Do you think Europe's problems with Muslims will be America's one day?

[agent00f]

Exactly. Of course, you're not smart enough to note that you are proving my point when you say this. Yes, a suspension of belief is barely able to mobilize the will: for the good or for the bad.

Recall you were blaming muslims for this and that, which is rather untenable when evidence show that atheists are arguably worse.

It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you're trying to argue other than it involves hating on brown people, and/or anyone who points out this is the domain of simpletons.

 

[agent00f]

Agree. But remember that someone can be a rationalist and, at the same time, to remain attached (I wouldn't use the word "believe" here) to God: for instance, Spinoza.

On the other hand, communism is a rational doctrine (the "scientific socialism", would say Marx). The Holocaust was also perpetrated in a very scientific and rational way by a theist leader...

I want to point to a much simpler problem: to demonstrate that "atheism" is a very weak concept in you want to use it to explain historical facts.

I missed this gem earlier. Speaking of philosophy, did you ever get around to figuring out what this slave mentality/morality you were throwing around meant, and how it might apply to you?

 

[techne]

I'm generally against most extreme ideologies, to be clear, but its a little misguided to assume that atheists weren't involved in any atrocities. Atheism is associated with communism, and clearly there's been many examples of massacres under communist regimes.

A philosopher who I strongly admire said that the most strong men are those who don't need extreme ideologies.

Thanks for posing the problem in a proper way. To pose a problem in a proper way is almost to discover the answer.

Yes, atheism is associated with communism. In which way are they associated? Let's put this way: not every atheist is communist, but many communists are atheists. I said "many" (and not "all" or even "most") because many communists were (and still are) theists, and even religious.

Most human beings are not very coherent. At least in Latin America, it's very easy to find communists who also believe in God. And, much more than that, you can find many of them who not only believe in God, but are followers of an organized religion. The left wing of the Latin America Catholic Church (teología de la liberación) is a clear mix among the communist movement and a theist religion.

"Fine, but what about the massacres perpetrated by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and so on?"

Here's what I have to say. The communists have not committed so many massacres (totaling at least ten Holocausts) because they were atheists, but because they believed in the class struggle, which would lead to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in a first moment, and to a global communist society in some distant future.

Therefore, to blame the "atheists" for the communist massacres is fundamentally wrong. By the way, even today, after many decades of living under a totalitarian state, most of the Russians are still theists and religious. The same applies to Cuba. Communism, much like Islamism, is a political doctrine of global domination. In this context, the atheism associated with communism is clearly insignificant.

But stay alert, because the hate speech against "atheists" (after all, another minority) is an active part of the islamist agenda: they hate atheists ("kurf") more than anyone else.

I dislike some "militant atheists" almost as much I dislike religious fundamentalists; but we must recognize that even militant atheists like Richard Dawkins will never (ever) drive a massacre.

 

[agent00f]

> The communists have not committed so many massacres (totaling at least ten Holocausts) because they were atheists, but because they believed in the class struggle, which would lead to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in a first moment,

This isn't only historical wrong but doesn't even make sense. Their "first movement" was pretty evidently state/elite rather than stakeholder control/ownership of resources, whereby the prols are hardly in a position to dictate anything.

Frankly someone like you trying to sound intellectual is pretty embarrassing, and therefore best avoided for your own sake.

 

[techne]

I missed this gem earlier. Speaking of philosophy, did you ever get around to figuring out what this slave mentality/morality you were throwing around meant, and how it might apply to you?

I was clearly talking about Nietzsche and you completely missed that (because you don't know Nietzsche). I have said nothing about this on purpose. Now, do you know when you will understand Nietzsche? Never ever. Forget it. Nietzsche is not for weak people like you.

Recall you were blaming muslims for this and that, which is rather untenable when evidence show that atheists are arguably worse.
It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you're trying to argue other than it involves hating on brown people, and/or anyone who points out this is the domain of simpletons.

Pretty much the contrary. Your hate speech against the atheists is comparable to racism. I would never blame "brown people" by the acts perpetrated by terrorists. I never blamed even the "muslims"! I blamed and I'm still blaming the terrorists, period. But you blame the "atheists" for massacres perpetrated by communists.

