Anybody Else See the Parallels Between Loki and Pomo Kid . (Granted Loki has a *somewhat* more polished lexicon)

topic posted Wed, October 7, 2009 - 2:59 AM by  offlineJason Leary
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
NOTE : The following is a fictitious (though it is an appropro portrayal of relativist/postmodernist thinking) story that depicts a young man (age 24) who supports postmodernist/relativist ideology . He is sent back in time from circa 2007 A.D. to 1855 Oneida, New York (by a University sociology department) to engage in discussion with an abolitionist orator. The young man is called in the story : Pomo kid ...'pomo' being an abbreviation for postmodernist . He is sent back into time with a special hidden video and audio device designed to record sound and image of the discussion that he will have with Benjamin Obadiah Whittaker --an abolitionist and former slave, who is scheduled on that June evening to give a speech on the evils of slavery at the Shaker meeting house during a meeting hosted by the Oneida abolitionist society .

The exchange between Pomo Kid and the abolitionist leader is a cautionary tale presented in a format similar to a one-act play designed to reveal the incongruity and general murkiness of postmodernist/relativist thinking .

PREFACE :Pomo kid has gotten in the time machine and the controls have been set for June 25, 1855 . Since the machine is the first of its kind and time travel with it expected to be slow going on what the scientists back at the lab call it's "maiden voyage" , Pomo Kid has taken some magazines: the UTNE reader (bought for him by his limosine- liberal parents who read it themselves ) and Relevant Magazine .

Pomo Kid --having a short attention span fostered by years of chronic MTV watching --has also taken a specially made CD player and some CDs to keep him amused. When he gets to 1855 Oneida , New York he discovers that miraculously the CD players and CD's work --though he has a hard time getting them to work while riding in the time machine. The CD 's he has taken are as follows : Jewel's Greatest Hits, a CD by the musical band Toad The Wet Sprocket, a CD by Jimmy Eat World, The Dawson's Creek t.v. show soundtrack, a CD from the band Barenaked Ladies, and Rumors by Fleetwood Mac (A CD that he borrowed from his parents) , and a CD from a singer named Dan Hasletine .

The time machine soon arrives in a dairy cattle field in 1855 Oneida,
New York . He steps out of the time machine with his CD head set over his ears --and hidden minature camera recording device cocked and disguised as one of his piercings . As he steps out on to the farm field of Ezra Howell Drummond --no person sees the machine land nor him emerge. The dairy cows give him monentary glances of dull suprise and then return to to crunching and grazing down the vast green verdure . He looks at a minature digital map device and proceeds to walk to the shaker meeting house to hear the speech by Obadiah Whittaker .

He arrives on time and sits down . Some of the abolitionists and interested town folks noticed Pomo kid as he arrives and are somewhat baffled by his odd appearance --as his clothes , hairstyle and general demeanor do not look period, but do not approach him . They are more interested in the speech by Mr. Benjamin Whittaker . Benjamin Whittaker presents a cogent and eloquent indictment of the evils of chattel slavery in the antebellum south. He especially highlights the treatment of slave women by slavemasters, overseers, and their cronies and acquaintances who from time to time rape the slave women on the plantations .

Pomo kid allows his CD headspeakers to droop a little so he can hear the speech ---and gives a skimming of the main elements . As the speech draws to its close Pomo kid hears the anti-slavery orator sum up the directive set before good citizens everywhere in a way that does NOT mince words .

' And so good citizens of Oneida , we can send forth the clear message ...both to posterity , to others who have shared and will share the North American continent, and to all nations and every town and village abroad , that we will no longer accept, nor even partially accept, a wicked commerce of bodies and souls that treats marriage and kinship as makeshift gambits in some sordid game , where transgression of the convenants between man and women is done with impunity . We will stand with the men , women, and children who long to have the stability accorded to man and wife by civilized society. We make no caveat to the forces of darkness and depravity that would settle for anything less! '

There is a roar of applause and even a few Amens from the audience .

Soon the speech is then over and there is time for handshakes and entreties from the audience .

Pomo Kid then approaches the abolitionist orator .

