MALVADO POSTED :Because there is no other reason for your posting lectures to others. The idea that others require any "straightening out" implies a position of superiority in every manner, and assumes inferiority in others, all the way from the posting of the concept to the choice of words.
You are the self appointed judge of tribers, without so much as a posting of any verifiable authority on the subject you yourself claim such allegiance to. Tyrant tyrant tyrant.

RESPONSE: It is the beliefs that are superior , and contrary beliefs are inferior. My personal self is NOT superior, but is a mere instrument for the right beliefs. There is an ontological difference separating message and messenger . When are you going to stop glossing over that difference ?

MALVADO POSTED :When you stop believing that the speaker has zero connection to his words.

RESPONSE: What if the connection is a mere instrumental one? What if the causal connection is very indirect in terms of content and vehicle ?

MALVADO POSTED :Words are spoken because of an emotional connection to them.

RESPONSE: Do you maintain it is somehow impossible for someone to have a NON-emotional impetus as a motive for speaking words ? IF so why ?

MALVADO POSTED : If you did not *believe* there was a*need* (an emotional response) to instill your understanding of virtue in others, you would have no *need* to speak them.

RESPONSE: That first use of the word 'need' in that sentence from Malvado shown above is a misnomer...the wrong word . The right word would NOT be 'need'. Instead the right word would be goal, which is thematically sepaarate from a need .

MALVADO POSTED :Whether you are motivated to speak them as a point of disruption to others or as you claim, a belief they are virtuous, you still MUST be motivated by an emotion.

RESPONSE: Do you allege that it is volitionally impossible to speak ideological words without an emotion to motivate the speaking ? If so , why do you ?

MALVADO POSTED :Since you continue to state openly you have a belief in these ideals, you believe that they are superior and others are inferior, you have equated yourself as the speaker as an authority on the subject,

RESPONSE: I never invoked the notion of authority . Instead I prized the requiste methods not authority or pedigree or any of that mysification ! Don't put words in my mouth !

MALVADO POSTED : an instructor, and thus, by implicit extension SUPERIOR.

RESPONSE: Such "implict extension" is some notion you project on to me .


MALVADO POSTED :Emotionally, its what creates your self-image as "acceptable" in relation to the world.

RESPONSE: On what grounds do you claim that I am allegedly motivated by some concern with self-image ?

MALVADO POSTED :Your means of doing so are verbally abusive to others.

RESPONSE: Helping them to disavow wayward notions is not abuse .

MALVADO POSTED : Verbal abuse should stand out as something decidedly NON virtuous, but you legitimize repeatedly the use of verbal abuse because the ends make it justifiable.

RESPONSE: Constructive criticism is NOT verbal abuse .

MALVADO POSTED :The first step on the path to tyranny is discarding of virtue in the name of victory. You are guilty guilty guilty of that all day long. Single-mindedness (zealotry) is what makes all this possible. Today you stop with verbal abuse. What about tomorrow when your vaunted methodology has won you no converts? How long until your frustration with your own lack of success (due to flawed methodology) transforms your methodology yet again?

RESPONSE: If you are anticipating me going on some physically violent witch hunt , forget it .


MALVADO POSTED :Your lack of insight has already led you to the fallacious assumption that because it worked for you it will work for others.

RESPONSE: How is that fallacious ?

MALVADO POSTED :You have discarded a moral stance of virtue when it comes to that which offends you.

RESPONSE: Because I refuse to respect opinions ?

MALVADO POSTED :You love virtue because it allows you to be superior.
RESPONSE: How do you claim to know the reason why I love virtue? Can you read my mind? Do you have mental telepathy ?

MALVADO POSTED :It shows in every action you take here. Every word you speak. It allows you to lecture others from a position of superiority without having to admit being one of the same people you lecture.

RESPONSE: What evidence do you have to vindicate that claim ? Why should anyone believe that how you have interpreted the actions I take here isn't you making a subjective interpretation of those acttions ?

MALVADO POSTED :That's the feelgood that drives your obsession with it (or anyone's really).
RESPONSE : Are you absolutely certain that is the motive that drives anyone's obsession with virtue ?

MALVADO POSTED :Any obsession. Not obsession with virtue. But yes. Obesssion is a manifestation of addiction to a feeling that is perceieved as "good" by the experiencer. Junkies excuse a great amount of bad behavior.

RESPONSE: How do you knwo that a person cannot have an obsession without such pleasing feelings ?

MALVADO POSTED :You simply deny and move on,
RESPONSE : You are using "deny" as an open-ended catch all term. Much like those who bandy about the phrase "in denial " .

MALVADO POSTED :No, I pretty much used it spot on there. You deny anything you don't wish to believe about yourself, and justify your failings as "being single minded". You have a limitless litany of excuses, denials and self-deception to wave off any criticism. Zealotry in the highest.

RESPONSE: More Dr.Phil like , glib popular psychobabble !

MALVADO POSTED :because it allows you to maintain your ego integrity to do so ("ego" in the Freudian sense, mind you, do try to look that up, instead of assuming again that I use the colloquial sense of the word).

RESPONSE : But you are waxing flexible, equivocating between the colloquial use of the term 'ego' and the separate use that Freud apparently used . Stop trying to mix the two separate contexts of the word !

MALVADO POSTED :No, I've only ever used it in the Freudian sense in that sentence. You are teh one who equivocates it when I use it, keep up.

RESPONSE: What about in other sentences ? Did you use it in the NON-Freudian sense in them .? Shall we go back and through the posts and take a look ?

MALVADO POSTED : You love being virtuous in comparison to others.
RESPONSE : No, I love virtue itself and hence desire all people who do *not* seek virtue single-mindedly, to become single-minded in the pursuit of virtue .

