The Hard Line By CP

Post questions or suggestions here.
millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:48 am

Cory Patrick wrote:Milli, let’s take a few steps back and ruminate upon a moment of agreement you and I had yesterday or the day before…..
Cory: One of the basic facts that I would like you to agree with me on is the fact that, as humans, we are all fundamentally driven by fear, and this fear is the essence of what drives us to avoid injury/problems.



Milli: Sure, fear of problems causes us to avoid problems.
That being said Milli, do you agree with me when I say that; as humans, we subscribe to a particular system of memes in order to avoid having greater problems?
Sure. But the memes may vary.
Earlier milli, you have me an example of a solution, a response to a problem.

Here it is:
Milli: Some problems may be eliminated forever after facing them only once, like punching a bully in the face.
Milli, would you consider 'punching a bully in the face' to be an example of an individual excercizing power in order to solve a problem?
Yes.

And would you say that 'punching a bully in the face' is an act that is driven by both fear of further injury and a desire for greater peace for the individual being picked on by the bully?
Sure.


So what. Would you please find a point.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:28 am

I thought that maybe I could use the Bully scenario as an aid in helping me determine if you are correct to believe in something that I presently don't believe. Maybe it will be helpful down the road.

But for now, I'd like to go back and examine something....

Earlier I asked:
Cory: Is there such a human whose actions are not driven by the fear of greater injury, the hope for greater peace?

Milli: Now these people do exist I believe. They are very powerful and rich elitists who only seek to perpetuate their own power and who actually fear nothing.


You don't think they fear losing their power, their wealth? You don't think Hitler and say someone even like George Bush were once frightend people who appeased their fear by gaining power?

When Hitler and George Bush reached their peak of power, you don't think they were afraid of losing it?

You don't think George Bush is afraid? I would say he is a great coward. As was hitler.

You don't think elitists are cowards? I certainly do.

When Hitler commited suicide, and when anyone commits suicide, I say that it is because the suicidal person reaches a point where the terror of life outweighs the terror of death.

-------------------------------------------------

I think we should consider what was said here as well:

Cory: I say that there is no man alive who is not motivated by the fear of greater injury and a hope for greater peace, even if he appears to be deliberately injuring himself, he does so as a means to achieve (what he believes is) the greatest good (he can possibly achieve given his limitations)

[that which had been in brackets had been inserted to give more meaning to what I originally said]

Milli: I feel there are some who may fear a loss of power, but are not really concerned with greater peace.
When I said 'hope for greater peace' I meant that in a more solipsistic, individual sense. Despite one may be content with a world of conflict and violence, one is still motivated by achieving ones own individual, inner peace.

There is no human alive who isnt motivated by fear of injury and the attainment of ones own individual peace - even if it means hurting others, or oneself.

Just like the suicide. When someone commits suicide it is because they are motivated to achieve peace, to escape misery, suffering.

Another example is punching a bully in the face in order to achieve greater peace and avoid greater injury. This is a good example of an action that is motivated by a desire for greater peace, but violence is the means to that peace.

Lets keep going milli....

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:35 am

Cory Patrick wrote:I thought that maybe I could use the Bully scenario as an aid in helping me determine if you are correct to believe in something that I presently don't believe. Maybe it will be helpful down the road.

But for now, I'd like to go back and examine something....

Earlier I asked:
Cory: Is there such a human whose actions are not driven by the fear of greater injury, the hope for greater peace?

Milli: Now these people do exist I believe. They are very powerful and rich elitists who only seek to perpetuate their own power and who actually fear nothing.


You don't think they fear losing their power, their wealth? You don't think Hitler and say someone even like George Bush were once frightend people who appeased their fear by gaining power?

When Hitler and George Bush reached their peak of power, you don't think they were afraid of losing it?

You don't think George Bush is afraid? I would say he is a great coward. As was hitler.

You don't think elitists are cowards? I certainly do.

When Hitler commited suicide, and when anyone commits suicide, I say that it is because the suicidal person reaches a point where the terror of life outweighs the terror of death.

-------------------------------------------------

I think we should consider what was said here as well:

Cory: I say that there is no man alive who is not motivated by the fear of greater injury and a hope for greater peace, even if he appears to be deliberately injuring himself, he does so as a means to achieve (what he believes is) the greatest good (he can possibly achieve given his limitations)

[that which had been in brackets had been inserted to give more meaning to what I originally said]

Milli: I feel there are some who may fear a loss of power, but are not really concerned with greater peace.
When I said 'hope for greater peace' I meant that in a more solipsistic, individual sense. Despite one may be content with a world of conflict and violence, one is still motivated by achieving ones own individual, inner peace.

There is no human alive who isnt motivated by fear of injury and the attainment of ones own individual peace - even if it means hurting others, or oneself.

Just like the suicide. When someone commits suicide it is because they are motivated to achieve peace, to escape misery, suffering.

Another example is punching a bully in the face in order to achieve greater peace and avoid greater injury. This is a good example of an action that is motivated by a desire for greater peace, but violence is the means to that peace.

Lets keep going milli....
Ok. Some elitists probably fear losing power. Yes. Punching a bully is violent. But this "justification of violence" is in no way similar to the genocide and tyranny elitists espouse to "force" evolution.

Though conceptually words have opposites which assist us in understanding their meaning, this doesn't mean that in the real world, there must be evil, so good can exist. I believe there could be a world of all good, where bad is just a memory.

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:36 am

Cory Patrick wrote:I thought that maybe I could use the Bully scenario as an aid in helping me determine if you are correct to believe in something that I presently don't believe. Maybe it will be helpful down the road.

But for now, I'd like to go back and examine something....

Earlier I asked:
Cory: Is there such a human whose actions are not driven by the fear of greater injury, the hope for greater peace?

Milli: Now these people do exist I believe. They are very powerful and rich elitists who only seek to perpetuate their own power and who actually fear nothing.


You don't think they fear losing their power, their wealth? You don't think Hitler and say someone even like George Bush were once frightend people who appeased their fear by gaining power?

When Hitler and George Bush reached their peak of power, you don't think they were afraid of losing it?

You don't think George Bush is afraid? I would say he is a great coward. As was hitler.