POMO KID : "Hey Mr.Whiitaker , dude . I, like, enjoyed your speech . I can see that feel quite passionate about racial oppression and all , but there's some stuff I'd like to discuss with you . I know that slavery is a bad scene and it's kinda bogus how slaves are treated , but you gotta learn to respect the opinion of those who want to rape their slave women and sell their kids to other plantations too and look at it from their perspective some too . You are like so judgemental, so preachy , dogmatic ...so one-sided towards the opinions of those who want to rape slave women, beat them some, and sell their children downriver . It's like you want to preach instead of discussing...you preach. You got to learn to look at it from other perspectives. What you are doing is the us versus them approach towards people who oppress and exploit slaves . The us versus them approach isn't good . It's fanatical to take the us versus them approach . The us versus them way is, like, so yesterday . Everything is connected . it's all connected. Really the slavowner and the oppressed slaves are really part of the same thing . Making distinctions is so passe /so yesterday . It's all one . It's all how you look at it .

You know there's many sides to every issue. Stuff like slavery is not all black and white there are shades of grey. It's not totally bad being oppressed as a slave . You got to look at it from other points of view . Learn to accept that problems are part of life...a growing experience . You know, getting raped and being sold away from your family just goes to show that life is give and take . If nobody ever got raped or exploited then you wouldn't have give and take ...and so you wouldn't have reality ; it would be all idealistic . We can't have stuff being idealistic all the time. Life is supposed to be a mixture of things . People are a mixture of things. It's all the duality of man . In the time period I come from, we study deconstructionism and post-structuralism at my college and I've been getting into Michel Foucault , and Lyotard, and Richard Rorty. They teach us not to totalize . what your are doing is totalizing ...making people out to be villans if they don't agree with rigid moral constructs . It's all just language games --the divisions of beleifs that people have . There aren't any absolute truths ...or if there are, there aren't very many...or we can't be sure what they are .

You got to learn something Mr.Whittaker: don't be so single-minded ....

(Pomo kid pauses for an extended period of time and fiddles with his CD player and changes the Jewel CD for a Dawson's Creek CD . He turns it down slighly so he can somewhat hear Mr . Benjamin Whittaker speak .)

Benjamin Whittaker stares at Pomo Kid with a look of utter credulity and disgust at the weirdly pusillanimous , and convoluted statements that have poured forth from the young man's mouth . He then speaks

BENJAMIN WHITTAKER SPEAKS : Young man, I scarcely know where to begin to disabuse you of the false , and weirdly ludicrous statements you have put forth here. You claim I must respect the vile opinions of those who support the exploitation and tyrrany which oppresses persons of African descent--and , moreover, exploits women whose virginity has been taken from them by force! What on earth have such opinions done to merit such respect, or to even almost halfway earn such respect .? Young man I can scarcely help wondering if you have fallen in with revelling hooligans in Manhattan that smoke opium in houses of ill repute and, that such riotous living has altered your febrile brain to such an extent that you find it a habit to talk nonsense . Young man, I do not know where you are from ---

(Pomo Kid then interrupts Mr. Whittaker in mid sentence . Pomo kid is, after all, a postmodernist of the MTV generation and considers being fair and waiting till someone is finished talking to be passe and old fashioned communication practice, which he wants nothing to do with . Pomo kid favors a more edgy , open ended approach .)

POMO KID SPEAKS : (Decides to start out with circular thinking ) . Dude, the idea that it's wrong to rape slave women , or brutally beat and exploit slaves and sell their children away from them ...that's wrong to us , but not to the people who support exploiting and raping slaves... Doing that's right to them . Morals and truth are relative and subjective. What's true to you may not be true to them . It's all just different perspectives. If you go and say that its absolutely wrong for people to exploit and rape their slaves instead of saying that it's wrong to us, then ...you're like Hitler. Now you probably aren't familiar with who Hitler is ...but in the 20 Century there's gonna be this guy called Hitler, who takes over and takes away people's rights. And if you say that some belief is totally wrong and another belief is totally right then you're like Hitler . Just like these holocaust survivors that the nazis put into concentration camps and came out being all bitter and one sided and preachy and say what Hitler and the nazis did was wrong and don't respect the nazi point of view a little---well they're like Hitler too ! Just like a person who always stops a bully from bullying people and won't look at it from a bully point of view a little...well that makes that kind of one-sided person who is against bullying, a bully too and just as bad as the real bully . Furthermore, just by saying that some belief or practice is wrong--- just by verbally calling that belief wrong you violate their right to free expression to say that opposite belief...even without any physical violence against them ...without a single shot being fired .

You got to understand also that if somebody says that some belief isn't absolute , then that right there prooves that it isn't . Take the proposition that says that 2+2=4 . Well as long as somebody disagrees with the idea that 2+2=4 then that automatically shows that the idea that 2+2=4 isn't absolute, otherwise every person would have to say they agreed with 2+2 being = 4, otherwise it's not absolute .