MALVADO POSTED :Again, prescribing your personal feelgood (the love of virtue) as something that you wrongly assume would lead to a similar experience by others to your own.

RESPONSE: I do not seek those goals to feel good. I do it even when I feel dry and hollow because duty requires it .

MALVADO POSTED :Their behavior, the contrary, is spoken of so angrily by you, you clearly have a malicious motivation against "the inferior". Else why use the words you use?

RESPONSE: Why do you treat being angry AS IF it were somehow synonymous with self-pride.? One can be angry without feeling any self-pride at all , but instead have that anger be motivated by a love of the principles that that which makes the ideologue angry goes against .

MALVADO POSTED :The assumption you have the right to tell others what to do is what makes you a tyrant.

RESPONSE: More lazy, loose popular speech from Malvado. Of course a person has the right to tell others what to do . Such a right is enshrined in the Consitution , in the First Ammendment , which guarantees free speech .

Vehement words alone do NOT force anything on anyone .

Malvado Posted :Your unwillingness (typically fear or hubris) to question your own behavior makes you a zealot. Your superiority complex makes your actions classifiable by any observer as arrogant.

RESPONSE: Not by any observer. There are other ideologues who agree with what I agree with , apparently . Furthermore, there is NO hubris in the embrace of single-minded absolutism .

Moreover, in what specific sense do you mean by the phrase, "question your own behavior?"

MALVADO POSTED :Which leads you to be blinded of the tyrannical side of your behavior, zealot-style. You defend all the bad behavior by justifying it as a search for virtue, which is how most tyrants and zealots get started.

RESPONSE: Neither what I espouse , nor the way I espouse it is in any way tyrranical .

MALVADO POSTED :YES IT IS!!! Shame is emotional tyranny!!!!

RESPONSE: Where do you get such a weird notion ?

MALVADO POSTED :The sooner you learn this the better! SHAME is NEVER a VIRTUE.

RESPONSE: Shame , as in guilt , can serve virtue quite well .

MALVADO POSTED : Whoever lied to you and told you this was themselves a tyrant.

RESPONSE: Lied to me? Where do you get such garish , ridiculous notions ?

MALVADO POSTED :Too emotionally lazy and intellectually inadequate to influence your behavior any other way, they stooped to a cheap trick, emotional blackmail ("do as i say or I will not [love/approve of] you", is the implicit statement). This is why shame will fail as a methodology,

RESPONSE: I often (after contemplation) independently decided to shame myself when i did or thought or said that which crass , unjust , or paltry. Righly so that I would shame myself back then .

MALVADO POSTED :Anyone who does not feel they need your approval will ignore your hard-headed lecturing nonsense.

RESPONSE: How do you know ?

MALVADO POSTED :Many great wrongs are done to humanity by claiming it was "the right thing" or "for the greater good".
RESPONSE: That claim is overblown . It is dubious in a number of cases whether the rightness of such ascriptions was even held in earnest .

MALVADO POSTED :*facepalm* The claim was made by the do-er, not the observer. Keep up, dude. And quantity is no mitigator of tyranny. Now you are making excuses.

RESPONSE: What I was calling into question was precisely the glib assumption that the doer was even in earnest. Merely because they may have said that it was the right thing to do does not proove that they were inwardly sincere when they made such a statement .

MALVADO POSTED :Dick Cheney is presently making such "ends justify the means" arguments to anyone who will listen. You tell us all, does "ends justify the means" EVER equate to a moral stance? EVER?

RESPONSE: No , the ends do not in a wholesale sense justify the means . One must do a loss vs benefit analysis when evaluating what drawbacks are involved with some means used to secure good ends. But that aside, the means I 've utilized are NOT bad means , let alone done for bad ends .

MALVADO POSTED :Emotional abuse is a bad means.

RESPONSE: Vehement persuasion is not emotional abuse . Furthermore, vehement persuasion that belittles murky, crass opinions and causes people to feel that those murky, crass opinions are ridiculous , is helping the people. It is reforming the wayward . It does NOT cause them any excruciating physical pain, doesn't kill them ---it is not a bad means .

MALVADO POSTED :You are waffling now. The ends justify *some* of the means? More excuse making. I thought we were supposed to seek the highest virtue, not puss out and be ambivalent. Make up your mind.

RESPONSE: Not waffling at all . What ought to be introduced is a caveat that less good means or even somewhat bad means are only justifiable if (1) . There is no other way to physically overcome the situational dynamics of the situation that one finds but did not intentionally cause , without having to resort to lesser or even bad means and (2) . the means in question in a loss versus benefit analysis do not present a quantifiably approximate greater loss than what is garnered by the ends .

Example: consider killers that one knows have come to ones house with the purpose of killing someone that one has given lodging and refuge to . They ask point blank "is so and so (that one is protecting) here?" , and the killers have superior firepower, and one has grounds to suspect that -- if one tells the would be killers -- the fact of the matter of that person being hidden in one's house , they will go and kill them . One lacks away to vouchsafe them away to safety. So it would under such dire circumstances be morally permissable to lie to the killers if one could not use a mental reservation instead of a lie . The lying in that case would not deceive many and it would not deceive about matters in the abstract so the moral drawbacks in doing so would be outweighed in the achieving of the goal of preserving the not so bad person (given the premise that the person whom one is giving shelter to in such a scenario is not a malicious person ) .

Given that one has a clean situational slate, and there are situationally feasible non-bad means of achieving good
ends then to try to secure good ends by bad means (under that qualification) would always be absolutely wrong . But given scenarios where there is a lack of the physical resources to handle and overcome bad situational factors to achieve the best means to the best ends , and provided that lesser means are not so caually potent in terms of the bad quality they themselves disseminate, then using lesser means for lesser ends is meagerly acceptible , but still notwithstanding , acceptible .

