ilovefuzz.com

I'll play the contrarian. The bashing in this thread is lame. Owning dirtbaggery is no better than high-minded hypocrisy.

I'm not really any better than the guy in the original anecdote; we are all pieces of shit for not doing our utmost. By the absolutist logic of people posting here, we should sell our boards and buy secondhand Behringer pedals for everyone. Guys like that are just such easy targets...but failing to live by a principle is a part of being a person. When people offer up that principle to the world, it becomes a target and a metonymic stand-in for personality.

All I mean is that yeah, I think it's shitty. How is that unique or noteworthy?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC4FnfNKwUo[/youtube]

Is your gear a tax write off, IM?

What you are missing is that nobody here actually fancies themselves as having higher moral standards that they feel obligated to push to the rest of the world and annoy the shit out of bystanders who are just not giving a fuck about it.

TL:DR; Being a proselytizing low life is worst than being a low life.

KABOOM. LAWYERED. MAKE THIS CASE REST. DENY THE PLAINTIF DAMAGES. ORDER THEM TO PAY FOR ALL PROCEDURAL COSTS. AND OTHER THINGS. AND MIC DROP.

The way I do taxes: yes.

Pulling this away from the base economics of the question toward a (hopefully) more significant interrogation of moral virtue. Never heard a satisfactory argument that blends the two ('how should a moral person earn/spend?').

Disarm D'arcy wrote:What you are missing is that nobody here actually fancies themselves as having higher moral standards that they feel obligated to push to the rest of the world and annoy the shit out of bystanders who are just not giving a fuck about it.

TL:DR; Being a proselytizing low life is worst than being a low life.

KABOOM. LAWYERED. MAKE THIS CASE REST. DENY THE PLAINTIF DAMAGES. ORDER THEM TO PAY FOR ALL PROCEDURAL COSTS. AND OTHER THINGS. AND MIC DROP.

(but what you're missing is that by taking any kind of stand--even the mildest one--means that people associate you with a principle, and you will immediately and forcefully be taken down as a kind of Newtonian exercise in moral relativism. Which amounts to a statement of moral high ground. I literally admitted to being a piece of shit and will still get lumped in with anti-shitters by the nature of argumentation. How does one lawyer a paradox?)

Invisible Man wrote:The way I do taxes: yes.

Pulling this away from the base economics of the question toward a (hopefully) more significant interrogation of moral virtue. Never heard a satisfactory argument that blends the two ('how should a moral person earn/spend?').

Have to pay attention to work at the moment but here's a cheap placeholder answer: There isn't a good answer because morality is relative. Money/wealth is, on it's own, Laodicean... to stay within the framework of the conversation.

For me, anyway, (I'm sure I've said this before on here) the only real moral framework is to do whatever you can to make yourself feel better about your time on this planet and whenever possible to help other people feel better about theirs, too. That manifests itself in a wide variety of ways but certainly it would seem to preclude most of the behaviors (in tone and tenet) found in the "Golden Rules" of most of the major religions, and most of the widely-established laws (don't kill people, etc.) as well.

There's no paradox. Morals is a private matter. The fact that one choses to make it public, and a standard for measuring/classifying others humans means they're okay with being judged for it themselves. If you like your private matters private, keep them private?

DEBUNKS ALLEGED PARADOX WITH HUMANIST RHETORIC. GAINS ONE POINT FRENCH AND ONE POINT LAWYER. LEVELS UP.

No but seriously, I get what you are saying. But there's a key difference for me in acknowledging others have different perspectives on what is moral and what isn't (it's actually why I adhere to the social contract principle, I consider myself bound by law, the rest is my private freedom in my private life, and operate under the same assumption for others) and being ok with proselytizing outlooks (that usually end up being essentialist). Is that clear or complete jibber jabber and I should go do something else for the rest of the day?

As for voting with your wallet, I don't believe in it either. Life is a compromise with a system. It's pretty much a Camus paradox. We're both infinitely small and infinitely huge. But I refuse to live a life where I'm a tyrant on myself and on those around me because I vote with my wallet and confuse morals with politics. There are choices that have to be made collectively to make sense, or else you're just missing out on another Camus paradox. It's because everything is small, and therefore absurd and meaningless that life has to be thoroughly enjoyed.

D.o.S. wrote: For me, anyway, (I'm sure I've said this before on here) the only real moral framework is to do whatever you can to make yourself feel better about your time on this planet and whenever possible to help other people feel better about theirs, too. That manifests itself in a wide variety of ways but certainly it would seem to preclude most of the behaviors (in tone and tenet) found in the "Golden Rules" of most of the major religions, and most of the widely-established laws (don't kill people, etc.) as well.

And for once I agree with D.o.S. It's my basic philosophical daily operation. Still, fuck you.

Since we're talking about morals...always consensually.

Disarm D'arcy wrote:There's no paradox. Morals is a private matter. The fact that one choses to make it public, and a standard for measuring/classifying others humans means they're okay with being judged for it themselves. If you like your private matters private, keep them private?

DEBUNKS ALLEGED PARADOX WITH HUMANIST RHETORIC. GAINS ONE POINT FRENCH AND ONE POINT LAWYER. LEVELS UP.

No but seriously, I get what you are saying. But there's a key difference for me in acknowledging others have different perspectives on what is moral and what isn't (it's actually why I adhere to the social contract principle, I consider myself bound by law, the rest is my private freedom in my private life, and operate under the same assumption for others) and being ok with proselytizing outlooks (that usually end up being essentialist). Is that clear or complete jibber jabber and I should go do something else for the rest of the day?

As for voting with your wallet, I don't believe in it either. Life is a compromise with a system. It's pretty much a Camus paradox. We're both infinitely small and infinitely huge. But I refuse to live a life where I'm a tyrant on myself and on those around me because I vote with my wallet and confuse morals with politics. There are choices that have to be made collectively to make sense, or else you're just missing out on another Camus paradox. It's because everything is small, and therefore absurd and meaningless that life has to be thoroughly enjoyed.

D.o.S. wrote: For me, anyway, (I'm sure I've said this before on here) the only real moral framework is to do whatever you can to make yourself feel better about your time on this planet and whenever possible to help other people feel better about theirs, too. That manifests itself in a wide variety of ways but certainly it would seem to preclude most of the behaviors (in tone and tenet) found in the "Golden Rules" of most of the major religions, and most of the widely-established laws (don't kill people, etc.) as well.

And for once I agree with D.o.S. It's my basic philosophical daily operation. Still, fuck you.

Nothing more French than awarding French points...to yourself.

I'm in a shitty mood and want to argue. No surprise that D and DD take the bait.

Basically kinda bored with the whole knee-jerk 'Christianity is evil' play. It's annoying and disingenuous. Whatever edge it had has been dulled in infinite weed-shrouded dorm room discussions.

Invisible Man wrote: Nothing more French than awarding French points...to yourself.

I'm in a shitty mood and want to argue. No surprise that D and DD take the bait.

Basically kinda bored with the whole knee-jerk 'Christianity is evil' play. It's annoying and disingenuous. Whatever edge it had has been dulled in infinite weed-shrouded dorm room discussions.

WELL POINT ME TO ANOTHER COMPETENT AUTHORITY WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO EVALUATING FRENCHNESS. HINT. I ONLY RECOGNIZE MINE IN A VERY FRENCH WAY.

But it's nice to argue. It's fun intellectually I mean. It's engaging. And because you're a master in counterpoint it is even more. And it's not that often I get to drop my Camus knowledge and make decent use of it.

But I really thought we were way beyond discussing christianity (albeit a very specific form, because many christians are chill, and there are even churches, for exemple liberation theology is completely culturally and politically decentralized, at least theoretically). My thoughts apply to militant quinoa eaters too. I don't need them antagonizing my very legal carbohydrates because they have different moral standards than mine.

Disarm D'arcy wrote:

Invisible Man wrote: Basically kinda bored with the whole knee-jerk 'Christianity is evil' play. It's annoying and disingenuous. Whatever edge it had has been dulled in infinite weed-shrouded dorm room discussions.

But I really thought we were way beyond discussing christianity (albeit a very specific form, because many christians are chill, and there are even churches, for example liberation theology is completely culturally and politically decentralized, at least theoretically). My thoughts apply to militant quinoa eaters too. I don't need them antagonizing my very legal carbohydrates because they have different moral standards than mine.

Yeah, I viewed this less as a "Christianity is evil" thing and more of a "look at these assholes that can't even stick to their own beliefs" thing.
I've dealt with plenty of people like that in the Church. The kind that go to church Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday and act like they're god's gift to the world, so that gives them free reign to be assholes to anyone they deem "unworthy" of their holiness.

Disarm D'arcy wrote: But it's nice to argue. It's fun intellectually I mean. It's engaging. And because you're a master in counterpoint it is even more. And it's not that often I get to drop my Camus knowledge and make decent use of it.

Cosigned.

Wednesday?

Militant Quinoa Eaters

DD: Guitar
IM: Drums
PETA: Propaganda/ad copy

Your Camoo quote reminds me of the Whitman one: 'Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.' Because Whitman > Camus; USA > France, &c.

I'd love to have a thread about Lib Theology. I have a three-quarters-finished article about Marxism and Christianity hiding somewhere in a decommissioned laptop. Maybe this is that thread.

Yeah, we are beyond it. That's the point I was making (badly). The chorus of 'aren't Christians hypocrites' is trite, and, more importantly, so based in Christian ethical structures that it devolves into absurdity pretty quickly. Our notion of hypocrisy in based in Greek and Judaic mythologies that form of the backbone of the thing they're protesting (hypokrinesthai: to 'play a part').

I don't see anything wrong with being religious and being an asshole, basically. They are two separate categories, and we confuse our need to judge them together.

More etymological fun: 'krinein,' the middle voice of 'hypocrisy,' shares the same root as 'crisis,' which descends from the idea of distinguishing or separating. So--if you take it back to its fundamental or animating ideas--hypocrisy is the act of being 'below the distinction.'

Also: because I want to cut you (and because apparently I want to go full academic on this shit for reasons that are unclear to me): let me point you in the direction of Ben Martin's 'France in 1938:' 'Hypocrisy is the art of affecting qualities for the purpose of pretending to an undeserved virtue. Because individuals and institutions and societies most often live down to the suspicions about them, hypocrisy and its accompanying equivocations underpin the conduct of life. Imagine how frightful truth unvarnished would be.'

https://books.google.com/books?id=3irfS ... &q&f=false
(Page 87)

But I would like an SG--need to clarify.