In the time period of history that I come from (which is the late 20 th and early 21 Centuries ) there's this show called the Real World . Now since television hasn't been invented yet in 1855, you probably aren't familar with that word. Television in the time I come from is a lot like what plays are on stages in the time you're in . Television is kind of like a play ---only more fun . So in the time I come from there is a show called 'The Real World' ...and people on that show sometimes have different beliefs and so they can come together and get real and talk about the issues that bother them . The show teaches people to come out of their comfort zone (Pomo Kid runs through memory banks to come up with more newspeak words and phrases and finds some) and therefore they can have an impactive, impactful affect on each others lives and give each other feedback about what they think. Now the people who are being raped , beaten , or exploited by masters and overseers down on those slave plantations they got to stop being so one-sided and look at from another perspective and come out of their comfort zone and stop portraying rape and exploitation as something totally bad. They can then get together with the slave owners and overseers and tell them about the way they feel and then get the slave owners and overseers to come out of their comfort zone too , and maybe tone down the rape and exploitation a little . That way you don't have an us versus them .

Some people would say that what I'm saying doesn't make much sense ...that it's inconsistent /ambivalent thinking (which is another way of saying sell- out thinking ) but I don't call it selling out . I call it "looking at it from another perspective" . And about the people claiming that postmodernism like I've been trying to get you to support, doesn't make much sense, well it doesn't have to make sense. Making sense is so passe ...so yesterday . Distinctions are just so passe . I don't bother with rigid distinctions. I 've gotten into a sort of thinking called lateral thinking ...that doen't get all hung up on distinctions . Lateral thinking doesn't have to always make sense.

You Mr. Whittaker are a linear thinker ...that consistent thinking is so out of style....so outmoded . Lateral thinking, that postmodernists such as me go for doesn't bother with having to make sense ...it tolerates ambiguity . You mr. Whittaker are so rigidly consistent /so single-minded ...a fanatical ideologue that goes to extremes of consistent thinking. You aren't conflicted about anything !!!!

In the time period I came from, there was a singer called Moby---who used to be so dogmatic and one-sided about the animal rights cause, but lately he learned not to be so judgemental towards opinions of people who don't support animal rights . He respects the outlook of the people who are against animal rights now --even though he's for animal rights .The same flexibility applies to any social cause. After all, a professor I had once in a classroom, quoted the quote, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" .I've learned that selling out is not so bad . '

(Pomo kid having temporarily dropped the Dawson's Creek soundtrack picks it up and puts in the Toad The Wet Sprocket CD . He changes CDs about as quickly as a chain smoker replaces cigarettes)

BENJAMIN WHITTAKER : (Still flabbergasted, begins to speak) 'Without consistency of thought human affairs descend into meaninglessness....

POMO KID SPEAKS : Not if you think they have meaning for you . You know, by the way, in 1855, the people who exploit and rape slaves are doing what was thought right at the time. We shouldn't be so chauvanistic as to try to harshly criticize people who own slaves by the morality of later periods. If you say that people who exploit slaves are doing something totally wrong then you're just as bad as they are . Morality is different from one period to another ...some people say that people in different periods might call different actions moral ...and it not be a case of inherently different morals ...but that's all the same anyway ...since I don't bother with hair-splitting distinctions like that .

(Pomo Kid's CD jams and stops playing temporarily. He pauses from speaking and, in so doing, ejects that CD and puts in the machine a CD of music by musician Dan Hasletine) .

BENJAMIN WHITTAKER SPEAKS : How are you so sure that people who exploit slaves are unaware that what they are doing is fully wrong ? (The good abolitionist has managed to put aside being shocked by the weirdly insipid statements presented by Pomo Kid long enough to get the composure to ask him that question .)

POMO KID REPLIES : Well if they thought it was wrong to exploit and mistreat slaves then they wouldn't do it .

BENJAMIN WHITTAKER SPEAKS : So let me get this straight, young man...you allege that the mere willingness of somebody to do some act is in of itself some ad hoc proof that in every such case they must be sincere in doing so.? Where do you arrive at such a facile conclusion-- if that is what you are alleging ?

(Pomo kid, who does not know a specific response to the question that can save face for how facile the previous statement he has just put forth has been...then searches his memory banks for the word he likes to bandie about whenever somebody presents an argument that is elaborate , doesn't have postmodern cliches, and one which , moreover, he doesn't want to slow down and bother to analyze . He finds that word .... the word "pseudo-intellectual" which he uses to lambast elaborate arguments from people who refuse to sell out and entertain his lazy mind . )

POMO KID SPEAKS : Dude, I realy don't have time for pseudo-intellectual questions and statements like you have been making. Mellow out, Dude . You are so single-minded . You just need to get laid .

