[quote]csulli wrote:<<< So again, you’re full of it.[/quote]Now jist a partially hydrogenated minute here Skippy. Being wrong and full of it ain’t the same thing.
On a side note, brother Joab seems especially frisky this morning.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
All I have to say is that the masses must become dialecticians and inscribe their thought in practice! [/quote]
"Karado, if that IS you? Knock it off. One of you is enough.
In other words, yup.[/quote]
I pretty sure he is not Karado.
Because i’m pretty sure that Karado could not come up with this kind of phraseology to save his life.
Tyrone is probably just someone who have read a few dangerous books.
Books i probably read too.
Books most of you would label as “far left propaganda”.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t label it “Religion”, I label it wishful thinking as a replacement for truth and reality.[/quote]
Aren’t you playing with words my dear!
In spite of the fact that this pathetic festival of reification-bulwarked interpellation has been quite entertaining, I will leave now.
[/quote]
mmmm-hmmm.
I wasn’t playing. Leftist theory, or theology depending on your level of commitment has not only failed in theory but it really failed in practice. Nothing in history has failed worse. That’s just a cold hard fact.
At worst you can say religious philosophy is unproven, at best you can say leftist philosophy has failed every test, ethical, logical and practical. It has nothing to offer save for failure. [/quote]
The phrase “leftist theory” is meaningless and has no application to the present discussion.
History is an activity. The entire corpus of religious philosophy as it exists today is the dried semen of a particular form of obsolesced social domination.
An individual, as you yourself have persistently and with all the tenacity of a pomaceously-entranced barbarian-of-the-episteme demonstrated, is capable of saying whatever he/she would like regardless of the disgustingly profane level of perversity embedded within the statement at hand.
[/quote]
You brought it up.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
The phrase “leftist theory” is meaningless and has no application to the present discussion.
History is an activity. The entire corpus of religious philosophy as it exists today is the dried semen of a particular form of obsolesced social domination.
An individual, as you yourself have persistently and with all the tenacity of a pomaceously-entranced barbarian-of-the-episteme demonstrated, is capable of saying whatever he/she would like regardless of the disgustingly profane level of perversity embedded within the statement at hand.
[/quote]
I think several of us have completely forgotten about the original topic and are now entirely focused on why you take so long to say so little.
“Religion is an antiquated and obsolete form of social control”
and
“You and I both have freedom of speech”
Is that not all you said?[/quote]
Pretty much… He needs subtitles, like ‘Honey-boo-boo’.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
the ideological factory of interpellation that is academia [/quote]
Redundant - “interpellation” in a marxist context presupposes “ideology.” Factory of interpellation would have sufficed, but you have this strange affinity for ambiguous and verbose genitive constructions. [/quote]
The ambiguity enables one to say nothing while talking a lot. Then one can simply change the intended meaning on the fly. It’s a handy, but transparent tactic of debate.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
the ideological factory of interpellation that is academia [/quote]
Redundant - “interpellation” in a marxist context presupposes “ideology.” Factory of interpellation would have sufficed, but you have this strange affinity for ambiguous and verbose genitive constructions. [/quote]
That it does, but I wished to imply that the production of false consciousness as a general material and institutional deception of the proletariat is in the case of certain individuals participating in this discussion directly related to the “factory of interpellation that is academia” and their presumably past subjugation therein
Had I simply stated “factory of interpellation that is academia”, I would have stated that academia is a mode of producing the process by which ideology confronts and produces the subject. [/quote]
Case in point, a way to say nothing, or not much using a lot of words.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
“Religion is an antiquated and obsolete form of social control”[/quote]
This is not what he said.
his statement implies that philosophy (and not religion) has no universal value, no real objectivity, and no direct causal power : it’s only, and always, the ideological/superstructural reflection of the infrastructure.
No I think you’re wrong. Let’s look at the words he used sans some of the adjectives and prepositional phrases.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
The corpus of religious philosophy as it exists today is the dried semen of a particular form of obsolesced social domination.[/quote]
The body of religious philosophy today is the remnant (I guess that’s what he was going for with dried semen) of a kind of social control which is becoming increasingly obsolete.
So yea, I still think he was basically calling religion an obsolete form of social control. What you said is mostly philosophical bullshit.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
An individual is capable of saying whatever he/she would like.[/quote]
That is literally all he said. So yeah that’s basically freedom of speech. The entire rest of that bit was just prepositional phrases taking shots at pat.
So again, you’re full of it.[/quote]
Oh, I may be wrong.
It happens to me occasionnally.
But the content of his last post make me think that i’m, again, “more or less correct”.
That being said, post after post, each time we spoke about him using the third-person singular, his comment about a “pathetic festival of reification” becomes more true.
So, i will leave this discussion now.
Feel free to believe whatever you want.
And by saying that, i’m not making a political statement about our natural right of freedom of speech.
i’m just saying that i don’t care.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Obfuscatory language is intentionally used only by those who wish to pull the wool over other people’s eyes, either to seem smart or to grab influence and power by seeming smart.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Obfuscatory language is intentionally used only by those who wish to pull the wool over other people’s eyes, either to seem smart or to grab influence and power by seeming smart.[/quote]
Exactly, which is why Marxism is so reliant on it. Because if you just came out and said, “let’s take everything from everyone,” people would dislike you.
Stop picking on Marxism, Groucho and his brothers we’re very funny and hold a dear place
in my heart.
Budum-tch
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Obfuscatory language is intentionally used only by those who wish to pull the wool over other people’s eyes, either to seem smart or to grab influence and power by seeming smart.[/quote]
Only it’s not working. Seems more like a joke.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Obfuscatory language is intentionally used only by those who wish to pull the wool over other people’s eyes, either to seem smart or to grab influence and power by seeming smart.[/quote]
Exactly, which is why Marxism is so reliant on it. Because if you just came out and said, “let’s take everything from everyone,” people would dislike you.[/quote]
Well said… Or shall I say very conjectural oration.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Obfuscatory language is intentionally used only by those who wish to pull the wool over other people’s eyes, either to seem smart or to grab influence and power by seeming smart.[/quote]
Exactly, which is why Marxism is so reliant on it. Because if you just came out and said, “let’s take everything from everyone,” people would dislike you.[/quote]
But what about the children and the poor people? We have to help them all.
It’s difficult to free the fools from the chains they revere.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
It’s difficult to free the fools from the chains they revere. [/quote]
Particularly so when your unconcealed intention is to shackle them with heavier ones.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
It’s difficult to free the fools from the chains they revere. [/quote]
Especially the chains of Marxism and Communism.
Liberty has no chains, only the ones put on by yourself.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
It’s difficult to free the fools from the chains they revere. [/quote]
What chains?
So back on topic: 3 Keys to Pope Benedict's Legacy
Three keys: First, his commitment to reason. Second, his evangelical focus. Third, his embrace of the new media.
And fourth was the new stereo in the pope-moblie? =D