'The Ego and His Own' opening paragraph

[Guest]

Even though I've read the entire "The Ego and His Own", to this day I still don't quite understand the opening paragraph. It looks to me like it contains a typo:

What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the Good Cause, then God's cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never to be my concern. "Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!"

If you remove the "not" from the first sentence, the whole paragraph makes perfect sense to me. Stirner is sarcastically saying that the Good Cause, God's cause, the causes of truth, freedom, etc. are supposed to be his concern as a good citizen in society. But finally, though these are all supposed to be his concern, his own cause is never to be his concern, because "shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself."

But if I read the paragraph the way it is written, my interpretation sounds contradictory. He says that all of these things are not to be his concern, but then at the end he says that ONLY his cause is NEVER to be his concern. But he just spent a long sentence saying that all of these other things aren't supposed to be his concern! So how could ONLY his own cause never be his concern when he said that all the preceding things also weren't his concern?!

I hope someone can help me with this. Thanks in advance!

[Aranfan]

To me the typo looks like the first sentence having an exclamation point instead of a question mark. It might just be a translation issue though.

[Guest]

Imagine it's a conversation... Stirner and a pal are doing bong hits in their dorm room... let's join the action...

stirner: (something with global, or at least nonpersonal, perspective)

pal:" Duuuude..I thought you were like and egoist and shit... You're, like, not supposed to be concerned about that shit, cuz, like, none of that shit is of your concern cuz you're like an egoist and shit."

stirner(annoyed): "What is not supposed to be my concern! ...

[hawkins21]

The only way that I would see him not being concerned with all these things is if they are derived from his mind(if he personally cares about them, thus coming from his own egotistical mind) and he did say that his mind is not to be his concern.

But even if you take that route there is a contradiction because one is suppose to worry about truth, freedom, humanity and justice. One should be concerned with those things. But the only way I can understand it is in two ways: He is coming from a first person perspective(in terms of getting into his stream of consciousness) or if he is saying that the established authority is telling him not to be concerned with such things but he seems to be conflicted...that's how I see it.

[Guest]

To me the typo looks like the first sentence having an exclamation point instead of a question mark. It might just be a translation issue though.

No, it's not an issue. Just check the original German:

Was soll nicht alles Meine Sache sein! Vor allem die gute Sache, dann die Sache Gottes, die Sache der Menschheit, der Wahrheit, der Freiheit, der Humanität, der Gerechtigkeit; ferner die Sache Meines Volkes, Meines Fürsten, Meines Vaterlandes; endlich gar die Sache des Geistes und tausend andere Sachen. Nur Meine Sache soll niemals Meine Sache sein. „Pfui über den Egoisten, der nur an sich denkt!“

pal:" Duuuude..I thought you were like and egoist and shit... You're, like, not supposed to be concerned about that shit, cuz, like, none of that shit is of your concern cuz you're like an egoist and shit."

This retarded English is so unbearable for me to read that I'm missing your point. Sorry.

The only way that I would see him not being concerned with all these things is if they are derived from his mind(if he personally cares about them, thus coming from his own egotistical mind) and he did say that his mind is not to be his concern.

Huh?

But even if you take that route there is a contradiction because one is suppose to worry about truth, freedom, humanity and justice. One should be concerned with those things.

What a load of crap. Why should one be concerned with those things? Because GOD says so? Because the STATE says so? Did you even read his book? He spend the entire thing SHOWING that your line of thinking is wrong!

So again, his entire book makes sense except his opening paragraph (to me, at least). I'm hoping that someone who has actually read the book can give some useful comments.

[hawkins21]

To me the typo looks like the first sentence having an exclamation point instead of a question mark. It might just be a translation issue though.

No, it's not an issue. Just check the original German:

Was soll nicht alles Meine Sache sein! Vor allem die gute Sache, dann die Sache Gottes, die Sache der Menschheit, der Wahrheit, der Freiheit, der Humanität, der Gerechtigkeit; ferner die Sache Meines Volkes, Meines Fürsten, Meines Vaterlandes; endlich gar die Sache des Geistes und tausend andere Sachen. Nur Meine Sache soll niemals Meine Sache sein. „Pfui über den Egoisten, der nur an sich denkt!“

pal:" Duuuude..I thought you were like and egoist and shit... You're, like, not supposed to be concerned about that shit, cuz, like, none of that shit is of your concern cuz you're like an egoist and shit."

This retarded English is so unbearable for me to read that I'm missing your point. Sorry.

The only way that I would see him not being concerned with all these things is if they are derived from his mind(if he personally cares about them, thus coming from his own egotistical mind) and he did say that his mind is not to be his concern.

Huh?

But even if you take that route there is a contradiction because one is suppose to worry about truth, freedom, humanity and justice. One should be concerned with those things.

What a load of crap. Why should one be concerned with those things? Because GOD says so? Because the STATE says so? Did you even read his book? He spend the entire thing SHOWING that your line of thinking is wrong!

So again, his entire book makes sense except his opening paragraph (to me, at least). I'm hoping that someone who has actually read the book can give some useful comments.

haha the boldness of the internet nowadays. You are either putting on a major facade due to the simple fact that I cannot see you face to face or you are really just an ass who really knows nothing about trying to seek the truth or holding intellectual conversations if this is indeed really who you are . Anyhow this is besides the point and you more than anyone would know if you are an ass or not but none of that matters.

I do have three "relevant" things to say:

1) Did you see the word GOD anywhere in my response? If you did not then it is obvious that I was not implementing GOD in my response.

2) All because Stirner seems like he is stating that we should not be concerned about the things I mentioned in my other response does not mean that we shouldn't and does not mean that every word he says has truth to it. Even thou he is extremely brilliant. So all because he says we shouldn't doesn't mean that we should..you really misconstrued what I said but that is besides the point I want to make.

