Antichrist

[Shadow Wolf]

Spare me the disingenuous oblivion ... There is no appreciation of the light without darkness .. no concept of Good without Evil .. Turn on your brain that God has given you .. such that you are not so easily fooled by our friend .. the darkness.

Good and evil are merely matters of perspective. Light is nothing more than waves of electromagnetic energy. No energy or motion is perpetual. This leaves darkness in the end.

 

[Sargonski]

Good and evil are merely matters of perspective. Light is nothing more than waves of electromagnetic energy. No energy or motion is perpetual. This leaves darkness in the end.

Good grief you are a dense one .. now trying to tell a Chemist about Science in a clueless rant .. unable to see the light .. what part of the Golden Rule did you not understand -- and the plague of Utilitarianism .. and how this represents the darkness.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good grief you are a dense one ..

Is that you show that Christian love? Do you sing praises to your messiah with that mouth?

now trying to tell a Chemist about Science in a clueless rant .. unable to see the light ..

That makes no sense.

what part of the Golden Rule did you not understand

I understand it. And because I use my brain a lot I see there are serious flaws and shortcomings with it.

and the plague of Utilitarianism .. and how this represents the darkness.

How does utilitariansim represent darkness? How is a focus on maximizing the well being of others something that represents darkness?

 

[Sargonski]

Is that you show that Christian love? Do you sing praises to your messiah with that mouth?

That makes no sense.

I understand it. And because I use my brain a lot I see there are serious flaws and shortcomings with it.

How does utilitariansim represent darkness? How is a focus on maximizing the well being of others something that represents darkness?

Is exactly how a follower of Christ expresses Love -- "get behind me Sataniel" and who is singing praises .. crying "Jesus Jesus" but the false ones .. the Wolves in sheeps clothing . followers of the dark path .. as opposed to the light path .. for there is no dark path .. without the light .. there is only darkness .. the love of correction .. we are taught by Sophia ...

What you know about following Christ ? Clearly not much .. now a little more educated .. but more is to come .. because at the end of thoughtless blather you ask a good question - indicating the presense of noggin use ! Kudo's where Kudos are due Brother Shadow .. The prophet will not steer you wrong .. tis time to "Focus"

How does utilitariansim represent darkness? How is a focus on maximizing the well being of others something that represents darkness?

The first key is understanding that Utilitarianism is a Justification for Law .. Law = forcing beliefs on others through physical violence .. giving Gov't the power to punish non conformance .. and as such a violation of the Golden Rule = If you don't want others forcing their religious beliefs on you through physical violence .. then better not be doing to others. .... or in the words of the Apostle Peter Tosh .. to Jah Rastafa .. "If you live in a Glass house .. Don't Throw Stones" So it is Written .. so it shall be done !

Very important to understand the difference between Law .. and Law messing with Essential liberty.. the latter being what the constitutional REpublic is all about. .. our system .. based on .1) 2) 3) You got it .. The Golden Rule.. as per the "Social Contract" .. construct by which "We the People" give power to some authority .... keeping in mind that "No man wants to be ruled over by another" (the basics of Locke and enlightenment thinkers .. like Jesus and Thomas Jefferson)

The safeguards put Essential Liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't .. the main safeguard protecting such liberties in fact .. as per the DOI.. Utilitarianism allows for an end run around that safeguard .. and is thus an anathema to Essential Liberty

"is "Harm Reduction" valid as the sole basis for justification for law ? Utilitarianism does not consider the liberty of the individual -- only that of the group .. what is best - will increase happiness/ reduce harm -- for the collective.

Aside from the obvious "Who gets to decide" -- one man poison another mans pleasure.. Should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? .. "If it saves one life" as justification for law .. would banning skiing not save a life ? indeed it would .. what about boating ... that is super dangerous .. one could drown .. driving a car ?? forget it .. one of the most dangerous things one can do .. and in fact .. one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

Absolute Power .. this ideology gives to gov't .. and "The Beast" which is a Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster .. but that is another story.