Trying to elude the fact that many terrorists are (white) European, you prove you're totally stupid. And trying to put me again (out of the blue) on a racist position, you just prove you're moral scum. In a word, you're a stupid, clueless simpleton who supports the explosion of women and children because they are "infidels".

Even a bonobo would morally condemn you. But, again, you don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

 

[agent00f]

I was clearly talking about Nietzsche and you completely missed that (because you don't know Nietzsche). I have said nothing about this on purpose. Now, do you know when you will understand Nietzsche? Never ever. Forget it. Nietzsche is not for weak people like you.

If only you knew how to use google to look up what it means when someone mocks your slave morality.

Pretty much the contrary. Your hate speech against the atheists is comparable to racism. I would never blame "brown people" by the acts perpetrated by terrorists. I never blamed even the "muslims"! I blamed and I'm still blaming the terrorists, period. But you blame the "atheists" for massacres perpetrated by communists.

Similarly you could never figure how to use it to discover that terrorists aren't very good at killing civilians compared to just about anyone. Or maybe that was the inability to compare number sizes. Kind of hard to tell with these special ed cases.

Trying to elude the fact that many terrorists are (white) European, you prove you're totally stupid. And trying to put me again (out of the blue) on a racist position, you just prove you're moral scum. In a word, you're a stupid, clueless simpleton who supports the explosion of women and children because they are "infidels".

Even a bonobo would morally condemn you. But, again, you don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

You're posting in a thread particularly concerned about brown people killing white people, ignored the point that killing civilians is hardly a brown people or even terrorist invention, or the one that they pretty much suck at it compared to any sort of competition, and so on. It's safe to assume that you don't know what racism means, and probably never will given the record here with figuring things out.

It's pretty much unimpeachable fact that one side of the debate here has their unfair share of dunning kruger posterkids.

 

[bshole]

The point is that suspension of belief doesn't appear to diminish crimes committed. To be rather certain, it's pretty evident they hold the same kind of belief as religion nuts; eg they're the good guys, can do no wrong, etc. This isn't a difficult point to observe, and you should ponder what kind of people have a lot of trouble grasping simple points.

It doesn't? The data that I have read indicates that atheists are far less likely to be involved in crime than theists. For example, the link below indicates that atheists are imprisoned at a rate that is 1/30th that of theists.

Unsurprisingly, at 0.10 percent, atheism still represents a tiny percentage of the religious identities of inmates in federal prison, though that number has risen slightly since 2013, when atheists made up 0.07 percent of the federal prison population. One might speculate that this increase is related to the increase in the percentage of the US population in general that identifies as atheist. According to the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Survey, the percentage of people in the United States who identify as atheists has jumped from 1.6 percent in 2012 to 3.1 percent in 2014. However, Mehta points out that the percentage of atheists in prison is significantly lower than the percentage of atheists in the general population.

http://thehumanist.com/commentary/n...-us-prison-system-privilege-religious-inmates

 

[agent00f]

Atheism here is substantially correlated with socioecon standing, and people higher on that ladder don't stay in prison much.

 

[bshole]

Atheism here is substantially correlated with socioecon standing, and people higher on that ladder don't stay in prison much.

So atheism is correlated with wealth and moral behavior, next you will tell me it is correlated to intelligence...

Psst... you are supposed to be arguing the opposing side, for some inexplicable reason you are arguing my side now.

 

[agent00f]

Consider the fact that nobody is sitting in prison for, let's say, the iraq war deaths aforementioned. So maybe you're right that the smart folks found some loophole in the system.

 

[techne]

You're posting in a thread particularly concerned about brown people killing white people, ignored the point that killing civilians is hardly a brown people or even terrorist invention, or the one that they pretty much suck at it compared to any sort of competition, and so on. It's safe to assume that you don't know what racism means

Well, thank you! Actually, I'm proud to ignore what racism means. You, on the other hand, obviously knows very well what racism means: you see "brown people" and "white people" everywhere and gives to skin colors an extraordinary importance... Well done, you filthy racist!

So this is "a thread particularly concerned about brown people killing white people"? How curious... The OP talks about extremism and sharia, but you, of course, knows much better than him what his thread is about: the brown team against the white team... Wow! Well done, you the clever one!

