Messages

46

Aneristic Illusions / Re: So, RWHN, it appears your predictions of doom are contradicted

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:26:06 am »

isssss dildooooeeessss allll theeee wayyy dooooooown

47

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Disney to trademark "Día de los muertos"

« on: May 08, 2013, 06:57:58 am »

Mexico was full of Natives other than Aztecs. I wouldn't say they're predominantly Spaniard.

I'll have to look into that, because yeah, we're called "Mestizo", and I think that not most of the indigenous population was murdered like the USA, but rather there was co-mingling between natives and Spaniards.

EDIT:

A study by the National Institute of Genomic Medicine, Mexico reported that Mestizo Mexicans are 58.96% European, 35.05% "Asian" (Amerindian), and 5.03% African. Sonora shows the highest European contribution (70.63%) and Guerrero the lowest (51.98%) where we also observe the highest Asian contribution (37.17%). African contribution ranges from 2.8% in Sonora to 11.13% in Veracruz. 80% of the Mexican population was classed as mestizo (defined as "being racially mixed in some degree").[209]

In May 2009, Mexico's National Institute of Genomic Medicine issued a report on a genomic study of 300 mestizos from the states of Guerrero, Sonora, Veracruz, Yucatán, Zacatecas, and Guanajuato. The study found that the Mestizo population of these Mexican states were on average 55% of indigenous ancestry followed by 41.8% of European, 1.8% of African, and 1.2% of East Asian ancestry. The study also noted that whereas Mestizo individuals from the southern state of Guerrero showed on average 66% of indigenous ancestry, those from the northern state of Sonora displayed about 61.6% European ancestry. The study found that there was an increase in indigenous ancestry as one traveled towards to the Southern states in Mexico, while the indigenous ancestry declined as one traveled to the Northern states in the country, such as Sonora.[210]

I guess this is a start.

48

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Split from Freedom in Houston

« on: May 08, 2013, 05:44:29 am »

Ok, if you wish to take your argument in that direction, ill go there for your own amusement.

Anyway, the crux of your argument relies on the premise that homosexuality is both an innate property of an individual, and is unmodifyable.
In short, your point is leaning on something you haven't cited the validity of -- and when you do, I can then find a way to debase that study, and produce a counter argument based on a study that invalidates your own argument.
Likewise, you can counter my counter argument, and we can go back in forth spouting lies, damned lies and statistics until one of us simply concedes for the sake of social capital.

Now then, the conversation "degraded" In that my hypothetical scenario had nothing to do with homos per se: the illustrative was used to show that when you apply the idea of "jail the enemy to reform him" to a group you happen to like, it seems illogical, abhorrant and simply "evil", because its something you just happen to stand behind.

I concede that getting into a debate about homosexuality might be somewhat of an effort, and I don't really want to create a "Drugs Thread 2.0". Also, debating something you might not even have a true position on is kind of cheap and convenient, because it's much more easier to criticize and find weak spots than to make a positive solid argument.

Now, true addiction rather than recreational use leads to death (addiction being defined as, using a substance or thing to the point that it is provoking negative effects on one's own life, work, relationships), I'm talking about alcoholics that go on black-outs and do impulsive things like getting into brawls with strangers, ride a car or motorcycle at very dangerous speeds, or say, heroin addicts that their arms get gangrene from injecting so much.

The parallel between getting true addicts into jail and a homosexual being forced to "anti-gay camp" does not hold, because, the only dangerous parts of being homosexual is other human beings who hate them.

Also, you are missing the main point of why this all was mentioned in the first place, as an advice of caution to Gogira, which I might have stated too much as a parable:

In this parable, you are the addict which does not want to change, and she plays the part of the codependent putting herself in harm's way because "he can change, there's a decent human being under that monkey skin", while you might play along just to keep getting attention.

Far more well formed and taken in a direction i did not anticipate; i commend you and see the point you were trying to make far better now considering your parable.

As for gogira wishing to "pull the human out" or whatever, yes, you saved her and my own time well enough -- i wished to cooperate with her only in gathering research concerning anonymous communications...if that whole thing was a ruse to lure the "human" out, it would have indeed ended in me shitting all over things. Neither a service to her or me...

Now see, if you always were so mannered things would had gone much differently.

Not that it matters now, since you have shown that you have an impulse for seeking negative attention and get your kicks from riling people up.