But vehement persuasion that for the right reasons , denounces wrong opinions , is not abuse , nor is it even a bad means ---let alone to a bad end .


RESPONSE : Though you , Malvado , may not actively support such tendencies , you have defended such tendencies / you respect the opinions that claim having such tendencies is okay , and you should NOT . There are people who even they themselves do not partcipate in crass activities, yet still defend the opinions held by those who do and that is also totally wrong ! Respecting crass, murky opinions like the opinions of those who support tabloid t.v. is an evil respect !

MALVADO POSTED :Again, telling me what to do.

RESPONSE: Yes, telling you not to respect crass, murky opinions . Damn right. But it doesn't force anything on you .

MALVADO POSTED :Tyrant. Never EVER have I defended tabloid TV. Again, you bring up a deflection that was never in play. Your obsession with TV is scary. Throw out the TV already.

RESPONSE: You defend it by opposing the efforts of ideologues to tell people who do sujpport at that the opinions they have are totally wrong. You apparently don't like anyone telling anyone else that the opinions they support are totally wrong . That confirms you to be a sell out .

MALVADO POSTED :"Constructive" my ass, half of what you post is outright abusive in tone and content both. You further justify this by demeaning the target further, and anyone who dares speak up and say "hey I like that".

RESPONSE : Vehement attempts to reform people is NOT abuse nor absuive . And those who dares speak up and says , "i like that" , ought to have that "guilty pleasure" be *mentally* made so guilty it is no longer sustainable .

MALVADO POSTED :Your methodology is emotionally abusive, captain specificity. Your assumption of the right to emotionally tyrannize other and subsequent justification of it make you an arrogant tyrant.

RESPONSE: You are using the word 'abuse' out of context .

MALVADO POSTED :Again, your obsession with straightening anything out illustrates a clear messsiah complex, as if you have the inside track and we all must follow along, per your authority. An authority you have never demonstrated, by the by.

RESPONSE : That is a false characterization from you . It is NOT per my authority. Instead one should follow because of the absoluteness of the pre-existing principles and precepts !

MALVADO POSTED :That is your *personal opinion*,

RESPONSE: It is not mere opinion .Instead, it is an absolutely true meta-belief .

MALVADO POSTED :which you are trying to force others to follow.

RESPONSE: Words alone do NOT force anyone. Vehement persuasion is not force .

MALVADO POSTED :You presume (an act of arrogance) that everyone should live the way you do.

RESPONSE: That is NOT an act of arrogance. Again , you are guilty of the ownership fallacy .

MALVADO POSTED :Self-orientation, as all humans have, extended beyond the point of reason and to the absurd conclusion that all should be as one.

RESPONSE: You have yet to demonstrate that allegation that alleges that all humans are self-oriented .

It is relativism that is AGAINST reason , not Platonic absolutism .

MALVADO ASKED :Who says you have the right perception of virtue?

RESPONSE : Given that I align myself with the right pre-existent methods as how to think of virtue (which use me only as one mere instrument among others) , the perception has a versimiltude to that perceived . There is NO skewing of perception given the right methods and the requiste data and the absence of distractions .

MALVADO POSTED :So, "because I say so" is your answer, eh?

RESPONSE: No, I didn't say that , nor would I. Please don't play fast and loose with paraphrase .

MALVADO POSTED :Humans err, smart guy. You in particular err widely when it comes to the utilization of virtue in its defense by discarding it.

RESPONSE: Shaming people is not discarding virtue .

MALVADO POSTED :Most of that sentence you posted is mumbo-jumbo.

RESPONSE : On what specific grounds do you claim that ?

MALVADO POSTED : It also doesn't answer the question.

RESPONSE: List the specific ways it fails to answer the question .

MALVADO POSTED : I doubt you have an answer. Again, before anyone submits to your authority as an expert on the subject of virtue, some credentials are in order.

RESPONSE: Credentials are NOT the issue , which methods are right and which are not, are what is at stake .

MALVADO POSTED :How do any of us know you really understand virtue, especially given your consistent disregard of it when it comes to what offends you?

RESPONSE: Just so I can understand the question , let me ask : are you asking by what cognitive methods do people come to understand what qualities are virtuous and which are not ?

MALVADO POSTED :Your obsession with "virtue" makes you blind to your own decidedly UNvirtuous behavior.
RESPONSE : Trying to disabuse people of false notions with single-minded fervor is NOT unvirtuous .

MALVADO POSTED :When single-minded fervor becomes emotionally abusive, as it has in your case, it most certainly IS unarguably unvirtuous. If you were being virtuous in your defense of virtue, I would have no qualms with you. You are not.

RESPONSE : Vehement persuasion is not emotional abuse. It is reforming the wayward .
There is nothing good to lose by people choosing after being prompted by guilt to renounce murky opinions and murky activity . What has been lost when people do choose to renounce murky beliefs and activity ? Nothing good is lost by that .


MALVADO POSTED :Shame is not a virtue!

RESPONSE : Causing people to feel guilty , when they intentionally promote that which is wrong, helps to serve virtue .

MALVADO POSTED : Irrelevant to your behavior. Forcing virtue on others is tyranny. Tyranny is not a virtue, nor is force. It is vile and ugly.

RESPONSE: Noone has ever been forced to do or think anything by words alone. To force, impose some notion on someone requires *physical* force on someone's person or property or some person or being the person knows ,*physical* poisoning of resources, or the *immanent* threat thereof . Noone has ever had civil liberties violated by mere words alone .