You don't think elitists are cowards? I certainly do.

When Hitler commited suicide, and when anyone commits suicide, I say that it is because the suicidal person reaches a point where the terror of life outweighs the terror of death.

-------------------------------------------------

I think we should consider what was said here as well:

Cory: I say that there is no man alive who is not motivated by the fear of greater injury and a hope for greater peace, even if he appears to be deliberately injuring himself, he does so as a means to achieve (what he believes is) the greatest good (he can possibly achieve given his limitations)

[that which had been in brackets had been inserted to give more meaning to what I originally said]

Milli: I feel there are some who may fear a loss of power, but are not really concerned with greater peace.
When I said 'hope for greater peace' I meant that in a more solipsistic, individual sense. Despite one may be content with a world of conflict and violence, one is still motivated by achieving ones own individual, inner peace.

There is no human alive who isnt motivated by fear of injury and the attainment of ones own individual peace - even if it means hurting others, or oneself.

Just like the suicide. When someone commits suicide it is because they are motivated to achieve peace, to escape misery, suffering.

Another example is punching a bully in the face in order to achieve greater peace and avoid greater injury. This is a good example of an action that is motivated by a desire for greater peace, but violence is the means to that peace.

Lets keep going milli....
Ok. Some elitists probably fear losing power. Yes. Punching a bully is violent. But this "justification of violence" is in no way similar to the genocide and tyranny elitists espouse to "force" evolution.

Though conceptually words have opposites which assist us in understanding their meaning, this doesn't mean that in the real world, there must be evil, so good can exist. I believe there could be a world of all good, where bad is just a memory.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:08 pm


Milli: Ok. Some elitists probably fear losing power.
All elitists were once children or barely adults who had began as persons afraid of not gaining power, and once they gained power, they lived their lives in fear of losing their precious power.

Can you give me an example of how this is not true?

But before you start thinking and typing, keep reading...

Milli: Punching a bully is violent. But this "justification of violence" is in no way similar to the genocide and tyranny elitists espouse to "force" evolution.
What makes you think the man who prefers to use genocidal tactics and gene therapy techniques is not driven by fear and the desire for his own personal peace?

Do you think a person excited about gene therapy, or anyone for that matter, really cares about anything but his own personal peace?

Do you really think he feels pure compassion for other peoples illnesses?

Or does he only fear not being a great man who does something respectable and commendable in the eyes of the elite?

Does he also fear the burden of what the genetically flawed people in his life might throw onto him?

Anyone who is excited about gene therapy is perhaps excited only because he is driven by a fear of being injured and dragged down by not only the alcoholic, bi-polar, and potential cancer sufferers in his life, but by his own personal flaws.

Or perhaps he wants to hide from facing his own personal weakness so he unconsciously does so by focusing on, and being motivated by helping the flaws and struggles of others?

Perhaps he runs away from his problems by trying to help the problems of others?

Perhaps his self esteem depends on hiding from his own weakness and focusing on others?

When someone comes along who expresses a desire or an enthusiasm to fix problems that are not his own, well, perhaps that man is trying to feel good about himself and the only way he knows how to feel good about himself is perhaps by entering a fantasy in his mind where he is the hero who helps the people and is good?

Do you see what I mean? These gene-therapy enthusiast elitists are just comforted by the idea of personally profitting off of 'helping' others, they are comforted by focusing on other peoples flaws. And like a christian is comforted by the promise of Jesus's ability to save him, the gene therapy enthusiast is comforted by the idea of the smart scientists saving him and making him good. Fear of conflict, suffering.......thats it.

Give me an example of a human being who isnt motivated by fear and the desire for greater personal freedom, glory, pride and peace.

There is not a single one.

Are you with me?

Milli: Though conceptually words have opposites which assist us in understanding their meaning, this doesn't mean that in the real world, there must be evil, so good can exist. I believe there could be a world of all good, where bad is just a memory.
Do you equate ‘good’ with an absence of personal problems and struggles to achieve a more personally peaceful state?

What would this 'good' world of yours look like? Would people have conflict, suffering, endless problems to face and/or run away from?

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:28 pm

Cory Patrick wrote:

Milli: Ok. Some elitists probably fear losing power.
All elitists were once children or barely adults who had began as persons afraid of not gaining power, and once they gained power, they lived their lives in fear of losing their precious power.

Can you give me an example of how this is not true?

But before you start thinking and typing, keep reading...

Milli: Punching a bully is violent. But this "justification of violence" is in no way similar to the genocide and tyranny elitists espouse to "force" evolution.
What makes you think the man who prefers to use genocidal tactics and gene therapy techniques is not driven by fear and the desire for his own personal peace?

Do you think a person excited about gene therapy, or anyone for that matter, really cares about anything but his own personal peace?

Do you really think he feels pure compassion for other peoples illnesses?

Or does he only fear not being a great man who does something respectable and commendable in the eyes of the elite?

Does he also fear the burden of what the genetically flawed people in his life might throw onto him?

Anyone who is excited about gene therapy is perhaps excited only because he is driven by a fear of being injured and dragged down by not only the alcoholic, bi-polar, and potential cancer sufferers in his life, but by his own personal flaws.

Or perhaps he wants to hide from facing his own personal weakness so he unconsciously does so by focusing on, and being motivated by helping the flaws and struggles of others?

Perhaps he runs away from his problems by trying to help the problems of others?

Perhaps his self esteem depends on hiding from his own weakness and focusing on others?

When someone comes along who expresses a desire or an enthusiasm to fix problems that are not his own, well, perhaps that man is trying to feel good about himself and the only way he knows how to feel good about himself is perhaps by entering a fantasy in his mind where he is the hero who helps the people and is good?

Do you see what I mean? These gene-therapy enthusiast elitists are just comforted by the idea of personally profitting off of 'helping' others, they are comforted by focusing on other peoples flaws. And like a christian is comforted by the promise of Jesus's ability to save him, the gene therapy enthusiast is comforted by the idea of the smart scientists saving him and making him good. Fear of conflict, suffering.......thats it.

Give me an example of a human being who isnt motivated by fear and the desire for greater personal freedom, glory, pride and peace.