But wait! I'm starting to get to your point. Are you trying to say that "Americans" are "white"? You know what? You're a genius! And I promise, I will send you a pic of the American president.

Of course, you're totally incapable to realize how offensive is your statement regarding all the Blacks, Asians and Latinos killed by terrorists in the USA. Not to mention, of course, all the non-white victims in Africa, Asia, Middle East and even Latin America. But you don't care much, after all, to the terrorism victims, do you? What? Definitely not when they are white? I see...

Last but not least, are you suggesting that we must forgive terrorists because, after all, they have not "invented" the murdering of civilians, or because they're not that good at it? Yeah, I see... Well, these arguments are so good... Mastermind of my soul!

Now tell me, how does feel to be less morally and intellectually competent than a bonobo? I'm really curious about that.

 

[bshole]

Consider the fact that nobody is sitting in prison for, let's say, the iraq war deaths aforementioned. So maybe you're right that the smart folks found some loophole in the system.

LoL! You are seriously averring that Bush was smart? You may be possibly the first person that accused him of that.

You are all over the map again. I am not sure what your argument is.

I have provided objective evidence that indicates that atheism is highly correlated to moral behavior. To counter that, you should provide evidence taken from the general public that indicates the opposite.

I will give you a little help in this regard. Russia appears to be highly atheistic (not entirely sure) and it's people don't appear to act in highly moral ways (not sure on that either). I of course would counter with Japan and some European countries (I do know that the most highly atheist countries in Europe are the lowest on the corruption index). In any event, you get the gist. You need to argue your point with evidence not anecdotes and non-sequiturs.

 

[Jaskalas]

It doesn't? The data that I have read indicates that atheists are far less likely to be involved in crime than theists.

I have provided objective evidence that indicates that atheism is highly correlated to moral behavior.

Ehh... yes and no. As you yourself said it's likely correlated to higher intelligence and better socio-economic standing. People healthy / strong enough not to hide behind dogma are likely better off and as a result commit less crime. But surely you would agree that, of itself, being better off does not define morality. The problem in what you argued would be the same as arguing that "being white is correlated to moral behavior". It's entirely missing extenuating factors and the context of other correlations that contribute.

 

[bshole]

Ehh... yes and no. As you yourself said it's likely correlated to higher intelligence and better socio-economic standing. People healthy / strong enough not to hide behind dogma are likely better off and as a result commit less crime. But surely you would agree that, of itself, being better off does not define morality. The problem in what you argued would be the same as arguing that "being white is correlated to moral behavior". It's entirely missing extenuating factors and the context of other correlations that contribute.

You see Agent, that is how you argue correctly. You make good strong points Jask. I do enjoy the thoughtfulness of your posts overall.

With respect to this, I don't believe atheism makes a person moral. I believe however that intellectually HONEST people have no choice but to be atheists. Given that all objective evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that none of the defined Gods exist, intellectual honesty demands atheism/agnosticism. If a person is intellectually honest, it follows that their moral code would be superior to one who is intellectually dishonest.

 

[agent00f]

Well, thank you! Actually, I'm proud to ignore what racism means. You, on the other hand, obviously knows very well what racism means: you see "brown people" and "white people" everywhere and gives to skin colors an extraordinary importance... Well done, you filthy racist!

So this is "a thread particularly concerned about brown people killing white people"? How curious... The OP talks about extremism and sharia, but you, of course, knows much better than him what his thread is about: the brown team against the white team... Wow! Well done, you the clever one!

But wait! I'm starting to get to your point. Are you trying to say that "Americans" are "white"? You know what? You're a genius! And I promise, I will send you a pic of the American president.

Of course, you're totally incapable to realize how offensive is your statement regarding all the Blacks, Asians and Latinos killed by terrorists in the USA. Not to mention, of course, all the non-white victims in Africa, Asia, Middle East and even Latin America. But you don't care much, after all, to the terrorism victims, do you? What? Definitely not when they are white? I see...

Last but not least, are you suggesting that we must forgive terrorists because, after all, they have not "invented" the murdering of civilians, or because they're not that good at it? Yeah, I see... Well, these arguments are so good... Mastermind of my soul!

