Controlled Opposition, Left Vs Right

Nigel Blake

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2020
Messages
50
A world where everyone is in a peaceful, altruistic and anti-authoritarian place, I understand ;)

Recognizes that their place, the human place in life is to love and be loved.
"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."

Your vanity is simply atrocious. So not only are you openly defying God, you have the audacity to use his words to your own ends. If you truly believe the words you so arrogantly quoted from you must believe criminals nor any sinner should NOT be punished. To punish someone is to do them harm and doing harm isn't compatible with loving someone. You also would love capitalist and business owners big or small and wouldn't try subvert them and take the wealth they spent so much effort acquiring. You also wouldn't try to get rid of your rulers.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."
-Romans 13:1-7
 
OP
MatheusPN

MatheusPN

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
547
Location
Brazil
Better. "God is in the stone, in the sky..."

@Nigel Blake Even worse than what I was expecting lol

@Nigel Blake Replying to you here almost certainly is a bad idea and surely, I won't enjoy replying.
"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
 
Last edited:

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
In what way is anarchist philosophy ideal? I can't think of it as anything other than completely degenerative....


No, hierarchy is a description of reality and not simply a projection of one's beliefs onto reality. Authority is absolutely is necessary for a functional society. How would you even go about enforcing laws without the authority to do so?


A family follows a rather simple hierarchy. The child obeys the mother. The mother obeys the father. The father obeys God. This has been the case for thousands of years at least. The idea of a "family unit" is a modern phenomenon...



How does one goes from standing by the king to promoting socialism? You did say generally so I take it there was those who truly believe in royalty then?



Can you explain why workers should have a say of how a business that doesn't belong to them should be run?

Hierarchy is more a snap shot of reality via the limited human senses, they all decay and must be rebuilt, without knowing all of reality and what it is we can only assume for now, nothing is closed, it’s only temporary forms that will change.
The child sees the mother and father as a metaphor, encouragements and ushering can work if intelligence is there, when intelligence is lacking people us authoritarianism.
 

Nigel Blake

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2020
Messages
50
Hierarchy is more a snap shot of reality via the limited human senses, they all decay and must be rebuilt, without knowing all of reality and what it is we can only assume for now, nothing is closed, it’s only temporary forms that will change.
The child sees the mother and father as a metaphor, encouragements and ushering can work if intelligence is there, when intelligence is lacking people us authoritarianism.

You're saying hierarchy is limited snap shot of reality because it decays and is rebuilt? What society can you think of that has no hierarchical structure whatsoever? What you mean the child see the mother and the father as a metaphor? There is intelligence disparity between the child ( prior reaching puberty) and the parents. There's also an intelligence disparity between men and women though not as blatant between a child and his parents. Are you suggesting the mother and father don't have authority over their children?
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
You're saying hierarchy is limited snap shot of reality because it decays and is rebuilt? What society can you think of that has no hierarchical structure whatsoever? What you mean the child see the mother and the father as a metaphor? There is intelligence disparity between the child ( prior reaching puberty) and the parents. There's also an intelligence disparity between men and women though not as blatant between a child and his parents. Are you suggesting the mother and father don't have authority over their children?

The child is a product of both parents, the child is the parents combined in development along with interactions in the environment, the priming in the womb does have strong patterns somewhat set for life based on our current understanding of developmental biology.
My guess is the parents can act authoritatively, dictate with the threat of punishment or they can lead via analogy, by example, there is a difference here IMO, being authoritative can cause rigidity in the child, if the child isn’t inclined to follow the example set then the parents should be energetically adaptable to offer another.
Is breastfeeding for example a rigid hierarchy, it doesn’t seem to be as the child moves on from it via development, it’s the child that creates the desire in the mother to breastfeed in most cases, the child also cries when hungry.
Hierarchy for me is questionable because it’s a system with effect from the top down but also the bottom up and everything in between, the common interpretation is it’s top down control ,It’s seems to be system that develops from scarcity of energetic resources in the environment. It’s a feedback loop that inevitably must change because it’s a process.

Low intelligence in the parents and lower socioeconomic status makes it difficult to do anything other than be authoritative it seems.

Human perception perceives a process in development and describes it as a hierarchy which implies rigidity, entropy and negentropy to maintain structure is a broader phenomenon we currently don’t understand fully but my guess is it’s not a hierarchy but a sea of infinite potential, potential for forms ,information drawn in via our structure that we describe with the word hierarchy.
:2cents:
 

Nigel Blake

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2020
Messages
50
My guess is the parents can act authoritatively, dictate with the threat of punishment or they can lead via analogy, by example, there is a difference here IMO, being authoritative can cause rigidity in the child, if the child isn’t inclined to follow the example set then the parents should be energetically adaptable to offer another.