There is not a single one.

Are you with me?

Milli: Though conceptually words have opposites which assist us in understanding their meaning, this doesn't mean that in the real world, there must be evil, so good can exist. I believe there could be a world of all good, where bad is just a memory.
Do you equate ‘good’ with an absence of personal problems and struggles to achieve a more personally peaceful state?

What would this 'good' world of yours look like? Would people have conflict, suffering, endless problems to face and/or run away from?
Just because genocidal maniacs and baby butchers may be motivated by the same EMOTIONS as those contrained by morality, it doesn't mean their actions are therefore moral.

Additionally, I would say they are warped individuals, regardless of the fact that their atrocity may be motivated by the same emotions as the rest of us.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:57 pm


Milli wrote: Just because genocidal maniacs and baby butchers may be motivated by the same EMOTIONS as those contrained by morality, it doesn't mean their actions are therefore moral.
And I wasnt implying that to be the case.

I’m glad we can finally agree that ALL of humanity is fundamentally driven by fear and the desire for greater personal peace.
Milli: Additionally, I would say they are warped individuals, regardless of the fact that their atrocity may be motivated by the same emotions as the rest of us.
Sure, that fine, as long as you agree that these warped individuals are 'factully' driven by the same emotions as so called moral, well adjusted citizens.

--------------------------------------------------------

Now, my next condundrum for you to navigate through is this:

On the left, there is a party of people all working together towards an end which is in agreement with your values

On the right, there is a party of people all working together towards the end of genocide and baby butchering.

If you were faced with the challenge of having to deal with the individuals comprising both parties on a daily basis, would you treat both sides the same, as equals? Or would you support and thus favor one party, and thus ignore, neglect or even harrass the other side?

User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post by Ryan Rudolph » Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:10 pm

Cory Patrick Wrote:
Anyone who is excited about gene therapy is perhaps excited only because he is driven by a fear of being injured and dragged down by not only the alcoholic, bi-polar, and potential cancer sufferers in his life, but by his own personal flaws.
Yes, this is possibly one motivation for such an interest. Another possible motivation is simply a questioning and wondering at what sort of role an understanding of the genome will play in humanity future? And if it will be a positive one? Negative? Both.

I suspect that one cannot completely know either way, our understanding of disciplines such as gene therapy and nanotechnology is much too limited to say one way or the other at this point, it is simply too early to tell.

All one can do is speculate and in the end all one is left with is uncertainty.

However one may want to be absolutely certain if they are holding onto an ideal that they fancy.

I wonder if Benjamin Franklin could have predicted that a genius forum message board would be one of the myriad of consequences of him tinkering around with a kite in a thunderstorm? probably not.

MKFaizi

SCREAM THY LAST SCREAM

Post by MKFaizi » Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:49 pm

Give it a break and shut the fuck up.

Just for a change.

Faizi

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:01 pm

Cory Patrick wrote:

Milli wrote: Just because genocidal maniacs and baby butchers may be motivated by the same EMOTIONS as those contrained by morality, it doesn't mean their actions are therefore moral.
And I wasnt implying that to be the case.

I’m glad we can finally agree that ALL of humanity is fundamentally driven by fear and the desire for greater personal peace.
Milli: Additionally, I would say they are warped individuals, regardless of the fact that their atrocity may be motivated by the same emotions as the rest of us.
Sure, that fine, as long as you agree that these warped individuals are 'factully' driven by the same emotions as so called moral, well adjusted citizens.
Just because their emotions may be the same, doesn't mean their actions are therefore morally the same. Genocidal elitism is socialized into elitists; the preferred victims are dehumanized, and deception is justified. The triggers are slightly different. True elitists become so sure of their elitism and correctness that they get upset, fearful and angry, when their victims merely commit such heinous acts as daring to be proud, or thinking for themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------

Now, my next condundrum for you to navigate through is this:

On the left, there is a party of people all working together towards an end which is in agreement with your values
The left is not in agreement with my values. They are totalitarian, economically, philosophically, and otherwise.

On the right, there is a party of people all working together towards the end of genocide and baby butchering.
While those are admirable goals, the right has been hijacked by the totalitarian globalist agenda.

If you were faced with the challenge of having to deal with the individuals comprising both parties on a daily basis, would you treat both sides the same, as equals? Or would you support and thus favor one party, and thus ignore, neglect or even harrass the other side?
I would harrass them all.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:47 pm

Let me try again then....

Cory: ok milli, instead of 'LEFT' let's just say there is a group of individuals who just so happen to be your friends, or perhaps they are just some strangers....all which who just so happen to think exactly like you - these people are very passionately AGAINST everything you are against.

Ok?

Then, there are a group of politically motivated people who are all working together towards the end of genocide and baby butchering.

If you were faced with the challenge of having to deal with the individuals comprising both sides on a daily basis, would you treat both sides the same, as equals?
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:00 pm

Cory Patrick wrote:Let me try again then....

Cory: ok milli, instead of 'LEFT' let's just say there is a group of individuals who just so happen to be your friends, or perhaps they are just some strangers....all which who just so happen to think exactly like you - these people are very passionately AGAINST everything you are against.

Ok?

Then, there are a group of politically motivated people who are all working together towards the end of genocide and baby butchering.

If you were faced with the challenge of having to deal with the individuals comprising both sides on a daily basis, would you treat both sides the same, as equals?

Or would you support and thus favor one party, and thus
I would only treat an individual as a side to the extent that he was a brainwashed replicator for the party line memes.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:06 pm

how would the treament you give differ? How would you treat those with the brainwashed corrupt memes, compared to the ones who seen things almost exactly like you?

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:38 pm

Cory Patrick wrote:how would the treament you give differ? How would you treat those with the brainwashed corrupt memes, compared to the ones who seen things almost exactly like you?
I would probably argue more with those who don't agree with me. And I would give those who agree with me special gift bags of jelly beans, tied closed at the aperture with nice ribbon, or lace perhaps.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:24 am

Milli: I would probably argue more with those who don't agree with me. And I would give those who agree with me special gift bags of jelly beans, tied closed at the aperture with nice ribbon, or lace perhaps.
Very funny milli.

