The New Reality of Capitalism

reply to post by dontreally

And whats with the harsh, sardonic tone? Are you incapable of being at least a little civil?

This coming from the poster who declared the defense of holding a chief concern for ones own interest as having regards for others as base. This coming from the poster who took a harsh, sardonic approach to my spirituality.

It is always the same with the sanctimonious. The moment someone stands up to their sanctimony and exposes the scared little man behind the curtain, the scared little man changes his tone, stops bellowing and cries for civility.

If you wanted civility, you should have tried using some when you decided to declare my philosophy and spirituality base.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

This coming from the poster who declared the defense of holding a chief concern for ones own interest as having regards for others as base. This coming from the poster who took a harsh, sardonic approach to my spirituality.

I wouldn't be as offended if there was at least a hint of good naturedness in your criticism of my beliefs, but no, I sense a personal ad hominem style to your attacks. How many times now have you attacked my intelligence, my understanding of existentialism, mysticism, metaphysics, satre, Im foolish and ignorant etc...Everyone of your posts are person directed mixed with some blatant exaggerations about my beliefs "my insidious agenda" - as if such an accusation has any faint resemblance to what I was saying.

You're dark humored, arrogant style is in essence regnant and supercilious, while I at least have been attempting with that last few posts to actually debate the topics while ignoring your belligerent tone in each and every post you write.

It is always the same with the sanctimonious. The moment someone stands up to their sanctimony and exposes the scared little man behind the curtain, the scared little man changes his tone, stops bellowing and cries for civility.

and this annoys you?? If such a thing is happening, what is your response to it? Will it be a cessation of your morbid bellicosity, or will you continue on in an ego-filled defiance of this creature which so irks you???

Whatever you think is happening here, it is happening all in your head. You take out of context, exaggerate, demean, and add all sorts of other strange antics in your being 'affronted' by someone who dared to share his own opinion.

If you wanted civility, you should have tried using some when you decided to declare my philosophy and spirituality base.

That's my opinion. How else do you expect one to respond?? To respect your views and accept the difference without me saying bare that I find your spirituality base, even though relative to what I believe that is the essential difference I feel exists? How else do you expect me to state that? Or should I not say that???

You realize, all essentially religious people who don't hold to moral relativism, essentially regard that philosophy as intrinsically devoid of spiritual validity, and therefore base and egotistical compared to a morally guided philosophy???

Now, having said that, I didn't attack your person. I ignored you the person, although, yes, I did mention my confusion as to how someone thinks as you do, which I'm sure you could easily as well share in regards with my belief; I understand our differences, I respect you're moral beliefs in fact - as you would act, since they seem to correspond to mine - but your essential reasoning and premises are different from my own, which I then proceeded to criticize. If I feel differently from you, which I do, I am required to express how and why that is. It was never meant - and I apologize if earlier on I may have been a bit peremptory - to incite you to respond against me as you currently are doing. I just know, I suppose "sanctimoniously" in your sight, I wouldn't make an effort to act as you are acting, since it's not worth it, it's egotistical, and it creates unnecessary strife where none need exist.

reply to post by dontreally


You know what, I cannot believe the level of disingenousness you employ. I began my replies to you by stating I agreed with most of your sentiments and merely spoke to your use of the word selflessness. I did not speak of you, simply of selflessness. You took that post and turned it into an attack on my spirituality calling it base.

You may be fooling others, but you're not fooling me. There is nothing at all civil or kind in the discourse you've insisted upon. You reap what you sow, and incivility is clearly what you want more of.

The worst thing is that you've completely derailed this thread, which is in regards to capitalism in order to preach your smug nonsense of incivility.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You know what, I cannot believe the level of disingenousness you employ.

who cares? Why do you take it so personally? While I criticized your belief, you have gone on to criticize me as a person. There is no disingenuousness in my subsequent posts. I just think you take things too hard, which probably means you're much more egotistical than I am, since to resist personal attacks on others all it takes is a separation between yourself and your argument. In other words, I care more about the inter-personal relationship, however much we may disagree, to this sort of contentiousness; to be willing to make that extra nudge into the personal, expresses a total disdain for the person being spoken to. You are so carried by 'feeling' to the degree where you'll let this lead to that.

The worst thing is that you've completely derailed this thread, which is in regards to capitalism in order to preach your smug nonsense of incivility.

Umm, you derailed the thread by going completely off topic by mentioning selfless/selfish, which has nothing at all to do with the thread, period.

ou reap what you sow, and incivility is clearly what you want more of.

Typical of you. Someone has 'caused' you in your deterministic world of causation to make you feel a certain way. Instead of trying to forgive and forget, since I did apologize in my earlier post for any arrogance shown, you choose to continue to carp and find faults in the "discourse I have insisted on".

Look at your avatar, my friend, and look at mine. Having looked up samuel beckett (in my line of study, political science, I've yet to really pay attention to this particular person)

bleak, tragicomic outlook on human nature, often coupled with black comedy and gallows humour.

I can now explain why you're such an asshole.

This is my last post to you.

Shalom.

reply to post by dontreally

who cares? Why do you take it so personally? While I criticized your belief, you have gone on to criticize me as a person. There is no disingenuousness in my subsequent posts.

These two sentences above are disingenuous. You dismiss the insults you hurl at me only after whining that I've insulted you. You are hardly the metaphysical master you pretend to be and you've insisted on having a pissing match with someone you disagree with, and now spew out nothing but deceit and disingenuousness, all because I took up your use of a single word and sought to offer my own clarification on it.

Who cares? Obviously you do while insisting I shouldn't.

lol...

It is time for you two to take a step back, and breathe.

Grass is green

Sun is Warm

Wax on, Wax off!

Much of what you say is true, but you forget how unions screwed the nation too. It was unsustainable. Now we're paying the price.

reply to post by SeekingAlpha