lantz: "Hey, check this out. All I need is a comment from Amor, and I've got most of the gang here. I shudder to think about how long you guys have been controlling this website, telling each other how smart the other is and inflating each other's intellectual egos..."
Once again, lantz uses his cock as a paintbrush. Finger painting? Not ol' lantz. Guess how he tags a wall (if he ever leaves the dorm)...?
Dude. I'm a total newbie here. Look at my profile. In fact, look at my first post. Read it closely, because in it, you may find that I don't *identify* as any type of anarchist. I *describe* my activity as such, which changes, presumably, unlike yours.
But hey, who says conservatives are the only tin-foil hat conspiracy-theorists? Hey dot, funky, bornagain, lawrence, I'll see y'all down in the secret vault at midnight, k?
lantz: " There isn't even any room in this discussion for anything of that sort... However, I don't agree that my statements are illogical."
For fuck's sake lantz, the forum has been open for you to clarify, to challenge, to even wax poetic, but, instead, you've opted toward deflection and bellyaching. You've made no attempt to engage 'individualism/egoism' at all.
As for 'logic,' for you it's so dispersed as to be found in the songs of birds and the babbling brook, as long as you don't have play by the rules of a particular system. 'Man, my logic isn't so constraining as any logical system, brah. It's just out there. Can you feel it?"
lantz: Here's a quote by Stirner (since apparently nothing I say is ever actually about him) that demonstrates what I'm talking about:... "
You 'argue' like the conservatives I've encountered who take (imprecisely) from Nietzsche's notes, 'there are no facts, only interpretations' and run with it, smugly denouncing N as a 'subjectivist,' a 'nihilist' etc. No matter how precisely I quote the posthumous note, give context by what came before and after in all its black and white glory, they simply don't care, because *their* own interpretations and faith are so much more important than what can be seen by all.
You're just as vain, lantz. You've taken two quotes completely out of context of what came before and after, you have no knowledge of the actual terms Stirner used, no understanding that he (like Nietzsche!) was a philologist, which would obviously have bearing on his writing, as form and content. And to call Stirner a member of the 'upper-class' is once again your total ignorance on parade.
Capitalist, conservatives, 'progressives,' the Inquisition, Nazi's, Leninists, and lantz all share the feature of hearing a line and jumping up and down at the victory of their faith...one way or another. 'Reasoning' like this, I can justify anything:
"All happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -Tolstoy
We need a Ministry of Family who can make certain that all families are 'happy.' If we find they are lacking in our happiness we will re-educate them, utilize psychotropic drugs and whatever else is needed so as not to infect Society with unhappiness.
See? Easy. I don't care that Tolstoy was an anarchist and pacifist. It doesn't matter. It eases the sound of my program on the ears of others. It makes them feel better that I'm in charge.
That's the way you 'argue' here.
All in all, lantz, you don't give a shit about reality, complexity, nuance. It's all about your faith, idealism, your preconceptions born of your very limited experience. As a college kid, it may behoove you to callous your hands a bit before typing such ivory-white garbage among people who probably have far dirtier hands.
Edited for clean-up