Seriously though, you see my point? Everyone is elitists milli. Everyone favours particular values, and because they favour particular values, they favour particular people.

Do you refute? I'm not really interested in nailing you as a hypocrite, or catching you in contradiciton - lets just forget the past and move on.

So do you agree, anybody who has values is an elitist?

If not, give me an example of a human who doest favour particular people and fear or shun other types.

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:08 am

Cory Patrick wrote:
Milli: I would probably argue more with those who don't agree with me. And I would give those who agree with me special gift bags of jelly beans, tied closed at the aperture with nice ribbon, or lace perhaps.
Very funny milli.

Seriously though, you see my point? Everyone is elitists milli. Everyone favours particular values, and because they favour particular values, they favour particular people.


Do you refute? I'm not really interested in nailing you as a hypocrite, or catching you in contradiciton - lets just forget the past and move on.

So do you agree, anybody who has values is an elitist?

If not, give me an example of a human who doest favour particular people and fear or shun other types.
Elitism begins when you stop TRYING to convince others of your ideas, and simply start calling them names and dehumanizing them. Elitism is when you feel you don't owe anyone an explanation. SO it's a little different than merely believing you're right, or having any values at all.

And I said above, I would probably keep arguing and arguing. The correctness of my notions would eventually sink in, hopefully. It could be jelly beans for everybody, or I leave open the small possiblity I could be convinced off my ideas. It hasn't happened yet.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:23 am

Milli: Elitism begins when you stop TRYING to convince others of your ideas, and simply start calling them names and dehumanizing them. Elitism is when you feel you don't owe anyone an explanation. So it's a little different than merely believing you're right, or having any values at all.
Milli, that's actually not the dictionary definition of elitism.

What you described is brooding, angsty adolecence. Mere childishness, arrogance.

To be elitist is to favor a particular person, persons, group, government, product because of their pecieved superiority.

Surely we are all guilty of that, no?

You have invented your own definition of elitism, while ignoring the dictionary meaning.

It's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion with someone who makes things up as he goes along.

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:35 am

Cory Patrick wrote:
Milli: Elitism begins when you stop TRYING to convince others of your ideas, and simply start calling them names and dehumanizing them. Elitism is when you feel you don't owe anyone an explanation. So it's a little different than merely believing you're right, or having any values at all.
Milli, that's actually not the dictionary definition of elitism.

What you described is brooding, angsty adolecence. Mere childishness, arrogance.

To be elitist is to favor a particular person, persons, group, government, product because of their pecieved superiority.

Surely we are all guilty of that, no?

You have invented your own definition of elitism, while ignoring the dictionary meaning.

It's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion with someone who makes things up as he goes along.
Your definition assumes there can be no right and wrong in a matter. I disagree with that. I beleive there is correct and incorrect. Right and wrong etc. Therefore my definition of elitist is one who believes he is right AND REFUSES TO DISCUSS IT, and greets detractors with hysteria and dehumanization instead of a patient reexplanation of his position. Oh, in case you were wondering, it's also elitist to shut down discussion because of a bogus complaint about word misuse.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:49 am

Your definition assumes there can be no right and wrong in a matter.
Be more careful Milli.

I never made such claims.
I beleive there is correct and incorrect.
I also see there is correct and incorrect.

Where, in all of my posts have I said that there is no right and wrong?

Milli: Therefore my definition of elitist is one who believes he is right AND REFUSES TO DISCUSS IT, and greets detractors with hysteria and dehumanization instead of a patient reexplanation of his position.
Yes, but I have a problem with that because your definition of elitism is different then the dictionary definition.

Reasonably minded people who witness you shouting down and comdemning the so called elitists are going to think your an idiot, because they are going to interpret you according to their dictionary definition of elitism and so they are going to look back and you and think your a hypocritical, contradictory fanatic.
Milli: Oh, in case you were wondering, it's also elitist to shut down discussion because of a bogus complaint about word misuse.
Who said I was shutting down discussion?

I would prefer to contine inquiring with you further Milli.

But in order for us to go further I need you to agree with me on something.

Do you agree that there is wrong/stupid elitism and right/wise elitism?

Can you agree on that?

If so, you will naturally stop using the word elitism in an accusatory tone. It isnt practical and sensible given that you understand how most of the world uses the word elitism according to the dictionary.

So do you agree that to accuse somone of being elitist is superflous and self-defeating?

Can we removed elitism from our accusations and stick with words like 'stupid', 'wrong', 'incorrect', 'irrational' 'inferrior', 'unintelligent'?

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:01 am

Cory Patrick wrote:
Your definition assumes there can be no right and wrong in a matter.
Be more careful Milli.

I never made such claims.
Your definition loosely is "anyone who think they're right" or "anyone who has a value system". That's just an extension of your postmodern nihilism which presumes no right and wrong, usually. Except when you say it doesn't mean that.
I beleive there is correct and incorrect.
I also see there is correct and incorrect.

Where, in all of my posts have I said that there is no right and wrong?

Milli: Therefore my definition of elitist is one who believes he is right AND REFUSES TO DISCUSS IT, and greets detractors with hysteria and dehumanization instead of a patient reexplanation of his position.
Yes, but I have a problem with that because your definition of elitism is different then the dictionary definition.
Maybe my usage is slightly different from the dictionary definition. You know EXACTLY what I'm saying though. You have gone to the dictionary to shut down discussion, not make a point.

Reasonably minded people who witness you shouting down and comdemning the so called elitists are going to think your an idiot, because they are going to interpret you according to their dictionary definition of elitism and so they are going to look back and you and think your a hypocritical, contradictory fanatic.
I don't think so. It's not far off. Your "problem" with my usage of the world elitism is coming pretty late in the game. It looks like desperation to me.
Milli: Oh, in case you were wondering, it's also elitist to shut down discussion because of a bogus complaint about word misuse.
Who said I was shutting down discussion?
You said you didn't know if you could continue the discussion if I was going to continue misusing words. That's threatening a shutdown, like a filthy union member.


I would prefer to contine inquiring you further Milli.

But in order for us to go further I need you to agree with me on something.