MALVADO POSTED :How little you understand. Firstly, shame is an attempt at non-physical imposition of one being's will upon another.

RESPONSE : It is NOT possible to have a NON-physical imposition of some person's will on another. Words do NOT have teh direct causality of physical force ! Words alone without an immanent threat of *physcal* violation cannot force nor impose anything on anyone .

MALVADO POSTED : Secondly, civil liberties are violated by verbal intimidation all the time.

RESPONSE: Specifically how? Give specifics .

MALVADO POSTED :Most often when the words become laws.

RESPONSE : Specifically how when the words become what laws ?

MALVADO POSTED :Which is what yours would become, given the opportunity, no doubt. What would you legislate if you could?

RESPONSE: Well I can tell you what I would not legislate . i would NOT legislate any censorship. I maintain free speech /free expression ---even of wrong notions like you---espouse ought to be protected by law and never subject to censorship . I am very opposed to censorship. The best way to thwart bad beliefs is through fair debate, NOT through physical force .

MALVADO POSTED :We're discussing your interpretations of virtue and manifestations of it.

RESPONSE : The "interpretations" of vitue that have recently been typed on my keyboard and posted on the present message board , are based on the right pre-existing methodology !

MALVADO POSTED :According to you. Humans err. You have erred grievously by allowing true virtue to be warped by the non-virtuous act of shaming. You understand it naught. thus your authority on the subject is null and void.

RESPONSE: Shaming people/causing them to feel guilty when they intentionally support somer notion or activity that is crass or murky , or defend it , is helping them ! Shaming people when done with the proper methods and for the right goals is doing people a great favor . It helps to make the Earth become closer to being a more beautiful place .


Just think how great it would have been if more people had shamed the klansmen of the past or say, shamed the followers of Jim Jones (in Guyana) into renouncing the initial decision to blindly obey the apparent call to take their kids to the poisoned cool aid . Think how better the state of afairs would have been .Moreover, think about the principle that would have been vindicated in the mind by such an act of guilt inducement .

RESPONSE: Vehement constructive criticism is not failure .

MALVADO POSTED :Your vehement criticism is not constructive, it is destructive. Constructive commentary is encouraging, not rude or hostile as your tone consistently is. You are demeaning, degrading and rude to people here. Not constructive, not virtuous, just plain RUDE.

RESPONSE: Belittling and vehemently denouncing opinions that people support is NOT rude nor is it destructive of people. It is helping them ! It is helping to reform them . The opinions are *not* part of the identity of the people that support them ---so denouncing the opinions they support is NOT actually hurting them . There is nothing contrary to compassion about telling people that the opinions they support are totally wrong, worthless opinions and so on .

It is a love for humanity which motivates such vehement criticism . Love for humanity is a goal you should support .

MALVADO POSTED :You may "get it" but ya suck at "doing it", which mean you don't really "get it" at all.

RESPONSE: Aside from how what you have posted on doing it is on shaky ground , in that statement you are guilty of the fallacy of denying the antecedent !

MALVADO POSTED :Excuses, excuses. You can't take one sentence and pretend it has no connection to the previous. I am now convinced you don't even "get it", when it comes to virtue or its detection.

RESPONSE: First of all, you are using the terms 'excuses' in some open-ended , catch all way , reminscent of Dr.Phil .

Secondly, which one sentence that you claim I somehow pretend has no connection to the previous are you referring to.? Are you doing some more weird, diverginary, MTV-era thinking outside the box hogwash again Malvado ?

MALVADO POSTED :Oh but it is when you espouse them as superior, and yourself as an agent of change of those others who are inferior.
RESPONSE : I espouse *the beliefs* as superior, NOT my self !

MALVADO POSTED : As an agent of the superior, you are implicitly the superior being.

RESPONSE: I do NOT maintain that the superiority which is predicated of the right beliefs , is a quality that is transitive to myself as an agent of the beliefs. I do NOT maintain that the quality of superiority spills over from the beliefs to me .You are projecting towards me a linkage in thought I do *not* make . The superiority ascribed of the beliefs is NOT thought of as transitive to myself as a mere instrument for them . It is NON-transitive .

MALVADO POSTED :Cognizant of that reflective superiority or not, this is the motivation for all people espousing superior ideologies.

RESPONSE : How do you purport to know that such is the motivation of people who are ideologues ? (ideologues being people who are NOT selling out) . On what grounds do you claim you supposedly know they make some sort of linkage in thought that they are somehow supposedly unaware of ?

The downplay of oneself as "only a medium" is a means of avoiding responsibility for acts of evil committed in the name of the cause. Zealotry!!!

MALVADO POSTED :Which you do at length. Who's ambivalent?

RESPONSE: You, Malvado, are ambivalent. Though you have expressed that you have some misgivings about that there is a crass, murky mass culture going on, you still defend/respect the opinions of those who support the crass and murky mass culture . Thus you reveal yourself to be ambivalent ...a relativist (a sell out) ! Respecting crass opinions is selling out . Since when have crass , murky opinions ever merited any respect ?

MALVADO POSTED :I'm not talking about crass opinions, and I never have been. That's your fantasy life kicking in again. Stop trying to distract the conversation. I'm talking about the right of people to self-determine, which you clearly don't believe in, since you don't allow for it with your zealotry. Tyrant!

RESPONSE: When you disparage the efforts of zealots who agree with what I agree with to vehemently convince people that crass opinions ought to be totally renounced as totally wrong ..totally recanted , when you disparage the single-mindedness against such crass opinions, then you defend crass opinions , Malvado .

You are an unrepentant opinion-respecter .

MALVADO POSTED : Again, you blame a straw man.