Do not give Absolute power over to the Borg Collective .. To AI .... down the dark path is this Utilitarian Plague .. and then you get into fallacious Utilitarianism .. that is where it is not even a good Utilitarian argument .. ends up decreasing collective hapiness on the basis of a facade such as increased Security .. aka The Patriot Act .. the act which makes it your Patriotic Duty to trade liberty for temporary Security..

but enough of that digression. Utilitarinaism is an anathama to the Will of the Father .. shared with the world over its history through the various Logos .. Hammurabi - Confucius - Budda - HeyZeus - Even Muhammad has the rule somewhere in that forsaken ideology of contradiction.

but you no hear the call ? .. God Calling out to YOU Shadow .. but don't wanna listen your ears .. When hear the Prophets words.. some kind of "Thought Stopping" thing going on .. a blockage of sorts .. a few poison lizards need extracting ..

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is exactly how a follower of Christ expresses Love -- "get behind me Sataniel" and who is singing praises .. crying "Jesus Jesus" but the false ones .. the Wolves in sheeps clothing . followers of the dark path .. as opposed to the light path .. for there is no dark path .. without the light .. there is only darkness .. the love of correction .. we are taught by Sophia ...

And how does include telling peoole they are dense.

What you know about following Christ ? Clearly not much .. now a little more educated .. but more is to come .. because at the end of thoughtless blather you ask a good question - indicating the presense of noggin use ! Kudo's where Kudos are due Brother Shadow .. The prophet will not steer you wrong .. tis time to "Focus"

I was I deeply devoted Christian for many years, educated by the church and raised to join the clergy.
And I'm not a guy so definitely I'm not your brother.

The first key is understanding that Utilitarianism is a Justification for Law .. Law = forcing beliefs on others through physical violence .. giving Gov't the power to punish non conformance ..

That's not Utilitarianism. That's tyranny, which has antithetical goals of Utilitarianism.

The safeguards put Essential Liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't .. the main safeguard protecting such liberties in fact .. as per the DOI.. Utilitarianism allows for an end run around that safeguard .. and is thus an anathema to Essential Liberty

Utilitarianism helps to maximize and protect liberties.

is "Harm Reduction" valid as the sole basis for justification for law ? Utilitarianism does not consider the liberty of the individual -- only that of the group .. what is best - will increase happiness/ reduce harm -- for the collective.

Now I know you don't know what Utilitarianism is.

 

[Sargonski]

And how does include telling peoole they are dense.

I was I deeply devoted Christian for many years, educated by the church and raised to join the clergy.
And I'm not a guy so definitely I'm not your brother.

That's not Utilitarianism. That's tyranny, which has antithetical goals of Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism helps to maximize and protect liberties.

Now I know you don't know what Utilitarianism is.

Brother from another mother .. and My Philosophy of Law Prof -- a Jew with Ph.D from Oxford .. will be so sorry to hear I have forgotten what Utilitarianism is.

Your Christian Upbringing mirrors my own .. so perhaps you may be kindred in spirit one day .. when you find your way .. from the dark path on which you stay .. deflection .. denial and avoidance -- some definite "Thought stoppage" going on friend ..

Running around crying "thats not Utilitarianism" does not demonstrate awareness of what you speak .. and Utilitarianism does not even include individual liberty in the calculation nevermind protect individual liberty "protect Liberties" failing to take the distinction between the individual liberty and the collective into considerateion.. aside from the fact that your just Wrong .. as described in previous post .. how Utilitarianism works to Trample on individual liberty rather than maximize and protect individual liberty but nor is this necessarily always the case.

basic errors mate --- not in the right playground-- not distinguishing between rights of the individual and some generalized collective liberty that you have made up in attempt to sound smart .. but given away your lack of understanding in the process. all of this nonsense however a desperate attempt to escape from the topic of Jesus .. and the Golden Rule .. and your turning away from the Word of God .. as told you by the Prophet .. just running down rabbit hole after rabbit hole trying to hide from the topic .. at every turn.

YHWH .. Not the God of ABE .. nor Jesus .. did they not teach you this in your Christian upbringing ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Running around crying "thats not Utilitarianism" does not demonstrate awareness of what you speak .. and Utilitarianism does not even include individual liberty in the calculation nevermind protect individual liberty "protect Liberties" failing to take the distinction between the individual liberty and the collective into considerateion.. aside from the fact that your just Wrong .. as described in previous post .. how Utilitarianism works to Trample on individual liberty rather than maximize and protect individual liberty but nor is this necessarily always the case.