Do you agree that there is wrong/stupid elitism and right/wise elitism?
No. I believe elitism is when someone feels they are above the rules of logical discourse and can subtitute name calling and villainization for good arguments. I know this doesn't fit with your idea of calling "anyone who thinks they're right" an elitist. It's more than that. Additionally I believe people will come to see the value in my definition.
Can you agree on that?
No.

If so, you will naturally stop using the word elitism in an accusatory tone. It isnt practical and sensible given that you understand how most of the world uses the word elitism according to the dictionary.
And since not, I will probably still call people elitists.

So do you agree that to accuse somone of being elitist is superflous and self-defeating?
No.

Can we removed elitism from our accusations and stick with words like 'stupid', 'wrong', 'incorrect', 'inferrior', 'unintelligent'?
No, but please continue and stop being such a whiny little bitch.

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:01 am

dupe

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:10 am


Milli: Your definition loosely is "anyone who think they're right" or "anyone who has a value system".
I said that the word elitism means, according to the dictionary definition: “The belief that certain persons or members of groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority.”

The key element here is: “certain persons, groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority.
Milli: Maybe my usage is slightly different from the dictionary definition.
You know EXACTLY what I'm saying though. You have gone to the dictionary to shut down discussion, not make a point.
No, I read a post Diebert made on your ‘my cult’ thread, and since I respect Diebert’s logical abilities, I decided to look a bit more carefully at the dictionary definition.

Upon examining the meaning carefully I realized that I never gave sufficient contemplation to an essential part of the definition. And thus I contemplated upon the part of the definition which says: “certain persons, groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority”

I then realized that, according to the dictionary, it is impossible to not be an elitist as long as you regard a particular person or group of persons as inferior, which you milli just so happen to do. According to the definitino of elitism Milli, you are an elitist.
Milli: Your "problem" with my usage of the world elitism is coming pretty late in the game. It looks like desperation to me.
I agree that it is coming a bit late into the game. It’s too bad I didn’t realize my error a few days ago when we first came to an agreement that there is a difference between acknowledging the superiority of something/someone, and giving certain persons and groups favored treatment.

I now realize that the moment you regard a particular person/group as inferior, you inevitably give favored treatment to the person/group you perceive as superior.
Cory:Who said I was shutting down discussion?

Milli: You said you didn't know if you could continue the discussion if I was going to continue misusing words. That's threatening a shutdown, like a filthy union member.
I said I ‘didn’t know’ if I could continue the discussion unless we both were in agreement of what was logical and what wasn’t.

If we can’t agree, then there is no sense discussing any further. Perhaps we will get over this little bump in the road.
Cory: Do you agree that there is wrong/stupid elitism and right/wise elitism?

Milli: No. I believe elitism is when someone feels they are above the rules of logical discourse and can subtitute name calling and villainization for good arguments.
Do you agree with me that your meaning of elitism is far removed from the global consensus?

Let’s compare your definition, with the rest of humanity's definition:

The millipodium definition of ‘Elitism’: elitism is when someone feels they are above the rules of logical discourse and can subtitute name calling and villainization for good arguments.


The dictionary definition of ‘Elitism’: The belief that certain persons or certain groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority

I’d say that’s a pretty significant difference.

Milli, I will continue discussion on the grounds that you admit that you give favored treatment to those who you believe are good, superior, right and and you give unfavourable treament to those you believe are wrong.

You treat those good who you regard as good and you treat those as bad who you regard as bad.

Who favors being called a douche, a whiny little bitch, an asstard, a dupe, an asshole, etc?

Thus, according to the dictionary, and thus according to me - you are an elitist my friend.

Am I being logical here Milli?

And according to your definition of elitism Milli, am I an elitist?

I would say I am not.

What have I written that is proof that I fufill your idea of an elitist?

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:33 am

Cory Patrick wrote:

Milli: Your definition loosely is "anyone who think they're right" or "anyone who has a value system".
I said that the word elitism means, according to the dictionary definition: “The belief that certain persons or members of groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority.”

The key element here is: “certain persons, groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority.
Milli: Maybe my usage is slightly different from the dictionary definition.
You know EXACTLY what I'm saying though. You have gone to the dictionary to shut down discussion, not make a point.
No, I read a post Diebert made on your ‘my cult’ thread, and since I respect Diebert’s logical abilities, I decided to look a bit more carefully at the dictionary definition.

Upon examining the meaning carefully I realized that I never gave sufficient contemplation to an essential part of the definition. And thus I contemplated upon the part of the definition which says: “certain persons, groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority”

I then realized that, according to the dictionary, it is impossible to not be an elitist as long as you regard a particular person or group of persons as inferior, which you milli just so happen to do. According to the definitino of elitism Milli, you are an elitist.
No. It's the "deserving of favored treatment" part you're ignoring. One can feel they are right, but if they STILL ENGAGE IN THE DISCUSSION and don't feel they can opt out and call names instead, and are not deserving of special treatment, they can still feel right and believe they are right, without being an elitist.

Milli: Your "problem" with my usage of the world elitism is coming pretty late in the game. It looks like desperation to me.
I agree that it is coming a bit late into the game. It’s too bad I didn’t realize my error a few days ago when we first came to an agreement that there is a difference between acknowledging the superiority of something/someone, and giving certain persons and groups favored treatment.
This is exactly the distinction that supports MY position actually.
One can be right without being an elitist if they don't demand special treatment, such as an exemption from the rules of logic.

I now realize that the moment you regard a particular person/group as inferior, you inevitably give favored treatment to the person/group you perceive as superior.
No. That's exactly wrong. You're ignoring the definition you just highlighted. You can feel correct or superior, but if you do not demand specials rules and treatment, your are not an elitist.
Cory:Who said I was shutting down discussion?

Milli: You said you didn't know if you could continue the discussion if I was going to continue misusing words. That's threatening a shutdown, like a filthy union member.
I said I ‘didn’t know’ if I could continue the discussion unless we both were in agreement of what was logical and what wasn’t.

