Countdown to a BAN_Politics 50 forums.

[DavidHenry]

[DavidHenry]

It was only a matter of time, LOL.
As usual, none of them know what right from wrong is in an objective sense, most of them reject reality as absolute/objective, and they allowed other members to be extremely rude to me without batting an eyelid.

[DavidHenry]

Wanna have a big laugh.....the idiot of a mod Cookie Parker claims to have a handle on philosophy, yet confuses the conceptual with perceptual, LOL, what a complete an utter imbecile.

We can't create a concept without something, ie, a percept, IOW, objective concepts are an interaction between mind and matter, but of course, we're also able to create abstractions, but just because you think you can do something, doesn't mean it's possible.....ie, you can't defy reality.

[DavidHenry]

It’s important to remember that if you want to promote the idea of might makes right, of bogus wars and endless lies and propaganda, what better way than to dispute the very ability to form objective knowledge and obviously objective ethics.

Think about it, if someone claims there’s no objective way to determine right from wrong, then why would they object to me stealing, raping or beating them, and why would they call the police….after all, I can’t be a criminal, I was just expressing my subjective ethics aka as might makes right.

Have you noticed the pattern at these forums?.....they have these inspirational sig lines, and inspirational quotes on display, yet none of them have a fully functioning brain and they do nothing but try and undermine objective knowledge/ethics.

Their comments are so stupid, predictable and transparent, that it can’t be a coincidence that these forums are largely identical in modus operandi, ie, the fancy quotes, the pretence at being knowledgeable about philosophy, the tolerance and use of ad hom, in fact, one of the mods was one of the biggest offenders of first strike and persistent ad hom.

If you read the “do you own yourself” thread, you’ll note that Cookie Parker made sure to try and align our supposed misinterpretation of philosophy with our anti-Zionism, he then made sure to ban both JJ and I so that we couldn’t take him to task on his own turf.

I’m usually first to be banned cause I’m a guy, but what exactly did JJ do to warrant a ban?......AFAIK, all she did was argue her POV…..she didn’t hurl any ad hom, although she did make their dummy heads hurt with some genuine high level discourse, LOL.

Once again we’ve been dumped from an American political forum, and once again all the active members are effectively pro-Zionist, and definitely pro-ADL type tactics of harassment, censorship and banning.

If you want to determine a fraud, all you have to do is follow the output of these so-called Ron Paul supporters{Ron Paul’s policies are anti-Zionist}, and watch them manhandle us and eventually ban us once it’s apparent that we can’t be intimidated by their feeble minds, idiotic interpretation of almost everything, not to mention unbelievable intellectual dishonesty+ the use and tolerance of ad hom.


http://politics50.com/us-politics-government/420-do-you-own-yourself-15.html

[Jenifer Johnson]

[DavidHenry]

[Jenifer Johnson]

The worst tyrants in history came to power because they had powerful states backing them up. Moreover, anyone with any intelligence can recognize a fatal contradiction in collectivist's assumption of rule of law: if people are naturally unfit to govern themselves, then how can any particular collective be fit to govern others?"

[DavidHenry]

[DavidHenry]

For those of you following our progress at these various political forums, I want to point out that the people at these forums often claim to be philosophically literate, educated, and mildly successful adults{granted some of them are in their early 20’s and by virtue of that will be somewhat immature/undeveloped}, yet as soon as we start discussing Judaism, Zionism and Israel in a negative fashion, we become persona non grata.

Unfortunately, because the Jews have done such a great con-job on most people, and they own and operate many of these forums, these truth-haters can routinely label us as racist, white supremacist, ignorant, miserable,….and this is deemed as acceptable because we’re such Jew hating monsters…..but even overlooking the disturbing facts surrounding the Jews, the Talmud etc, do any of you think that if we changed tact, ie, we withheld ISforum’s URL, changed our usernames/email/IP addy’s, and tried to criticize Judaism, Zionism or Israel in a more lenient manner…..do any of you think we’d receive a fair go?

I don’t….all I think would happen is that we’d delay the inevitable, ie, being attacked by a pack of rabid pro-Jew dogs and publicly outed as anti-semites……of course at this point, they could go straight for our jugular’s and hurl non-stop ad hom, start censoring us and finally ban us when they got bored or felt we’ve become too defiant……but I ask you, if these people are the models of knowledge and success they claim to be behind their fake usernames and blank profiles, and we’re dumb, hate filled rednecks, shouldn’t they be able to rip us to shreds using their superior knowledge, education and intelligence?