3) Why shouldn't we be concerned with truth, freedom, humanity and justice? If you really think we should not be concerned with these things I would really question you morally, intellectuality and even question if you are an anarchist(I suppose you are since you would not be on here). Believe it or not these are the basis of anarchism.

[Guest]

haha the boldness of the internet nowadays. You are either putting on a major facade due to the simple fact that I cannot see you face to face or you are really just an ass who really knows nothing about trying to seek the truth or holding intellectual conversations if this is indeed really who you are .

Or I just enjoy tearing little shits like you a new one when you post retarded nonsense. And there is no seeking "the truth", by the way -- again, if you would actually read Stirner (or Nietzsche!), you wouldn't make these mistakes.

1) Did you see the word GOD anywhere in my response? If you did not then it is obvious that I was not implementing GOD in my response.

2) All because Stirner seems like he is stating that we should not be concerned about the things I mentioned in my other response does not mean that we shouldn't and does not mean that every word he says has truth to it. Even thou he is extremely brilliant. So all because he says we shouldn't doesn't mean that we should..you really misconstrued what I said but that is besides the point I want to make.

3) Why shouldn't we be concerned with truth, freedom, humanity and justice? If you really think we should not be concerned with these things I would really question you morally, intellectuality and even question if you are an anarchist(I suppose you are since you would not be on here). Believe it or not these are the basis of anarchism.

My god, you sound like an old woman. Or worse -- a Christian. The concepts of "truth," "freedom," "humanity," and "justice" are fictions:

1) There is no truth -- only multiple, individual perspectives. Everything is subjective -- you cannot separate thought from the subject and certainly cannot put thoughts into the "mind" of the "object," so objectivity does not exist. Thus, truth -- a form of objectivity -- does not exist.

2) There is no freedom -- only your individual might to do whatever you want. If you are a subhuman, a slave, a democrat, a woman, etc., you will always be enslaved no matter what system of government you live under, but where there is might, there is right (another expression you would learn from Stirner if you'd bother to read his book).

3) There is no humanity -- only individuals. The concept of humanity is a religion -- it's Christianity without Jesus Christ, similar to humanism. It is just a scam to make you feel like you are indebted to those around you (and those no longer living and yet to live) when in fact there is no rational reason for you to care about anyone but yourself (or anything that does not increase your pleasure, so having a significant other can be justified only if doing so does not limit your power). Once you realize how wretched the people around you are, there is no reason to be concerned with "humanity" or "the common good" or any of this nonsense:

One has to get rid of the bad taste of wanting to be in agreement with many. "Good" is no longer good when your neighbour takes it into his mouth. And how could there exist a "common good"! The expression is a self-contradiction: what can be common has ever but little value. In the end it must be as it is and has always been: great things are for the great, abysses for the profound, shudders and delicacies for the refined, and, in sum, all rare things for the rare.

4) There is no justice -- just the weak who, seeking restitution due to their own faults, implore others to help them enact revenge upon whoever dominated them. That is what the slaves call "justice" when in fact, the only real "justice" that exists is the exact opposite -- the strong dominating the weak, a man using his might to gain a right, etc.

Reading some Nietzsche will help you understand all of the above. As a simple rule of thumb, if you take any idea -- justice, equality, fairness, etc. -- and INVERT the meaning that democratic society has attached to it, you will produce the correct interpretation, the only REAL interpretation. Everything else is a fraud.

Finally, I'm not an anarchist. I don't concern myself with politics. I am simply an immoralist and an egoist. My only concerns are my needs and my power. I would never waste my time "fighting" for any "political" cause (see again my notes on humanity). Understand that the Christian ethics you espouse were indoctrinated into you by either a religion or the state, which are essentially the same thing (and why I said GOD and STATE in my first reply) -- only children (they are too young to be concerned with nonsense) and adults like me who have studied philosophy enough understand to what's really going on.

[hawkins21]

haha the boldness of the internet nowadays. You are either putting on a major facade due to the simple fact that I cannot see you face to face or you are really just an ass who really knows nothing about trying to seek the truth or holding intellectual conversations if this is indeed really who you are .

Or I just enjoy tearing little shits like you a new one when you post retarded nonsense. And there is no seeking "the truth", by the way -- again, if you would actually read Stirner (or Nietzsche!), you wouldn't make these mistakes.

1) Did you see the word GOD anywhere in my response? If you did not then it is obvious that I was not implementing GOD in my response.

2) All because Stirner seems like he is stating that we should not be concerned about the things I mentioned in my other response does not mean that we shouldn't and does not mean that every word he says has truth to it. Even thou he is extremely brilliant. So all because he says we shouldn't doesn't mean that we should..you really misconstrued what I said but that is besides the point I want to make.

3) Why shouldn't we be concerned with truth, freedom, humanity and justice? If you really think we should not be concerned with these things I would really question you morally, intellectuality and even question if you are an anarchist(I suppose you are since you would not be on here). Believe it or not these are the basis of anarchism.

My god, you sound like an old woman. Or worse -- a Christian. The concepts of "truth," "freedom," "humanity," and "justice" are fictions:

1) There is no truth -- only multiple, individual perspectives. Everything is subjective -- you cannot separate thought from the subject and certainly cannot put thoughts into the "mind" of the "object," so objectivity does not exist. Thus, truth -- a form of objectivity -- does not exist.

2) There is no freedom -- only your individual might to do whatever you want. If you are a subhuman, a slave, a democrat, a woman, etc., you will always be enslaved no matter what system of government you live under, but where there is might, there is right (another expression you would learn from Stirner if you'd bother to read his book).

