[Helm]

Kahl, as you use the term dialectic (as in: dialectic materialism. excuse me if the rosa crux idiots use the term in some other way) when you later on describe in the processes of action (or the action of inaction) and reaction isn't really dialectic as much as it is reactionary. I'd hesitate to call 'somebody is born, then brings grief to the world' a dialectic opposition. Dialectic materialism is mostly useful in spotting the coorelations between fundamental aspects of reality (primarily the 'inside' and 'outside' of human perception) and is mainly used in philosophy as a useful socratic 'organon' to define things which cannot generally be a priori defined, against each other. What is existing? It is the oposite of not existing. And so on, so forth. It's actually not a very bright way to define things, but it has it's uses especially for leftists who just want to get ontology OUT OF THE WAY so they can start talking about soup lines and class struggle. Although okay, I can see where you're going with dialecticism in your examples, you're putting a value judgement in various situations, and then counterweighing everything and saying 'dialectic!' whereas dialectic is an ontological thing, not ethical. But whatever, suck my cock.