RESPONSE: There is NO straw man argument here . This present decade is crawling with relativist/postmodernist ..ambivalent people that respect opinions , even crass ones .

MALVADO POSTED :Yes, good point. You also ignore the virtue of respect, lets not forget that.

RESPONSE: Since when is respecting mere opinions ever a virtue ? Respecting opinions that happen to be crass or murky is indeed selling out ---.duplicity !

MALVADO POSTED :No one asked you to equivocate. I'm asking you to self-examine and give up your tyrannical approach.

(1) Here I am going to state the glaringly obvious and reinterate that you are the equivocator . Please, doing a switcharoo doesn't help the case you are failing to make .

MALVADO POSTED :You did it too, fellow human. Deal with it.

RESPONSE : How do you claim I did it too ?

(2) Self-examine in what sense ?

MALVADO POSTED :In *any* sense. How many senses are there of the phrase, Encyclopedia Brown?

RESPONSE: There could be many senses to which the word 'self-examine' may be righly or not applied. Thus you are obligated to spell out what you seek that phrase to refer to. Absent a disclaimer, it might run the risk of being presumptions to presume what specific type you want that word token to signify . I haven't seen an exhaustive count of them , yet there could be many intended and absent a clarification one would be hard pressed to puzzle out which one is intended .

MALVADO POSTED :There is no virtue in lording your theoretical superiority over others.
RESPONSE: For the umpteenth time , it is the beliefs that are superior, NOT me myself. How long will you keep on glossing over the differences ?

MALVADO POSTED :Your statements of belief that you follow a superior philosophy illustrates your presumption in (shall we call it) "the path of virtue" as superior. In and of itself, I say, so what who cares, enjoy yourself.

RESPONSE : The path of virtue is superior , NOT my self . Hello , distinctions, remember !

MALVADO POSTED :Emotions are not a compartmentalized, linear phenomenon like that.

RESPONSE: How do you know they are not a compartmentalized , linear phenomenon like that ????
Do you have proof they are not ?

MALVADO POSTED :They work associatively.

RESPONSE: How do you know that the emotions work associatively, to the extent you propose ?

MALVADO POSTED :You can derive self-image reinforcement directly, by recognizing your own adherence to the ideology as reflective of your superiority, or you can attain it reflectively by downplaying your own role and instead deflecting responsibility to the ideology.

RESPONSE : What specific evidence do you have Malvado , that any person attains any self-image reinforcement reflectively ????

Furthermore, aren't you in some latent , subtle sense conflating (A) self-image with (D) self esteem ?
(If memory serves righly , didn't you in another debate exchange regarding similar terms you proposed that self-image was somehow not the same as self-esteem ? IF so, then have you decided to get flexible on again/off again and treat self-image as the same as self-esteem ?)


MALVADO POSTED :This fantasy of a distinction is only needed in your case because you believe superiority to be non-virtuous and need some way to pretend you are not guilty of being a prick.

RESPONSE: The onus is on you to show us that the distinction is somehow some so-called "fantasy" . Again you are presupposing some ad homenin notion about what motivates me , and then going on as if that were somehow grounds for making the weird claim that there is supposedly no distinction between message and messenger .

MALVADO POSTED :However, you personally extend this presumption of superiority to imply an inferiority in others for not following your personal path, and proactively proscribe your way as the solution--and go so far as to include an "or else" mechanism as punishment for failure, IN THE FACE of its utter impracticality and simply, dogmatically say "should" as if wishing makes it so.

RESPONSE: It is THE way , NOT my anything .

MALVADO POSTED :It is "yours" by virtue of your espousal of it.

RESPONSE: Again you are guilty of that MTV era, goofy pattern of thinking called lateral thinking that claims that because some item (such as a belief) has some indirect relation with a person , that somehow suppposedly gives you grounds for claiming that relation, however indirect makes the item part of the identity of the person .

Just because some item has a kind of causal relation with a person (a causal relation of an indirect and non-deterministic sort) does NOT make that item part of the person !

MALVADO POSTED :In that you advocate for it. In that sense, it is yours.

RESPONSE: That statement you have made shown above is frightening insipid and pathetic .
You Malvado have made an ANTI-logical statement .

Not merely non-logical , but downright ANTI-logical . Hence also evil , since you apparently do so intentionally and not under duress .

MALVADO POSTED : it is the WAY, as interpreted by you personally. Your version contains flaws, there fore yours is not the way, it is YOUR version of the way. Crackpot.

RESPONSE: There is NO "your" nor "my" about it . As for the proper interpretation there is NO "personally" about it. Again anyone given enough time , the requiste data , and the right methodology , if they are willing to fess up to what the right methods call for , would come to the proper "interpretation " .

It is the beliefs I am a mere instrument for that are superior , NOT my self !
Impracticality is NOT impossibility .

MALVADO POSTED : I believe that you believe that you are not superior. But then you act in ways contrary to that idea, and its clear to me that you are getting a big dose of happy from all this.

RESPONSE: What you call acting " contrary to that idea" is NOT acting contrary to that idea . What you call acting "contrary to that idea " is a choice of words that presupposes that one-sidedness is somehow tantamout to self-pride and that is a false , goofy notion in the fiorst place. One-sidedness regarding the superior of some beliefs to other beliefs is a totally *different* context then being proud of one-self.

You revert back to the presuppositions of the ownership fallacy at damn near every turn !

MALVADO POSTED :You have no plan, no realistic setting in which to undertake this, but yet away you charge like Don freakin Quixote.
ARROGANCE. TYRANNY. ZEALOTRY.

RESPONSE : Zealotry, yes. Arrogance and tyrrany , NO. You are using such terms out of context .

MALVADO POSTED :At last you admit one of the 3.