3) There is no humanity -- only individuals. The concept of humanity is a religion -- it's Christianity without Jesus Christ, similar to humanism. It is just a scam to make you feel like you are indebted to those around you (and those no longer living and yet to live) when in fact there is no rational reason for you to care about anyone but yourself (or anything that does not increase your pleasure, so having a significant other can be justified only if doing so does not limit your power). Once you realize how wretched the people around you are, there is no reason to be concerned with "humanity" or "the common good" or any of this nonsense:

One has to get rid of the bad taste of wanting to be in agreement with many. "Good" is no longer good when your neighbour takes it into his mouth. And how could there exist a "common good"! The expression is a self-contradiction: what can be common has ever but little value. In the end it must be as it is and has always been: great things are for the great, abysses for the profound, shudders and delicacies for the refined, and, in sum, all rare things for the rare.

4) There is no justice -- just the weak who, seeking restitution due to their own faults, implore others to help them enact revenge upon whoever dominated them. That is what the slaves call "justice" when in fact, the only real "justice" that exists is the exact opposite -- the strong dominating the weak, a man using his might to gain a right, etc.

Reading some Nietzsche will help you understand all of the above. As a simple rule of thumb, if you take any idea -- justice, equality, fairness, etc. -- and INVERT the meaning that democratic society has attached to it, you will produce the correct interpretation, the only REAL interpretation. Everything else is a fraud.

Finally, I'm not an anarchist. I don't concern myself with politics. I am simply an immoralist and an egoist. My only concerns are my needs and my power. I would never waste my time "fighting" for any "political" cause (see again my notes on humanity). Understand that the Christian ethics you espouse were indoctrinated into you by either a religion or the state, which are essentially the same thing (and why I said GOD and STATE in my first reply) -- only children (they are too young to be concerned with nonsense) and adults like me who have studied philosophy enough understand to what's really going on.

haha I am so going to enjoy jerking you around. This is going to be fun. You have to resort to name calling just so you can feel better about yourself. To bad it does not have any affect on me(although if we were in person the tone of your voice would defiantly affect my brain chemistry thus resulting in a change of character but this is beside the point)...I'll go in order if and give a number. These numbers will represent your paragraphs, just so you wont get lost.

1. I've read Nietzsche, I love Nietzsche and I know a lot about Nietzsche. I like how you misconstrued his quote but I'll play around with that later. Anyhow you have no idea of how I am or what I do, so you shouldn't judge anything you do not know. All because someone decides to be creative and take a different and original position on a certain topic, this does not qualify them as a dumbass. Many anarchist and atheist that I talk to have the same problem with me because I tend to focus on the secular humanistic, moral and conscious aspects of these topics, only to be called a non-anarchist or a non-atheist. Anyhow I know myself better than they know me so I really do not care. Hegel once said that creativity is progressive, whereas mores are impediments to progress. The guy who is in contemplation alone is far more better than the guy who follows the customs of society. If I really wanted to I go make three post about why everything you said is completely forlorn but I'll leave it alone for now since you seem to have issues. It is people like you who give Nietzsche a bad name.

2. I am no christian (thank Zeus) and it is people like you who are impediments to progress since you are not concerned with the right things but yourself. This may be bad news for you but your not the only one on this planet so your thoughts matter, your actions matter, the intentions that your formulate towards other people matter. Believe it or not but we are all interconnected(no this is not a christian concept). I can prove this economically, politically, biologically, scientifically if you want me to. I have no problem with that. Its ok though I understand, Nietzsche tends to make people act stupid at first then they realize this is not what he meant.

3. Truth: This one actually made me laugh. I cannot believe I am wasting my time with this one but I'll play around with you first before I decide to be serious. You are right that there are multiple perspectives. You are right that people are subjective. Truth as a form of objectivity does exist. Your logic is completely off. For example, Is it true that they day that JFK got assassinated that birds were flying in the sky? Is it true that the day he got shot that the sun was out? Is it true that JFK had a last thought before he took his last breath? Is it true that people were having the greatest day of their lives the moment JFK was shot? Is it true that when MLK Jr was shot that there was a universal sense of sorrow? Is it true that if I walk into the middle of the freeway that I will get hit by a car? Is it true that moral relativism is forlorn? Is it ture that I am even thinking right now? There are answers to these questions, which will constitute as truth, rather subjective or objective.You really seemed to have confused knowledge and metaphysical truths with opinion. I suggest you take a intro to philosophy course and read up on Plato again. Your notion of truth is also way off. there can be multiple truths (for example think of the game of chess. There is more than one way that one can win). You are right though, not too many people can distinguish objectivity from subjectivity. your statement about not being able to put your mind into the object, although correct does not mean that there is no metaphysical truths out there. I will never be able to know what you are thinking or if you are even thinking at all but that does not take away from the fact that there is truth to these statements. Another example is abortion. I will never know if the fetus is suffering or not(most people think so because blood is involved) but nonetheless there is an answer to this question. All because we do not have the answers; all because we cannot understand what we do not know is not the grounds for saying that truth does not exist. have fun with that because that was just an introduction.