Liberty and freedom usually rates very high in utilitarianism. One of its primary contributing foundets even wrote the book On Liberty.

Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

As liberal democracies have been shown to be a better system for maximizing overall good amd happiness in society it's a very steep uphill battle to to try and argue Utilitarianism isn't big on individual liberty and freedom.
And you had a professor? I only have a minor in philosophy because the university I went to didn't have a program for a major in it. I can talk all day about this topic so make sure you are very right before making such obviously false claims. I've probably read some philosophers who wrote about it.

Your Christian Upbringing mirrors my own .. so perhaps you may be kindred in spirit one day .. when you find your way .. from the dark path on which you stay .. deflection .. denial and avoidance -- some definite "Thought stoppage" going on friend ..

I won't be back. It was a toxin and poison and getting away was a very good thing fir me.
But I may mot have to worry. Jesus said it's their fault for driving me away, amd if his will that he needs someone to drive away the rubbish who better than someone brought up to be a pastor and can be too great of a challenge for the average Christian, especially when they're out witnessing?

and the Golden Rule .. and your turning away from the Word of God .. as told you by the Prophet .. just running down rabbit hole after rabbit hole trying to hide from the topic .. at every turn.

I already addressed it and it's short comings. Another example of why it's not really all that great are hugs. For various reasons it's actually not a good idea to just hug people without permission no matter how friendly the intentions are. Things like autism or PTSD can potentially make hugs very uncomfortable and although you may think it's a good thing and like being hugged yourself, some people would rather you not hug them. This is why "do to others what I want others to do to me" is inadequate. We must begin our considerations not with what I want but asking what the other person may or may not want. You'll have to ask in many situations but having that information will help ward off unintentional offense.

 

[Sargonski]

Liberty and freedom usually rates very high in utilitarianism. One of its primary contributing foundets even wrote the book On Liberty.

Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

As liberal democracies have been shown to be a better system for maximizing overall good amd happiness in society it's a very steep uphill battle to to try and argue Utilitarianism isn't big on individual liberty and freedom.
And you had a professor? I only have a minor in philosophy because the university I went to didn't have a program for a major in it. I can talk all day about this topic so make sure you are very right before making such obviously false claims. I've probably read some philosophers who wrote about it.

That you have taken some Philosophy -- and are having this much difficulty understanding what is being said to you - is super sad commentary on the education recieved. Did you skip the days where logic and logical fallacy was taught ? Obviously you did not take Philosophy of Law .. thinking that taking some other Philosophy classes somehow gives you some smarts in this area is non sequitur fallacy.

You are simply have not been able to understand what is being said to you .. I did not say Utilitarianism could not lead to good outcomes .. what was said is that Utilitarianism -- "AS JUSTIFICATION FOR LAW" does not consider factor individual liberty into the equation.

How is it .. having higher education .. that you are completely unable to distinguish between "Individual Liberty" and "Liberty" in the general sense .

"Utilitarianism isn't big on individual liberty and freedom " Utilitarianism doesn't consider the rights of the individual in the calculation --- BY DEFINITION .. is all about the collective .. what is best for the collective. Now this in some cases may end up benefiting rights for the individual .. or it may Trample on them .. either way it is irrelevant to utilitarianism .. rights of the individual are not considered .. only what is best for the collective .

and What part of "JEW" - PH.D from Oxford - Class in Philosophy of Law -- Did you not understand ?? How on earth could you think taking a few Philosophy Classes .. noen being "Philosophy of Law" -- would in any way shape or form equal -- nevermind surpass as you ridiculously infer .. subject matter knowledge from one who took such a class.

Do know what the two main justifications for Law are .. in other words .. these are most of what you do in the class .. not like the word is mentioned once in the semester 1) Retributivism 2) Utilitarianism.