If we can’t agree, then there is no sense discussing any further. Perhaps we will get over this little bump in the road.
Exactly. You're threatening to shut down the discussion if I don't agree with you on terms, even though you know exactly what I'm saying.
Cory: Do you agree that there is wrong/stupid elitism and right/wise elitism?

Milli: No. I believe elitism is when someone feels they are above the rules of logical discourse and can subtitute name calling and villainization for good arguments.
Do you agree with me that your meaning of elitism is far removed from the global consensus?
No. I do not. The definition is two part. Believing one is superior or correct and ALSO DEMANDING SPECIAL TREATMENT. My contention that elitism is defined by a feeling one no longer has to explain onesself is an EXAMPLE of special treatment.
Let’s compare your definition, with the rest of humanity's definition:

The millipodium definition of ‘Elitism’: elitism is when someone feels they are above the rules of logical discourse and can subtitute name calling and villainization for good arguments.


The dictionary definition of ‘Elitism’: The belief that certain persons or certain groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority

I’d say that’s a pretty significant difference.
No. As I just explained: A feeling of exemption from the rules of discourse is an EXAMPLE of special treatment.

Milli, I will continue discussion on the grounds that you admit that you give favored treatment to those who you believe are good, superior, right and and you give unfavourable treament to those you believe are wrong.
I do not admit that at all. So bow out disgracefully if you must.

You treat those good who you regard as good and you treat those as bad who you regard as bad.

Who favors being called a douche, a whiny little bitch, an asstard, a dupe, an asshole, etc?
You are not exempt from your behavior being accurately identified. If you are demanding that, you are textbook elitist, demanding special treatment.

Thus, according to the dictionary, and thus according to me - you are an elitist my friend.
No. Because I am NOT asking for special treatment, something you discovered was part of the definition of elitist.

Am I being logical here Milli?
No.

And according to your definition of elitism Milli, am I an elitist?
Yes.

I would say I am not.

What have I written that is proof that I fufill your idea of an elitist?
You think it's your right to control the conversation, despite being wrong. You're a whiny bitch, and you demand being called otherwise. You are demanding at least two forms of special treatment.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:22 am

Cory: Upon examining the meaning carefully I realized that I never gave sufficient contemplation to an essential part of the definition. And thus I contemplated upon the part of the definition which says: “certain persons, groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority”

I then realized that, according to the dictionary, it is impossible to not be an elitist as long as you regard a particular person or group of persons as inferior, which you milli just so happen to do. According to the definition of elitism Milli, you are an elitist.

Milli: No. It's the "deserving of favored treatment" part you're ignoring.
An elitist favors being treated in a particular way, and they dislike being treated in other ways. Those who appear to be superior are favored by the elitist.

Thus, those who appear to be inferior are not to be treated as favorites.

Milli, if someone were to walk up to you and start pushing you and calling you names, would you be indifferent? Or do you favor and even out of a sheer demand use force to achieve the treatment you feel you deserve, or you feel is right?

The key word is ‘favor’. Do you have a favored ways of being treated Milli? Of course you do, you elitist.

I think if you are honest with yourself, you will realize that you do favor and even demand certain forms of treatment, and thus hate other forms of treatment.

We are all elitists.

Do you favor a particular sort of person Milli? And do you despise and hurl insults at those who you don’t favor?

Or is everyone equally your favorite?

Being an elitist, according to the dictionary definition, is about believing people should treat you in a way that you believe you deserve, AND, it’s about favoring and giving favorable treatment to those who appear to be superior.

Amusingly, humans behave in an elitist fashion before they begin to walk. They believe they should be treated the way they want, they cry when they don’t get it, and they get excited and happy when they get the treatment they want.

Toddlers also give favored treatment to the things and people that are their favorite, and they neglect, ignore and cry in response to things they don’t favor.

So toddlers are elitists, and they grow up to be adults, some more good, some more evil depending on how much they have been spoiled and traumatized.
Milli: One can be right without being an elitist if they don't demand special treatment, such as an exemption from the rules of logic.
According to the dictionary, being an elitist isn’t about ‘DEMANDING’ special treatment from others, but rather, it’s about believing that one deserves to be treated in a certain way.

For instance, an evil elitist perhaps prefers that he have servants obey his every whim, and his preference for this form of treatment might coagulate into a DEMAND for obsequious behavior. When that demand is not met he may engage in violence to maintain his preferred way of being treated.

So an evil elitist is a Tyrant. Perhaps you and I should take note of this valuable distinction? On the one hand we have a good elitist, a philosopher, and on the other hand we have the evil elitist, the tyrant.

A good elitist demands that people respect him, he demands that people do not physically and verbally abuse him, etc, etc.

If his demands are not met, he perhaps retreats, perhaps uses force, or perhaps calls on others to use force for him.

The good elitist is much lower maintenance, then the evil elitist, the tyrant.

If you break the words elitist and elitism down to the word elite, you will find that the word elite means: “The best or most skilled members of a group”.

Elitism is also about knowing you are among the most skilled members of a group, and it is about favoring the most skilled members of a group. You may or may not be deluded about who is is the best and who is the worst.

The tyrant thinks his way is best for him, otherwise he wouldnt be what he is. And his belief that he is superior is perhaps a delusion and only 'relatively' true, rather than absolutely true.

Cory: now realize that the moment you regard a particular person/group as inferior, you inevitably give favored treatment to the person/group you perceive as superior.

Milli: No. That's exactly wrong. You're ignoring the definition you just highlighted. You can feel correct or superior, but if you do not demand specials rules and treatment, your are not an elitist.
Milli, do you care whether or not a drunk bum off the street walks into your home and starts rooting in your fridge and making sexual advances on you? Are you indifferent about how you are treated?

I think if your honest with yourself you will realize that you are an elitist who prefers, if not demands being treated in a certain way.


Cory: I said I ‘didn’t know’ if I could continue the discussion unless we both were in agreement of what was logical and what wasn’t.

If we can’t agree, then there is no sense discussing any further. Perhaps we will get over this little bump in the road.

Milli: Exactly. You're threatening to shut down the discussion if I don't agree with you on terms, even though you know exactly what I'm saying.
Does it make sense to spend your energy dealing with someone who doesn’t seem to be being logical?