Freedom: I will take this one seriously since I am really intrigued by existentialism. If you knew anything about Nietzsche you would realize that he is an existentialist and I suppose that you do not know much about him based off your statement. If you did then you would not say that freedom does not exist. To say that is to say we have no free-will. what is free about any individual is the "WILL". This is the first thing that allows us to be free. The capacity to think. The capacity to be rational. The capacity to choose the life we want to live. The capacity to transform ourselves. The capacity to realize how profound our moment to moment experiences can be. the capacity to change all future experiences and outcomes. All this is possible because of the WILL, the eternal consciousness that lies within us. You mentioned slave, democrats, women, etc. A women has no control over her gender but this is not a good basis to suggest that she is not free. All because their society locks them up in chains does not mean they are not free. It is more fundamental than that.(I suggest you read up on people like Alice Paul). To be a free individual is a conscious choice that has to be made. yes there are many mitigating factors that plays a role as to why people choose to be stuck as slaves but there is still the choice to leave and be free from the chains of your society(I suggest your read about Nat Turner, although he was unsuccessful he made the conscious decision to not be a product of his society). You would have to account for people like Harriet Tubman, Bayard Rustin, Fredrick Douglass, Nathaniel Bacon and how they were able to escape the chains of their society. You would have to account for the Africans that were part of Terrell Rebellion. To be free is to make a conscious effort to be free. To expand one's mind. To make rational choices. One chooses to be robots of their society. The same goes for democrats. As sad as this may sound to be a slave and to remain as one is a conscious decision. Yes there are external factors at play but if this was not true there would be no accounts of slaves ever escaping. It all starts with consciousness(this is also an introduction, but a serious one since you are really ignorant on the issue).

I'll finish the other two on the next post

[hawkins21]

haha the boldness of the internet nowadays. You are either putting on a major facade due to the simple fact that I cannot see you face to face or you are really just an ass who really knows nothing about trying to seek the truth or holding intellectual conversations if this is indeed really who you are .

Or I just enjoy tearing little shits like you a new one when you post retarded nonsense. And there is no seeking "the truth", by the way -- again, if you would actually read Stirner (or Nietzsche!), you wouldn't make these mistakes.

1) Did you see the word GOD anywhere in my response? If you did not then it is obvious that I was not implementing GOD in my response.

2) All because Stirner seems like he is stating that we should not be concerned about the things I mentioned in my other response does not mean that we shouldn't and does not mean that every word he says has truth to it. Even thou he is extremely brilliant. So all because he says we shouldn't doesn't mean that we should..you really misconstrued what I said but that is besides the point I want to make.

3) Why shouldn't we be concerned with truth, freedom, humanity and justice? If you really think we should not be concerned with these things I would really question you morally, intellectuality and even question if you are an anarchist(I suppose you are since you would not be on here). Believe it or not these are the basis of anarchism.

My god, you sound like an old woman. Or worse -- a Christian. The concepts of "truth," "freedom," "humanity," and "justice" are fictions:

1) There is no truth -- only multiple, individual perspectives. Everything is subjective -- you cannot separate thought from the subject and certainly cannot put thoughts into the "mind" of the "object," so objectivity does not exist. Thus, truth -- a form of objectivity -- does not exist.

2) There is no freedom -- only your individual might to do whatever you want. If you are a subhuman, a slave, a democrat, a woman, etc., you will always be enslaved no matter what system of government you live under, but where there is might, there is right (another expression you would learn from Stirner if you'd bother to read his book).

3) There is no humanity -- only individuals. The concept of humanity is a religion -- it's Christianity without Jesus Christ, similar to humanism. It is just a scam to make you feel like you are indebted to those around you (and those no longer living and yet to live) when in fact there is no rational reason for you to care about anyone but yourself (or anything that does not increase your pleasure, so having a significant other can be justified only if doing so does not limit your power). Once you realize how wretched the people around you are, there is no reason to be concerned with "humanity" or "the common good" or any of this nonsense:

One has to get rid of the bad taste of wanting to be in agreement with many. "Good" is no longer good when your neighbour takes it into his mouth. And how could there exist a "common good"! The expression is a self-contradiction: what can be common has ever but little value. In the end it must be as it is and has always been: great things are for the great, abysses for the profound, shudders and delicacies for the refined, and, in sum, all rare things for the rare.

4) There is no justice -- just the weak who, seeking restitution due to their own faults, implore others to help them enact revenge upon whoever dominated them. That is what the slaves call "justice" when in fact, the only real "justice" that exists is the exact opposite -- the strong dominating the weak, a man using his might to gain a right, etc.

Reading some Nietzsche will help you understand all of the above. As a simple rule of thumb, if you take any idea -- justice, equality, fairness, etc. -- and INVERT the meaning that democratic society has attached to it, you will produce the correct interpretation, the only REAL interpretation. Everything else is a fraud.

Finally, I'm not an anarchist. I don't concern myself with politics. I am simply an immoralist and an egoist. My only concerns are my needs and my power. I would never waste my time "fighting" for any "political" cause (see again my notes on humanity). Understand that the Christian ethics you espouse were indoctrinated into you by either a religion or the state, which are essentially the same thing (and why I said GOD and STATE in my first reply) -- only children (they are too young to be concerned with nonsense) and adults like me who have studied philosophy enough understand to what's really going on.

3. Humanity: Once again your are one forlorn individual and it is people like you that will be impediments to progress. Answer me this though, how can you not be concerned with other individuals? If you really are not concerned about other individuals, if you really believe that people are not concerned about you or have an impact on you then why don't you run every red light that there is? Why do you stop at every stop sign? Why do you slow down when you see a police. Why do you not rob every store? Why are you even bothering to have a conversation on this forum? Better yet how are you not connected with other individuals? I suggest you look up ARGON. It is an air molecule that we breath in. The air that you breath out someone will breath in. ARGON last a very long time. You could indeed be breathing in the same air that Nietzsche breathed out with his last breath. With that being said how are we not interconnected? (If you do not believe Google ARGON. The food that you eat is grown from the ground. The guy that package the bread that you bought grew it from the grow. You are all interconnected. Yes we are all individuals. We can get rid of the terms, humanity, community, society, culture, etc and this does not take away from the fact that we should not be concerned with our fellow man. I will agree with you on this though. We should be concerned for our well-being first before that of any other individual but when our thoughts and actions can have positive or negative ramifications or consequences on our peers around us, that is where we should be concerned for their well-being as well.