You're implying rigidity is bad while flexibility is good. Rigidity is need to uphold standards and morals that should never be compromise on. Flexibility makes go along with the flow even if that flow is heading straight for a cliff...

Is breastfeeding for example a rigid hierarchy,it doesn’t seem to be as the child moves on from it via development, it’s the child that creates the desire in the mother to breastfeed in most cases, the child also cries when hungry.

Yes it is a rigid hierarchy. The baby can't feed itself and is in a state of vulnerability while the mother gives her milk to sustain the life of the baby. This dynamic can't be seen as the two are of equal footing. You can be one of 3 things in your relationship to others. You can be someone's inferior, equal, or superior. If you're not equal than you either the inferior or superior and there isn't any sane way to see the baby as the superior. You're trying to attempt to place them on equal footing but they clearly are not. The baby needs that breastmilk much more direly than the mother needs the baby.

Hierarchy for me is questionable because it’s a system with effect from the top down but also the bottom up and everything in between, the common interpretation is it’s top down control ,It’s seems to be system that develops from scarcity of energetic resources in the environment. It’s a feedback loop that inevitably must change because it’s a process.

I am not entirely sure the bottom up effect you're referring to. You could be referring to the people electing officials into office or officials being effected by public outcry. Perhaps you referring to the symbiotic relationship of the the higher order and lower order. Its most likely the latter in which case, the symbiotic relationship doesn't in any way undermines the hierarchy but rather reinforces it. As I have stated previously the higher order can't exist without the lower order and vice versa. The higher order will respond to the need of the lower order and the lower return the favor. A mother responding to her baby's needs does not any way negate the fact she is of higher position compare to the baby.

Low intelligence in the parents and lower socioeconomic status makes it difficult to do anything other than be authoritative it seems.

Your constant insinuation that taking a position of authority makes one of low intelligence and poor is rather defamatory. Authority exists to resolve conflict. If two people have a dispute than the dispute is settle by an authority figure. If the authority figure can't settle the dispute then the dispute will escalate. Some disputes escalate to the point of warfare that will only end in either the submission or elimination of the opposition with the occasional "compromises" here and there. In a world where everyone has equal authority, I imagine there will be a constant supply of blood to fertilize the soil....

Human perception perceives a process in development and describes it as a hierarchy which implies rigidity, entropy and negentropy to maintain structure is a broader phenomenon we currently don’t understand fully but my guess is it’s not a hierarchy but a sea of infinite potential, potential for forms ,information drawn in via our structure that we describe with the word hierarchy.

What potential form are you thinking of? I can't think of any phenomenon that falls under the higher and lower order paradigm I describe which is govern by the law of duality...
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Rigidity is temporary, changing, I think the problem is more the refusal to recognize this earlier as a natural process and allow systems to evolve sooner, we cling to them for too long and we need authoritarianism to do that.
The standards and morals evolve and change, it was morally and legally acceptable in the past to engage sexually with kids from 12 years of age, this wasn’t so long ago.

The breast feeding doesn’t necessarily need a mother as we have changed/evolved to the point a machine could feed the baby daily, in the past the mother was essential and could walk away, now we have social services that can assist, it’s no longer an absolute certainty as it would have been in the past.
We still can’t negate the desire the child induces in the mother and it’s effect, a capacity to induce desire is power, attraction.

Overall I just don’t see the benefits of how hierarchies in general are perceived, they are seen as systems to fight and die for rather than accept change.

The potential for any form that we can perceive in our evolved structure, it’s open to change with time or possibly get worse.

I’m not trying to defame anyone, I haven’t specified individual names, I’m not getting into another long back and forth if it descends into this, good day.
 

Nigel Blake

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2020
Messages
50
Rigidity is temporary, changing, I think the problem is more the refusal to recognize this earlier as a natural process and allow systems to evolve sooner, we cling to them for too long and we need authoritarianism to do that.

You yet again portray rigidity and authority as bad while portray "evolution" and change as good. Why do you keep doing this? Its like you're ignoring what I have said and sticking your head in the sand. Systems and change are opposed to one another by their very existence. Systems needs order to operate which implies an unchanging rigid state and predictability and structure. Change is the opposite of order and breeds chaos where no system can come into existence as nothing can have a define structure. It appears you're hellbent to oppose law and order. Am I mistaken in my observation?

The standards and morals evolve and change, it was morally and legally acceptable in the past to engage sexually with kids from 12 years of age, this wasn’t so long ago.

