Then I see to clarify some concepts: this space is mine. It means that I manage as I please and I doing what I want. Censorship included. This page censorship comments, and is pleased with. Just to be clear.
I’m not one of those who says, “I I moderate” and pulls out many high-sounding reasons as to why it does and how it does it. Simply I pay out of my pocket this space, and consequently I write (and we want to see) what I like. Point. This does not mean that I have opened a debate, nor that I am discussing this thing: this is so.
Nobody pays me to endure annoying people, or people who want to bother. Some Vulgate says it is nice to be uncomfortable (according to a very romantic idea of the opponent or dell’anticonformista), intending to be “uncomfortable” just being annoying, petulant and conceited. Well: you’re just annoying, not uncomfortable. And since no one pays me for the hassle, casso your messages with joy.
No, your rights will fuck me: because even if it is true that you have a right to speak, is not true that you have the right I hear you. Of course, a teacher of enlightenment said that he would give his life because others could speak too. But I would give my life for others. It seems logical that the rights of others, if they are paid with their lives, to be paid with the lives of others.
Given that I find nothing objectionable in censorship, and thus the ‘ “accusation” to censor does not make me feel in the dock because I can not see any fault, (1) Now I would like to clarify my point of view on the concept of “truth “as it is normally used.
My idea of truth, when it does not apply to a formal logic of science, that is, when it’s used to a vital doctrine (1), coincides perfectly with the idea of utility. If we think that the baggage of views and methods with which we form opinions is the “map” that we use to choose the way forward, then some opinions there will be more useful than others.
Let me explain: Some dogs bite. They do all the dogs, and then there are dogs that do not bite. When you are in front of a dog you do not know, however, you can not choose an intermediate position: you will have to choose whether to behave as if all the dogs from biting, (get away) or behave as if no bite Dog (closer).
Both alternatives are, logically, completely wrong: just as it is not true that all dogs bite (and thus may be futile escape), it is not true that no dog bites (and so could be dangerous to let approach).
How we will choose between two wrong opinions, or between two actions based on wrong assumptions? The answer is quite simple: we will base on the error that seems most useful. When, that is, we look for the truth in a decision-making context, it coincides with the utility. So, we will not bring us closer to strange dogs, behaving as if all from biting dogs, because we believe that this conduct is, in the long term, more advantageous as it avoids the possibility of being bitten, while denying us the pleasure (for those who love dogs ) petting a dog.
My intention, then, when I select things that I think is not in the least their logical truth or their adherence to an alleged historical reconstruction of the facts (2), but simply their usefulness in decision-making that has only two goals: survive and prosper.
I might think that the extreme left is right, and start militarvi. There is one small problem: thinking like that phony, have a vision of life and history so stupid, in daily life helps you or not? That is, it is better to have a political doctrine that takes you to spend an afternoon at the Diaz school, or a political doctrine that takes you to be at your house for a beer at that precise moment?
Obviously leftists tell me that blablablabla principles blablablabla values blablablabla rights and so on, but the fact remains that using those opinions is a decision-making system is built which results in the medium term is to be in a room with ten cops you menano abbestia .
Because everything that happens to bad èfrutto of bad decisions you have taken, that is your fault at least 50%, it is clear that a decision-making system based on a similar horizon opinions go quashed: not because of the reasons or assumptions, but simply because of the results it produces, or its usefulness.
What I mean is that each individual has available a wealth of knowledge and methods that are selected to only two purposes: to survive and thrive. The saying that “the truth hurts” is absurd, since the subject of evil is exactly what I want; reason why such “truth” will be quashed insofar as it only produces adverse effects.
So, directly casso comments that claim to speak of Blondet or Freda. The reason is that the methods luggage and Blondet knowledge produced its gradual distancing from the world of journalism, its marginalization in a world of religious fanatics and / or political, in fact, a professional disaster occurred against an initial success as Journalist. It goes without saying that the views of Blondet are, ipso facto, false. It is false because they were harmful.
But not only that: if we examine the lives of those who take his opinions and his methods as part of their baggage, what we see is that they almost never have to deal with people who “survives and thrives,” indeed: to thrive no just he talks about it, and it’s already time to survive. And male.E this can mean only one thing: their wealth of knowledge and methods is something that leads them to make bad decisions. Ergo, that baggage should be quashed because false. False because harmful.
As a result, not only is it better to take away his opinions, but also those of his supporters: if a knowledge and methods luggage is polluted from that of these phony, the risk is to pay dear in everyday life.
The same goes for Freda: the gentleman had a life far from desirable. And he had as the result of a series of decisions that led him to be what he is. And if we look at his supporters, we find even more miserable existences limited, a sign that in the thinking of those people there is an error that leads them to decide incorrectly.