Now tell me, how does feel to be less morally and intellectually competent than a bonobo? I'm really curious about that.

It's pretty evident that islamists killing europeans/americans consist a negligible proportion of such violence in general, yet it constitutes the majority of right wing propaganda on such matters as seen in numerous threads here. These folks represent the lineage of segregationists/nazis who contrary to popular mythology didn't disappear overnight, so it's no great mystery where they're coming from.

Though to give you some credit, at least you finally seem to figured out pretending to be some intellectual wasn't working out. Let's be optimistic that it's the first in a series of slowly figuring things out.

LoL! You are seriously averring that Bush was smart? You may be possibly the first person that accused him of that.

You are all over the map again. I am not sure what your argument is.

I have provided objective evidence that indicates that atheism is highly correlated to moral behavior. To counter that, you should provide evidence taken from the general public that indicates the opposite.

I will give you a little help in this regard. Russia appears to be highly atheistic (not entirely sure) and it's people don't appear to act in highly moral ways (not sure on that either). I of course would counter with Japan and some European countries (I do know that the most highly atheist countries in Europe are the lowest on the corruption index). In any event, you get the gist. You need to argue your point with evidence not anecdotes and non-sequiturs.

Rather than pointing out the obvious, I provided something to ponder which if successful should provide more insight into the relationship between "criminal act" and "sitting in prison". IME ideas stick better when people figure it out themselves. Start with considering why there are few rich people in prison. Don't let me down.

 

[techne]

It's pretty evident that islamists killing europeans/americans consist a negligible proportion of such violence in general, yet it constitutes the majority of right wing propaganda on such matters as seen in numerous threads here. These folks represent the lineage of segregationists/nazis who contrary to popular mythology didn't disappear overnight, so it's no great mystery where they're coming from.

Well, the fact is I don't give a damn about the skin color of people raped, enslaved and killed by terrorists. I mourn them all. But I'm not surprised seeing how much you have in common with the "right wing". Considering where in the world Mein Kampf is becoming a best-seller, all things suddenly start to fit.

Though to give you some credit, at least you finally seem to figured out pretending to be some intellectual wasn't working out.

Well, I have another surprise for you (damn, another one!): I don't think myself as an "intellectual". To be an intellectual is only necessary to read Marcuse and Foucault. Only the "second" Foucault, of course. If you had said I'm an intellectual, I would be worried - and probably offended!

But you? You are more than an intellectual: you're a mastermind! From you, I have learned that the USA has been the biggest communist country in the West during the last few centuries.

On the whole "socialism" issue, that's just a label dummies are told to put on things they don't understand. To illustrate, democracy is basically political communism.

This is so brilliant. OMG, this is so brilliant...

 

[agent00f]

Well, the fact is I don't give a damn about the skin color of people raped, enslaved and killed by terrorists. I mourn them all. But I'm not surprised seeing how much you have in common with the "right wing". Considering where in the world Mein Kampf is becoming a best-seller, all things suddenly start to fit.

It's also not a coincidence you're posting in a right wing thread advocating for the OP's position. Right wing populism is becoming all the rage in europe these days, coming back out of the woodwork after a few decades of suppression, not unlike the US.

Well, I have another surprise for you (damn, another one!): I don't think myself as an "intellectual". To be an intellectual is only necessary to read Marcuse and Foucault. Only the "second" Foucault, of course. If you had said I'm an intellectual, I would be worried - and probably offended!

But you? You are more than an intellectual: you're a mastermind! From you, I have learned that the USA has been the biggest communist country in the West during the last few centuries.

This is so brilliant. OMG, this is so brilliant...

Intellectuals are people with some capacity to think about matters and learn from it, which by your own admission isn't anything anyone would ever accuse you of.

 

[techne]

It's also not a coincidence you're posting in a right wing thread advocating for the OP's position. Right wing populism is becoming all the rage in europe these days, coming back out of the woodwork after a few decades of suppression, not unlike the US.

Nope. I'm not advocating for the OP's position... I have entered this thread just to put a complete idiot in his place. And I have succeed.