Justice: I will let history answer this one for me. You are defiantly on my list of the top ten ignorant individuals that I have ever had a conversation with. History will answer this question for me. But I will say this-------that is not justice.

Democracy is not even a good system. The only thing democracy does, at least on principle, is allow the individual to live the life they want to live(i said in principle). Democracy is responsible for producing and glorifying people like Bristol Palin, Brittney Spears, LeBron James, Lindsy Lohan, Christine O'Donnell, etc. Do not use Democracy to justify your claim. If your read some of Nietzsche you will understand that he would not even want to hold a conversation with you. I suggest you read up about his sister and see how radical she was with his philosophy and how stupid he thought her ideas were. If he were alive would have saw how you misconstrued his philosophy he would die from laughter. Nietzsche was warning humanity about the influences of Christianity and how we should not be products of our society. He was very much concerned about his culture, his society, albeit he was more concerned about the individual will. . I suggest you read Will To Power.

haha this one is the most hilarious. So you are not an anarchist, I should have known by the language you used. Secondly you give a bad name to philosophy. Now to the fun part

I do not espouse christian morality. I look for ways to maximize the well-being of conscious creatures since I realize that we are all interconnected to one another. I usually take my morals from Buddhism but what I have realized is that most cultures and their notions of morality tend to overlap one another. You are an immoralist and egosit. I will say that the latter is correct but you are not an immoralist(please put down the facade). Calling people names is not unethical or immoral or even unlawful. It is just plain retarded. You are an egoist and so am I but I do not misconstrue philosophy, which is what you are doing. You are not an immoralist because you would not be on this computer right now(you'd be in jail). An immoralist is someone like Hitler or God(you have to read his injunctions). I believe that you do not fit into this category. Nietzsche was not an immoralist, otherwise he would not have written Beyond Good and Evil(which I read twice), or Genealogy of Morals.. Really put down the facade and be who you really are and not what you want others to perceive you as(by you doing such a thing and felt the need to prove it means you are worried about how others will see you. You think people will applaud you if you were. Think you were cool and different. Something to stroke your ego.This alone makes you contradict yourself). But once you get back to reality you will realize that people do not care about people like you. You are not creative and will not make progress. No one will follow your philosophy because they realize that the human condition is not about suffering and being miserable.

I suspect your next response will have nothing but cuss words since you feel to need to show how "immoral" and "egotistical" you are. Trust me it is not going to work. Secondly no one cares. Third it does not make you 30% cooler.

Oh by the way, I am not an indoctrinated individual, otherwise I would not be an anarchist. Just thought I'd put that out there for you

[kuro shiro]

back to the original content of the post, ha..
i haven't read the book, but here is my interpretation:

he begins the book like the reader has asked him: "why should anything be of your concern?" or "what is supposed to be" ... something along those lines.

secondly, with the line "Only my cause is never to be my concern", he seems to be joking around a bit, because the following statement "Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!" (which perhaps he himself said, or the quotations suppose that he states someone else has said) contradicts the idea (in an exaggerated manner) of one's cause being f one's own concern!

ha, like "shame on me for i am an egoist because my own cause is of my concern".

hope that helps

[The Barking Snail]

Is this a passive aggressive attempt at education, Guest?

What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the Good Cause, then God's cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never to be my concern. "Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!"

Seems obvious to me what's being said here.

"Moi gods, man, what is not supposed to be my concern, I wonder? Told, I am, by the multitudes, that I have a duty worship their god, to vote for their politician, to pay my taxes, to feed the poor and the homeless, to die for my country, to rescue the beavers from the hydroelectric companies, to spread the gospel of the great bojangles! These things are to be my concerns, they say! Pox! Gods, governments, gimps, geriatrics, and gesticulating gnomes, they say, are my concerns, yet I care not for these things, and shame on me, they say, for thinking only of myself. Are my concerns never to be my own?"

Seems about right, don't ya think? Or did that not make sense, either?

[Guest]

Dude, I answer people in whatever way I want. If that means I want to call you a fuckface while I attempt to pull your head out of your ass, then so be it. I am not posing. There is no "facade." I'm not "trying" to be cool -- I am ALWAYS cool regardless of what others think of me. I am being myself, and how the hell could I be anything else? (You will have trouble answering that question because, as a Christian -- oh, sorry, humanist? -- you believe in free will.)

And I mean, look at this bullshit:

haha I am so going to enjoy jerking you around. This is going to be fun. You have to resort to name calling just so you can feel better about yourself.

but I'll leave it alone for now since you seem to have issues.

It is people like you who give Nietzsche a bad name.

it is people like you who are impediments to progress since you are not concerned with the right things but yourself.

Its ok though I understand, Nietzsche tends to make people act stupid at first then they realize this is not what he meant.

Truth: This one actually made me laugh. I cannot believe I am wasting my time with this one but I'll play around with you first before I decide to be serious.

I suppose that you do not know much about him based off your statement.

but a serious one since you are really ignorant on the issue

Once again your are one forlorn individual and it is people like you that will be impediments to progress.

You are defiantly (edit: I can't even believe I'm wasting my time talking to some fuck who can't even spell) on my list of the top ten ignorant individuals that I have ever had a conversation with.

If your read some of Nietzsche you will understand that he would not even want to hold a conversation with you.

If he were alive would have saw how you misconstrued his philosophy he would die from laughter.

Secondly you give a bad name to philosophy.

