Good men of Philbook, to speak plainly of my past actions, I must point out that I have never held a single opinion, nor have I ever urged any member of this fine group to adopt my own beliefs. Besides, everything I have discoursed upon has actually been in accord with the Dialectic and at no point did I ever pronounce myself to have surpassed this unimpeachable process of History. My accusers say I intend to deceive you with my strange speech, but be not alarmed, for how could anything I utter be at variance with the Absolute? Nay, every post I have made has really been a fulfillment of the wishes of the Continentals themselves. But do not take my word for it. For, once, Hegel appeared to me in a footnote, wherein he said that "none are more based than Kooper Wilson". I swear by Nietzsche himself that this is so. I trust you will see that this court upholds Justice and you will not allow these cringe accusations to be falsely admitted.
Any question that begins with "can" is merely rhetorical. The answer is always "yes" because all things are possible through God who strengthens me.
Of all the religions Christianity is by far the most inferior. As a byproduct of suppressing more sensical views during the council of Nicea (and to a lesser extent Trent) Christianity may be the only religion that prides itself on its anti-intellectualism.
The only significant advances to culture Christianity post formalization has contributed are Capitalism (which is bad) and Fascism (which is more bad)
>is RMS a philosopher by accident?
I’ll give it to you that he’s an excellent computer scientist, but he frequently says some wild and unsightly things that not only seem to suggest substantial undertones of bigotry and narcissism, but those of a (more generally) deeply flawed personal philosophy.
I dunno, Google it? This was his placard on his office door at MIT. He’s also said in workplace meetings that he’d rather be screened by women in the TSA, because “it’s not fair that only gays get to enjoy this.” That’s not even scratching the surface. He’s been an apologist for Minsky’s engagement in sexual activities with girls in Epstein’s harem, and in workplace emails no less. He’s stated that sexual assault is not assault in cases where violent force isn’t applied. And on, and on, and on. I work in CS and adjacent fields, as well as philosophy (of mind), and most know of his long and storied history of saying outlandish, bigoted, and inappropriate things in professional settings. Anyway, it’s not as if he contributes significantly to philosophy. He writes code, designs algorithms, architects systems, and generally makes women feel uncomfortable at work.
When I talk to the sex work defenders, I ask them when they will stand up for drug workers. Drug workers have a much harder job than sex workers: they have to find product, find buyers, and dance a strange dance between the two to avoid prison time, robberies, or murder. Drug workers face more harassment from LEO, and endure longer prison sentences.
But the "SW" people snort at my "DW" issue and tell me that it's not a real problem. After my union voted to help strippers, and pieces of a "sex worker's union" began to snap together, I was nearly laughed out of the room for suggesting a drug worker's union.
If anything, I have much more respect for drug workers. Any damn old fool can suck a sausage and lay on a bed for 20 minutes. But a drug worker who earns more than $20k or $30k a year from his side hussle, he's definitely been around the block a few times.
You need to solve the captcha before you can post.