What does "evolve" means in the context you're using it in? If it means to change then it is redundant to use it in the same sentence that you use the word change. Morals that change are not a good thing. For there to be morals there is a need for there to be a moral truth and truth is rigid and is objective. If your morals are changing and subjective then you do not have morals.

It is funny you mention the morality of having sex with those of the age of 12. I have written on the topic many times in youtube comments that ultimately didn't go anywhere since they refused to see the truth. I can link to them if you want but I shall give a summary of my views. The current views of sexual morality are very wrong and essentially rejects reality while at the same time brings harm to society. Anyone capable of procreating and moral agency should not in any circumstances be considered a child or kid, to do otherwise is simply wrong. I can elaborate further or link to comment threads where I gave more details of my views on the matter if you desire....

The breast feeding doesn’t necessarily need a mother as we have changed/evolved to the point a machine could feed the baby daily, in the past the mother was essential and could walk away, now we have social services that can assist, it’s no longer an absolute certainty as it would have been in the past.

To be quite frank with you, what you just said in this paragraph makes me sick and churns my stomach. To call this appalling would be giving it the highest form flattery. The thought you would dare suggest that a machine can replace the mother is maddening. This right here is why rigidity is necessary and changing moral standards is really nothing more than moral degeneracy in disguise. Replacing the mother with "social services" is almost as sickening and all the reason any sane person would need to oppose any left leaning ideology but insanity has the whole world in its grasp....

We still can’t negate the desire the child induces in the mother and it’s effect, a capacity to induce desire is power, attraction.

"We"? You clearly were referring to me and not yourself. Either way, I wasn't trying negate anything besides you implying change is good and being rigid is bad. Rather telling that you're elevating the baby while at the same degrading the mother. If I didn't know any better I would say you have some insidious motives...

Overall I just don’t see the benefits of how hierarchies in general are perceived, they are seen as systems to fight and die for rather than accept change.

It is more like you simply reject the good of hierarchies since it goes against your worldview rather than hierarchies are not good. What do you think of Lucifer's defiance against God? From what I've read of your views, I'll say you're much closer in align with Lucifer than with God and I want to see if I am mistaken or not....

The potential for any form that we can perceive in our evolved structure, it’s open to change with time or possibly get worse.

You keep using that "evolve" word again. Change is not constant. There is something satanic about believing that change is constant while rigidity is temporary. Being constant implies not being subject to change while temporary means being subject to change. You emphasis on change while at the same being dismissal of rigidity, structure and form isn't a sign of anything good...

I’m not trying to defame anyone, I haven’t specified individual names, I’m not getting into another long back and forth if it descends into this, good day.

If you had no desire of a confrontational discussion with me then you really shouldn't use a public forum. Anything you say in a public forum will be contested when someone strongly disagree with you and that someone is me at the moment. This closing statement comes off as you having no way actually refuting anything I've said and wish to exist the conversation as quickly as possible. As someone who should be concern of finding the truth, your actions are that of a coward. It is disappointing to see someone of your prestige actually having such a putrid character. If this is to be the end of our conversation then I shall take my leave then...
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
You yet again portray rigidity and authority as bad while portray "evolution" and change as good. Why do you keep doing this? Its like you're ignoring what I have said and sticking your head in the sand. Systems and change are opposed to one another by their very existence. Systems needs order to operate which implies an unchanging rigid state and predictability and structure. Change is the opposite of order and breeds chaos where no system can come into existence as nothing can have a define structure. It appears you're hellbent to oppose law and order. Am I mistaken in my observation?



What does "evolve" means in the context you're using it in? If it means to change then it is redundant to use it in the same sentence that you use the word change. Morals that change are not a good thing. For there to be morals there is a need for there to be a moral truth and truth is rigid and is objective. If your morals are changing and subjective then you do not have morals.

It is funny you mention the morality of having sex with those of the age of 12. I have written on the topic many times in youtube comments that ultimately didn't go anywhere since they refused to see the truth. I can link to them if you want but I shall give a summary of my views. The current views of sexual morality are very wrong and essentially rejects reality while at the same time brings harm to society. Anyone capable of procreating and moral agency should not in any circumstances be considered a child or kid, to do otherwise is simply wrong. I can elaborate further or link to comment threads where I gave more details of my views on the matter if you desire....



To be quite frank with you, what you just said in this paragraph makes me sick and churns my stomach. To call this appalling would be giving it the highest form flattery. The thought you would dare suggest that a machine can replace the mother is maddening. This right here is why rigidity is necessary and changing moral standards is really nothing more than moral degeneracy in disguise. Replacing the mother with "social services" is almost as sickening and all the reason any sane person would need to oppose any left leaning ideology but insanity has the whole world in its grasp....