But once you get back to reality you will realize that people do not care about people like you. You are not creative and will not make progress. No one will follow your philosophy because they realize that the human condition is not about suffering and being miserable.

I suspect your next response will have nothing but cuss words since you feel to need to show how "immoral" and "egotistical" you are. Trust me it is not going to work. Secondly no one cares. Third it does not make you 30% cooler.

You whine on and on (with your terrible grammar and spelling, to note -- and you expect me or any random internet user to trust your skills with philosophy when you can't even communicate effectively in English?! Seriously, I don't even NEED to address any of your points because they are thoughts of an illiterate!) about how all I do is insult to make my point and to make myself appear cooler (along with many other complete fabrications of my writing, which doesn't surprise me since it's perfectly logical for ANYONE to assume that if you can't even fucking WRITE in English, you probably can't READ it either), but in the process you dump all of the above shit about me. In other words, you do exactly what you're claiming that I did -- you know, the thing I barely did. It's surprising given that all I've done so far (prior to this post) is say that something you said was a load of crap, call you a "little shit", and say that you sounded like a woman or a Christian. I spent the rest of my previous post trying to cure you of your ignorance, but considering all the signals you've given me, it's completely hopeless for you. You were born an Untermensch and you will die an Untermensch.

However, for the benefit of all the internet readers who stumble upon this page and for myself -- because I take great pleasure in showing people how I utterly DOMINATE weaklings like you with just my words! -- I will tear not only you a "new" new one (because I already gave you a "new one" in my last post) but also all of the miserable abortions who are directly related to you. On with your execution:

I've read Nietzsche, I love Nietzsche and I know a lot about Nietzsche.

Except anything about his philosophy.

Anyhow you have no idea of how I am or what I do, so you shouldn't judge anything you do not know.

Weak defense mechanism. "Even though I've spewed paragraphs and paragraphs of vomit for you and everyone else to digest, you shouldn't 'judge' any of it because you don't know me personally." Yeah, way to attempt to protect yourself because you knew I'd come back for your ass. Look dude, after reading all of your shit, I know EXACTLY how you are, and all the astute readers of this page can see it too. We all see you for what you are -- a weak, confused, and illiterate little shit who can't take his education from his superior LIKE A MAN. Your words are on this page for everyone to read, along with my rebuttals -- either continue wallowing in your stupidity in front of everyone or just give up. It's hopeless, dude. I'm so far above you that I can barely see you.

All because someone decides to be creative and take a different and original position on a certain topic, this does not qualify them as a dumbass.

I'd hate to learn your definition of "creative." Probably someone who uses something other than toilet paper to wipe his ass.

Seriously, taking a "different" and "original" position on a topic is something "creative"? How about taking an INTELLIGENT position?

I tend to focus on the secular humanistic, moral and conscious aspects of these topics

Which is, again, proof that you think like a Christian (more on this later). And what the fuck, "conscious aspects"? What are there, "comatose aspects" that you avoid talking about?

The guy who is in contemplation alone is far more better than the guy who follows the customs of society.

Only if he actually has a brain. Thinking on your own just doesn't cut it, dude.

If I really wanted to I go make three post about why everything you said is completely forlorn but I'll leave it alone for now since you seem to have issues. It is people like you who give Nietzsche a bad name.

My ONLY issue right now is you, buddy. Your writing gives me aneurysms. And in order to clear my hands of your shit and my blood vessels of your snot, I'm here to show you just how big of an issue I have with you.

And about Nietzsche and bad names -- just read the rest of my post. You obviously haven't a clue what the man wrote.

2. I am no christian (thank Zeus) and it is people like you who are impediments to progress since you are not concerned with the right things but yourself.

What PROGRESS, moron? What RIGHT THINGS? The PROGRESS of your precious HUMANITY or your precious RIGHTS FOR ALL? I am only concerned with my PROGRESS -- i.e., my natural, INEVITABLE progression, the one thing that is closest to me -- and cannot see ANYTHING else as being right. What is good for me IS the only right thing! Why is it so hard for you to see this?

This may be bad news for you but your not the only one on this planet so your thoughts matter, your actions matter, the intentions that your formulate towards other people matter. Believe it or not but we are all interconnected(no this is not a christian concept). I can prove this economically, politically, biologically, scientifically if you want me to. I have no problem with that. Its ok though I understand, Nietzsche tends to make people act stupid at first then they realize this is not what he meant.

This may be bad news for you, but this concept of "interconnectedness" has been known for THOUSANDS of years (read Heraclitus). Even a quick glance at modern physics will make it obvious to anyone in denial. But of course, though you, the weak subhuman, understand this concept, you STILL manage to take it and draw all of these SLAVISH conclusions from it! I, a man far mightier than you, say that yes, indeed, we are all connected, BUT THIS IN NO WAY OBLIGATES ANYONE TO HELP OTHERS! Because INDEED, YES, my thoughts, actions, intentions matter -- BUT THEY MATTER ONLY TO ME and MY RIGHT, MY PLEASURE, MY POWER, and fuck those who stand in my way!

3. Truth: This one actually made me laugh. I cannot believe I am wasting my time with this one but I'll play around with you first before I decide to be serious. You are right that there are multiple perspectives. You are right that people are subjective. Truth as a form of objectivity does exist.

And your cocky yet retarded response made me laugh even harder. Look kid, I'll try to go slow with this one since it's important, though considering that you claim to have read Nietzsche and never understood EVEN HIM -- the MASTER PHILOSOPHER -- when he explained this to you, my explanation will go right over your head.

