actually read the fucking words of socrates/plato, or studied the socratic method beyond wikipedia glancing (you even started cockily wheezing when i mentioned plato and asked why i had back-pedalled to another thinker; fucking rofl, you don't even know that 100% of socrates' teachings are given to us in plato's writing). the socratic method involves a technique of ironic dissimulation to follow a person's (fallacious) beliefs to an endpoint that q.e.d.'s their false thinking. it is a rhetorical dialectic method that gently goads the person being instructed in a process of 'seeing why they are wrong'. socrates uses it in dozens of examples in the works of plato to educate young men on the roadside, wayward soldiers, zealous politicians, etc. it's all there. go read it. the socratic method is a method of INSTRUCTION. it was used in a philosophical SCHOOL to teach LESSONS. i don't really care how modern liberal school-teachers are using it to promote 'relativity' and 'inclusion'. in socrates day the matter of ethics and metaphysics was not a post-modern plurality. he used it to teach people his (or his schools') views. PERIOD. bring up the conversation again when you've actually read some fucking socrates. thank you.

here's a simple definition for the philosophically-illiterate (i.e. you) from 'socraticmethod.com'

A Definition of the Classic Socratic Method:

The Classic Socratic Method uses creative questioning to dismantle and discard preexisting ideas and thereby allows the respondent to rethink the primary question under discussion (such as 'What is virtue?'). This deconstructive style of the Socratic Method is ‘Socratic’ precisely to the extent that the weight of the actual deconstruction of a definition rests in the respondent’s own answers to more questions, which refute the respondent's previously stated answer to the primary question. The result of the Classic Socratic Method is, by definition, a failure to find a satisfactory answer to the primary question in a conversation. This failure produces a realization of ignorance in the respondent (Socratic Effect) which can, it is hoped, inspire the respondent to dig deep and think about the question with a new freedom that is obtained from discarding a previously held belief. If a satisfactory answer is found, this represents a transition to the ‘Modern Socratic Method.’

i bolded it for you, to make even easier. just as i said, all along. socrates feigns ignorance or ironically dissimulates; person follows argument to realize they have been in error; correction is made; lesson learned; socrates gives a little wink and continues on his way. DONE. stop fucking bringing it up now. go read a fucking book.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-29 04:10:32)

Cybargs wrote:

thats pretty dumb to sell off massive amounts of forests to business'.

yeah well i'm so selfish and self-obsessed and venal that i use my democratic vote to protest against that sort of thing.

by the way the tory MP that tried to wholesale sell off the forest is the same minister for immigration that macbeth linked in the australia thread-- the guy behind the genius scheme to put 'wogs go home' on a van and drive it around poor areas of east london. so pardon me for using my democratic vote to try and shift out an odious little tory twerp. even when my own family are conservative, and have obvious financial interests in voting conservative. you fucking donk. call me selfish again, you clueless live-at-home urchin.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-29 04:38:49)

it's moralizing to say 'people can do whatever they want'? keep tying yourself in knots, now.

how am i being moralistic or trying to preach my beliefs to people when my belief on social issues is generally 'let people do what they want'? how is being anti-dogma dogmatic in-itself? how is it moralistic to only talk about private and personal morality? that makes no sense at all. dilbert is trying to squeeze a very shallow argument out of some very tendentious thinking.

please explain how basically insisting there is no moral code or 'norm' or 'right way' to act is "moralizing". i am all for people doing whatever they want that makes them happy, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. how the fuck is that "moralizing"? moralizing is prescribing or proscribing what other people cannot do. i am PERMITTING EVERYTHING. i would never wish another person to be forced to live the way i choose to live. i would never wish for anyone to be curtailed in their freedom to pursue their own happiness. i do not subscribe to any belief system or ideology that has an ethical function, i.e. that says 'this is how things should be' or 'this is how you should act'. i don't have a single iota of investment in any of that stuff. so how the fuck do i moralize? please substantiate.

i knew you were trolling when you started posting this way earlier in the day. that time of week again when you want to make rukus or cybargs laugh, so you'll get a free reacharound? monday is a lonely and depressing day.

Extra Medium wrote:

You're so far off I'm not sure I want to waste my time proving you wrong.

Seriously,

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i knew you were trolling when you started posting this way earlier in the day. that time of week again when you want to make rukus or cybargs laugh, so you'll get a free reacharound? monday is a lonely and depressing day.