I'm not fond of right wing populism, but at least I'm smart enough to know that the left wing populism is much worse. I'm an atheist, but at least I'm smart enough to know that I need to support Christians (and Buddhists, and so on) against those who would kill myself if they could.

You think you're an "intellectual", but you has never started to think. You advocate for murderers who claim that "western education is a sin". You think you are a "freedom fighter", but in fact you're too stupid to realize you're an apologist of political slavery. It's really pathetic.

 

[Mayne]

I can almost guarantee it.

 

[IGBT]

No doubt..where will you be when diversity strikes??

 

[agent00f]

Nope. I'm not advocating for the OP's position... I have entered this thread just to put a complete idiot in his place. And I have succeed.

I'm not fond of right wing populism, but at least I'm smart enough to know that the left wing populism is much worse. I'm an atheist, but at least I'm smart enough to know that I need to support Christians (and Buddhists, and so on) against those who would kill myself if they could.

You think you're an "intellectual", but you has never started to think. You advocate for murderers who claim that "western education is a sin". You think you are a "freedom fighter", but in fact you're too stupid to realize you're an apologist of political slavery. It's really pathetic.

Nobody doubts that you've succeeded in your mind, but that's part and parcel of the dunning kruger mindset mentioned above. For example, you persist in pretending to know something about Nietzsche, yet lack the basic skills to figure out what a slave morality is (as manifest by yourself), despite clear instruction on how to use google to find what you need. It's hard to imagine someone that slow doing well academically or such, so it's a mystery how they figure they're relatively smart at anything.

People like this are similarly incapable of understanding political ideology except as they're told by others above them. For example, the news might report on some terrorist attack, and they predictably get angry as expected. This is the entire basis of their reactionary mental framework, with some vacuous name-dropping added to appear above their station. I suppose this works well enough when surrounded by similar peers as they prefer in life, where they can together pretend that actual experts are the real fools and so on.

 

[techne]

For example, you persist in pretending to know something about Nietzsche, yet lack the basic skills to figure out what a slave morality is (as manifest by yourself), despite clear instruction on how to use google to find what you need. It's hard to imagine someone that slow doing well academically or such, so it's a mystery how they figure they're relatively smart at anything.

LMFAO... Do you really think you can fool someone with your "Google" mantra?

And do you really think I would expose in the open my academic status in a thread like this? Only because a mental defective is defying me? Do you really think we are in the same level?

Get lost, Google man... Read a book. At least one! Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, First Treatise.

People like this are similarly incapable of understanding political ideology except as they're told by others above them.

By "people like this" you mean... "infidels"?

"Above them"? But even a bonobo is above you... And this is another precise reference you can't understand...

For example, the news might report on some terrorist attack, and they predictably get angry as expected. This is the entire basis of their reactionary mental framework, with some vacuous name-dropping added to appear above their station. I suppose this works well enough when surrounded by similar peers as they prefer in life, where they can together pretend that actual experts are the real fools and so on.

On the intellectual side: do you really think you're an "actual expert"? Really?

On the moral side: are you unable to sympathize with the victims of terrorist attacks?

And, on top of that, are you trying to accuse (from being "reactionary") those who sympathize with the civilian victims of terrorist attacks? Hence, if a seven years old boy cries when informed about a terrorist act, he must be considered a hideous right wing reactionary?

You're stupid beyond any repair and, from now on, I will refrain to talk with you.

But in regard to the people who may be still reading this thread, I will reveal why can we consider a bonobo morally superior to him: look for the works of an ethologist named Frans de Waal (for instance, The Bonobo and the Atheist.)

Intellectuals are people with some capacity to think about matters and learn from it, which by your own admission isn't anything anyone would ever accuse you of.

To be totally incapable to catch an irony is one of the surest signs of stupidity...

 

[agent00f]

LMFAO... Do you really think you can fool someone with your "Google" mantra?

And do you really think I would expose in the open my academic status in a thread like this? Only because a mental defective is defying me? Do you really think we are in the same level?

Get lost, Google man... Read a book. At least one! Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, First Treatise.

Oh good, after something like a week you finally managed to google where slave morality comes from. Now the next step is to figure out what it means when someone mocks you about it. Unfortunately at this rate it'll take at least a few years.