RESPONSE: Zealotry is a good trait to aspire to . Herefore, one returns to the perennial insight to which all thought should sooner or later eventually return . That is the insight which informs us that intrinsic virtue should be taken to extremes .

To practice intrinsic virtue in moderation to want a balance between virtue and that which is inherently contrary to virtue ; to want to temper virtue with a little selling out now and then and find a middle ground , is an even more vil notion than wholehartedly seeking evil . The essence of mediocrity is balance , wanting a moderate degree of virtue..not wanting "too much virtue" . Balance of that sort is hideous, panny-waist mediocrity ! Piss on the so called golden mean !

MALVADO POSTED :Now when you see your own emotional tyranny, we will be on our way nicely.

RESPONSE: That turn of phrase : "emotional tyrrany" is a misnomer , from jump street ..false nomenclature !

MALVADO POSTS :This mantle of superiority is assumed by you, and the windmill of inferiority is placed upon us all again, BY YOU.

RESPONSE: Again , it is the beliefs that I am a mere instrument for that are superior, NOT myself .

MALVADO POSTED :By extension you become superior.

RESPONSE: There is NO "by extention" to that . It is with that "by extention" stuff that you project a linkage I don't make ! It is with that "by extention" clause that cogitation on the issue goes askew , completely off base

I don't internally make that 'by extention' linkage in the internal dialogue . You presume that I do , without evidence . Perhaps you do so because you think it would be somewhat artifical for a person not to make that 'by extention' linkage among those separate contexts , and so maybe you glibly presume that a person cannot think in a way that is artifical . Well a person can think in a way that is artifical !

Furthermore, it is also possible for a person to be so awe-struck by the quality of a specific content that they are enamored of that they forget to even be concerned with any attempt to think about esteeming thmselves in any way . Their mind can get fixed on the ideal so much that they have their mind on it and only in an instrumental sense on themseves --where they are just checking to see that the instrument serves the goal .

Which leads to the importance of a proposed change in the very way we talk about issues of intrinsic values .

The question should not be : who is a better person , but instead, rather the questions should be about what goals are the right ones? , which notions have edifying value,? which actions are right and which are wrong ?

The "vocabulary" that talks about reputation , being able to live with oneself , who is the better person ? , and so on is the wrong vocabulary to approach the issue . The focus should be on the worth of the goals themselves , not on the worth of those who crusade for the goals !

Again, the superiority of the message is NOT the sort of property that is transitive from the message to the messenger .

MALVADO POSTED :Your self-appointment as the person to elucidate others places you irretrievably as implicitly believing in your own superiority.

RESPONSE: Again that is the lazy minded projection and imputation of a linkage I don't make. I don't make any linkage ; any leap from the sound insight that the beliefs I serve are superior , to the hideous notion that would somehow claim that I'm somehow allegedly superior for serving the beliefs . Please stop glibly projecting a linkage that is (1) ontologically false and (2) a linkage I don't make !

MALVADO POSTED :Your arrogance is manifest in myriad ways here on tribe. Mostly by taking over every thread, and ceaselessly lecturing everyone on how they should not do what you don't want anyone to do, regardless of whether they themselves ever did what you are accusing them of.

RESPONSE: Such activities are NOT motivated by arrogance. Instead , they are motivated by a fanatical, zealous love of virtue !

MALVADO POSTED :YOU become arrogant for espousing it as universally beneficial to all (as if it could be undertaken equally by all?!--an implicit conclusion in your ranting so far) and tyrannical for advocating its enforcement. You leave no room for question, and you ignore criticism.

RESPONSE: Again and again a person claiming that the beliefs they support are superior to contrary beliefs, and still NOT claiming that their self is in any way superior , is NOT arrogant !

MALVADO POSTED :Yes they are by extension of the subscription to the beliefs. Its implicit. Catch a clue.

RESPONSE: That for the umpteenth time is an extention I don't make . You are projecting a propositional attitude on to me that is NOT present in the internal dialogue . Perhaps you feel that if you were to one day come to maintain that the beleifs which you support are superior (and you do not hold them to be superior now , since you are a relativist) then on that day you would find it natural to make some sort of extention linkage to yourself being superior since you would be serving those beliefs ..and , hence , maybe you project and think that because you would avoid artifical methods of thinking and feeling and go with what feels natural, that others who thought the beliefs they support are superior would also go with what feels natural in such a scenario . But if that is what you are doing then that projecting is unwarranted !

MALVADO POSTED :There IS NO DISTINCTION in your case.

RESPONSE: (1) Yes, there certainly is a distinction . It is a lazy mind that glosses over distinctions . It is a lazy mind which *refuses* to split hairs .

MALVADO POSTED : I am splitting the hair by saying YOU have no such liberty to proclaim a distinction. Others might. YOU personally do not have such a liberty as made observably true by your own behavior here.

RESPONSE: You are *not* spliting the hair . Instead, you are playing fast and loose . the behavior i have demonstrated here in the present forum does NOT evince any self-pride .

(2) I welcome questioning (provided it is on topic) . It gives an opportunity to elaborate .

MALVADO POSTED :No you do not. You deflect,

RESPONSE : On what grounds do you claim I deflect ?

MALVADO POSTED :and excuse anything inconvenient to your cause.

RESPONSE: Specifically how ?

MALVADO POSTED :Your preclusion of infallability on the subject of virtue makes you decidely arrogant.

RESPONSE: No, if one uses the right methods and the requiste data and fess up to it then the overall statements will be infallible . Sometimes the process of ascertaining the requisite data and conceptually unpacking it may be in an extrinsic sense ongoing ---so that some cases may take a lot of time and infalliability, though it is potentially in reach, may not be ready and hand .

