Ever occur to you that technology might not be totally evil?
never mind.
Wow, so many words with so little coherence.
I’m not suggesting that technology is evil. I’m stating that encrypting technology damages society in a pointless means.
A person is being paid for their ability to exploit suicidal tension in another human being or beings. By doing this they are necessarily contradicting their purpose for being.
Technology is fine, that’s basically what human do. Putting a stamp of your ego on a technology for the sole purpose of a short term benefit is just plain ignorant. It is this ignorance which people are being paid for.
-Justhink
What part of this don’t you understand?
*If the entire planet was covered with a grid of mechanical painless suicide machines every 100 meters apart over the entire globe; easily accessable efficient and assured of instant performance, then the concentration of wealth in small pockets would not be possible.
*Given the above, where then do small pockets of concentrated wealth come from?
*Small pockets of wealth necessarily come from treating people as objects without consent, abusing their suicidal tension.
*The act of abusing this tension necessarily forces a denial, that the process which allows the person to do this necessarily effects their own consent with regards to the logic they believe they are resting their purpose upon.
*This person is necessarily shooting themselves in the foot with regards to their motivation to destroy reality (which is impossible) or the forcing of their own delusion as evidence that they have somehow succeeded in destroying reality and in the process managed to justify their consent.
Granted the conceptual complexity increases somewhat futher down this line. How do the first three strike you as non-coherent?
They possess both explanitory and predictive power. I’ve devoted lengths to explaining why mind control cannot circumvent this application of technology.
It’s not all about suicide, as many seem to suggest here. The question is:
Do you really need to have a global grid of suicide machines in order to face the music with regards to the uninherent and contradictory application of logic in this regard?
As far as drugs are concerned… do you really need to be on your death bed before you ‘hit bottom’ and decide to make a recovery?
Do you really need people to force a drug upon you which simulates the end result so that you can be aware of the damage this is perpetrating over the long term?
Are you requiring that people act against your consent in order for you to realize the truth that violating consent is the only reason you have what you have, and that the entire point is superfluous to life. Are you so caught up in the necessity for abuse and sufferring of others, and this dynamic to achieve something, that in order to even feel human you need someone to validate your reality by violating your personal consent?
This wealth doesn’t come from nowhere; it comes from abusing other human beings. Every extra dollar that you have over another is a unit of abuse that you are creating against the consent of another being. Keeping this dollar as evidence of value, assures that you will not solve the consent problems which face the species as a whole and assure that you will not actually accomplish anything worthwhile within the span of your own time here.
-Justhink
“I know what each of those words mean, but I don’t understand them together like that!”
–Lisa Simpson
I knew I could count on you for your two cents worth.
Here is a thread I expected you to respond to.
That`s because 15 years of self subjected torment usually ends up resulting in a lifetime of confusion.
JUSTHINK ------- Actually, I can understand your reasoning but I can`t explain it. On some thin, distant level I can sort of see where you are coming from.
Good, so then we’re all squared away. Next subject.
I’m hoping Chumpsky is just an online version of the experiment Alan Sokal conducted with Social Text.
(PS, still waiting for your response re: business forms)
Justhink… When you talk about “encryption” are you talking about intellectual property? Sometimes it seems like you are.
As for a grid of suicide machines, that is interesting but not particulary enlightening. You make a number of assertions that are not well founded and/or backed up.
ie.
I could see how you were right in this sense but I could also see how you were wrong. Small pockets of wealth could arise through any number of avenues; providing services or creating a surplus for instance. You are generalizing or if you are not then you are stretching the premise beyond meaningfulness.
I’m interested in what you are saying, I just wish you would make yourself clearer. Not everybody thinks in terms of the dynamics of “suicidal tension.”
The part with the words.
If you understand him, can you please translate Justhinkspeak into English? I’m sorry but I too understand the words and even some of the sentences but they sound like giberish in the context of the thread.
ie “Suicide machines”? What the fuck are you talking about?
I think on some level I might be worried that he’s actually a super-genius and has trouble breaking it down “for the rest of us.”
Now thats a scary thought.