Messages In This Digest (2 Messages)
Messages
- 1.1.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:19 am (PST)
Dear Sean,
I was just observing the fact that this forum has now passed 40,000 missives (congratulations, all ! And none of us have been burned to death -- yet. Times are improving! Unless you believe violence=honesty, that is!) and in the process of doing so, I came across your reply below. My apologies for the delay.
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "tiddlywinksoldbeancom " <tiddlywinksoldbean @...> wrote:
>
> I really should know better CB,
So should I!
>but some of your assumptions in this post just beg a challenge.
<flexes mental knuckles>
Sure, I enjoy this sort of thing. Why not.
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com > wrote:
> >
> > Sean,
> >
> > --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "tiddlywinksoldbeancom " <tiddlywinksoldbean @> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah I think I see it now. You don't have any beliefs, so that puts you in a position of superiority and enables you to sit back on your "no beliefs" throne and attack the beliefs of others.
> >
> > No thrones about it - if something makes no sense (such as the statement "more violent = more honest"), criticism naturally follows.
>
> Now if you had said "makes no sense to me" I'd not have a problem, but "makes no sense" implies it makes no sense to anyone.
No, it states that, admittedly yes -- in my view, it makes NO SENSE AT ALL - in and of itself. Not "to me", or "to anyone", just all by itself, as it contains no logic upon which an argument can be constructed with any conclusive result which does not require an a-priori assumption of a particular belief as being true in advance -- which of course makes the argument simultaneously unnecesssary and impossible.
The statement "more violent = more honest" (the statement which I was criticising with this observation) makes no sense at all, in and of itself. The two categories (violence and honesty) are unrelated except if one deliberately intends to construe them together - which I do not. In fact, I can show how violence is actually inversely related to honesty, in at least two different ways. Below.
> Clearly untrue No? I know quite a few that it would make sense to.
Stoning women to death for Allah "makes perfect sense" to Muslim extremists (/bashing poofters/banning Satanic books/outlawing pork/oral sex/art/wine/etc.) because they have chosen in advance to believe that it does - but it "makes no sense" in and of itself as a demonstrably valid policy according to any human values.
Just because crazy stuff "makes sense" to people who are unable or unwilling to use their minds to full capacity (or perhaps have a limited capacity for free rational thought), does not mean that it actually makes sense. It means only that they BELIEVE that it makes sense - so, as you say, "it makes sense to" them, but is in itself, without sense.
i.e. nonsense.
:-)
> > > Well CB you do have beliefs. The rejection of other beliefs is a belief in its self.
> >
> > No it isn't actually. If I do not happen to have ever seen a reason to believe something, that is not a belief in itself. I am not actively disbelieving in something, I am simply not actively believing in something.
>
> Hmmm! You are saying you can reject a point of view/opinion/belief without having an alternate one?
You are here very correct. Yes, that is what I am saying. Somebody may believe that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster - as these people do:
http://www.venganza.org/
... and it is a belief which I reject, as being without basis in fact or reason, and which is therefore untrue.
I do not have a replacement for this belief, nor is one necessary.
Reality has a way of happening anyway, and usually in spite of our beliefs (so if you believe something too strongly, you should actually look the other way before the bus runs you over) - and the general experience of the entire history of the human race shows it's best to pay attention there (reality, not belief), as opposed to trying to squeeze it into a set of little boxes which one has created in one's head.
>You reject a statement, ie "that those who take power by the gun are at least more honest than those who take it by chicanery". ipsofacto you hold an opinion/view/belief that they are not? Twaddle CB! Twaddle and nonsense.
Not at all.
The statement which I reject is a statement of a belief which I have shown (and will show again) to be completely untrue and a matter of categorical error (1. taking power can in fact occur in COMPLETE honesty without the result, and undesired after-effects, of murder; conversely, 2. power attained through violence has more often resulted in the MOST dishonest governments in history. 3. In killing someone who holds power, you take more than just their power, you take life, limb - so you're actually acting dishonestly, as you are robbing many other people also of something which you probably hadn't meant to. Therefore the statement "violence=honesty" is false.).
My refutation is not based upon the assertion of a belief, as is the initial statement; it is a refutation of an assertion which is based upon a (mere) belief.