I'm hardly exaggerating here. Here's the very first sentence of the master/slave morality wiki entry:
"Master–slave morality is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. "

That's what techne managed in 1 week.

Here's the second sentence:
"Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: 'Master morality' and 'Slave morality'. Slave morality values things like kindness, humility, and sympathy, while master morality values pride, strength, and nobility."

This is the one techne hasn't worked out yet. To wit:

On the intellectual side: do you really think you're an "actual expert"? Really?

On the moral side: are you unable to sympathize with the victims of terrorist attacks?

After a long while, you might finally work out moral sympathy is a slave notion according to the text you pretended to have read.

There's nothing wrong with that per se, just comically ironic you tried to use it as a slur presumably because that simpleton mind equates slave to bad.

And, on top of that, are you trying to accuse (from being "reactionary") those who sympathize with the civilian victims of terrorist attacks?

Hence, if a seven years old boy cries when informed about a terrorist act, he must be considered a hideous right wing reactionary?

The boy is obviously just reacting. The right wing part comes when that footage is used to whip up a frenzy against foreigners for jingoistic purposes, like with you & peers in this thread.

Frankly I'm sure why I'm explaining any of this given you've displayed zero ability to follow anything.

You're stupid beyond any repair and, from now on, I will refrain to talk with you.

But in regard to the people who may be still reading this thread, I will reveal why can we consider a bonobo morally superior to him: look for the works of an ethologist named Frans de Waal (for instance, The Bonobo and the Atheist.)

To be totally incapable to catch an irony is one of the surest signs of stupidity...

Always amusing when someone who can't figure more than 1 sentence a week thinks they're in a position to label anyone else stupid.

 

[techne]

Oh good, after something like a week you finally managed to google where slave morality comes from. Now the next step is to figure out what it means when someone mocks you about it. Unfortunately at this rate it'll take at least a few years.

Notice how this guy "works". You will find hundreds like him, especially in the... "Internet", so this is a valuable (and funny) learning.

I have mentioned (in the first place, and in this very thread) the resentment and the slave pathos. He was totally clueless about those references. And now the clown pretends to be a Nietzsche's specialist trying to teach me something...

The fact is I have mentioned the resentment and the slave pathos in a very rigorous way. Much like the Roman Empire in the old days, the USA has been considered to be the "Evil Empire" by the communist movement; and, nowadays, by the extremist portion of Islam. "You (USA) are bad; hence, I'm good". The extremists define themselves in opposition to something external (to someone else), and (among other things), this is a sure sign that they are slaves.

Now let's see an excerpt from Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, First Treatise (translation by Carol Diethe):

Whereas all noble morality grows out of a triumphant saying 'yes' to itself, slave morality says 'no' on principle to everything that is 'outside', 'other', 'non-self': and this 'no' is its creative deed. This reversal of the evaluating glance - this essential orientation to the outside instead of back onto itself -is a feature of ressentiment: in order to come about, slave morality first has to have an opposing, external world, it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all, - its action is basically a reaction. The opposite is the case with the noble method of valuation: this acts and grows spontaneously, seeking out its opposite only so that it can say 'yes' to itself even more thankfully and exultantly, -its negative concept 'low', 'common', 'bad' is only a pale contrast created after the event compared to its positive basic concept, saturated with life and passion, 'we the noble, the good, the beautiful and the happy!'

By people like this I mean trivially manipulated dummies like yourself, the kind that take a week to figure out that a simple phrase comes from the guy they've been name dropping. Above them means those manipulating or mocking them in a way they'll never figure out, even when it's carefully explained.

I hope you're figuring out what's happening. We can call this a "systematic lie": he systematically accuses me for what he did.

He claims to have "carefully explained"... (???) When, in fact, he have not "explained" absolutely nothing. Not knowing how many names I could drop if I wish, he accuses me of "name dropping": when, in fact, I chose carefully just two or three authors as a (much welcomed) reference. Last but not least, he is the only one who systematically practices name dropping. Unfortunately, the only name he is able to drop is... "Google".

After that few years, you might finally work out moral sympathy is a slave notion according to the text you pretended to have read.