(Pomo Kid pauses and then speaks again )

POMO KID SPEAKS : You want to know something ? If you judge a belief or lifestyle that somebody supports ...that's the same as judging them, because an emo-singer I like said so, in an interview I read about in Spin magazine . He later said the same stuff about that on a VH-1 documentary . He said that the beliefs a person supports are the person themself ---so by judging the belief your judging the person . Beliefs are people . (Pomo Kid gets oddly quiet all of a sudden )

BENJAMIN WHITTAKER THEN ASKS : So to take such preposterously silly statement to its conclusion , do you then allege that if someone no longer believes the beliefs they once supported ...they are no longer themselves .?

POMO KID ASKS : Yes , why not say that ?

BENJAMIN WHITTAKER SPEAKS : Well young man, I hope that you will reconsider those murky notions you have given a voice to . Slavery is quite ugly and the others here know that .

(Pomo Kid then takes out the Hasletine CD and puts in a CD of Rumors by Fleetwood Mac in his CD player and adjusts the headset .) .

POMO KID SPEAKS : (Takes on the weirdly petulant snippness that young postmodernists sometimes adopt) 'You know what dude, you just don't understand . I'm starting to think that it's just a waste of time explaining this to you ...since you have a close mind. I can see you have a closed mind because you keep having to take everything apart and you keep insisting on consistent distinctions . That's very anal retentive of you Mr. Whittaker . That's also a power play on your part . It shows that you have control issues and will not look at anything a different way . You just don't understand. You got all that deductive reasoning ...but that's a defense mechanism . Since you refuse to come out of your comfort zone and become conflicted about anything there's probably no point in having a discussion .You just don't understand ...all you want to do is be a true believer and stereotype the lifestyle of other people . So, like WHATEVER , dude ...that's not my problem !

(Pomo Kid then speaks again )

You probably don't think I identify with oppressed people but I do . My girlfriend and life partner Jasmine and me have gone to a lot of take back the night rallies . We've protested date rape on campus. I've known oppression and been a victim of oppression myself . The year before last I went to go stay with my aunt Veronica because parents were using their house as a meditation center for married couples and me being kind of high maintence ...we figured I'd get in the way and so I went to go live with Veronica . But my aunt is an old school Mennonite --and so she's like real rigid , dogmatic , and puritanical and so she wouldn't let me and Jasmine's ex boyfriend (he's a real kewl guy who pierced my belly button when we went to Woodstock 94) and her ex boyfiriend 's cat all get together and have group sex games together in her house . She's real dogmatic against sex (if you ask me she has some real issues if she's against group sex games) . Sex is like my identity . Also i understand oppression because people sometimes look at me funny because I have a lot of piercings ...so I know what it's like to be oppressed too . '

BENJAMIN WHITTAKER SPOKE : 'Young man, I pity someone with such a murky , ridiculous attitude as you have . If you excuse me, now myself and the other people here are going to march to the town hall where we will make the protest of slavery public ... ' (He then turns away and walks toward the others who have gathered at the far door of the Shaker meeting house ) .

POMO KID SPEAKS (Runs up ahead to meet up with them): ' So you guys are going to a protest down town. Kewl ! For shizzle ...that's the shiznic ! I've been to protests with my girlfriend and our boyfriends ...we've been to take back the night ...and we've been to rallies at Lillith Fair too, so I know the routine . I once met Michael Stipe at a protest !

(Mr. Whitakker and the other abolitionists have begun already begun to file out signs en hand . They cast backwards glances of disgust and perplexity at Pomo Kid ) .

Pomo Kid then runs out after them , "Let's do it . End oppression now. Oppression is f--ked up . The people united will never be defeated ...the people united will never be defeated ! The people united will never be defeated ! '

(He then hearing the onset of a track on the CD playing the Fleetwood Mac song ' Don't stop thinking about tommorrow', then begins to sing in unision to the song ---as if it were a marching chant ...As he runs out into the starlit roads of 1855 Oneida, New York, he soon finds he wishes he had a latte to round out the day) .
posted by:
Jason Leary
Florida
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

    no, i Don't see the parallels.

    this little piece of speculative fiction seems to be intended to discredit relativism. (it's a bit hard to say as it's so poorly written.) what it actually does is discredit relativism as it stood in the time of plato, as shown in his piece "theaetetus."