My refutation of this false belief has no "belief" component in it.
I do not "believe" the assertion that a violent change of power is more honest than a non-violent one -- and my non-belief in this statement is not itself a belief.
I don't have to "believe" that this is the case, because it is plain and demonstrable by simply consulting a dictionary that violence and honesty are unrelated (or inversely related) qualities. Civilisation is the product of trial and error, and most of the worst errors are violent ones - hence the right deploration of violence by people who are in fact able to think using the organ which Nature has provided for that purpose (their brains, just to be sure).
The most violent despots are in fact the most dishonest, historically speaking. This is the rule, not the exception.
They are the ones who use their violent means to suppress free speech and replace it with propaganda which is required in order to con people into swallowing the utter bullshit they are attempting to base their power upon. This is the rule, not the exception, where violently-gained-and-held power is concerned.
Therefore (and this is just one layer of refutation) the statement "more violent = more honest" is in fact (as opposed to belief) false (unless it was a joke, in which case it is funny).
> > This is the sort of non-argument which Catholic Priests use.
>
> Do they? Ok ,I'll take your word for it. But how is that relevant?
Yes, yes they do.
It is relevant because they, too, are driven by feeling the compulsion to defend an a priori ideological belief which is unrelated to reality (i.e. undemonstrable), and which has been adopted in advance of the opinions for which it forms the illusory base in order to present the semblance of cohesion to something which is in fact entirely made of CRAP.
> > >You think Gillard better than Rudd. Another belief.
> >
> > No, it isn't a belief (of the kind we're dealing with), but an evaluation based on evidence. NOT TRADITION.
>
> Oh dear this is just too precious. "Not the kind we are dealing with" Care to give some sort of clarification?
Sure.
The "kind of belief we're dealing with" is the kind where :
a) it is part of a "tradition" of some kind, and
b) that its presumed status as part of this presumed "tradition" somehow automatically means that it is, by virtue of this alone, valid - whether or not it has any support from reality.
My belief - if belief it is, "personal preference" is perhaps closer to its real definition - regarding Gillard as (possibly - I'm happy to change my mind in the face of reasons to do so) a better PM than Mr. Sheen, is not based upon any considerations of "tradition" whatsoever. I am not a "labour" or "liberal" or "green" or whatever voter. Actually I think I vote for the Sex Party normally, and whatever Ms. Gillard's plusses, sex is not one of them!
>A belief is a belief and a belief by any other name is still a belief.
To you, perhaps it is. But to me, that says more about your present capacity for detecting the many possible differences between the different contexts and senses of the use of the word "belief" than it does about "the intrinsic nature of belief" as such.
Some beliefs are projections reasonably based upon evidence, as opposed to blind parrotting of a tradition, which is the diametric opposite of this. So I suppose that even amongst beliefs there are "reasonable" ones and "unreasonable" ones.
One example of the "evidence" in the context of this micro-topic within the missive, seeing as you raise the point about Gillard, refers to Mistress Gillard's first act after becoming PM, which was to immediately stop Rudd's policy of pushing for an Australian population increase OF 60% by 2050. That was her first act as PM - and I applauded (although I strongly disliked her until that moment). That old policy of Rudd's was the result of his ideologically-driven belief - Gillard's halting of it was based upon pragmatic considerations (the fact that NOBODY WANTED IT EXCEPT KEVIN RUDD perhaps being one, and in the context of him supposedly being an ELECTED Prime Minister, it was perhaps the central one).
> > >You think taking power by force of arms is bad - sorry CB, but another belief.
> >
> > No, it is actually a demonstrable fact which has been proven time and time again, and has led to the evolution of the democratic process, as it leaves behind fewer injuries and orphans. That makes it better in nearly everyone's books.
>
> Horse feathers CB. How many people are going to agree with you that taking power in Japan at the point of a - Well a nuclear bomb actually- wasn't a good thing?
So we should drop nuclear bombs each time a decision must be made?
Can't we just vote?
The use of an utter atrocity of this kind as a last resort does not compare to the adoption of violence as a "more honest" first resort as general policy. You're confusing a great number of things here, and it doesn't help your argument.