By claiming that objective truth exists, you are saying that "somewhere" there exists this gold standard by which everything must abide. It's like the silly "laws of nature" concept, whereby people believe that laws -- i.e., MAN-MADE FICTIONS -- must certainly exist in nature, and that every day in science we come closer to discovering "THE TRUTH" about how nature functions. Except that no matter how many new models physics generates, they are still just that -- MODELS -- and can never irrefutably show how the world works. In order to explain everything about this world, one must STEP OUTSIDE OF IT and look in, which is clearly a contradiction -- for smart people like me, that is, but not for religious people like you, who believe that there exists "something beyond" this realm or whatever retarded shit you hallucinate while you are on drugs.

Similarly, for "absolute truth" to exist, you need to point to something transcendental, something that can't be explained within this world -- like all fictions, really. And you know what "transcendental concepts" are, right? -- yeah, they are NONSENSE. For example, all religious babble is transcendental -- because it points to "something beyond" -- and is thus impossible for us to talk about because it's something "outside" of this world (whatever that means -- it's not even something we can discuss!). So "absolute truth" -- something "beyond," something "intangible," something we can never point to, something that we can't even FUCKING TALK ABOUT because it's so nonsensical -- is only something that religious people believe in (for obvious reasons -- if you believe in a god or science or whatever the fuck religious people worship, you probably throw "truth" and "universals" and whatever other Platonic democratic fixed moral systems in there just for shits). Just read some fucking Wittgenstein and be done with it already.

Next, moving on from this transcendental babble, absolute truth breaks down in another manner. We agree that the world contains many "people" and thus many perspectives since each person, whether dead, alive now, or yet to be born, had/has/will have a COMPLETELY UNIQUE perspective that, from their end, appears completely valid. For example, take someone who is colorblind and sees green as brown. I mean, you can explain the color green to them all you want, but who are you to say that they are "wrong" for saying that it's brown? How do YOU even know that your perception of colors is correct? What if there exists a small set of people who actually perceive colors in finer shade than everyone else (hint: they do exist) and thus what you call "green" is actually light green, lighter green, turquoise, dark green, darker green, etc., but you cannot tell the difference? And what about all other creatures who see the colors in a different (wrong? correct?) way? Seriously, WHAT IS THE TRUTH OF THIS CONUNDRUM? But that's the problem -- there is no truth here. Nothing is "green", and even people who agree that something is "green" are just mapping a term from language onto something that they see in the real world, which naturally ALWAYS involves a loss of information. Try telling someone that you are sad and see how they react -- the feelings that they invoke in their brain when they hear "sad" are FAR DIFFERENT than what you or anyone else invokes.

So, to summarize, since "absolute truth" crap can't exist, if we want to construct a "weaker" version of it, for every possible opinion, we would have to get ALL INDIVIDUALS to agree! -- then maybe we can call it truth! And what a stupid task that would be! So instead of thinking in these binary false/true terms, you must think in terms of less correct/more correct (which translates to less powerful/more powerful -- see Nietzsche). So for example, someone with poor vision might report to you that they see "a person" down at the end of the street, but another person with better vision will say that they see a short, bald man with glasses wearing a red shirt and blue jeans, and someone with even better vision will also add that he is wearing Nike shoes, etc. This is the only way to talk about "truth": in terms of degree. Read some of Heraclitus' fragments or just bother to read Nietzsche (actually read him this time, not Wikipedia) where he says the same shit.

And I mean, look at your fucking bullshit:

Your logic is completely off. For example, Is it true that they day that JFK got assassinated that birds were flying in the sky? Is it true that the day he got shot that the sun was out? Is it true that JFK had a last thought before he took his last breath? Is it true that people were having the greatest day of their lives the moment JFK was shot?

I wasn't alive then, so as far as I'm concerned, none of it really happened! And try asking all of the people who also weren't alive or who lived in parts of the world where they weren't forcefed boring news from the West. All you are giving me are "strong opinions" for what happened, but even what you say can be picked apart. For example, the one about the sun "being out." I mean, fuck, at ANY TIME OF DAY the sun is "fucking out" somewhere in the world, so what exactly do you mean by being "out"?

And then you throw this gay shit at me:

Is it true that when MLK Jr was shot that there was a universal sense of sorrow?

LOL. Because I can't think of anything more fitting to say to this slavishness except LOL. This is the kind of shit I would expect from A WOMAN -- and I thought my opinion of you couldn't get any lower.

But I will add some addenda: first of all, MLK was a hack (and had to plagiarize in order to obtain his doctorate) and unliked by many people, so NO FUCKING SHIT, there wasn't a "universal sense of sorrow." What about the MILLIONS (BILLIONS?) of people alive at the time who had never even heard of him? -- let alone all of those who did know him but were not FUCKING BABIES and thus DID NOT GIVE A SHIT when he was killed! "Universal sense of sorrow" my ass -- there will never be a universal ANYTHING as long as Hyperboreans like me exist. But of course, as long as women, cripples, and other nihilists like you exist, the free spirits like me will continue to sweat our existence as we share living space with all of you lower life forms. But despite all of the bullshit, it still is really entertaining.

Is it ture that I am even thinking right now?

LOL, APPARENTLY NOT, because you can't fucking spell or think or philosophize or even do anything requiring SOME intelligence except type -- POORLY, AT THAT -- complete nonsense with your keyboard.

And then your philosophy recommendations blow ass:

I suggest you take a intro to philosophy course and read up on Plato again.

Plato, yeah, MAYBE IF I WAS STILL A CHILD WHO LIKED TO READ FLOWERY BOOKS WITH NO REAL SUBSTANCE. Or I guess that doesn't make sense to you because you haven't read Nietzsche and thus have no clue that he is an ANTI-PLATONIST and would have nothing to do with Plato or his contemptible ideas -- and contemptible they are for throwing philosophy off course for 2500 fucking years!