    the real difficulty that the reader of the piece is supposed to have (although it should really be spelled out more clearly as most readers don't have a background in wittgenstein and whorf) is the idea that one can not only, from a relativistic viewpoint, avoid any theory from including it's own contradiction, one cannot protect one's theory from said contradiction. the resolution of this difficulty is not approachable by logic as such, and is better understood through the use of the 0=2 formula.

    the specific type of relativism described above is a hodge-podge of -moral- and -cultural- relativism (and let's not confuse the planes by throwing in cognitive - that doesn't come into this), wrapped around something that most people can be counted on to think of us Bad - in this case, slavery. a better diaglogue to illustrate the point would have been between the abolitionist and the slave owner, but since this piece clearly isn't meant to show relativism in a positive light, the author chose a snot-nosed kid from a modern college.

    (there's an interesting amount of anti-intellectual and revisionist language in the piece itself. the idea is put forward in a very sly manner that relativism wasn't around a hundred and fifty years ago, when nothing could be further from the truth. the snotty 'college boy' thing is a classic of the anti-intellectualist's Trick Bag. the basic idea behind combining the two is likely a permutation of "this hasn't been around for very long and only a college kid with no real-world experiece could Possibly take it seriously.)

    from a slave-owner, one will hear extensive moral, ethical, intellectual, economic, genetic, social and so on reasonings in favor of slavery. from an abolitionist, one would hear about the same, only on the other side of the issue. the only likely point of agreement between the two parties is that there is something called "slavery" which is the subject of the discussion (and a hell of a lot better than you'd get from a modern professional politician, who will simply tell you that the thing you're attempting to discuss isn't real, and then will provide you with a another word that has a different moral, ethical or social weight).

    the point is that 'good' and 'bad' only take on meaning from a particular point of view. both parties will each insist on their own 'goodness' and the others 'badness.' there will be no convincing either of error by the other (or by any other party). 'good' and 'bad' don't exist as constants in the universe - not in the sense that the speed of light exists as a constant in the universe, at any rate.

    let's take an example that doesn't have such vast cultural baggage, like really powerful hot sauce. i like spicy food - i get pleasure from eating it and my body reacts well to it. for me, it is Good. this other girl doesn't like spicy food - she gets displeasure from eating it and spends the next three days chained to her toilet. for her, it is Bad. all the two of us will be able to agree on is that there is such a thing as spicy food. it's 'goodness' and 'badness' (not Or) are only meaningful to the individual point of view. slavery, functionally, is no different.

    how, then, can anybody act on what they believe when someone else who believes differently seems to be infringing upon what you believe are your rights?

    very carefully, in my view.

    one approach is to simply not give a shit what other people think is good, and concentrating on one's own path. another is to initiate conflicts based on a greater or lesser violation of what one has defined to be their basic rights. in other words, some jackass thinks it's within his basic rights to kill me. now, my idea of my basic rights include me being able to stay alive to enjoy them, so i try to stop him from killing me by whatever appropriate means are available (including killing the other bastard first).

    however, while i think it's "bad" that the christists have been allowed to get away with institutionally-scaled murder on the global stage for fifteen hundred years or whatever, i'm not going to try to stop people from joining the silly religion (nor even try to assassinate any popes). maybe it's 'good' for them. it's almost Certainly 'good' for me to have whoever it is off somewhere else doing christist things with other christists instead of hanging around my porch trying to give me literature, and although i feel i have a right to not be talked about as an equivalent to a child-molester or a dog-fucker by the effing guy in the silly dress and matching hat, i don't feel that i have a right to not be offended, so i more or less just let him spew.

    somebody else might disagree, and decide to cut the bastard's tongue out. i say: "good" for them!

    so, as a critique of basic relativist thought, the piece fails. miserably. as a comparison to lokifriegn? hah, well, "good" for you!

    Love is the law, love under will.
    • SOLVE POSTED :no, i Don't see the parallels.

      this little piece of speculative fiction seems to be intended to discredit relativism. (it's a bit hard to say as it's so poorly written.) what it actually does is discredit relativism as it stood in the time of plato, as shown in his piece "theaetetus."

      RESPONSE: Since militant relativism supports ambivalence/ ambiguity, incongruous thinking yes it is designed to discredit relativism . And since Lokifreign is a militant relativist who is *against* consistency / *against* either / or when it comes to mutually exclusive notions , then how could the similarity between Loki and Pomo Kid .

