Seth wrote:Calilasseia wrote:klr wrote:So there are people with strong political opinions in the classrooms?
As for Obama "disappointing the far left", well duh. He's not a commie you know ...
Heh, I pointed that latter issue out elsewhere.
This steaming pile of Randroid faeces was his response.
But of course, in SethWorld
TM, using the statute book to stop rapacious and piratical people and organisations with money and power from shitting on the rest of us is "Marxist". I bet the people of Bhopal wished better regulation had been in place, to stop Union Carbide taking advantage of sweatshop labour conditions to park a dodgy factory in the middle of a large town. But I suppose I'll be labelled a "Marxist" for suggesting this, despite the fact that I handed him his arse on a plate over this elsewhere.
The fuck you did. Declaring victory isn't the same thing as achieving it, Sparky.
Oh, how I love the smell of hubris driven fail in the morning, especially when it comes from you, Seth. Let's take a look at the
facts, shall we, and let everyone see how much you're talking out of your arse here, in order to try and inflate your E-peen?
Let's wind the clock back to May 2010, when you were trolling RatSkep with the same tard you're trolling Rationalia with. Over there, you were posting much the same fantasist dreck you've been polluting this place with, and needless to say, the words that come to mind at this juncture with respect to your latest steaming pile of excrement are
Quelle surprise. So, let's provide you with a little memory jolt, seeing as you have manifestly forgotten the incident in question. Remember
this modnote I posted in a thread you were trolling over there? For those unfamiliar with the modnote, I'll quote it in full here:
Several posts have been reported in this thread for personal attacks. Whilst the posts in question are in the main directed at bad ideas, and not individuals, there is still a wholly unnecessary level of personalisation taking place in the various exchanges in this thread. Posters are hereby advised to cease and desist, and to concentrate whatever vitriol they may wish to unleash upon bad ideas. Failure to observe this will result in more resolute action being taken.
Meanwhile, it is apposite to focus here upon an aspect of discourse taking place in this thread, one that is most unhelpful with respect to the proper examination of ideas, and which frankly, is starting to become a little tiresome. Namely, the entirely synthetic displays of faux dissimulation that are aimed not at illuminating the world of ideas, but at provoking an emotional reaction, or worse, stormtrooping for a particular ideological standpoint regardless of whether the ideology in question is evidentially supported. Moreover, this style of discourse is being deployed in a manner that frankly, can only be described as oleaginous, and manifestly the product of mendacious cunning rather than rigorous analysis. I'm sure I don't need to point the finger explicitly here, it should be obvious where this charge is being directed, and I for one consider such conduct to be wholly at variance with the aims and objectives of this board. I look forward to some reformation being displayed with respect to such behaviour.
This lame piece of drivel was your response, viz:
[quote="Seth";p="209782"][quote="rEvolutionist";p="209775"]Can anyone translate that into english??
[/quote]
"Quit pissing me off..."
Followed by "Quit dissing socialism..."[/quote]
Here was
my reply:
[quote="Calilasseia";p="209877"][quote="Seth";p="209782"]"Quit pissing me off..."[/quote]
When "pissing me off" involves manifestly duplicitous behaviour, such as misrepresenting my mod note, then you'd better not piss me off.
[quote="Seth";p="209782"]Followed by "Quit dissing socialism..."[/quote]
This is hilarious. Not least because you know
absolutely nothing about my political views, and therefore the above constitutes a complete (and duplicitous) fabrication on your part. I'm going to be indulgent here, since this is your first mistake as far as dealing with my moderation is concerned, and content myself with the sound of laughter ringing throughout this thread as the various participants enjoy seeing your fabrication shown up for the nonsense that it is. And indeed, it
is nonsense, because if you had paid attention to any of my writings over at RDF, you would have learned that I regard doctrine centred world views as invalid, be they ideologies based upon supernaturalist assertions, or ideologies based upon blind assertions arising from human thought outside the supernaturalist sphere. You would have learned, if you had paid attention to any of those writings, that
I castigated orthodox Marxism for exhibiting exactly the same failures as creationism in this regard, and drew a direct comparison between orthodox Marxism and religion on the basis that it, like religions, is founded upon one or more unsupported assertions presented as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world. You would also have learned that I rejected
any doctrine centred world view had you paid attention to my past words. It's not as if the requisite posts containing the relevant analyses were short and easy to miss. My various expositions on the intellectual bankruptcy of doctrine centred world views are numerous, and anyone who bothers to exercise the relevant effort will find them with ease. Indeed, I pointed to the fact that the Labour Theory of Value assertion that lies at the heart of orthodox Marxism remains wholly unsupported by real world evidence, and that as a corollary, orthodox Marxism is effectively a secular theology, which renders it woefully non-rigorous as far as I am concerned. The one good idea Marx
did bring to the table in economics, and one which he borrowed from physical scientists, is the need to agree upon well defined units of measurement in order to facilitate quantitative analysis, but that idea wasn't his to start with. Unfortunately, his attempt to apply this to the concept of "undifferentiated labour", in order to facilitate quantitative analysis of labour as an entity with an intrinsic value, was a disaster. He expounded the idea that human labour possessed an intrinsic and unchanging value, in order to prop up the idea that the value of a commodity is exactly equal to the value of the labour that produced it. Moreover, setting a precedent for verbosity that his followers later emulated to an embarrassing degree (particularly in the former Soviet sphere of influence), he spent ten chapters in
Das Kapital trying to explain what I have just encapsulated in three sentences. More to the point, he
failed to establish his "axiom" as being anything other than a blind assertion. I covered this material in some detail in my past writings, and again, it won't be hard for those who exercise the requisite effort to find past posts where I cover this subject matter in some detail. Which is why I am able to recount it here from memory.
Now, I'd like to know in which parallel universe my moderation note above equals "quit dissing socialism" in the light of these
verifiable facts. As I said, I am feeling indulgent at the moment, having just savoured a most excellent meal and a decent claret, and so I shall content myself with the sound of the other posters laughing at your frankly inane fabrication above, once they have read this post. Which will teach you, Seth, to check the
actual facts, before resorting to your usual brand of hyperbolic invention and pursuit of discoursive malfeasance.[/quote]
Needless to say, everyone here can see that you haven't learned a single lesson since that particularly embarrassing outing of yours over 2½ years ago, where you showed everyone on a grand scale that your ignorance of the substantive issues is on a galactic scale. But I've ceased to be surprised at the manner in which you deploy the word "Marxist" in the same manner as Matthew Hopkins deployed the word "witch" in 17th century England as an instant debate killer, except this doesn't work against people with functioning brain cells, such as the various posters here who have spent time pointing and laughing at your assorted outpourings of cortical slurry. Once again, just to reinforce the point,
this post over at RatSkep is merely one of many in which I've stated that I
reject Marxism, and provided the detailed reasons for doing so. Not that this will stop you from posting more asinine bum custard on this subject, but for those who bother to pay attention to what the relevant texts actually say on the subject, here's the relevant section for you:
With respect to Marx, it may interest you to know, that despite attending what was a university with a particularly spectacular left-wing reputation in the 1980s, I rejected Marxism. I did so because none of its assertions ultimately made sense to me. I was not, in my youth, able to articulate the reasons for this, because my youth was spent acquiring the means to do so, and thus it was only later that I alighted upon the fundamental reasons for rejecting Marxism, and those reasons are the same reasons that I reject supernaturalism, namely that Marxism, like supernaturalism, is based upon unsupported blind assertions, presented as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world. If you still remember any of your university tuition, you may recall that a fundamental axiom of the Marxist system is the Labour Theory of Value axiom, which states that the value of any commodity is exactly equal to the value of the labour required to produce it. Which, on the face of it, sounds compelling at first reading, and no doubt sounded extremely compelling to thousands of 19th century workers struggling to escape from truly squalid conditions. The problem, of course, is that this purported "axiom" has never been subject to any genuine critical empirical test. Indeed, Marx spent ten whole chapters of his magnum opus, struggling to provide a quantitative basis for the term "undifferentiated labour", as a first step toward placing the Labour Theory of Value axiom on a critically firm foundation. In doing so, he borrowed a principle from 19th century physicists, namely, that understanding of your system of interest is facilitated if you have units of measurement of relevant quantities in place, so that detailed understanding of relevant relationships can be extracted from the real world data. Marx tried to apply this principle to his analysis of labour, and ultimately failed. Instead of stepping back from that failure, and striving to find another means of validating his original axiom, or striving to find an analysis that was more amenable to real world test, Marx presented the Labour Theory of Value axiom as a supposedly inviolable principle applicable universally to economic affairs, asserted that his work on "undifferentiated labour" supported this, and then launched into the erection of the Surplus Value axiom on that shaky foundation. In doing so, he converted his economic analysis into a secular theology, and this brings me back once again to doctrine centred world views.
So, do learn some elementary lessons before peddling your particularly noxious brand of made up shit here, such as checking the
facts before resorting to the sad spectacle of knee-jerk yelling of "Marxist" at everything to the left of Augusto Pinochet, though frankly I supsect every decent human being on the planet would be only too happy to be to the left of that vicious litttle fascist bastard, who among other things during his murderous reign, gave
carte blanche to his secret police thugs to engage in acts such as the false arrest and subsequent horrendous torture of
Sheila Cassidy, a doctor who held British nationality at the time. Oh, While on the subject of Pinochet, he was also a tax cheat like Kent Hovind, only he was able to hide his activities for much longer during his tenure as dictator, squirrelling funds away in Swiss bank accounts under numerous pseudonyms, though I suppose, like Leona Helmsley, he thought only little people pay taxes. I'm quite happy to be to the "left" of murderous fascists responsible for horrendous torture, and if you're not, then this says something truly repulsive about you.
In the meantime, I'll let everyone here have some fun seeing you once again displaying the unedifying spectacle of you being the Kent Hovind of right-wing ideological masturbation. Merry Christmas.
