You are lying again.
I am not a nationalist. But you are a nationalist, even more: You are
a racist.
And Cezar (Historyboy) is not my follower -
if he was, then you would also be my follower, because you have very much
in common with him. You are just not able to admit this. Your former username
Contra-Nietzsche does also stand for the fact that you are
a faker. Allegedly you are a Christian. But that is also a fake, at least
a fake of about 80%. You are a palaeoconservative nationalist and racist.
If you substract Nietzsche's agitation against Christians, then it should
become obvious to you that you are a Nietzschean, although a Nietzschean-who-hates-Nietzscheans.
As everyone can verify: I directed all my earliest ILP posts against Cezars
nonsense and kept doing this till he left.
I had not much to do with Zinnat, some posts here, some posts there.
Your ad hominems caused his leaving. And you got a warning for
your racist ad hominems. You are obviously looking for your next warning.
And you did post in my threads. Everyone can verify that. I have
posted in mereley a few of your threads. Most of your threads are boring
- only fakes, lies, ad hominems, provocations, and yellow press stories
(and almost always too long - how boring!), and that is what you call
history and philosophy. It is so boring. I have
never started to talk to you here on ILP. You are always the one who starts
to talk to me. Obviously for several reasons, but the main reasons have
always been ad hominems and the fact that you are a very hateful racist.
You may use as much excuses as you want. You will never be able to change
the facts.
The problem you had with Zinnat, for example, was not that he had done
something wrong or evil. It was just the other way around. You are the
one who has done almost everything wrong and evil, especially by using
ad hominems against Zinnat and many others (including me). In addition:
You used Zinnat's avatar and many insulting words against him - the conesequence
was that you got a warning for that. You obviously think that you are
the sheriff of ILP - but you are not. It is only your megalomania that
makes you think this.
Iambiguous wrote:
An ironist however recognizes the futility of actually resolving
a question like this.
Obviously, there are scientists who, in pursuing a particular task,
give hardly a second thought to the practical implications of whatever
conclusion they might come to. They are simply driven to discover that
which either is or is not true regarding a phenomenon they have an interest
in.
Still, others scientists, in being employed by a particular corporation
or the Defense Department or NASA etc., are all about the practical
applications of their research/experiments. Either to make a buck or
to sustain what they construe to be in the interest of America's »national
security«. **
Yes. Scientists need money for their researches. Therefore they become
more and more dependent, thus non-scientists.
Iambiguous wrote:
Which just takes me back to dasein, conflicting goods and political
economy.
And yet, again, as an ironist, I would never try to argue that others
are obligated to think the same.
Value judgments are in my view [in more or less significant ways]
existential fabrications/contraptions. **
I can agree with that.
Can you (**)
name some purists?
It is possible that he (**)
will win the US election in 2020, because it is possible that he will
have been thrown out of his country then. 
Yes (**),
that is right.
I said he will be and not he is. But it is also
possible that he has alraedy thrown his country out of him. All Russian
and Soviet leaders have thrown their country out of them.
Jerkey (**),
is that true?
Our leaders of the party Die Grünen (The Greens)
told the same lies during the 1970's and 1980's. And then in the 1990's
they have been telling other lies, because they had been becoming the
loudest warmongers.
Jerkey wrote:
I am voting for Hilary because She is the only workable choice.
**
Then you are voting for the nuclear war, Jerkey.
Let's talk about the question whether the simulation hypothesis resp.
the simulationism has much in common with Platon's idealism (Platonism,
Neo-Platonism, ... and so on).
I am merely telling you some facts. An example is the war in the former
Yugoslavia during almost the whole 1990's.
You can shut all your holes of your body: the truth is that there are
too many warmongers.
She is a member of a green party, and the members of all green parties
around the world are interconncted with each other. Did you not notice
that? Try to leave the 19th century and to arrive in the 21st century.
Welcome to the globalistic world!
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
You know, when I tell someone to vote for The Greens, they tell
me »No, because they are too pacifist ....« **
Yes, and that was also the case in Germany during the 1970's and 1980's.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
Now you say »Greens do too much warmongering, aren't pacifist
enough.« **
Yes. I say that, because it is true. Unfortunately.
At the moment the green party in the U.S. is not strong enough to become
a serious competitor. So that party tries to appear more likeable - it
has to get more votes from the people. But if it will have votes enough,
then you will see that it is a party like the other parties or even worse.
Wikipedia wrote:
Stein has stated that the Democratic and Republican parties
are »two corporate parties« that have converged into one.
Concerned by the rise of fascism internationally and the rise of neoliberalism
within the Democratic Party, she has said, »The answer to neofascism
is stopping neoliberalism«. **
I did not say either that there was such a single case of any
war. Are you not capable of reading? I said something about historical
examples, and that, because of the fact that green parties are interconnected,
you can expect this for your country too, but not at the moment. At the
moment your green party appears likeable. Why are you so slow on the uptake,
man?
The two party system in your country prevents that another party can
win an election. As long as that happens, the green party has no chance
to win an election, so it must - and will - remain pacifistic.
We do not have to talk about lies here, because all politicians lie.
Concernig warmongers I was talking about the Greens in Europe (in Europe!)
- not in the U.S.!
Concerning the U.S. Greens, I said something about likeable
and pacifistic Greens! Do you remember? But we have the historical
example of the Greens in Germany that shows what you will have to expect
in the near future, if (and only if) the Green Party in the U.S. will
get a chance (and that is currenly not the case).
Yes, this also reminds me of the 1970's and 1980's in Germany when the
established parties said the Greens wanted to go back to the Stone Age
(cp. back to nature [Rousseau, quoted by Kant]), and the result
was always that the Greens had no chance to get power. The experiences
the Green Party in the U.S. is currenly making are very similar to those
of the Green Party in Germany during the 1970's and 1980's.
Thanks for that example, Jerkey.
|