      SOLVE POSTED :the real difficulty that the reader of the piece is supposed to have (although it should really be spelled out more clearly as most readers don't have a background in wittgenstein and whorf) is the idea that one can not only, from a relativistic viewpoint, avoid any theory from including it's own contradiction, one cannot protect one's theory from said contradiction. the resolution of this difficulty is not approachable by logic as such, and is better understood through the use of the 0=2 formula.

      RESPONSE: What is that so-called formula called 0=2 ?

      SOLVE POSTED :the specific type of relativism described above is a hodge-podge of -moral- and -cultural- relativism (and let's not confuse the planes by throwing in cognitive - that doesn't come into this),

      RESPONSE: Much relativism tends to be a hodgepodge in the present era anyway . Relativists don't like distinctions very often , so that is par for the course !

      SOLVE POSTED : wrapped around something that most people can be counted on to think of us Bad - in this case, slavery. a better diaglogue to illustrate the point would have been between the abolitionist and the slave owner, but since this piece clearly isn't meant to show relativism in a positive light, the author chose a snot-nosed kid from a modern college.

      RESPONSE: To depict how relativist goes astray , why not cite the patterns of thought from a relativist and how they would then miscarry and gloss over a moral issue ?
      SOLVE POSTED :(there's an interesting amount of anti-intellectual and revisionist language in the piece itself. the idea is put forward in a very sly manner that relativism wasn't around a hundred and fifty years ago, when nothing could be further from the truth.

      RESPONSE: There may have been a few forerunners of it, however, it was no way near as pervasive as an ideological movement as it is now . The pop culture media has done much to foster relativism and the goofy lateral thinking whcih tends to accompany it !

      the snotty 'college boy' thing is a classic of the anti-intellectualist's Trick Bag. the basic idea behind combining the two is likely a permutation of "this hasn't been around for very long and only a college kid with no real-world experiece could Possibly take it seriously.)

      SOLVE POSTED :from a slave-owner, one will hear extensive moral, ethical, intellectual, economic, genetic, social and so on reasonings in favor of slavery.

      RESPONSE: Not necessarily . Often the defense of slavery in the old south was not based on elaborate ethical arguments at all, but instead on NON-cerebral appeals to mere tradition and convention memes of the sort like "this has been our way of life in the South for a long time " ...the sorts of appeals that do not involve any great ethical sincerity due to the lack of perspacity / LACK of an appeal to a more abstract criteria beyond mere tradition that genuine ethics would require .

      SOLVE POSTED :from an abolitionist, one would hear about the same, only on the other side of the issue.

      RESPONSE: The abolitionist argmentation tended to appeal to more abstract criteria ---transcending mere convention and tradition .

      Hence the context of the abolitionist tended to lend itself more to a domain of discourse which is favorable to sincerity as opposed to public relations apologetics !

      Ethics itself, as a discpline, appeals to more abstract considerations than mere tradition and convention .

      SOLVE POSTED : the only likely point of agreement between the two parties is that there is something called "slavery" which is the subject of the discussion (and a hell of a lot better than you'd get from a modern professional politician, who will simply tell you that the thing you're attempting to discuss isn't real, and then will provide you with a another word that has a different moral, ethical or social weight).

      RESPONSE: The ontological status of an ethical belief is not up for popular vote . Ethics is not everybody's malleable silly putty to remold according to whim .

      SOLVE POSTED :the point is that 'good' and 'bad' only take on meaning from a particular point of view.

      RESPONSE: Infinitely trite and glib, MTV Generation, relativist hogwash which you have not demonstrated .

      SOLVE POSTED :both parties will each insist on their own 'goodness' and the others 'badness.'

      RESPONSE: You are presuming that both parties were sincere . That doesn't follow . It is possible for a supporter of slavery to say outwardly that slavery is right and not have any sincere argumentation in the interna; dialogue to truely and sincerely convince them of that inwardly . It is hasty to be so quick to presume that evil doers even so much have a sincere misconception, as is so often hastily presumed in the present era , when it is possible for them to have inclinations of a much more murky and venal sort .

      SOLV POSTED :there will be no convincing either of error by the other (or by any other party).

      RESPONSE: Whether one can convince the other party remains to be seen. You , however, in claiming that the proposed inability of one party to convince the other somehow means that the belief of one party is not absolute is an example of what Anthony Flew in the book he wrote on logic called , 'But these people will never agree damper'. It is also an example of what Michael Huemer called 'The Idiot's Veto' . The idiot's veto is the inspid notion that presumes that if some person somehwere is willing to disagree with a notion that the mere willingness of someone to disagree , in and of itself somehow allegedly means that the notion is somehow dubious or less than absolute ---that however is an error. A proposition does NOT have to have unanimous , nor even majority approval to be absolutely sound in terms of logic .