49

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Disney to trademark "Día de los muertos"

« on: May 08, 2013, 05:35:58 am »

There's also this thing about the State's ideology which is very idiosyncratic:

Our national flag is an allusion to the founding of Tenochtitlan empire, which had a bunch of proto-Aztecs wandering around for years, because there was a prophecy that it should be build wherever there was a brown eagle eating a snake on top of a nopal...

Now, contrast having a founding state-sponsored mythology with the current political practices of killing dissident indigenas that want to live without state interferece... along with the fact that Mexicans are more Spaniard garbage than Aztec (ala England and Australia, or England and USA for that matter).

So, Im on the fence on all of this since: is it worse to cling to traditions that only bolster primitive-nationalism and state mythology regarding the unity of all mexicans? or is it worse for future generations to be indoctrinated by a Disney movie with anglicized characters?

Scylla or Charybdis? Might as well burn down the ship.

50

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Split from Freedom in Houston

« on: May 08, 2013, 05:14:36 am »

Ok, if you wish to take your argument in that direction, ill go there for your own amusement.

Anyway, the crux of your argument relies on the premise that homosexuality is both an innate property of an individual, and is unmodifyable.
In short, your point is leaning on something you haven't cited the validity of -- and when you do, I can then find a way to debase that study, and produce a counter argument based on a study that invalidates your own argument.
Likewise, you can counter my counter argument, and we can go back in forth spouting lies, damned lies and statistics until one of us simply concedes for the sake of social capital.

Now then, the conversation "degraded" In that my hypothetical scenario had nothing to do with homos per se: the illustrative was used to show that when you apply the idea of "jail the enemy to reform him" to a group you happen to like, it seems illogical, abhorrant and simply "evil", because its something you just happen to stand behind.

I concede that getting into a debate about homosexuality might be somewhat of an effort, and I don't really want to create a "Drugs Thread 2.0". Also, debating something you might not even have a true position on is kind of cheap and convenient, because it's much more easier to criticize and find weak spots than to make a positive solid argument.

Now, true addiction rather than recreational use leads to death (addiction being defined as, using a substance or thing to the point that it is provoking negative effects on one's own life, work, relationships), I'm talking about alcoholics that go on black-outs and do impulsive things like getting into brawls with strangers, ride a car or motorcycle at very dangerous speeds, or say, heroin addicts that their arms get gangrene from injecting so much.

The parallel between getting true addicts into jail and a homosexual being forced to "anti-gay camp" does not hold, because, the only dangerous parts of being homosexual is other human beings who hate them.

Also, you are missing the main point of why this all was mentioned in the first place, as an advice of caution to Gogira, which I might have stated too much as a parable:

In this parable, you are the addict which does not want to change, and she plays the part of the codependent putting herself in harm's way because "he can change, there's a decent human being under that monkey skin", while you might play along just to keep getting attention.

51

Apple Zone / Re: NYC = Bollocks

« on: May 08, 2013, 04:03:00 am »

YOU COULD

                order an vodka with Red Bull

OR

               carry your own microwave while travelling

52

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Split from Freedom in Houston

« on: May 08, 2013, 03:39:49 am »

Which brings back the attention on Mr. Von:

This will end up degrading into a debate concerning homosexuality if we continue.

The conversation can only "degrade" into "a debate concerning homosexuality", because I suspect, that even do:

...I'm very far from anti-homosexual..

he probably would show in the ensuing debate, how he in actuality is a homo-phobe.

Obviously this is speculation based on interpretation, but oh, prove me wrong.

53

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Split from Freedom in Houston

« on: May 08, 2013, 03:33:53 am »

Just keep in mind that anything we say, everything we do, means more than what is apparent.

Saying a racial slur even if it's just "for the purpose of offending someone" and "not really meaning it", in fact, actually means that you are effectively participating in reinforcing racial discrimination, even if you think it does not. Maybe you don't consider yourself a "racist", but what is the difference between reinforcing racial discrimination and actually being a racist? Merely a difference in degrees.

Morally speaking:  No difference.
Pragmatically speaking:  No difference.

An evil person is one who does evil things.  Likewise, a racist person is one who does racist things.

QED.

I will make a connection with something that might resonate with something you commented a couple weeks ago:

Margaret Thatcher: she had certain "greatness" (evil greatness), in which she stuck by her guns, and did what she professed.

We do not have that anymore, we only have crypto-fascists, crypto-racists, crypto-homophobes and all one can think of under the sun. So what do we get? A bunch of assholes that keep on acting like assholes, but won't admit to being assholes.