How am I trolling you?  You wrong with your bullshit.  Just because you want to live a certain way doesn't mean it isn't going to affect someone, regardless of how hard you try.  You are a selfish prick.  Every junkie in every opium den in China thinks like you.

can you explain how i am selfish? how my actions have affected anyone but myself? i don't have a wife or kids. i experimented with drugs between the age of 18-21, put my mind in some bent positions, had some far-out rides and got a bit of perspective. now i exercise 6 times a week, i'm the highest academic achiever in my graduating year, and i'm in a healthy, stable relationship. how am i being selfish? my only moral position is 'let people do what they want so long as it harms nobody else'. i don't think drugs should be legalized because i am aware they can blight communities, i.e. harm innocent people. but i do think they should be decriminalized, i.e. if an individual buys some and wants to put shit in his body/mind, let him do so. in america you have private health-care so it's not even as if the irresponsible idiots do any harm. anything else can be neatly written down to darwin's theory, which i know you individualists are so fond of adapting.

so please explain how i am selfish? i do not wish to legislate people's private behaviour or life choices in any way. i refer nobody to any reigning faith or ideological belief system.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-29 10:20:26)

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i knew you were trolling when you started posting this way earlier in the day. that time of week again when you want to make rukus or cybargs laugh, so you'll get a free reacharound? monday is a lonely and depressing day.

How am I trolling you?  You wrong with your bullshit.  Just because you want to live a certain way doesn't mean it isn't going to affect someone, regardless of how hard you try.  You are a selfish prick.  Every junkie in every opium den in China thinks like you.

can you explain how i am selfish? how my actions have affected anyone but myself? i don't have a wife or kids. i experimented with drugs between the age of 18-21, put my mind in some bent positions, had some far-out rides and got a bit of perspective. now i exercise 6 times a week, i'm the highest academic achiever in my graduating year, and i'm in a healthy, stable relationship. how am i being selfish? my only moral position is 'let people do what they want so long as it harms nobody else'. i don't think drugs should be legalized because i am aware they can blight communities, i.e. harm innocent people. but i do think they should be decriminalized, i.e. if an individual buys some and wants to put shit in his body/mind, let him do so. in america you have private health-care so it's not even as if the irresponsible idiots do any harm. anything else can be neatly written down to darwin's theory, which i know you individualists are so fond of adapting.

so please explain how i am selfish? i do not wish to legislate people's private behaviour or life choices in any way. i refer nobody to any reigning faith or ideological belief system.

Because nothing catastrophic will ever happen in your life that causes you currently controlled vices to take over and become a problem. 

you normally are when you make those remarks. you get on a high and mighty liberal chair and even when you're ostensibly talking in support of my argument, you're just taking an opportunity to make sidewards snipes and establish your more 'hard-earned' liberal credentials. so i apologise if you sincerely were not trying to make passing references. but it's not like you haven't made those remarks to me before (just as factually incorrect).

and medium what the fuck are you talking about? did you pass a HIGH SCHOOL science class? what life-crisis is going to come up that is going to see me run howling back to drugs? i didn't become addicted to any substance, you idiot. that is not how it works. besides, what stops people from encountering a life crisis and turning to the bottle, and losing themselves to perfectly legal drink? oh wait... that already does happen. to millions more people and to far more devastating effect (to families and the medical system) than any illegal drug. guess you better put that beer down buddy. in case hard times come. fucking idiot.

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

you normally are when you make those remarks. you get on a high and mighty liberal chair and even when you're ostensibly talking in support of my argument, you're just taking an opportunity to make sidewards snipes and establish your more 'hard-earned' liberal credentials. so i apologise if you sincerely were not trying to make passing references. but it's not like you haven't made those remarks to me before (just as factually incorrect).

and medium what the fuck are you talking about? did you pass a HIGH SCHOOL science class? what life-crisis is going to come up that is going to see me run howling back to drugs? i didn't become addicted to any substance, you idiot. that is not how it works. besides, what stops people from encountering a life crisis and turning to the bottle, and losing themselves to perfectly legal drink? oh wait... that already does happen. to millions more people and to far more devastating effect (to families and the medical system) than any illegal drug. guess you better put that beer down buddy. in case hard times come. fucking idiot.

You honestly think that drugs don't eventually get the better of ...............at LEAST 50% of people that use them?

unless it's meth, no.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

how am i being moralistic or trying to preach my beliefs to people when my belief on social issues is generally 'let people do what they want'? how is being anti-dogma dogmatic in-itself? how is it moralistic to only talk about private and personal morality? that makes no sense at all. dilbert is trying to squeeze a very shallow argument out of some very tendentious thinking.

Its just a different set of morals, just as a hardcore Christian won't agree his views are morals - they're gods word, your 'morals' are a Libertarian 'value system'. Don't call them morals if you don't want to, it just confuses the issue.

You like your value system, other people like theirs, you're trying to ram them down other peoples throats just as hard.
One man's freedom is another's tyranny.

can you explain how i am selfish? how my actions have affected anyone but myself? i don't have a wife or kids. i experimented with drugs between the age of 18-21, put my mind in some bent positions, had some far-out rides and got a bit of perspective.

You were also hospitalised, and arrested and incarcerated for threatening violence while off your head IIRC, hardly zero burden on society or your family and associates.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-07-30 06:05:34)