      SOLV POSTED :P 'good' and 'bad' don't exist as constants in the universe - not in the sense that the speed of light exists as a constant in the universe, at any rate.

      RESPONSE: How do you know ? Because Richard Rorty told you that , or R.A. Wilson ?

      SOLV POSTED :let's take an example that doesn't have such vast cultural baggage, like really powerful hot sauce. i like spicy food - i get pleasure from eating it and my body reacts well to it. for me, it is Good. this other girl doesn't like spicy food - she gets displeasure from eating it and spends the next three days chained to her toilet. for her, it is Bad. all the two of us will be able to agree on is that there is such a thing as spicy food. it's 'goodness' and 'badness' (not Or) are only meaningful to the individual point of view. slavery, functionally, is no different.

      RESPONSE: That is a loose apples and coconuts comparison !
      • Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

        i've read your responses to my post, and i find them nonsensical. for instance, the sentence:

        "And since Lokifreign is a militant relativist who is *against* consistency / *against* either / or when it comes to mutually exclusive notions , then how could the similarity between Loki and Pomo Kid ."

        or, the following exchange:

        "SOLVE POSTED :from a slave-owner, one will hear extensive moral, ethical, intellectual, economic, genetic, social and so on reasonings in favor of slavery.

        ": Not necessarily . Often the defense of slavery in the old south was not based on elaborate ethical arguments at all, but instead on NON-cerebral appeals to mere tradition and convention memes of the sort like "this has been our way of life in the South for a long time ""

        so, your rejoinder to slave-owners using socially-based reasonings is that they... use socially-based reasonings. :/

        ...it's fairly obvious that there's no point continuing this discussion, as you seem to be incapabale of expressing yourself clearly (and, it would seem, unable to understand what i've said to you.)

        Love is the law, love under will.
        • SOLVE POSTED :Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

          i've read your responses to my post, and i find them nonsensical. for instance, the sentence:

          "And since Lokifreign is a militant relativist who is *against* consistency / *against* either / or when it comes to mutually exclusive notions , then how could the similarity between Loki and Pomo Kid ."

          RESPONSE: Do you deny that Loki is a relativist ?

          or, the following exchange:

          "SOLVE POSTED :from a slave-owner, one will hear extensive moral, ethical, intellectual, economic, genetic, social and so on reasonings in favor of slavery.

          ": Not necessarily . Often the defense of slavery in the old south was not based on elaborate ethical arguments at all, but instead on NON-cerebral appeals to mere tradition and convention memes of the sort like "this has been our way of life in the South for a long time ""

          SOLVE POSTED :so, your rejoinder to slave-owners using socially-based reasonings is that they... use socially-based reasonings. :/

          RESPONSE: No, Mr.Alesister Crowley follower, if you would try some logic for a change , instead of whatever lateral thinking or othwerwise skewed thinking you use , and , hence, parse what I've posted youd find that what I was arguing that much of the arguments made by those who favored slavery in the pre-civil war American south , were based on blind appeals to mere custom and tradition , NOT on appeals to putative ethical criteria .
          • << much of the arguments made by those who favored slavery in the pre-civil war American south , were based on blind appeals to mere custom and tradition , NOT on appeals to putative ethical criteria . >>

            The trouble with this, like most of Jason's cocksure assertions, is that it isn't even remotely true.

            Southern proslavery intellectuals had apologies for slavery worked out with all the rigor of what then passed for political, ethical and moral logic. There have been theses, dissertations, entire shelves of books written on this and I've read most all of them.

            Indeed, THIS lunatic was, in his way, as remorselessly logical as Stalin, once you grant a couple of screwhead premises-

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fitzhugh

            He believed all capital should own all labor and he did so on moral, even Christian, grounds.

            As I've had occasion to say elsewhere, Jason's education contains significant gaps.
            • much of the arguments made by those who favored slavery in the pre-civil war American south , were based on blind appeals to mere custom and tradition , NOT on appeals to putative ethical criteria . >>

              ROCKSTAR POSTED :The trouble with this, like most of Jason's cocksure assertions, is that it isn't even remotely true.

              Southern proslavery intellectuals had apologies for slavery worked out with all the rigor of what then passed for political, ethical and moral logic. There have been theses, dissertations, entire shelves of books written on this and I've read most all of them.