Help me salvage some faith in the value of a Degree these days. and figure out why "Utilitarianism" is an anathema to Essential Liberty .. and notice as told you previously .. Essential liberty and Liberty are not the same .. You forgetting this another shining example of "not understanding the subject matter" .. even though I told you earlier .. such that Running around crying -- Utilitarianism increases Liberty -- is a nonsense statement .. as related to anything I said .. as we are not talking about "Liberty" in the general sense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That you have taken some Philosophy -- and are having this much difficulty understanding what is being said to you - is super sad commentary on the education recieved. Did you skip the days where logic and logical fallacy was taught ? Obviously you did not take Philosophy of Law .. thinking that taking some other Philosophy classes somehow gives you some smarts in this area is non sequitur fallacy.

You are simply have not been able to understand what is being said to you .. I did not say Utilitarianism could not lead to good outcomes .. what was said is that Utilitarianism -- "AS JUSTIFICATION FOR LAW" does not consider factor individual liberty into the equation.

How is it .. having higher education .. that you are completely unable to distinguish between "Individual Liberty" and "Liberty" in the general sense .

"Utilitarianism isn't big on individual liberty and freedom " Utilitarianism doesn't consider the rights of the individual in the calculation --- BY DEFINITION .. is all about the collective .. what is best for the collective. Now this in some cases may end up benefiting rights for the individual .. or it may Trample on them .. either way it is irrelevant to utilitarianism .. rights of the individual are not considered .. only what is best for the collective .

and What part of "JEW" - PH.D from Oxford - Class in Philosophy of Law -- Did you not understand ?? How on earth could you think taking a few Philosophy Classes .. noen being "Philosophy of Law" -- would in any way shape or form equal -- nevermind surpass as you ridiculously infer .. subject matter knowledge from one who took such a class.

Do know what the two main justifications for Law are .. in other words .. these are most of what you do in the class .. not like the word is mentioned once in the semester 1) Retributivism 2) Utilitarianism.

Help me salvage some faith in the value of a Degree these days. and figure out why "Utilitarianism" is an anathema to Essential Liberty .. and notice as told you previously .. Essential liberty and Liberty are not the same .. You forgetting this another shining example of "not understanding the subject matter" .. even though I told you earlier .. such that Running around crying -- Utilitarianism increases Liberty -- is a nonsense statement .. as related to anything I said .. as we are not talking about "Liberty" in the general sense.

All that says is you can apparently create stories or had a total idiot if a philosophy teacher. But your story leads me to believe this is just a story the way you highlight this supposed teacher was a Ph.D. (im what? Microbiology?) amd point out he is a Jew (which proves nothing more than he's a Jew).
And mayve you did take a class, and it was a class that wasn't in logic because you don't recognize the logical fallicies in your own presentation, sich as highlighting Jew as if that actually means anything and contributes to this person's expertise of the subject. Nor does saying Ph.D. from Oxford. That describes Richard Dawkins, a brilliant biologist but even he admits philosophy isn't his strong point.
Legal amd social philosophy is also a part of my academic repertoire. All you've done is present Utilitarianism in a manner that is something that more resembles Communitarianism than Utilitarianism. Because with Communitarians their is a focus on promoting good, but it leans heavily in favor of the good of the community at the expense of individual growth and liberties.

 

[Sargonski]

All that says is you can apparently create stories or had a total idiot if a philosophy teacher. But your story leads me to believe this is just a story the way you highlight this supposed teacher was a Ph.D. (im what? Microbiology?) amd point out he is a Jew (which proves nothing more than he's a Jew).
And mayve you did take a class, and it was a class that wasn't in logic because you don't recognize the logical fallicies in your own presentation, sich as highlighting Jew as if that actually means anything and contributes to this person's expertise of the subject. Nor does saying Ph.D. from Oxford. That describes Richard Dawkins, a brilliant biologist but even he admits philosophy isn't his strong point.
Legal amd social philosophy is also a part of my academic repertoire. All you've done is present Utilitarianism in a manner that is something that more resembles Communitarianism than Utilitarianism. Because with Communitarians their is a focus on promoting good, but it leans heavily in favor of the good of the community at the expense of individual growth and liberties.