Obama: I AM MORALLY AND CATEGORICALLY OPPOSED TO TORTURE AND LACK OF A PROPER TRIAL (keeps Guantanamo functioning)

Even in her day, Thatcher was an oddity.  She was a monster.  She knew why everyone hated her, and she didn't care.  When I say "greatness", I don't mean it in a positive way.  I mean it more like "the great Chicago fire".

Only rarely do people admit to being assholes.  This doesn't make them more palatable, it only makes them proud assholes.

Yeah, i got you in that it wasn't refered as a positive trait, because it was simply great evil.

What i like about people being so cynical about one's viewpoints is that it opens up the possibility of accountability, instead of pussy-footing around an argument and back-pedalling. In rhetorical-combat terms, it gives a chance to "storm the castle" instead of having petty guerillas all over the place.

Blatantly expressing "I am a racist because X" leaves the said person very open to a diversity of arguments, in opposition to what happened in the Trayvon-Martin case, in which nobody supporting the murderer was a "racist" but seeking to "unveil the inconsistencies in the trial" or whatever bullshit they said to justify facilitating the murderer not getting convicted.

54

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Split from Freedom in Houston

« on: May 08, 2013, 03:24:59 am »

No Johnny, it's all about what you really feel deep down inside and stuff!  The idea of a rich inner life which determines the meaning of our actions is totally not a means to rationalize ones actions, and those who claim otherwise are just psychobabble addled Freudians.

I can see why you like the italics for sarcasm now.

I remember that one time when I argued entire paragraphs in italics simulating the opposition's position to its logical conclusion. Needless to say, i did not inform everyone appropiately and it caused several dozen pages of outrage and dog-piling 

I've considered making an alt for those purposes and making it clear what the intentions are and making the account accesible to everyone, but that's just playing with fire.

55

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Disney to trademark "Día de los muertos"

« on: May 08, 2013, 03:18:52 am »

America's culture is appropriating other cultures for the purpose of selling shit.  It's tradition.

Also, I think Mexico has somewhat bigger problems that cultural appropriation, like you say Johnny.  I don't know if it's quite right to use #firstworldproblems for such a viewpoint, but perhaps #MEDCproblems would fit?

"Disney hara una película del Día de Muertos, pero no entiendo inglés"
           /
          /

56

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Split from Freedom in Houston

« on: May 08, 2013, 03:10:30 am »

Just keep in mind that anything we say, everything we do, means more than what is apparent.

Saying a racial slur even if it's just "for the purpose of offending someone" and "not really meaning it", in fact, actually means that you are effectively participating in reinforcing racial discrimination, even if you think it does not. Maybe you don't consider yourself a "racist", but what is the difference between reinforcing racial discrimination and actually being a racist? Merely a difference in degrees.

Morally speaking:  No difference.
Pragmatically speaking:  No difference.

An evil person is one who does evil things.  Likewise, a racist person is one who does racist things.

QED.

I will make a connection with something that might resonate with something you commented a couple weeks ago:

Margaret Thatcher: she had certain "greatness" (evil greatness), in which she stuck by her guns, and did what she professed.

We do not have that anymore, we only have crypto-fascists, crypto-racists, crypto-homophobes and all one can think of under the sun. So what do we get? A bunch of assholes that keep on acting like assholes, but won't admit to being assholes.

Obama: I AM MORALLY AND CATEGORICALLY OPPOSED TO TORTURE AND LACK OF A PROPER TRIAL (keeps Guantanamo functioning)

57

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Split from Freedom in Houston

« on: May 08, 2013, 03:00:54 am »

I'm pretty sure you are just being sophistrous, but might as well adress it:

Possibly so, but dialogue and examination is a good spotlight for examining fallacy....thanks for making an address!

*Conveniently, you deleted in the quotes the initial parts of what I said about succesful "reform" coming only from personal initiative. That is important because, the only thing close to legitimate forced "rehabilitation" is the judicial system (in an ideal world anyhow, since it's mostly used for punishment, but whatever).

I deleted them because I don't disagree with the idea that personal insight is the best way to cause change -- What I do not agree with is the second position, which is why I addressed it specifically.

*Now in your hypothetical, there is a flawed and uninformed view on the parents on what is "destructive". Second, it's an attempt at reforming something that cannot be changed, independently of if the said kid is ideologized into thinking he wants to be hetero. This type of forced reform is just abuse of authority. Also, I'm not sure if you need to be reminded that homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it destructive.