The only system of truth and analysis that I conceive, that is, is useful. When it happened to me in the past to know people who orbited in the area of social centers have had to recognize that in the long-term vision of their company would have led them to be the losers, the individuals who would have struggled to survive, let alone thrive .
As a result, I do not mind the supposed truth of these views: the fact is that taking that ‘cultural horizon as their own, the resulting decisions are completely harmful.
So, when I criticize Hamas saying that an incorrect view of the war, I am not referring to the fact that their calculation is correct, or that there are strategic rationale behind their behavior: referring to the fact I who sleep in the dark under the bombs, jumping in the air together with families. Because obviously blown up with the family is not what we wanted, (3) it is clear that their thinking is wrong, and figure out where the error is essential to avoid making similar mistakes.
Basically, what I’m doing is to extend the materialist thought of Marx, moving it from the method of Merit. Marx believed to be able to explain the history on the basis of a “” materialistic method, criticizing other methods. I concentrate instead on the materialist critique of the concrete result, assuming that where there is value there is truth, and where it occurs damage there is error.
Thus, joining a group of phony, of rossobrune shirts, shaved heads or religious fanatics is a choice that is independent from these reasons, but simply confines itself to see the results of the cultural and logical luggage.
I might consider the Blondet vision as a true vision Blondet if he could avoid being marginalized from the world of journalism for its positions; with similar results are forced to conclude that the way of thinking of Blondet contains some errors which leads him to make bad decisions, therefore I can not take. I could grant Blondet the benefit of the doubt on his singolastoria staff, if not so much resembled that of his fans: the fact that some people’s fans are just as “blessed”, does nothing but confirm my theory.
In general, therefore, no thought to me that there are reasons why I write because it would not be “true” or not would be “consistent with the story”: the standard by which I select my personal views this is NOT.
The reason for which accurately keep me away from environments “radical” (radical and radical left right) is that I have never met any person of these environments (except Capetti) that is not a loser both socially and economically: sign clearly these areas are linked by some mistake of thinking that is reflected in the way of operating decisions in everyday life, which in the long and medium term produces miserable existence.
My views, my eyes are true to the extent that I am satisfied with my life and what I have done and achieved so far; since they are based on a given material (my life) they form a strong mind, strong damn, you can not in any way affect with your teoriucce based on assumptions weaker as “the West”, “communism”, “race”, ” culture “,” religion “,” rights “,” history “or whatever.
A theory based on the results of its application, as taught by Galileo, a theory so strong that even apart from criticism, with the exception of those theories in terms of the results are even better. The management policy of the Palestinian issue was conducted in a logically incorrect not because it is possible to criticize the method, but because it is possible to criticize the results.
As a political theory that takes you to spend an afternoon at the Diaz school in the hands of ten policemen MUST be wrong somewhere, or should require or must imply some other wrong assumption: it is clear that any of the decisions must have been produced by a system of incorrect or inconsistent ideas, from a world view completely wrong if it led to those results.
So if you think you have to do with the usual political / ideological discourse that unfolds on the reasons and methods, you are mistaken. Here we discuss the things only in terms of the results they produce. Would you like to be, today, a leader of Hamas in Gaza? You can find a nice fate? No? You think it’s better to be in a nice western country where nobody bombards you and your only problem is what to eat tonight, rather than sleep in a shelter, build-made traps and see your children die?
And then, you also think that the Palestinians are wrong. Just like kebbabbari Palestinians that I met last night while returning from work: they have made the right choice (ie not fight fairly and emigrate to Germany) and tonight will sleep warm and no bombs.
And because the results are better, of course they are right: there is no reason nor any truth if they do not try to be better results in practice.
(1) I call “vital doctrine” map, consisting of our opinions, which is used by us to make decisions about what to do, whenever we are called upon to make such decisions.
(2) The scientific police arrive a few hours from a crime, it has a scenario intact testing still smoking, and often can not establish what happened. Historians found a tomb with a 3000 years old corpse, examine a piece of cloth and they know you say that Tutankhamen was not murdered. You find no contradiction?
(3) Some fools say these people believe in a heaven after death and they are happy to die. Oddly enough, after each kill nobody ever thanked the Israelis, who were kind enough to oblige. I mean, if all you want is to become a martyr, and I want really, why would you oppose to your own death, which also causes? And if they become martyrs is so beautiful, why if I want to make one billion two hundred million martyrs accused of atrocities me, when it is nothing more than what they wish with their forces? Here is a classic example of the false thought because harmful. search Brands
(RSS generated with FetchRss ) span>