However, there are NO "grey areas" when it comes to values. Some state of affairs cannot be both good and bad in the same sense at the same time . Ambiguity is never intrinsic to a coherent use of date . Ambiguity is always a failure !

MALVADO POSTED :You present no credentials on the subject, besides a vague handwaving of "being properly aligned", have a minimal understanding of psychology at best, and yet cannot be fallible on the subject you are so passionate about?

RESPONSE: Credentials are NOT what is important , the right methodology is .

MALVADO POSTED :FLAMING ARROGANCE IN THE HIGHEST!!

RESPONSE: What outrageous weird balderdash and flim flam !

(3) I respond to criticisms with responses .

MALVADO POSTED :Again, within a limited scope. You have no ability to be wrong, nor any ability to accept an alternate theorem, such as taht shamingis decidedly a non-virtuous behavior.

RESPONSE: Since when is being wrong something to aspire to ????

What if such alternate theorem fails the test of Socratic testing , should we still even partially accept it merely due to some goofy ideologically pluralist , politically correct notion of balance ?

(4) Claiming something is universally beneficial to all is *not* arrogance .

MALVADO POSTED : You are right. Its DELUSIONAL.

RESPONSE: Okay so then are you going to make up your mind and call it "delusional", yet non-arrogant, or are you periodically going to go back to making the weird accusation that it is somehow arrogant ?
Pick the imprecations carefully !

MALVADO POSTED :You forbid others to question you, because you have a way to not be wrong, it is not you it is The Path, you place yourself as an authority figure, a judge, and a jury and an executor all at once.

RESPONSE: When I have I forbidden anyone to question me ???? Question away . Questions on topic are welcome !

MALVADO POSTED :Only so you can reinforce your own correctness. You are an attention-whore. When no one answers your posts, you answer yourself. You love to here yourself talk at length, again, because of your zealotry.

RESPONSE: Oh so now you change tracks . First , you claim that I forbid people to question me and then when i highlight how that it isn't the case, then you drop that accusation and, further then, change the whole theme of what to accuse me of . First you claim I forbid questions , then when I explain that i welcome questions you assert that I do so only so I can reinforce what you call "your own correctness" in reference to me . When one limb of argumentation doesn't pan out how quickly you hop to another one !

MALVADO POSTED : Now comes your inevitable denial of your own narcissism, which serves the double purpose of showcasing it.

RESPONSE : You, Malvado , are guilty of fallacy known as poisoning the well ?

MALVADO POSTED :Why, because you just did exactly what I said you were going to? Again?

RESPONSE: No, because you make canard about "denial" such a catch- all , open ended term as to "magically" somehow "apply" to any form of absolutist opposition .

MALVADO POSTED :Wow, you missed that one by a mile. I predicted your behavior. And now I will do so again. You will now copy and paste this absurdly redundant imbroglio and respond witha hundred reiterations of what you have already said. Let em save you time.

RESPONSE: Why should anyone beleive that what you call predicting behavior is anything but a mischaracterization ?

Aren't you obligated to show that the ongoing responses that I post do not contain new follow up questions and supplemental arguments, or is the accusation that I'm merely typing the same sort of screeds and repeating what ive posted before true merely because you state it is ?

MALVADO POSTED :I get your point just fine. You happen to be deluded, in my opinion, about your own understanding of what virtuous behavior is.

RESPONSE: Respecting opinions certainly ain't virtuous , so why do you oppose when someone explains that insight ?

Relativism has had so many ugly results in history , let's not forget. Look at all the atrocities were done by the quasi-relativist Nazi movement (which was Machivellian nation state racist quai-relativism, which denied any meta-political basis for value) .

MALVADO POSTED :This is why I don't answer your questions. You are emotionally incapable of allowing for the answers containing any observational relevance, and likely to ignore my point

RESPONSE: That is a cop out ! Instead of ignoring "your point" --as you call it, it is rebutted by responses . Either that or it has questions put to it demanding that you delineate .

MALVADO POSTED :In favor of one from your own tired pedantic and droll formulary, without an ounce of self-reflection evident.

(1) . Since when is being pedantic something bad ?

MALVADO POSTED :Since always. Pay attentiion.

RESPONSE: On what grounds do you claim being pedantic is something bad ? Betrand Rusell apparetly wrote , '

'A pedant is a man who prefers his statements to be true' . Granted, applying ownership terms like "his" is remiss unless one merely uses such terms as hyperbolic expressions, but the part about the pedantic preferring the True is right on !

(2). Why do you post *as If* "self-reflection" (as you call it) is somehow mutually exclusive with single-minded rigidity ?

MALVADO POSTED :It is in your case. Conceptually they are not. Stop accusing missing the simple stuff.

RESPONSE: On what grounds do you claim that ?

MALVADO POSTED : I honestly have far more entertaining ways to raise my own blood pressure.

RESPONSE : Aye, there's the rub . It is entertainment that you seek, Malvado ! You do NOT (at least while posting) seek rectitude and certainty , you seek instead , entertainment . Very telling that you should post the statment above .

MALVADO POSTED : I seek the certainty of understanding how big a fruitcake you are. I have my answer pretty solidly. If I thought you had any authority to offer on the subject of certainty and rectitude, I would perhaps inquire further. As you have nothing but bigoted delusions to offer up, I have no interest in seeking anything from you. Posting back to you is as inherently useless as it is to any one on tribe. It is of the utmost unlikeliness anyone would be convinced to meaningful change by such dialogs.

(1) Authority / credentials are NOT the salient issue , since truth is an intrinsic affair , NOT some by-product of pedigree .

