GENIUS FORUMS

Wild Fox Zen wrote:what am I? chopped liver?

Millipodium:

Pre modernist, pre-buddhist, pre-anti-thought thought had a desire to survive as an assumed precondition.

did you actually want to argue this point?

Do you want to actually argue against it?

millipodium wrote:

Wild Fox Zen wrote:what am I? chopped liver?

Millipodium:

Pre modernist, pre-buddhist, pre-anti-thought thought had a desire to survive as an assumed precondition.

did you actually want to argue this point?

Do you want to actually argue against it?

The burden of proof is on you, buddy, but I still offered a view-point counter to yours that I'm sure you were careful to ignore.

You're an ass.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:

millipodium wrote:

Wild Fox Zen wrote:what am I? chopped liver?

Millipodium:

Pre modernist, pre-buddhist, pre-anti-thought thought had a desire to survive as an assumed precondition.

did you actually want to argue this point?

Do you want to actually argue against it?

The burden of proof is on you, buddy, but I still offered a view-point counter to yours that I'm sure you were careful to ignore.

You're an ass.

This is not a court of law. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to prove something. Modernist nihilism is all around us, and is thus, self proving.

What was your argument again? My scrolling up finger is brokeded.

millipodium wrote:This is not a court of law. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to prove something. Modernist nihilism is all around us, and is thus, self proving.

What I quoted you on had nothing to do with "modernist nihilism" or whatever the fuck that is (don't bother elucidating it for me.) You stated, without equivocation, that the potential for 'thought' was self-residing in human beings and thus preconfigured into our destiny. Now I, being at least somewhat capable of reason, would think that you'd want to back that statement up with some kind of justification or even anthropological evidence? Especially since, it's the crux of your argument, and I've already called it into question once, already.

What was your argument again? My scrolling up finger is brokeded.

Try using your scroll-bar. I know you're dumb, but I think you can figure it out in a few hours.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:

millipodium wrote:This is not a court of law. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to prove something. Modernist nihilism is all around us, and is thus, self proving.

What I quoted you on had nothing to do with "modernist nihilism" or whatever the fuck that is (don't bother elucidating it for me.) You stated, without equivocation, that the potential for 'thought' was self-residing in human beings and thus preconfigured into our destiny. Now I, being at least somewhat capable of reason, would think that you'd want to back that statement up with some kind of justification or even anthropological evidence? Especially since, it's the crux of your argument, and I've already called it into question once, already.

What was your argument again? My scrolling up finger is brokeded.

Try using your scroll-bar. I know you're dumb, but I think you can figure it out in a few hours.

It seems you don't want to discuss the topic. Re: your personal attacks, I bear them with with an infinite heart of love. I love you, man.

Point A:

Pre modernist, pre-buddhist, pre-anti-thought thought had a desire to survive as an assumed precondition.

you refuse to argue about this.

Point B:

The nihilism of modernity is just a manifestation of Western guilt propaganda.

you *want* to argue about this.

However, 'point B' is not valid until 'point A' is validated. You're trying to act like I'm being irrelavent, but that's only because I'm not playing the game you want to play -- my posts are actually the most relavent, and that seems to be what's killing your buzz; your argument is totally impotent.

Cory: Let me get this straight, You want to break the spell of nihilism by advocating awareness of how we tend to become unwarrantedly guilty and thus potentially nihilistic.


Mill: Yes. You nailed it. See how easy thinking is when you remove your pompousity visor?

Ok, now that we are somewhat on the same page, lets go back to a comment you said earlier:

Mill: Nihilism is the desired effect. The dissemination of guilt propaganda is the cause

Now, in this sentence are you trying to say that guilt propaganda is designed and disseminated to make people 'intentionally' feel guilty and thus become nihilistic?

Also, do you think that the writings of people like Quinn, Rowden and Solway are actually designed and disseminated to make people feel guilty and thus Nihilistic?

Or do you see people like Quinn, Rowden, Solway and genius forum proponents as simply nihilists who are not aware that they are being nihilistic because they are unwarrantedly guilty?