He makes a big claim, but of course he will not be able to quote a text to support his claim.

In the first place, moral sympathy is not necessarily the same as the pitié which Nietzsche criticized. Hence, you cannot exclude moral sympathy from the pathos of the free men (in Nietzsche) without studying this question per se.

On the other hand, I'm not Nietzsche and I think by myself, so if I say that moral sympathy is a nice thing to have, and that moral sympathy is something we share with our pre-human ancestors, refute me if you can.

But don't forget that Nietzsche has dive into madness embracing a horse that was being beaten. It's not difficult to imagine that he would say about the islamic extremists the same that he would say about the nazis: just slaves trying to impose themselves as masters.

There's nothing wrong with that per se, just comically ironic you tried to use it as a slur presumably because that simpleton mind equates slave to bad

Can you notice that he is ready to say "f*** freedom"?

 

[agent00f]

Notice how this guy "works". You will find hundreds like him, especially in the... "Internet", so this is a valuable (and funny) learning.

I have mentioned (in the first place, and in this very thread) the resentment and the slave pathos. He was totally clueless about those references. And now the clown pretends to be a Nietzsche's specialist trying to teach me something...

The fact is I have mentioned the resentment and the slave pathos in a very rigorous way. Much like the Roman Empire in the old days, the USA has been considered to be the "Evil Empire" by the communist movement; and, nowadays, by the extremist portion of Islam. "You (USA) are bad; hence, I'm good". The extremists define themselves in opposition to something external (to someone else), and (among other things), this is a sure sign that they are slaves.
Now let's see an excerpt from Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, First Treatise (translation by Carol Diethe):

Whereas all noble morality grows out of a triumphant saying 'yes' to itself, slave morality says 'no' on principle to everything that is 'outside', 'other', 'non-self': and this 'no' is its creative deed. This reversal of the evaluating glance - this essential orientation to the outside instead of back onto itself -is a feature of ressentiment: in order to come about, slave morality first has to have an opposing, external world, it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all, - its action is basically a reaction. The opposite is the case with the noble method of valuation: this acts and grows spontaneously, seeking out its opposite only so that it can say 'yes' to itself even more thankfully and exultantly, -its negative concept 'low', 'common', 'bad' is only a pale contrast created after the event compared to its positive basic concept, saturated with life and passion, 'we the noble, the good, the beautiful and the happy!'

What I argued was pretty simple. You claimed terrorists are really evil (lol @ slave morality). I said they're relatively trite if that metric of evil were applied in a more universal less racist way. You still can't grasp this trivial argument, electing instead to name-drop people that have nothing to do with this.

I hope you're figuring out what's happening. We can call this a "systematic lie": he systematically accuses me for what he did.

He claims to have "carefully explained"... (???) When, in fact, he have not "explained" absolutely nothing. Not knowing how many names I could drop if I wish, he accuses me of "name dropping": when, in fact, I chose carefully just two or three authors as a (much welcomed) reference. Last but not least, he is the only one who systematically practices name dropping. Unfortunately, the only name he is able to drop is... "Google".

I'm just pointing out you have a lot of trouble understanding simple things, therefore would have more trouble understanding things more complicated. This is also a pretty trivial argument so it's expected you won't understand it either.

He makes a big claim, but of course he will not be able to quote a text to support his claim.

In the first place, moral sympathy is not necessarily the same as the pitié which Nietzsche criticized. Hence, you cannot exclude moral sympathy from the pathos of the free men (in Nietzsche) without studying this question per se.

On the other hand, I'm not Nietzsche and I think by myself, so if I say that moral sympathy is a nice thing to have, and that moral sympathy is something we share with our pre-human ancestors, refute me if you can.

But don't forget that Nietzsche has dive into madness embracing a horse that was being beaten. It's not difficult to imagine that he would say about the islamic extremists the same that he would say about the nazis: just slaves trying to impose themselves as masters.

I've mentioned multiple times that you & peers are the same lowest common denominator of their respective societies as the ISIS types. Ie. simpletons only capable of seeing the world in terms of good/evil, and therefore easy manipulated by what they're prompted to feel (mostly simple anger). The main difference is the ISIS types at least have more legitimate grievances than their first world counterparts.