We'll have disconnect here, but allow me to address that I'm very far from anti-homosexual; my hypothetical is drawn from the experiences of a close friend, so my hypothetical is not an endorsement of anti-queer behaviour in any case...anyway, on with my rebuttle then:

In the situation of the parents, who see their child's social capital as being important in a gay-hating world, homosexuality could very well be seen as being "destructive". I mean, if we have all of these arguments floating around about how gays have less privlege than straight folk, it could be very well reasoned that the hypothetical parents saw their kid's actions as leading to lowered privlege, which in turn translates to lowered economic status, social status, etc. So from the view of the parents, they are "correct" in that their child's behaviour is destructive in the fields which they consider relevant.

Naturally, the gay kid can rationalise his point of view too -- about how he's being opressed by society, and about his lack of privlege, and in the end, his arguments, I'm sure, would be equally as valid as his parents' -- just placing emphasis on something that isn't social capital relating to the status quo.

Likewise, the drug addict, or even the shitbag racist can make arguments equally as valid as his own "reformer" -- except focusing on a different end goal. This disconnect of end goals, this is discord -- and the fact that by changing the end goal one can argue anything into truth -- this is why I maintain a world view of moral relativism; everyone can spray bullshit, anyone can believe it, but in the end, none of it really holds much truth from the perspective of someone who holds an opposing view point....

Well, its something more than just "personal insight is the key to change"... maybe at first is a "personal motivation for change", because insight itself might or might not motivate change, although its an important part of it. There are a number of people that know what they are, but don't feel like they need to change.

My reference to the rehabilitation process and the avoidance of codependence was an advise to Gogira to not invest so much of herself while talking with you, because to you all of this is just a game of rhetoric, achieving reactions and all that goodness.

Now, regarding how anything can be argued into "truth"... I've lived thru that perspective, so I kind of know what you mean, but I dont agree with it:

*Actions =/= discourse

Following your friend's example (taking into account that it shifted to supposedly being a counter-example allegedly to the process of rehabilitation, into an example of how "end goals" give the cues for the word-twisting and rationalization)

The discourse of the parent's is that being homosexual damages their social standing and opportunities, therefore the implicit statement is that being thrown into "Anti-gay camp" is for their child's "own good".

Now, contrast this discourse with reality:

1. Homosexuality has been proven to be something that cannot be changed. Also, it has been established that it happens without clear reason at very early development stages, before the age of 6 or even earlier than that.

2. Instead of forcing someone to change what they are, they could very well try to support that person to overcome the social stigma and hardships that will indeed happen.

Their discourse is "for his own good", but the reality is that, their interest doesn't lie in his "own good", it lies in "not having a homosexual son", because forcing someone to not be what they are and cannot be changed is by a great margin more damaging to them than the social stigma that they will face eventually anyhow because they might break out of the closet one day, which would only add more internal conflict for said person... the alternative being that they are secretly gay their entire lives, living miserably... or the alternative being them coming out of the closet after marriage and having kids, thus bringing misery to not only one person, but to an entire family.

People will always rationalize or have their way with words for their own convenience, that does not mean that what they say has an ounce of veracity, that is why it has to be cross-referenced with their actions and consequences.

This will end up degrading into a debate concerning homosexuality if we continue.

I can only agree to disagree with your perspective at this time...

Just keep in mind that anything we say, everything we do, means more than what is apparent.

Saying a racial slur even if it's just "for the purpose of offending someone" and "not really meaning it", in fact, actually means that you are effectively participating in reinforcing racial discrimination, even if you think it does not. Maybe you don't consider yourself a "racist", but what is the difference between reinforcing racial discrimination and actually being a racist? Merely a difference in degrees.

58

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Split from Freedom in Houston

« on: May 08, 2013, 02:54:19 am »

Johnny, you are attempting to reason with a bigot.

Just saying.  Carry on.

Better me than Gogira; also, jousting with trolls once in a while keeps the mind sharp.

59

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Disney to trademark "Día de los muertos"

« on: May 08, 2013, 02:50:56 am »

https://www.change.org/petitions/walt-disney-company-stop-trademark-of-dia-de-los-muertos

I haven't done verification of the veracity of the process, but, lol what?

Disney does this shit every time they make a movie.

I wasn't aware of that.

Either way, there's a public outrage over it on the Facebook.

Me personally, I think its imperialistic as fuck, but on my hierarchization of problems it ranks so low that i find it hilarious 

MURRIKA:  APPROPRIATIN' YER CULTURE.

