Kulturkampf's Fun-Time Philosophy Jamboree! (merged)

[Dr. Boogie]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

Look at the wikipedia article for the female brain and the male brain compared -- chemicals are different in these two which actualize different feelings and reactions to things.

Males have inherently different base than females -- it's science.

"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science. "

Well, discuss the philosophy and re-interpret it, do whatever you want; I just think the heirarchy of the world today needs to be destroyed and we need to end the current hegemony of pop culture. We need to end the way that the education system indoctrinates kids into a culture of meaninglessness and sensitivity.

We need to end the government's roles within our lives.

Do you agree with any of this?

It's hard to say. It's all so vague. I can't tell what you would like done, specifically, to end things like the "hegemony of pop culture" and the "culture of meaninglessness and sensitivity".

[ZeldaQueen]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

I base these conclusions off of what I envision normal behavior for men and women to be, which society seeks to change in two ways.

Look at the wikipedia article for the female brain and the male brain compared -- chemicals are different in these two which actualize different feelings and reactions to things.

Males have inherently different base than females -- it's science.

The notion that women should pursue careers over family orientated goals and be looked down upon for not doing so is absurd; the notion that men should behave like women, be more moderated in their behavior and emasculated is what I oppose.

Individuals will always be different but we are seeing generations of people enslaved to a cultural concept that is equally as ridiculous as that of the 1950s that acted as if women were incapable of performing jobs as well as mine.

So that's how you think genders are. Fair enough to a degree. Men and women do have different hormone and chemical balances. But that only accounts for so much.

There are plenty of women who think that they should concentrate on careers. There are just as many women who prefer to be stay-at-home moms who cook and clean while their husbands go to work. There are women who take care of kids while keeping a job. I don't feel that society insists that a woman put career ahead of everything else.

I also don't see any notion that men ought to behave "like women". I fail to see how being "moderated in behavior" is something wrong. Some men simply are more emotional or at least show it (just because a person doesn't cry outright doesn't mean they don't cry).

Another thing to consider is that people don't act "feminine" or "masculine" 24/7. There're girls who are on sports teams who also dress up and go to prom with their boyfriends. There're guys who are plenty tough but also are sensitive. My brother can be aggressive, but he also cries and is emotional. My cousin is funny and sensitive, but he also takes wrestling and once hit another guy who wouldn't stop bothering him. My best friend is all for equal rights for women, but she also dresses up for dances and goes out on dates.

I guess what I'm saying is that "feminine" and "masculine" aren't switches. A person isn't one or the other. Everyone is - and always has - had a blend of the traits you consider to fall into these categories. Simply because it's become culturally acceptable to show these traits doesn't mean it's just started happening.

[executioneer]

dude we have to light buildings on fire int he shape of a smiley face havent you watched fight club

[kahljorn]

Criticizing your philosophy is not SPLITTING HAIRS. It's philosophizing. Learn the difference, numb nuts.

Apparently you think you should be able to use any stupid reasoning to support your argument. IT DOESNT AFFECT THE ESSENCE. It does, actually.

[kahljorn]

I bet KK throws up on his own penis and masturbates with the vomit.

[kahljorn]

Kulturkamph is a woman I want at my gang bang; she is a woman of staunch bonors and grates a steed.

how's that for a review.

lol who the fuck gives reviews about people.

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Kulturkamph is a woman I want at my gang bang; she is a woman of staunch bonors and grates a steed.

how's that for a review.

lol who the fuck gives reviews about people.

haha, yeah.

Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie

My preconceptions of what? Ah, screw it. Lemme give this a shot:


Pop culture sure is lousy.


Ok, I've criticized pop culture as a whole. Now what?



Which institutions? And don't say "institutions that _____". What specific existing institutions would you like to see rent asunder with physical violence? And who do you want to see physically destroyed?

I will think about this and get back to you..

Generally speaking, I would like to see any institutions which attempt to regulate personal freedom destroyed -- that is to say, the federal and state governments themselves who come up with things like smoking bands, red tape for establishing businesses, who criminalize fun, who regulate alcohol and drug use, etc.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I bet KK throws up on his own penis and masturbates with the vomit.

Now that is not quite right...

Originally Posted by ZeldaQueen

I'd say so. I do enjoy a good debate though.

Fair enough. I really don't notice "emasculation" so much as society saying "It's alright to step out of the mold". If it's one thing about feminism that does bother me, it's when it gets to the extreme of "We don't need any men at all! We must dominate!"

I realize, of course, that is at the very end of a spectrum, but my point is that if women are allowed to step out of their former society roles (June Cleaver or the pretty secretary/telephone operator) men ought to be allowed the same privillege should they desire it. That's the key. As I said before, there are women who want to build a career and women who want to be homemakers. That should be their decision. Either path has its own merits and neither is (to me) dishonorable.

It is the same with men. There are, I know, lots of men who would choose to go out and take a job and be the breadwinners. Or be athletes. Or something like that. And there are also men who would be happy staying at home and caring for their children. Or becoming art majors. It's who they are as a person.