              Indeed, THIS lunatic was, in his way, as remorselessly logical as Stalin, once you grant a couple of screwhead premises-

              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fitzhugh

              He believed all capital should own all labor and he did so on moral, even Christian, grounds.

              RESPONSE: Mr.Fitzhugh was something of anomaly and atypical inasmuch as he advocated enslaving poor whites also and was even strident in proclaiming that. Most of the slavery apologetics I've been privvy to made appeals to mere custom affirming "this is our way of life" or that it was the "peculiar institution in the south " and did not put forth much abstraction in the argument .

              Could you Mr.Rockstar, cite any references to other slavery apologists besides Mr. Fitzhugh that made *more abstract* appeals for slavery .

              Also do you acknowledge the parallels in ways of thinking between the character Pomo Kid (in the cautionary tale) and Lokifreign ?
              • << Mr.Fitzhugh was something of anomaly >>

                An influential one, if so.

                << cite any references to other slavery apologists besides Mr. Fitzhugh that made *more abstract* appeals for slavery . >>

                HOLY FUCKING SHIT, do I HAVE to do ALL the homework for your lazy, non-reading, won't-study, wingnut ass? It's bothersome to have to educate every last pretend-expert the Internet right throws up on this matter. Never even mind that the greasy escape-hatch term >> *more abstract*>> has almost no meaning in this historical context.

                There were MANY and you can find out the facts in several studies, like this one-

                findarticles.com/p/article...i_7049446/

                Maybe this will keep you from fondling your phallus in public for a while...
                • << Mr.Fitzhugh was something of anomaly >>

                  ROCKSTAR POSTED :An influential one, if so.

                  RESPONSE: Hmnn .

                  << cite any references to other slavery apologists besides Mr. Fitzhugh that made *more abstract* appeals for slavery . >>

                  HOLY FUCKING SHIT, do I HAVE to do ALL the homework for your lazy, non-reading, won't-study, wingnut ass? It's bothersome to have to educate every last pretend-expert the Internet right throws up on this matter. Never even mind that the greasy escape-hatch term >> *more abstract*>> has almost no meaning in this historical context.

                  RESPONSE: On what grounds do you alledge that 'more abstract' is a greasy escape hatch term which has no meaning in this historical context .

                  ROCKSTAR POSTED : There were MANY and you can find out the facts in several studies, like this one-

                  findarticles.com/p/article...i_7049446/

                  RESPINSE: Well I would like to read that book in its entirety . However, in the blurbs cited from the review , there are not many blurbs in the review that ascribe normative or putatively normative terms to slavery .There are SOME that do in the blurbs cited in the review. Perhaps in the larger text of the book there *might* be more ---in alll fairness . I'd like to read the book and find out . One politican at the time (apparently Charles Pickney of South Carolina ) puts the matter in economic terms . In one of the early pages of the review there is an apologist for slavery who describes it as "a necessary evil" ---hardly a full fledged attempt at any putative normative defense ...

                  Here below is an excerpt from the review that lists *some* voices at the time which defend the practice of slavery in putatively normative terms along with one who defends it on economic grounds ,

                  At Kingston, Rhode Island, General Nathan Miller spoke of slaveholding as ordained of God; and Mayor George Hazard of Newport denied seeing any "wickedness" in the Negro trade. In the same spirit, Rawlins Lowndes of Charleston, erstwhile president of his state, insisted that slaveholding could be 'justified on principles of religion, justice, and humanity"; and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney declared that "restricting the importation of Negroes" would turn South Carolina into "a desert waste."



                  ROCKSTAR POSTED :Maybe this will keep you from fondling your phallus in public for a while...

                  RESPONSE: Why do you keep projecting that preoccupation with that phenomenon on to me ?


                  At Kingston, Rhode Island, General Nathan Miller spoke of slaveholding as ordained of God; and Mayor George Hazard of Newport denied seeing any "wickedness" in the Negro trade. In the same spirit, Rawlins Lowndes of Charleston, erstwhile president of his state, insisted that slaveholding could be 'justified on principles of religion, justice, and humanity"; and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney declared that "restricting the importation of Negroes" would turn South Carolina into "a desert waste."

Recent topics in "Anarchism"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
radical prison movements 8 Today, 7:55 AM
. Simple . Daily . Radical . Constructive . grouchosuave 27 November 20, 2009
Anarchism Shadow_777 109 November 16, 2009
gee twenty yesterday Solve Omnis 6 October 9, 2009
Hello I am Efrit Mbotu! Efrit 2 September 15, 2009