If anyone can translate this into English I would appreciate it.


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11^th, 2024 at 11:30am:

freediver wrote on Jan 10th, 2024 at 11:45am: Is the little pink trying to tell us we have to take John seriously? No;  I have outlined why your "individual freedom" values ideology is an illusion. Rand fell for it, and so do you. Hence neither you nor Graps has the nous to refute my post (#21),   because analysis based on reason, NOT ideology, is required. Pity about that...

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11^th, 2024 at 5:46pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2024 at 3:41pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11th, 2024 at 1:54pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2024 at 12:46pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11th, 2024 at 12:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2024 at 12:21pm: Quote: I have outlined why your "individual freedom" values ideology What ideology is that? I don't think you ever said. You just started ranting about it. The ideology based on the illusion of 'natural individual rights", based on survival/competitive instincts of individuals.  Whereas sweet reason,  and concepts like "fairness" are cortex-based. Your task in life is to be 'reason-able',  rather than blindly driven by self-interested survival instincts.  Yeah, that's what your rants sound like. What ideology is that? The ideology of Reason, not accessible to your blind individual instinct-driven brain.  Hence the endless wars and and entrenched poverty in our world - an entirely unreason-able outcome of human relations. So you think you have proven that reason itself is an illusion? No; and that's obviously not even what I wanted to prove, your thinking is already confused.  I think I have proven reason, in consideration of universal wellbeing (as in the UNUDHR) is incompatible with "reason" based on the (individual) "freedom" illusion. (Unregulated individual freedom is an illusion if the world has more than one self-interested individual in it...). The illusion is the (individual) "freedom" ideology, arrived at by the unreason of instinct-driven thought.  Note: everyone has shouted "that's not fair", sometime in their life; they are reasoning from their own perspective of "fairness". The solution (other than via resort to un-reasoning conflict)  is acceptance of rule of law to adjudicate "fairness", from the point of view of justice determined by the collective, not the self-interested individual. The quality of the justice is evident in the outcomes in the community (eg, order, tranquility, versus hyper-partisanship).

So what exactly is this ideology you are projecting onto me, and what do you think you have disproven?

I'll give it a go:-

"  I have outlined why your "individual freedom" values ideology is an illusion. Rand fell for it, and so do you.

Hence neither you nor Graps has the nous to refute my post (#21),   because analysis based on reason, NOT ideology, is required. "

He's desperately trying to say - via ad hom - that he and only he understands the Great Truth about how we can all be free if we only follow Big Brother and surrender all our personal rights and liberties and rely instead on the good graces of our 'betters'.  That's about as laughable as some Islamic Mullah in Bankistan saying he and his kind are superior to all others.... one said that on TV one night to a female reporter and I still laugh when I recall it.... you can take the boy out of the mud hut .....

Without our individual freedom we would have no forum from which to even discuss this - nor would dividie (little pink) - his posts don't need 'refuting' since he never offers anything but statements unsupported by anything and claims 'refutation' by him is just saying no ***.... he simply does not understand the word.... and clearly it is he so immersed in his ideology of the hive mind that he cannot begin to see that others are not even interested in that rubbish.


*** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3etuIw-aM