My philosophy is, get to know the person you are in relationship with and allow the relationship to progress to the degree that the other individual is behaving logically. If he doesnt seem to be logical, let him know what is confusing you.

I’m sorry to have sounded like I am threatening you to obey me. I am not trying to do that.

That is my way of provoking you to be as logical and stringent as possible.

I appreciate your persistence, and encourage you to stick it out and see where this goes.


Cory: Do you agree with me that your meaning of elitism is far removed from the global consensus?

Milli: No. I do not. The definition is two part.

Believing one is superior or correct and ALSO DEMANDING SPECIAL TREATMENT.
All humans "demand special treatment”.

An elitist tyrant demands that his slaves obey his whims, sexual, military or otherwise. He uses violence if his demmands are not met.

An elitist philosopher demands that his peers be logical and cautious. An elitist philosopher will not tolerate the incistence of someone who is trying to have sex with him, or trying to get him to take drugs. An elitist philosopher will not tolerate a man who harasses him and makes no sense.

Your average married male citizen demands that strangers do not wander into his home and try screwing his wife.

Etc, etc.

You get the deal.

Milli: My contention that elitism is defined by a feeling one no longer has to explain oneself is an EXAMPLE of special treatment.
Yes, you are talking about an evil elitist, a tyrant who feels he can do whatever he wants without explaining to his peers the logic behind his actions.

You are confusing elitism with tyranny. I think it’s important for us to recognized the two are distinct yet connected.
Milli: A feeling of exemption from the rules of discourse is an EXAMPLE of special treatment.
Yes that is an example of how an evil, unwise elitist might function.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Milli, I will continue discussion on the grounds that you admit that you demand to be treated in a particular way. You don’t just let people walk all over you, do you?

You demand to be treated like someone who is not an object to be used for others personal gratification, at your expense.

There are good elitists (philosophers) and there are evil elitists (tyrants).
Cory: You are not exempt from your behavior being accurately identified. If you are demanding that, you are textbook elitist, demanding special treatment.
Yes, like the rest of humanity, and like you, I am elitist.
Cory: Thus, according to the dictionary, and thus according to me - you are an elitist my friend.

Milli: No. Because I am NOT asking for special treatment, something you discovered was part of the definition of elitist.
What if I was to start stalking you? Harrassing you? Breaking into your home?

Would you not demand that I stop?

You demand to be treated in a particular way, just like everyone else.

What parts of this post are illogical?

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:14 am

Cory Patrick wrote:
Cory: Upon examining the meaning carefully I realized that I never gave sufficient contemplation to an essential part of the definition. And thus I contemplated upon the part of the definition which says: “certain persons, groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority”

I then realized that, according to the dictionary, it is impossible to not be an elitist as long as you regard a particular person or group of persons as inferior, which you milli just so happen to do. According to the definition of elitism Milli, you are an elitist.

Milli: No. It's the "deserving of favored treatment" part you're ignoring.
An elitist favors being treated in a particular way, and they dislike being treated in other ways.
Everyone prefers to be treated well. That doesn't mean everyone is an elitist.



Those who appear to be superior are favored by the elitist.
But not everyone plays favorites. Some people may recognize superior qualities, but NOT allow that recognition to affect their treatment of those possessing those superior qualities.


Thus, those who appear to be inferior are not to be treated as favorites.
Some people are nice and may treat people decently, even if they recognize inferior traits in those people. Not everyone is an asshole.

Milli, if someone were to walk up to you and start pushing you and calling you names, would you be indifferent? Or do you favor and even out of a sheer demand use force to achieve the treatment you feel you deserve, or you feel is right?
I would not prefer to be pushed around. That is true. That doesn't make me an elitist.

The key word is ‘favor’. Do you have a favored ways of being treated Milli? Of course you do, you elitist.
Of course. Of prefer not being shat upon. Does that make me an elitist. If that's your assertion, I would contend you're doing crack.

I think if you are honest with yourself, you will realize that you do favor and even demand certain forms of treatment, and thus hate other forms of treatment.
Preferring fair treatment doesn't make one an elitist.

We are all elitists.
No. we're not.

Do you favor a particular sort of person Milli?
Yes. Female. 5'7, Hourglass figure. Stacked.
And do you despise and hurl insults at those who you don’t favor?
I don't despise. Sometimes I hurl insults for fun, but the insult is typically preceeded by a well reasoned argument. Insults are a garnish.
Or is everyone equally your favorite?
Everyone is not equally my favorite.

Being an elitist, according to the dictionary definition, is about believing people should treat you in a way that you believe you deserve,
Not necessarily. It depends on if you afford others the same treatement you expect.


AND, it’s about favoring and giving favorable treatment to those who appear to be superior.
But not everyone does this.

Amusingly, humans behave in an elitist fashion before they begin to walk. They believe they should be treated the way they want, they cry when they don’t get it, and they get excited and happy when they get the treatment they want.

Toddlers also give favored treatment to the things and people that are their favorite, and they neglect, ignore and cry in response to things they don’t favor.

So toddlers are elitists, and they grow up to be adults, some more good, some more evil depending on how much they have been spoiled and traumatized.
Milli: One can be right without being an elitist if they don't demand special treatment, such as an exemption from the rules of logic.
According to the dictionary, being an elitist isn’t about ‘DEMANDING’ special treatment from others, but rather, it’s about believing that one deserves to be treated in a certain way.
Actually, no. Wanting FAIR treatment is not elitist. Again it has to do with symmetricality.

For instance, an evil elitist perhaps prefers that he have servants obey his every whim, and his preference for this form of treatment might coagulate into a DEMAND for obsequious behavior. When that demand is not met he may engage in violence to maintain his preferred way of being treated.

So an evil elitist is a Tyrant. Perhaps you and I should take note of this valuable distinction? On the one hand we have a good elitist, a philosopher, and on the other hand we have the evil elitist, the tyrant.


A good elitist demands that people respect him, he demands that people do not physically and verbally abuse him, etc, etc.
I don't think one is elitist if they merely demand fair treatment, of if they think they're smarter in some way. It's the double standard of "one way I should be treated, and another way others should be treated", that MAKES it elitism. I don't believe in good elitism. Thinking one may be proficient in one area, doesn't it make one elitist in the absence of a double standard of treatment.