Some women are, let's face it, just not the kind of person who ought to be a mother. Maybe it's because of emotional problems or difficulty committing to something like raising a child or just because she doesn't think she'd be ready for it. If that's the case, there's no reason why it should be expected of her. If she honestly is unable to settle to a "traditional" female life, she can, in this day and age, go for something else.

Same with men. Some men just are more suited for roles in society like being a stay-at-home dad. To me, there's nothing at all wrong with that. It's a worthwhile thing to do (it provides bonding between the child and the father).

Now out of curiosity, how do you see men as being "effeminised"? (If such a word exists... )

Men are adopting far more feminine and prissy fashions; the emo thing is trying to convince men that crying and bitching is a proper pasttime; even hip hop has come to such a point of strange vanity that it is disgusting.

Everybody lives in a plastic world.

Everybody wants to pretend life is a romantic comedy.

I could go on about this... But it would be its own thread. we can do this later.

[Dr. Boogie]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

Generally speaking, I would like to see any institutions which attempt to regulate personal freedom destroyed -- that is to say, the federal and state governments themselves who come up with things like smoking bands, red tape for establishing businesses, who criminalize fun, who regulate alcohol and drug use, etc.

I knew you couldn't handle that request. I thought there was a faint chance you might actually name a specific institution, but you've been avoiding specifics ever since you came back.

Forget about my asking for specific people. Just say something like "the people who perpetuate the feminine values and think war is bad".

[Big McLargehuge]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

haha, yeah.

Now that is not quite right...

YEAH GUYS HE FIRST CUTS HIS DICK WITH AND XACTO KNIFE FIRTS

[executioneer]

and encourages a doggie to lick it

[Big McLargehuge]

AND HIRES A BURLY HOMELESS MAN TO PISS ON THE DOG AND CALL IT A FAGGOT

[kahljorn]

your doctrines are contradictory ;\

anyway, if making sacrifices is the ultimate form of morality, then everybody should just kill themselves in order to be the most good. The most good.

In a very real sense, Communism represents the most moral system, ideally, as it entails that all members of the community forsake luxury for the benefit of everyone.

Communism is becoming a slave to the community. It also isn't a moral system, it's a political system. Also, it's not for the benefit of everybody, but for the benefit of the weak. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

People often wonder why war is glorified but the answer is quite simple: it is the ultimate sacrifice for the society and community as a whole.

People don't go to war to make sacrifices. They go to war to survive, to conquer, to enforce their values on others, and to sack.

Capitalism is an amoral idea in its essence and to some extent it is the government surrendering its role in the moral systems of the people and rather enabling the people to make their own choices.

That isn't what capitalism is, but whatever. Is it better to enforce a poor or weak system of morality than to allow people the freedom to be strong?
You said that morality can't exist without the freedom to make your own choices, but you are saying that capitalism is immoral because it lets people make their own choices instead of forcing people to make pre-approved choices?

are you sure you aren't a character?

However, it is also important to note that as in the animal Kingdom there are plenty of humans who are fundamentally weaker and more cowardly than others; these people essentially make no sacrifice in the bargain, and if they are merely avoiding doing these things because they feel it will doom them they are basically not moral people. The only moral people within the society are the people capable of exploitation of others yet sacrifice their ability to do so because of the fact that they honor the bond within the community.

Excellent kantian argument. The problem is, those who are "Weak" are usually capable of being strong. Even some of the weakest men can pick up a gun and shoot their enemies, or keep their money instead of giving it to a charity. Remember in the bible when the poor woman donates money, even though its almost everything she has, its considered strength because of how weak she actually is. She is sacrificing more of her strength than a rich man. What is this.. uhhh utility.. exchange... ill remember the name.. marginal utility exchange.

by a similar principle weak people have the most to gain by picking up a gun, but they don't. Thus, a bigger sacrifice.
shrugamcshrug

The highest form of existence is mindful sacrifice in the name of those who are deserving.

If people only sacrifice to be higher than other people, then they are just being vain.

[kahljorn]

http://www.jmverville.com/?p=879
;\

[Big Papa Goat]

so how does this all fit into shaving your head and listening to crappy angry music?


because that's what's really important

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

http://www.jmverville.com/?p=879
;\

That's my blog.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

your doctrines are contradictory ;\

anyway, if making sacrifices is the ultimate form of morality, then everybody should just kill themselves in order to be the most good. The most good.

I think it is implied that sacrifice has to come with a purpose.

Communism is becoming a slave to the community. It also isn't a moral system, it's a political system. Also, it's not for the benefit of everybody, but for the benefit of the weak. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Politics is the morality of laws. Someone important said this. I forget who.

People don't go to war to make sacrifices. They go to war to survive, to conquer, to enforce their values on others, and to sack.

I guess it would depend on how you view the war; however, regardless of how it is viewed, the Soldier is dying for his community.