SEENKO DEE MAYOS, MAN!
\

I couldn't care less for 5 de Mayo, really, because:

WIN THE BATTLE - LOSE THE WAR, YAY LETS GET DRUNK!!!!!!!
        /
       /
 

60

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Split from Freedom in Houston

« on: May 08, 2013, 02:35:45 am »

I'm pretty sure you are just being sophistrous, but might as well adress it:

Possibly so, but dialogue and examination is a good spotlight for examining fallacy....thanks for making an address!

*Conveniently, you deleted in the quotes the initial parts of what I said about succesful "reform" coming only from personal initiative. That is important because, the only thing close to legitimate forced "rehabilitation" is the judicial system (in an ideal world anyhow, since it's mostly used for punishment, but whatever).

I deleted them because I don't disagree with the idea that personal insight is the best way to cause change -- What I do not agree with is the second position, which is why I addressed it specifically.

*Now in your hypothetical, there is a flawed and uninformed view on the parents on what is "destructive". Second, it's an attempt at reforming something that cannot be changed, independently of if the said kid is ideologized into thinking he wants to be hetero. This type of forced reform is just abuse of authority. Also, I'm not sure if you need to be reminded that homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it destructive.

We'll have disconnect here, but allow me to address that I'm very far from anti-homosexual; my hypothetical is drawn from the experiences of a close friend, so my hypothetical is not an endorsement of anti-queer behaviour in any case...anyway, on with my rebuttle then:

In the situation of the parents, who see their child's social capital as being important in a gay-hating world, homosexuality could very well be seen as being "destructive". I mean, if we have all of these arguments floating around about how gays have less privlege than straight folk, it could be very well reasoned that the hypothetical parents saw their kid's actions as leading to lowered privlege, which in turn translates to lowered economic status, social status, etc. So from the view of the parents, they are "correct" in that their child's behaviour is destructive in the fields which they consider relevant.

Naturally, the gay kid can rationalise his point of view too -- about how he's being opressed by society, and about his lack of privlege, and in the end, his arguments, I'm sure, would be equally as valid as his parents' -- just placing emphasis on something that isn't social capital relating to the status quo.

Likewise, the drug addict, or even the shitbag racist can make arguments equally as valid as his own "reformer" -- except focusing on a different end goal. This disconnect of end goals, this is discord -- and the fact that by changing the end goal one can argue anything into truth -- this is why I maintain a world view of moral relativism; everyone can spray bullshit, anyone can believe it, but in the end, none of it really holds much truth from the perspective of someone who holds an opposing view point....

Well, its something more than just "personal insight is the key to change"... maybe at first is a "personal motivation for change", because insight itself might or might not motivate change, although its an important part of it. There are a number of people that know what they are, but don't feel like they need to change.

My reference to the rehabilitation process and the avoidance of codependence was an advise to Gogira to not invest so much of herself while talking with you, because to you all of this is just a game of rhetoric, achieving reactions and all that goodness.

Now, regarding how anything can be argued into "truth"... I've lived thru that perspective, so I kind of know what you mean, but I dont agree with it:

*Actions =/= discourse

Following your friend's example (taking into account that it shifted to supposedly being a counter-example allegedly to the process of rehabilitation, into an example of how "end goals" give the cues for the word-twisting and rationalization)

The discourse of the parent's is that being homosexual damages their social standing and opportunities, therefore the implicit statement is that being thrown into "Anti-gay camp" is for their child's "own good".

Now, contrast this discourse with reality:

1. Homosexuality has been proven to be something that cannot be changed. Also, it has been established that it happens without clear reason at very early development stages, before the age of 6 or even earlier than that.

2. Instead of forcing someone to change what they are, they could very well try to support that person to overcome the social stigma and hardships that will indeed happen.

Their discourse is "for his own good", but the reality is that, their interest doesn't lie in his "own good", it lies in "not having a homosexual son", because forcing someone to not be what they are and cannot be changed is by a great margin more damaging to them than the social stigma that they will face eventually anyhow because they might break out of the closet one day, which would only add more internal conflict for said person... the alternative being that they are secretly gay their entire lives, living miserably... or the alternative being them coming out of the closet after marriage and having kids, thus bringing misery to not only one person, but to an entire family.

People will always rationalize or have their way with words for their own convenience, that does not mean that what they say has an ounce of veracity, that is why it has to be cross-referenced with their actions and consequences.