Your response is talking nonsense .. for lack of ability to catch point .. which is that you do not understand Utilitarianism .. failing to distinguish between individual liberty and collective liberty .. failing to distinguish between Liberty .. and essential liberty and lack of understanding of logic in general and logical fallacy .. begging the question of your having been schooled in Philosophy at all .. even if was a bad school full of bad Profs . .. as opposed to Jew from Oxford

Then you completely fail again .. not realizing that were are talking as justification for law .. and not speaking in generalities about one persons wishes.

Utilitarianism -- as SOLE justification for law -- is an anathema to the founding principle .. having no regard or respect for Essential liberty - rights of the individual.. OK ? can we be done with this obscene rabbit hole .. and move back to the topic that you are so despeate to avoid. Do you even have the faintest clue what it is that you are avoiding --- so successful your deflection .. the thought stopping mechanism .. working very well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your response is talking nonsense .. for lack of ability to catch point .. which is that you do not understand Utilitarianism .. failing to distinguish between individual liberty and collective liberty .. failing to distinguish between Liberty .. and essential liberty and lack of understanding of logic in general and logical fallacy .. begging the question of your having been schooled in Philosophy at all .. even if was a bad school full of bad Profs . .. as opposed to Jew from Oxford

Then you completely fail again .. not realizing that were are talking as justification for law .. and not speaking in generalities about one persons wishes.

Utilitarianism -- as SOLE justification for law -- is an anathema to the founding principle .. having no regard or respect for Essential liberty - rights of the individual.. OK ? can we be done with this obscene rabbit hole .. and move back to the topic that you are so despeate to avoid. Do you even have the faintest clue what it is that you are avoiding --- so successful your deflection .. the thought stopping mechanism .. working very well.

The way you think "Jew from Oxford" means anything just shows philosophy is not your area. Seriously, why the hell do ylu keep pointing out this teacher is a Jew? Jews aren't special and aren't inherently better or worse at the topic than anyone else.
And you can't even source anything to support your claims. And no wonder. Your onlt defense is an alleged Ph.D. of an undisclosed field and saying this hypothetical person is a Jew (as of that means anything).

 

[Sargonski]

The way you think "Jew from Oxford" means anything just shows philosophy is not your area. Seriously, why the hell do ylu keep pointing out this teacher is a Jew? Jews aren't special and aren't inherently better or worse at the topic than anyone else.
And you can't even source anything to support your claims. And no wonder. Your onlt defense is an alleged Ph.D. of an undisclosed field and saying this hypothetical person is a Jew (as of that means anything).

Of course a Jew from Oxford means something - you just having trouble figuring out what it is friend -- and figuring out why your education was so lacking .. now trying to deflect from this fact .. and the topic .. going on about your lack of understanding of appeal to authority fallacy .. and projecting your philosophical failing onto others.

So once again .. from the bottom. Law on the Sole basis of Utilitarianism - for example "Harm Reduction" "If it saves one life" does not factor Essential Liberty into the Equation.. completely ignores rights of the individual .. looks only at what will increase happiness (Utility) for the collective.

For example -- a Law banning Pot -- passed on the basis of "Smoking Pot is Harmfull" -- does not factor the negation of pursuit of happiness into the equation ... thus does an end-run around the safeguard there to protect Essential liberty .. giving the Gov't near unlimited power .. power no longer constrained by consent of the governed.

To understand what was just said to you --- you need to understand that in a Constitutional Republic such as ours .. Gov't has ZERO legitimate authority to mess with Essential liberty .. "of its own volition" .. it can do so via consent of the Governed (supposed to require overwhelming consent = greater 2/3 majority .. NOT 50%+1 .. nor Simple Majority Mandate as that would be Tyranny of the Majority .. verboten under both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism)


Now for a test --- is "If it saves one life" valid justification for Law - in a system other than Tyranical Totalitarianism .. and why ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course a Jew from Oxford means something - you just having trouble figuring out what it is friend -- and figuring out why your education was so lacking .. now trying to deflect from this fact .. and the topic .. going on about your lack of understanding of appeal to authority fallacy .. and projecting your philosophical failing onto others.

So once again .. from the bottom. Law on the Sole basis of Utilitarianism - for example "Harm Reduction" "If it saves one life" does not factor Essential Liberty into the Equation.. completely ignores rights of the individual .. looks only at what will increase happiness (Utility) for the collective.