If the statement "more violent=more honest" is true, why are all the most violent countries the most fucked-up and yes, dishonest, countries? Where corruption and censorship is beyond anything ever heard of here? Why do all the countries whose leaders use REAL violence to enforce their regimes suck so badly if violence is somehow a more worthy solution?
The answer: It isn't.
The living conditions are shit, you can't say what you think, the government propaganda machine controls the media to a FAR greater extent than anywhere in the West (so it's more dishonest, 1), there is nothing to eat, nobody feels safe, education is non-existent, the Arts don't exist, no jobs AT ALL, bet your bottom dollar that Witches and their ilk - or anyone wierd - are generally not tolerated even a fraction of what we are here, the general life expectancy is also far less, and corruption is on a scale which makes the worst cases in Australian history seem positively altruistic.
Their natives are FLEEING the violence to come here as refugees !
If what you believe were true, we'd all be fleeing Australia to go and live in Zimbabwe.
I guess it's better here - oh look, we're less violent, too.
GEE WHIZ.
Violence has served as a last resort when all else has failed IN ORDER TO STOP CONTINUED VIOLENCE INITIATED ELSEWHERE, and when it has been resorted to, it has always produced incredible amounts of undesired indirect results as well - which is why it is eschewed.
>At least from Australia's perspective.
Yes - that's how war works. There has to be sides. Pathetic, isn't it?
But there are other ways of doing things, which don't require polarisation and emnity and elimination, in order to resolve disputes, in such a way that an outcome is found which is more desireable to all concerned than the long-term results of war could be for either. They involve talking and thinking, and learning, not guns.
> > >You dismiss traditions as nonsense. Yep another belief.
> >
> > No, I don't dismiss "traditions" as nonsense. I dismiss nonsense as nonsense, and if it happens to be part of a tradition, it in no way affects its status as nonsense or sense. It isn't a belief, but process of demonstration and fact which attends criticism.
>
> Demonstration of fact??
Yes. Demonstration of fact.
>As you have seen the very fact that your opinions are argued about sort of knocks your "facts" into a cocked hat.
This is not true at all: Scientists argue about the interpretation of observed facts all the time, in order to gain better understanding of it. People discuss and debate things all the time. The fact things are discussed doesn't always mean they are untrue, it means that a misunderstanding has occurred or greater clarification is being requested, or perhaps, even, that someone's traditional beliefs about something is wrong.
But more relevantly to this discussion perhaps is the fact that my opinions are not what this discussion is about - Bill's statement "more violent = more honest" is. And that hasn't merely been argued about, it has been shown, demonstrated, from a variety of angles, to be an untrue statement, unless it was a joke, in which case it is, or was, funny.
> > > There is not much distinction between "beliefs" and "opinions".
> >
> > But there is a yawning gulf between both of these and demonstrable fact.
>
> Yep!! No argument from me there. But why do you persist in claiming your opinions equal facts?
I don't - I try to inform my opinions with fact, so if I happen to occasionally present them coetaneously, then perhaps this is why you think I am claiming my opinions as facts. I'm showing you some of the facts with which my opinion is informed - it's not the same thing.
> > > Oh and thanks for talking down to me and inferring I'm too dumb to read or understand your posts.
> >
> > You referred to something which I have repeatedly denied, which indicated you had not read them.
>
> No. I read them just didn't accept your denials
You suggested that I have, and base my present opinions on, "beliefs" in the same way in which Bill has his "traditional beliefs" (lol) - that violence equals honesty.
I do not have any such beliefs, and I do not base my opinions or my refutation of this belief of his, upon any ideology.
My rejection of violence as a policy of first resort is based entirely upon experience, and upon the results of observation, and upon the general lessons which I can discern in history - not belief, tradition, or any nonsense which bypasses the need to have senses and a brain.
> > >I think Bill has the right idea.
> >
> > A belief which has been shown is indefensible and for which you have not presented a coherent or reasonable argument.
>
> There you go again! Indefensible? Rubbish CB. A lot more people than you think would agree that not only is the view defensible but actually cuts through the bullsh-- and makes a pretty valid comment
And let me say here that a lot more people than you and your myopic friends would agree otherwise.
Not that that counts for anything beyond simple measurement of consensus regarding the conclusions of civilised societies as to how they agree things are best done.