(2) I am , *in principle*, willing to acknowledge some notion that I am initially opposed to is right , but IF and only IF the opposing notion can pass the tests of strong "pedantic" dialectical argument, and also show itself to be a necessary and NOT merely contingent sort of insight .

MALVADO POSTED :You can lecture all day about Virtue and still miss the spirit of the concept by a mile. Virtue stands by itself just fine, it doesn't need an enforcer. Enforcers create tyranny by their nature. One can not enforce virtue and retain it at the same time.

RESPONSE: Again , *noone* has been forced to do anything by words alone. Words are NOT bulllets . Stop playing fast and loose with language .

MALVADO POSTED :How little you understand the world. Did anyone use more than words to convince you to change your behavior?

RESPONSE : They used words and example . And they convinced me, they didn't force me to do anything . Again , that is an insight that you postmodernist / relativist , MTV-era people keep glossing over that there is a difference separating (A) convincing someone even through vehement verbal means and (B) forcing some beleif on someone.

To force / to impose again requires physical impact on the person , property , resources of trhe person or the immanent threat thereof .There is NOT a fine line between verbally convincing someone and forcing something on someone . There is a huge chasm of context separating the two !

What you are doing here is a hustle ; a rhetorical sleight of hand, wherefore you treat the word 'convinced' AS IF it was somehow interchangeable with 'forced' . It ain't the same word , nor is it near the same meaning .

Again you , have yet to provide any deductive evidence that vehemently convincing someone with words where they freely choose to adopt a notion or proposition is somehow the same as forcing beliefs on someone . Until you do that you will continue to look like a hustler . Self-help era psychobabble where you bandy about catch-all words like "denial" and presuppose the ubiquity of such catch-all , popular , rinky dink substitutes for an ontology of mind in the consensual mythos of the Dr.Phil era , does *not* make the case that someone can be magically forced to do something by mere words alone , somehow without the immanent threat of physical encroachment .

If you want to attribute to words alone some sort of Svengali -like power to effect some sort of seeming magic: move people's limbs , turn on their vocal cords, and make them say things in a way that overpowers any stirrings of volition, then it you gotta put your cards on the proverbial table and spell out just what sort of structures of efficient cause could do that ?. Give us the schematics as to how words travel through the eardrum and work that Svengali type causal magic over the nerve carriers and so on so as to have such an irresistable power enough to make someone do something and forfeit all civil liberties ? Post pictures and charts , roll out a new nomenclature ...show us how words alone are equivalent to twisting someone's arm , in terms of causal directness .

But don't *presuppose* some catch all ubiquitous emotional cause and effect cycles --without demonstrating causal , ontological structures and try to pass off presuppositions as proof . Some might say the proof is in the pudding , but it ain't in presuppostions minus specific arguments !

MALVADO POSTED :Would you have changed it without those words being so forcefully applied in the form of shame?

RESPONSE : There you go using the term 'forced' loosely , as lateral thinking relativists like you, Malvado, tend to do ..But if you mean to ask: would I have changed without the words being so vehemently applied in the form of shame , then I would have to say it is possible. At times , as a youngster I had moments of clarity when doing or saying something murky , where in the internal dialogue of introspection , a kind of *auto-didactic* or *auto-dialectic* would set in . Auto -dialectic dialogue is certainly possible and has apparently been evinced in literature . (See the poem 'The Two Voices', by Alfred Lord Tennyson, where he argues with himself the putative pros and cons of committing suicide ) .

That is a good question you asked , though even if the answer had been 'no', it would not confirm the thesis which you present , insamuch as even if other individuals I knew in the past had not presented words of vehement persuasion to edify my course of life with edifying shame , and had I not changed the outlook and adopted a good outlook , then that would not mean that it isn't potentially possible for a person to without any influence from others shame themself with vehement persuasion...vehemently argue with themselves in internal dialectic . That possibility that a person could shame themselves with vehement words of persuasion without any influence from others to do so remains a potential ...a possibility. Thought experiment reveals that there is nothing, in principle, that precludes such a prospect . It is certainly logically possible, without an internal contradiction in the scenario , regardless of how rare it is in practice !

MALVADO POSTED :You were changed by shame. Just words. Negative words. Negative feelings.

RESPONSE: And I could have just as well resisted and , hence, defied such change from negative words . People can be told something and feel guilty or ashamed and yet still perversely go on doing it, so the claim you have made that ascribes to negative words alone some deterministic causal power that irresistably overcomes any volition ..and is somehow on par with twisting their arm , has been shown to be a phony , very false claim !

MALVADO POSTED :And you are now universalizing your experience unnecessarily, unwisely, and completely in the face of what you supposedly believe in.

RESPONSE: No, the zealous quest to single-mindedly promote rigid committment to virtue is NOT any trasnference of some sort of vicarious emotional "issues" being acted out (or any similar phony scenario) . On the contrary, I am setting about being a mere instrument to foster culture jamming where people are exhorted to be single-minded and not setle for some mediocre balance between virtue and a little duplicity or depravity . What I'm trying to do (and woe betide me if I ever get flexible in any future and , hence, no longer espouse the following) is to foster a sea-change in the ethos of the civilization where people go all the way all the time with single-minded adherence to highfallutin virtue, and never settle for any kitch, never settle for any mediocrity ! Time to get the good "paradigm" and nail it into place , get the good going and no more swinging pendulum ...no more moving with the times .. NO more selling out ..

It's about love for virtue and love for humanity . I wish you had more love for humanity ,Malvado. It is sad that you don't. Maybe one day you will have evolved enough love for humanity to denounce and totally belittle the evil opinions that have led humanity astray . Love for humanity is a good motive .

NO more karma chameleons . An ointment without any flies is long overdue !