Wouldn’t it be preferable to expose us as per their various claims, wouldn’t it be more fun to kick the crap out of us for a while, especially when you consider that we often comprise 30-50% of the posts made at their small and small time forums?, IOW, if they ban us, they’re back to chatting amongst themselves, and that amounts to a handful of pro-Zionist news stories and no genuine challenge, after all, they virtually always agree with each other.

If these people are philosophically literate, then they should have a healthy respect for civilized discussions, especially when most philosophers advocate civility, and a respect for logic and rationality, so why is it that when the triad is discussed in a negative manner, all hell breaks loose?......shouldn’t these philosophically literate individuals moderate their behaviour, shouldn’t they be aware that they’re violating the ideals of philosophy, ie, the understanding of logic, the application of logic, and a strong tradition of dissent.

Also, when people are in the middle of discussing the complexities of philosophy/knowledge in a civilized but negative manner, is that grounds to act like a juvenile and start throwing ad hom, avoid cautioning senior members and then ban your way out of taking responsibility for fair and consistent moderation?
Does that behaviour sound like the mindset of someone claiming to be knowledgeable wrt philosophy given what it stands for and the tradition that it’s set?

Seriously, these guys know next to nothing about philosophy other than what we force them to google up in response to the pressure we’ve placed them under, remember, many of these people think that illegal immigration is fine, that taxation is legal/moral, that ethics are subjective, that reality is subjective, and that criticizing Judaism, Zionism or Israel in a logical, civilized and fact featured manner is grounds to start treating us like the worst scum in the universe.

If we ignore who owns and controls the media, how many people think that the bulk of media content is of a high standard, how many people would pretend that the media don’t influence people wrt politics/politicians…..yet when we expose the undeniable fact that Jews/Zionist’s own and operate the mass media, a typical response is to deny the established facts or to deny the media play any sort of role in influencing people….of course this assumes we’re even allowed to air these facts in the first place without being censored or set upon by the resident attack dogs.

I’m having a hard time believing that these people are otherwise smart, decent and pro-America, when they only sanction discussion that supports the Zionist agenda of world domination via control of America and Israel{the ME superpower}………if you try and discuss genuine philosophy, namely ethics, you’re bombarded with the most stupid and dangerous claims that might is right and that ethics are subjective……which really translates as “rape is only immoral if it’s illegal”, IOW, if it wasn’t against the law, you could rape anyone you felt like and not have a care in the world.

Other typical forms of behaviour from these net intellects is evasion and endless questions……so even when we’ve given them the facts in black and white, even when we’ve given them incredibly simple examples to illustrate our point, they either ignore our response/question, or they merely ask another question proving they haven’t understood very basic and simple concepts, yet have the gall to publicly claim to be knowledgeable about philosophy, often suggesting that an entire philosophy{Objectivism} is wrong……..don’t you wonder how they could possibly know this when they can’t comprehend basic examples, and when they’re prone to evasion?

It’s one thing to assume ethics are subjective and then google up responses that back your claim, it’s quite another to actually reduce existing ethical codes back to basics, and to learn and consider the relationship between ethics and reality, at which point many existing ethical codes and laws are rendered as obsolete…..remember, these are the people who claim to know so much about philosophy that they can write off entire bodies of knowledge without having answered our direct questions, and use evasion as a method of avoiding the truth about their appalling level of knowledge.

Plus, you should be aware that I write most stuff off the top of my head and where applicable, I try and keep it simple as my goal is education rather than indoctrination.
So considering all that I’ve said, do these anonymous net identities really come across as philosophically literate, as advocates of truth, justice and ethics, or heavily brainwashed, if not paid Zionist plants?

For any of you who aren’t that familiar with the complexity of philosophy, trust me, it’s the most demanding subject of them all, and it takes years to properly study it along with getting a handle on science in general, yet we’re barely afforded a few days to make our case amidst a hostile ad hom riddled environment sanctioned and often perpetrated by the moderators.

[DavidHenry]

[Jenifer Johnson]

W.J. Wilczek is only capable of regurgitating what he has read without any critical thinking as to what he has presented is based on truth or not. A monkey could do the same.

All the rest were just ankle biters.

[DavidHenry]

We still don't have a valid reason for your ban, and we still don't have a single member objecting to either of our bans