That isn't what capitalism is, but whatever. Is it better to enforce a poor or weak system of morality than to allow people the freedom to be strong?
You said that morality can't exist without the freedom to make your own choices, but you are saying that capitalism is immoral because it lets people make their own choices instead of forcing people to make pre-approved choices?

Capitalism is an amoral system, but in a sense it is what enables people to act morally by giving them choice in the matter.

Communism is a morally superior doctrine but... It cannot actually be morally superior because it takes away the choice of the individual.

Excellent kantian argument. The problem is, those who are "Weak" are usually capable of being strong. Even some of the weakest men can pick up a gun and shoot their enemies, or keep their money instead of giving it to a charity. Remember in the bible when the poor woman donates money, even though its almost everything she has, its considered strength because of how weak she actually is. She is sacrificing more of her strength than a rich man. What is this.. uhhh utility.. exchange... ill remember the name.. marginal utility exchange.

You are right, by and large; they are then strong in spirit and courageous people as normally others are unwilling to do this.

by a similar principle weak people have the most to gain by picking up a gun, but they don't. Thus, a bigger sacrifice.
shrugamcshrug

If people only sacrifice to be higher than other people, then they are just being vain.

You are correct -- the intent of a moral act should be to do something right for right's sake and not to achieve recognition.

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

so how does this all fit into shaving your head and listening to crappy angry music?


because that's what's really important

Well, yeah.

I guess if you shave your head and listen to angry music... You get closer to the entire romance of militarism and self-sacrifice.

[kahljorn]

I think it is implied that sacrifice has to come with a purpose

There is a purpose. To eliminate all human suffering once and for all.

more later.

[Dixie]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

There is a purpose. To eliminate all human suffering once and for all.

Don't worry 'bout that part lil buddy.
We'll go extinct (hopefully) soon enough and there'll be no more human suffering.

[kahljorn]

Communism is a morally superior doctrine but... It cannot actually be morally superior because it takes away the choice of the individual.

How is it a morally superior doctrine? This is a self-contradictory statement ;/
Anyway, communism rejoices in the weak and "feminine." The entire point of communism is so that the weak and feminine can survive just as easily as the strong. In fact, what it says is that the weak, feminine, strong and masculine are all equal in value. And it also argues that the weak and the feminine deserve more money/benefits than the strong and masculine.

Something can't be a morally superior doctrine just because it sounds nicer ;\

[ZeldaQueen]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

How is it a morally superior doctrine? This is a self-contradictory statement ;/
Anyway, communism rejoices in the weak and "feminine." The entire point of communism is so that the weak and feminine can survive just as easily as the strong. In fact, what it says is that the weak, feminine, strong and masculine are all equal in value. And it also argues that the weak and the feminine deserve more money/benefits than the strong and masculine.

Something can't be a morally superior doctrine just because it sounds nicer ;\

First of all, exactly how do you justify grouping "weak" only with "feminine" and "strong" only with "masculine"? Don't you think there are weak masculine people or strong feminine people? Strength comes in many forms you know.

Second of all, no communism is not superior. It's not a bad thing, it just would never work. It's based on the idea that every single person in a nation will do their share of work for the benefit of others. Ideally, if every single person did this, every single person would be covered (you would be covering everyone else, and you'd be covered by everyone else). Unfortunately, the concept is thrown down the toilet if even one person decides to not do their share. Since it's impossible to expect an entire nation to pull their weight for someone else, then it's impossible for actual Communism (the way it was meant to be) to work.

[Zhukov]

OK, communism.

Communism is not a political state, or a moral code, or a nation. It is a lack thereof. Communism is a stateless society. You are not forced to help everyone else, you are not forced to work for the good of society.

It's a higher form of society where everyone can do whatever the hell they want. People work because work is liberating. You help people out because you want to. It's not something we have seen, or will see in our lifetimes. It's 'Utopian', and it's not achievable with the world's current socio-economic layout. It's not a government, it's a way people live with each other and how they treat them. It's a world where class does not exist.

It's not the USSR, it's not Cuba, it's certainly not North Korea. It's the whole world or it's nothing. It's something to build towards, and maybe achieve in the future. It's not something that can happen in a year, two years, or a decade.

It's still something that I think will eventually happen, and if it doesn't then the world is screwed.

[Kulturkampf]

I also dislike communism.

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

Why isn't my Friday the 13th remake thread 2 pages long yet? It's way more interesting than this Hatebreed ethics seminar, and is only like 16 posts long and none of them are even very long.

ANSWER ME THAT WITH YOUR PRECIOUS PHILOSOPHY, KAHLICLES.

Hatebreed ethics seminar made me LOL.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Wish I got in on this earlier.

I know the feeling...

I have had these feelings aboutyour mom LOL.

[ZeldaQueen]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

It's not the USSR, it's not Cuba, it's certainly not North Korea.

True dat. True dat.

[Evil Robot]

GIVE UP YOUR LIFE FOR OUR DEAR LEADER, KIM JONG IL

[kahljorn]

Don't worry 'bout that part lil buddy.

I'm not your lil buddy, champ.

[Dixie]

Too late.

Lil Buddy.