If his demands are not met, he perhaps retreats, perhaps uses force, or perhaps calls on others to use force for him.
Let's call the "good elitist" a "normal person who may have exceptionals skills in some area". Seeking FAIR treatment is not a double standard, hence, he is not an elitist.

The good elitist is much lower maintenance, then the evil elitist, the tyrant.
You mean: Normal people are more easy going than elitists.

If you break the words elitist and elitism down to the word elite, you will find that the word elite means: “The best or most skilled members of a group”.
But elite-ISM implies a mode of treatment.

Take race and race-ISM. Race is not "bad", it's a quality everyone has. But race-ISM is a double standard of treatment.

Elitism is also about knowing you are among the most skilled members of a group, and it is about favoring the most skilled members of a group. You may or may not be deluded about who is is the best and who is the worst.
I still insist elite-ISM implies a double standard of treatment, not merely knowledge of superiority.

The tyrant thinks his way is best for him, otherwise he wouldnt be what he is. And his belief that he is superior is perhaps a delusion and only 'relatively' true, rather than absolutely true.

Cory: now realize that the moment you regard a particular person/group as inferior, you inevitably give favored treatment to the person/group you perceive as superior.


Milli: No. That's exactly wrong. You're ignoring the definition you just highlighted. You can feel correct or superior, but if you do not demand specials rules and treatment, your are not an elitist.
Milli, do you care whether or not a drunk bum off the street walks into your home and starts rooting in your fridge and making sexual advances on you? Are you indifferent about how you are treated?

I think if your honest with yourself you will realize that you are an elitist who prefers, if not demands being treated in a certain way.
Not wanting vagrants to invade my home does not make me an elitist. Since I would not invade another's home, there is no double standard, hence, I am STILL not an elitist.



Cory: I said I ‘didn’t know’ if I could continue the discussion unless we both were in agreement of what was logical and what wasn’t.

If we can’t agree, then there is no sense discussing any further. Perhaps we will get over this little bump in the road.

Milli: Exactly. You're threatening to shut down the discussion if I don't agree with you on terms, even though you know exactly what I'm saying.
Does it make sense to spend your energy dealing with someone who doesn’t seem to be being logical?
No, it doesn't which is why I've considered ceasing this discussion with you. You're insane.

My philosophy is, get to know the person you are in relationship with and allow the relationship to progress to the degree that the other individual is behaving logically. If he doesnt seem to be logical, let him know what is confusing you.
I want to know why you need to cling to the concept of "good elitism", when we've already established that feeling one may actually be superior is not elitism absent a double standard of treatment. Meaning, you can feel superior, but you can't be a jerkoff.

I’m sorry to have sounded like I am threatening you to obey me. I am not trying to do that.
Actually, I've head great fun ripping you apart, reducing you to a frantic mass of fevered corpuscle.

That is my way of provoking you to be as logical and stringent as possible.
You're the one being astringent. Put on some lotion.

I appreciate your persistence, and encourage you to stick it out and see where this goes.
I encourage you to continue as well. This is more fun that torturing flies.


Cory: Do you agree with me that your meaning of elitism is far removed from the global consensus?

Milli: No. I do not. The definition is two part.

Believing one is superior or correct and ALSO DEMANDING SPECIAL TREATMENT.
All humans "demand special treatment”.
Some humans, after being properly socialized, only demand the same treatment they would give to others. This is not special treatment, nor are they elitists.


An elitist tyrant demands that his slaves obey his whims, sexual, military or otherwise. He uses violence if his demmands are not met.

An elitist philosopher demands that his peers be logical and cautious. An elitist philosopher will not tolerate the incistence of someone who is trying to have sex with him, or trying to get him to take drugs. An elitist philosopher will not tolerate a man who harasses him and makes no sense.
The philospher is not elitist, however, if he holds himself to the same standard he demands from others.

Your average married male citizen demands that strangers do not wander into his home and try screwing his wife.
That doesn't make him an elitist.

Etc, etc.

You get the deal.

Milli: My contention that elitism is defined by a feeling one no longer has to explain oneself is an EXAMPLE of special treatment.
Yes, you are talking about an evil elitist, a tyrant who feels he can do whatever he wants without explaining to his peers the logic behind his actions.
No. It's just a regular old elitist, since elitism is evil implicitly, as I keep telling you.

You are confusing elitism with tyranny. I think it’s important for us to recognized the two are distinct yet connected.
No. You're irrationally committed to the notion of "good elitism".
Milli: A feeling of exemption from the rules of discourse is an EXAMPLE of special treatment.
Yes that is an example of how an evil, unwise elitist might function.
Yes. And I was talking about you.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Milli, I will continue discussion on the grounds that you admit that you demand to be treated in a particular way. You don’t just let people walk all over you, do you?
That doesn't make me an elitist. That's called normalcy.

You demand to be treated like someone who is not an object to be used for others personal gratification, at your expense.

There are good elitists (philosophers) and there are evil elitists (tyrants).
No. I disagree fully and contend that a double standard of treatment is a DEFINING aspect of elitism.
Cory: You are not exempt from your behavior being accurately identified. If you are demanding that, you are textbook elitist, demanding special treatment.
Yes, like the rest of humanity, and like you, I am elitist.
I mean you're an elitist by MY definition. Elitism is always evil, as it encompasses a double standard of treatment. If you give others the same treatment you expect, you are not an elitist. There are many people like that.
Cory: Thus, according to the dictionary, and thus according to me - you are an elitist my friend.

Milli: No. Because I am NOT asking for special treatment, something you discovered was part of the definition of elitist.
What if I was to start stalking you? Harrassing you? Breaking into your home?

Would you not demand that I stop?
Yes. And that wouldn't make me an elitist.

You demand to be treated in a particular way, just like everyone else.
That's not elitism if give others the same as I expect. Why have the word if it means "everyone"? That Kind of defeats the purpose of having separate words for things.
What parts of this post are illogical?

Nearly the whole thing. See my comments above, as they occur in real time, interspersed through your lunacy.

Post Reply