How can something "cut through the bullshit" if it itself is bullshit?
> Of course it IS opinion only, but indefensible? Think not!
Indefensible means it cannot be supported using evidence or reason. The statement "using a gun to achieve power is more honest than through the electoral process" is indefensible in every way.
> But I will defend your right to believe it.
>
> Well I'll give you points for that.
Freedom of speech and of thought - even, perhaps especially, where poorly-thought-out mistakes are concerned - means a lot to me.
It also only really exists (ON PLANET EARTH, in the entireity of human history and today) in relatively peaceful societies where the rule of the gun is kept to the absolute minimum, and where talking and voting on things is actually the preferred option.
> > >No point in any further dialogue with anyone who argues as if their opinions are indisputable facts.
> >
> > Sean, some things in this world actually are indisputable facts, and some things are not. One of those things is that the statement :
> >
> > "can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards (/Howards/Rudds)? Aren't both seeking power over their people to push their own agendas even if that is at the expense of the living standards of their people? Only difference is one uses the machine gun, the other the propaganda machine."
> >
> > ...is ridiculous, because it misses the pretty obvious fact that one results in murder -- with all its real-world consequences, and the other one does not.
>
> That's how you see it, and like you, I'll defend your right to see it so, but not your right to ridicule those who don't share your view and call their opinions ridiculous while professing yours to be indisputable "fact".
That's fine - but just for the record, some things in this world can also be proven to be ridiculous, as well, in and of themselves.
> > My rejection of violence as the first step in the process of dispute resolution is not a belief, it is a policy based on evaluation of the real world - and not a ridiculous medievalist fantasy.
>
> And a lot of us would see your view on that as pie in the sky Utopian twaddle.
Yes, I know. Just like the Flat-Earth Society think that ... oh why do I bother ?
You've already decided what to believe - for whatever reason - and it looks like a binary equation, of extremes.
>No one I know likes violence,
Not even honest people? :-)
I wonder why - I know! maybe it's because it actually sucks?
>but do accept it is necessary in extreme instances, and yes as in wars fought to repel would be invaders very desirable.
Yes, as I've said - as an absolute last resort, i.e. a demonstration of failure.
> I think that's my lot on this topic, probably wasted my time replying to this one, but being a good Satanist and the Devil urging me on, well you know:-)
Oh what the Hell! Let me find my Dawn of War disc again and put on some Slayer...
Many good thoughts to you,
C.B.
>
> Sean.
>
- 2.
-
Clowns Kicked KKK Asses
Posted by: "Tim Hartridge" ozpagan@ozpagan.com wwwozpagancom
Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:34 pm (PST)
"...White Power!" the Nazi's shouted. "White Flour?" the clowns
yelled back running in circles throwing flour in the air and raising
separate letters which spelt "White Flour..."
Oh this is too funny! (and the picture even funnier). Read the whole
story here -
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/ 09/03/clowns- kicked-kkk- asses/?ref= nf
vinum sabbati,
Tim
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
____________________ ooo)(0({O})0)(ooo____________________
Witches Workshop hold regular workshops see
http://www.witchesworkshop.com/Circle/circle_workshop.html
Keep up to date via our WitchesWorshop Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sydney-Australia/WitchesWorkshop/135651219624
WitchesWorkshop and Witch Camp Australia also run camps
several times a year - check out our websites for updates.
http://www.witchcampaustralia.org.au
http://www.witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
The WitchesWorkshop egroup holds the expectation that a
tolerant and respectful dialogue be strived for in our
communication with other pagans, witches magicians, et al.
Members are encouraged to challenge anyone not adhering
to these principles & to notify owner.
info@witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
Witches Workshop hold regular workshops see
http://www.witchesworkshop.com/Circle/circle_workshop.html
Keep up to date via our WitchesWorshop Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sydney-Australia/WitchesWorkshop/135651219624
WitchesWorkshop and Witch Camp Australia also run camps
several times a year - check out our websites for updates.
http://www.witchcampaustralia.org.au
http://www.witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
The WitchesWorkshop egroup holds the expectation that a
tolerant and respectful dialogue be strived for in our
communication with other pagans, witches magicians, et al.
Members are encouraged to challenge anyone not adhering
to these principles & to notify owner.
info@witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu