Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Finally, something to go toward your point: NBC is reporting that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is "unable to communicate." Apparently he is so wounded that we may never be able to orally communicate with the victim. Now THAT raises some serious fucking questions.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the other. Not that the reduction isn't accurate in some cases. Merely that it isn't as a blanket assessment.

Yeah, like why is he wounded? I read that there is already suggestions that he "attempted suicide". Why would you run and hide before/after attempting suicide.....and after having supposedly partied the night before??

Anyway, my point about the absolute lack of critical thinking applied to news coverage is cased-in point by the amount of argument proliferating over the web about whether or not the guy should be granted due process (since some argue terrorists shouldn't get due process)....Problem: How do we know he is in fact a terrorist without due process? Because the CIA/FBI/DHS/Men In Black say he is? Well then why the fuck do we need due process for anything then? He has gone from "Suspect" to "Terrorist" in 24-48 hours, and a sizeable portion of America is already demanding due process be ignored because of what some talking heads have said.

Nevermind that if indeed the FBI knew this guy/knew about these guys, and they indeed did carry out a terrorist attack without any sort of government involvement: How fucking worthless are US "counter terrorist operations"? So why should we believe anything they have to say?

There's no credibility from official sources or media regurgitating those positions no matter how many ways you look at it.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Happy Earth Day

 

[Dak]

Carlin is an underappreciated philosopher, just because of his medium of choice: Comedy. He cuts through to the point: The planet is fine. It's what we do to ourselves in the name of saving ourselves.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm somewhat surprised you posted that, Jimmy, considering your previous concern for animal welfare.

I don't find that bit philosophical at all. It might be pseudo/pop-philosophy, but not much more. Carlin makes the claim that species will continue to disappear at the same rate whether we behave the same or not. He conveniently avoids specifying whether he means individually, or as a whole; if the human race drastically altered its behavior (unlikely, probably impossible), it could very well decrease extinction rates. It's no secret that we are perpetuating extinction rates by our activity.

Now, this doesn't mean that those extinctions/declines are artificial. Such a claim rests on the premise of a division between humans and nature, and this is a completely imaginary distinction. Humans are a part of the environment, no matter how much we wish to call ourselves otherwise. There are, however, far more ethical and practical reasons to pursue preservation tactics, and these still stand regardless of the fact that ultimately we're a part of nature and the earth itself doesn't give two shits about us.

 

[Dak]

I think the point is that the rate of extinction is going to average out anyway whether its human or asteroid or pole shift caused or whatever. This current extinction rate is a blip on the totality of time.

Also the fact that these concerns are anthropocentric.

 

[Einherjar86]

Everything is a "blip on the totality of time." Does that somehow alleviate us from responsibility while we're here?

 

[Dak]

Everything is a "blip on the totality of time." Does that somehow alleviate us from responsibility while we're here?

I don't believe in the responsibility of "we" or "us". Only you and/or I. "We" doesn't exist.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'm somewhat surprised you posted that, Jimmy, considering your previous concern for animal welfare.

I'm sure we all enjoy stuff we don't necessarily agree with. Especially Comedy.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't believe in the responsibility of "we" or "us". Only you and/or I. "We" doesn't exist.

Intriguingly, if "we" did not exist, "you" wouldn't either.

 

[Dak]

Intriguingly, if "we" did not exist, "you" wouldn't either.

Hardly. Individuals exist. Groupings are arbitrary and abstract.

 

[Einherjar86]

What I meant is that your recognition of yourself as an "I" is predicated on your ability to recognize others. The "we" exists prior to your ability to conceive of yourself as an individual.

 

[Dak]

What I meant is that your recognition of yourself as an "I" is predicated on your ability to recognize others. The "we" exists prior to your ability to conceive of yourself as an individual.

I + You doesn't automatically make "We".

 

[Einherjar86]

What does it make?

 

[Dak]

What does it make?

You and I.

Boston tried a Police State, and it failed

 

[Einherjar86]

Can we presume that you and I are able to communicate with each other, and able to empathize when the other claims to be in pain?

 

[Dak]

Can we presume that you and I are able to communicate with each other, and able to empathize when the other claims to be in pain?

How can we do anything? Only you and I act. "We" cannot act. We cannot presume anything. I can, and you can.

 

[Einherjar86]

But we're doing it. You and I are both doing it; I assume, at least, since we're communicating. "I" cannot communicate. Only "we" can communicate.

 

[Dak]

But we're doing it. You and I are both doing it; I assume, at least, since we're communicating. "I" cannot communicate. Only "we" can communicate.

No. You communicate to me. I communicate to you. "We" can't do anything. It doesn't exist.

 

[Einherjar86]

You like separate things and draw arbitrary lines. On top of that, you're not thinking very hard about this.

"You communicate to me. I communicate to you."

I would not communicate at all if you weren't there; and presumably, you wouldn't communicate if I wasn't here, or there were no others to communicate with. Communication is not purely expression; it is reception and interpretation. Communication from one subject/party is an incomplete act, and hence meaningless, and not communication at all.

 

[Dak]

You like separate things and draw arbitrary lines. On top of that, you're not thinking very hard about this.

"You communicate to me. I communicate to you."

I would not communicate at all if you weren't there; and presumably, you wouldn't communicate if I wasn't here, or there were no others to communicate with. Communication is not purely expression; it is reception and interpretation. Communication from one subject/party is an incomplete act, and hence meaningless, and not communication at all.

When you and I can/are physically merge(d), you can accuse me of arbitrarily separating where you and I begin and end.

Of course communication requires two parties. That doesn't mean a "we" is doing anything. Two parties separate parties are doing different things that happen to intersect. "We" is merely a simplistic reduction for convenience sake in communication.