"We"? You clearly were referring to me and not yourself. Either way, I wasn't trying negate anything besides you implying change is good and being rigid is bad. Rather telling that you're elevating the baby while at the same degrading the mother. If I didn't know any better I would say you have some insidious motives...



It is more like you simply reject the good of hierarchies since it goes against your worldview rather than hierarchies are not good. What do you think of Lucifer's defiance against God? From what I've read of your views, I'll say you're much closer in align with Lucifer than with God and I want to see if I am mistaken or not....



You keep using that "evolve" word again. Change is not constant. There is something satanic about believing that change is constant while rigidity is temporary. Being constant implies not being subject to change while temporary means being subject to change. You emphasis on change while at the same being dismissal of rigidity, structure and form isn't a sign of anything good...



If you had no desire of a confrontational discussion with me then you really shouldn't use a public forum. Anything you say in a public forum will be contested when someone strongly disagree with you and that someone is me at the moment. This closing statement comes off as you having no way actually refuting anything I've said and wish to exist the conversation as quickly as possible. As someone who should be concern of finding the truth, your actions are that of a coward. It is disappointing to see someone of your prestige actually having such a putrid character. If this is to be the end of our conversation then I shall take my leave then...

There is a paradox behind all perceptions including what we perceive as change, from our current understanding we could discuss them ad nauseam, Using analogy doesn’t mean I practice said analogies or desire them.
The morality behind discouraging sex with kids is about preserving their development for energetic capacity via growth, this benefits humanity more, most coherent morals have this process underlying them, as the context of the environment changes and allows for growth of more structure via resources the morals will change accordingly, this can be good or bad if the resources dwindle and structure suffers.

With regard to the potential of turning up at the gates of heaven and being presented with the choice of Lucifer or God I’m going to ask if there’s a third option available, neither of them impress me that much, according to the texts they are both happy to kill people.

I have no prestige on here in my mind, being on here has thought me to see what is dialectic and what is rigid, I don’t have time to entertain everyone’s rigidity they can only shake off by experience, saying I have prestige implies I’m authoritative which I’m not.

I don’t like woke politics, they will fail, they are delusional, those with the access to the most energetic resources and capacity to maintain them win, that’s the ruling class.
 

Nigel Blake

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2020
Messages
50
Alright I am done with my procrastination and ready to reply..

There is a paradox behind all perceptions including what we perceive as change, from our current understanding we could discuss them ad nauseam, Using analogy doesn’t mean I practice said analogies or desire them.

It seems like you reject the very idea of objective reality. Is this correct? If so then do you reject there being truth?

The morality behind discouraging sex with kids is about preserving their development for energetic capacity via growth, this benefits humanity more,

It seems like you're talking over me and ignoring what it means to be an actual child. It isn't actually possible to have sex with children since children are not able to procreate. Using someone for sexual gratification isn't the same as sex. In either case, I do not see how someone's energetic capacity can be depleted and hinder their growth. In your view, how is sex or sexual gratification is energy depleting while other activities aren't so, at least to the degree to be considered immoral? Having sex and procreating is always a good thing and sooner is capable to do so the better. Biggest benefit to "humanity" is there to be more people for what good is greater than crating life?

most coherent morals have this process underlying them,

I disagree with this claim and ask you give practical examples...

as the context of the environment changes and allows for growth of more structure via resources the morals will change accordingly

Morals do not fundamentally change the same way the truth does not change. "Morals" that change aren't based on an objective moral truth and therefore invalid....

With regard to the potential of turning up at the gates of heaven and being presented with the choice of Lucifer or God I’m going to ask if there’s a third option available

I supposed you could try making enemies of both God and Lucifer if you feel so incline....


neither of them impress me that much

You're not impress by the prospect of actually meeting your Creator...

according to the texts they are both happy to kill people.

Do you think God takes delight in killing his own creations?

I have no prestige on here in my mind, being on here has thought me to see what is dialectic and what is rigid, I don’t have time to entertain everyone’s rigidity they can only shake off by experience, saying I have prestige implies I’m authoritative which I’m not.

Regardless if you want it or not you do have some level of prestige and authority on this forum. I imagine people would sooner take advice from you than me. You have a puzzling disdain for what you perceive as rigid. Do you acknowledge for things they need structure?

I don’t like woke politics, they will fail, they are delusional, those with the access to the most energetic resources and capacity to maintain them win, that’s the ruling class.

Are you saying everything is energy without a definitive form and subject to change and that hierarchy (rigidity) is just a system to siphon energy from those lower on the hierarchy?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom