Civilized means of public discourse

6 Responses to Civilized means of public discourse

1. nobody-knows (UID# 5034) 1  0

   

   August 27, 2011 at 6:05 am

   whore

   Reply
2. aquaman43 (UID# 85320) 0  0

   

   August 27, 2011 at 10:59 am

   Fuck yo discourse.

   Reply
3. magnus-buttfoorson (UID# 238) Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 0  4

   August 27, 2011 at 4:19 pm

   Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

   So if you don’t listen to someone’s bitching its okay for them to throw a hissy fit?

   That’s some pretty high grade stupid.

   Reply
   • sambo78 (UID# 8210) 3  0

     August 28, 2011 at 6:32 am

     Uh, no. That’s not what it says at all. It means if you bitch and throw a hissy fit over a rational question, sumptin’ may be wrong. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand since that’s what you do all the time.

     Are you trying to intentionally build a strawman argument or have you just completely failed at reading comprehension?

     Reply
     • lrichardson (UID# 171558) 1  0

       

       August 28, 2011 at 11:56 pm

       sambo: You know, I am not entirely convinced that you and Magnanimous are indeed different people. I suspect he might indeed BE your straw man to battle with. ; )

       Then again, the more likely answer is that Heisman’s nihilism is fundamentally correct and But really is just little more than a whiny ass. You might read the rest of Heisman’s work. It is a bit thick, and frankly rather self indulgent at points but he did blow his brains out as part of his conviction to his work so there might be at least SOMETHING there.

       articles.boston.com/2010-09-27/news/29300221_1_suicide-note-holiest-day-nihilism

       Reply
       • sambo78 (UID# 8210) 0  0

         August 29, 2011 at 4:30 am

         Hah. Better watch out. I think Magnus might find that thought mildly offensive

         As for Heisman, I haven’t read his suicide note, so I won’t draw any conclusions about what he wrote, but I can agree with that he made some good points here and there. I skimmed a PDF of his writing and I like what he said about libertarianism.

         “Few social-political philosophies in history can rival
         libertarianism in the sheer lameness of its vision of the good.
         It is defined in terms of negatives: just defang religion,
         defang society, defang government, just leave me alone! Yet
         this lameness of social vision is almost the definition of its
         political pride. It should really be called radical
         bourgeoisism.”

         I went through about 200 pages tonight. It’s not too difficult to follow. It’s light reading for a philosophy text. I’ll probably finish over the next few days.

         I don’t think very much of nihilism though.

         Reply