For example -- a Law banning Pot -- passed on the basis of "Smoking Pot is Harmfull" -- does not factor the negation of pursuit of happiness into the equation ... thus does an end-run around the safeguard there to protect Essential liberty .. giving the Gov't near unlimited power .. power no longer constrained by consent of the governed.

To understand what was just said to you --- you need to understand that in a Constitutional Republic such as ours .. Gov't has ZERO legitimate authority to mess with Essential liberty .. "of its own volition" .. it can do so via consent of the Governed (supposed to require overwhelming consent = greater 2/3 majority .. NOT 50%+1 .. nor Simple Majority Mandate as that would be Tyranny of the Majority .. verboten under both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism)


Now for a test --- is "If it saves one life" valid justification for Law - in a system other than Tyranical Totalitarianism .. and why ?

Telling a fabricated story a million times doesn't make it true. Pot made illegal because it's bad? Try political ambition, systemic and cultural racism as well as hemp serving as a major threat to thw timber industry due it being a very rich grow source of fiber that easier and way quicker to grow.
A.d are you aware there's a lot of dumb people who are Jewish and a lot of idiots with an Oxford degree and a lot of moronic Ph.D. holders? Now if you say something like John Rawlz or Robert Nozick that meams something because they were Ivy League degreed amd teaching bonafide published and acknowledged philosophers. But an Oxford Jew with a Ph.D.? That tells us nothing other than an Oxford Ph.D. who also happens to be Jewish.

 

[Sargonski]

Telling a fabricated story a million times doesn't make it true. Pot made illegal because it's bad?

What fabricated story --- ?? related to what ?? .. and why .. and what is not true. Just completely inane unintelligible gibberish... a Red Light - indicator --- "Thought Stoppage is happening" .

"Pot was Made illegal because its bad" was an example of a utilitarian argument .. and that was the argument made for making it illegal along with a big propaganda campaign .. not the fact that Cotton Lobby would be made happy.

What part of "Justification for Law" ---- is your head not getting ? Rational .. Reason that law is justified .. is what is being discussed. That you havnt not the faintest clue about Law and legitimagte authority in relation to Essential Liberty is a problem .. Now 12 years of school and we fail to teach the basics of civics founding principle - legitimacy of authority .. Constitutional Republic .. so somewhat forgiven .. but you went further .. claiming to have a minor in Philosophy .. not as much forgiveness there.. but OK

Given all this education .. the lacking to comprehend what is being said to you in relation to Law and Liberty .. at least to the point of being able to ask intelligent questions .. or respond coherently to the ematerial .. is not forgiven .. one thing to have not learned something .. another to not have the capacity.

and why you want to focus on and put down the Jew. Now tell us this fabricated story .. what was not true ? and maybe spin another strawman fallacy .. or two

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What fabricated story --- ?? related to what ?? .. and why .. and what is not true. Just completely inane unintelligible gibberish... a Red Light - indicator --- "Thought Stoppage is happening" .

"Pot was Made illegal because its bad" was an example of a utilitarian argument .. and that was the argument made for making it illegal along with a big propaganda campaign .. not the fact that Cotton Lobby would be made happy.

What part of "Justification for Law" ---- is your head not getting ? Rational .. Reason that law is justified .. is what is being discussed. That you havnt not the faintest clue about Law and legitimagte authority in relation to Essential Liberty is a problem .. Now 12 years of school and we fail to teach the basics of civics founding principle - legitimacy of authority .. Constitutional Republic .. so somewhat forgiven .. but you went further .. claiming to have a minor in Philosophy .. not as much forgiveness there.. but OK

Given all this education .. the lacking to comprehend what is being said to you in relation to Law and Liberty .. at least to the point of being able to ask intelligent questions .. or respond coherently to the ematerial .. is not forgiven .. one thing to have not learned something .. another to not have the capacity.

and why you want to focus on and put down the Jew. Now tell us this fabricated story .. what was not true ? and maybe spin another strawman fallacy .. or two

None of that demonstrates you have any idea what you're talking about. Like me putting a Jew down? No, I'm just start enough to know that saying "the Jew" tells me nothing more than that he's Jewish.