Freedom: I will take this one seriously since I am really intrigued by existentialism. If you knew anything about Nietzsche you would realize that he is an existentialist

STUPID! So since you can't UNDERSTAND a philosopher, to help your SIMPLE brain understand his COMPLICATED ideas, you just throw him into some RETARDED category and call it a day. The whole "existentialism" bullshit came after Nietzsche -- a bunch of cowardly faggots who completely misunderstood Nietzsche and created boring, irrelevant "philosophy" as a result. What an INSULT to Nietzsche for you to categorize him with these fucks! And you say that I give him a bad name?!

and I suppose that you do not know much about him based off your statement. If you did then you would not say that freedom does not exist. To say that is to say we have no free-will. what is free about any individual is the "WILL".

YEAH, and I WOULD SAY THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN FUCKING READ THE MAN -- if you did, you wouldn't even DARE mention this bullshit about freedom and having "free will" and all this other CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT.

This is the first thing that allows us to be free. The capacity to think.

YEAH, THE CAPACITY TO THINK THE THOUGHTS PRE-PROGRAMMED FOR YOU.

The capacity to be rational.

YEAH, USING THE RATIONALITY THAT YOU WERE BORN WITH.

The capacity to choose the life we want to live.

YEAH, TO "CHOOSE" THE ONLY LIFE THAT YOU CAN LIVE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES.

The capacity to transform ourselves.

AS IF THIS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH FREE WILL AND IS NOT A DRUG-INDUCED HALLUCINATORY STATEMENT.

The capacity to realize how profound our moment to moment experiences can be.

DITTO.

the capacity to change all future experiences and outcomes.

LOL, YEAH, MY ASS. So we have the ability to change ALL future experiences? So you and I and everyone else has the power to "change the future"? Great thinking there, buddy! You never were great with philosophy, were you?

All this is possible because of the WILL, the eternal consciousness that lies within us.

Yeah, because even though I will someday be dead, a "consciousness" will lie "eternally within me." Can you at least FOR ONCE lay off the fucking drugs?

You mentioned slave, democrats, women, etc. A women has no control over her gender but this is not a good basis to suggest that she is not free. All because their society locks them up in chains does not mean they are not free.

Or perhaps they aren't free because, REGARDLESS of what society does to them, they CONTINUE to be weak and show no signs of gaining ANY POWER on their own. Look at the so-called "women's rights" (LOL) groups around the world. All of the "power" that they have gained was CEDED to them by the MEN IN POWER, and even with all of this "GREAT, USEFUL, FREE HELP," women still have done NOTHING with it. I'm still waiting for a woman to write something worthwhile in philosophy (HINT: I am NOT holding my breath).

Free will blah blah we are free blah blah black people etc.

GREAT, I'll explain this to you too, since you seem to enjoy taking Nietzsche's ideas and interpreting them IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE manner than what he intended!

So when you are born -- actually, while you develop -- you inherit characteristics and traits and fuck knows what else from your parents. Now imagine how you act in response to every stimulus, including the "first" one -- you take all of the information in your mind, all of your opinions, your biases, your inherited traits, etc., and from these you "decide" how to act -- but there IS ONLY one decision! Think of any action you have ever taken in your life. Take yourself back to the time when you took it, and freeze that frame. Inspect your mind, your past, all of the decisions that you made leading up to that moment, and you will see a clear "line" from the beginning of your life up until that moment -- in other words, given everything that came before that moment, there indeed IS ONLY ONE WAY YOU WILL ACT. This is true for EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD -- not just living creatures! -- but as I have stated above about physics, we will never be able to determine the "underlying" model to it all, or else we would be able to predict what people are going to do -- which is ridiculous because, after being shown your "personal roadmap," you could just do the opposite!

BUT OF COURSE, since we can't find a model, people like you thus conclude that OH OF COURSE, WE MUST HAVE FREE WILL THEN, when in fact THINGS ARE MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, but of course it takes a REAL MAN -- a PHILOSOPHER -- to explain all of this shit.

But just ask those fucking scientists and they will probably tell you some other nonsense.

3. Humanity: Once again your are one forlorn individual and it is people like you that will be impediments to progress.

Yeah, WHAT PROGRESS? Have you and a group of assholes now decided upon the "progress" of "HUMANITY"? If so, I am HONORED to be an impediment to your bullshit!

Answer me this though, how can you not be concerned with other individuals? If you really are not concerned about other individuals, if you really believe that people are not concerned about you or have an impact on you then why don't you run every red light that there is? Why do you stop at every stop sign? Why do you slow down when you see a police. Why do you not rob every store? Why are you even bothering to have a conversation on this forum? Better yet how are you not connected with other individuals?

THINK, HAWKINS, THINK! It's not that hard! (for me, at least!) So why don't I run red lights/stop signs all the time or "slow down when [I] see a police" (LOL) or rob every store? Simply because, in my OWN INTERESTS, that is, in my course of THINKING ABOUT MYSELF AT ALL TIMES, I realize that driving through these intersections isn't worth the risk of me getting side-slammed by another car and causing me injury or death, and I will only rob a store at the right opportunity. I mean SHIT HAWKINS. Aren't you supposed to be an "ANARCHIST"? One of the naive and very poor arguments against anarchism is that EVERYONE will start committing crimes at EVERY opportunity, which is the same claim you're making against me just because I said I am an egoist! Jesus Christ, man!

And I'm having a conversation on this forum because I AM ENJOYING MYSELF. Tearing you down is GREAT EXERCISE.

Blah blah blah some shit about ARGON blah blah

Since we're all connected, why don't you stop being a hypocrite and help EVERYONE in the world, including cannibals in South America and Africa, all murderers and rapists, and suicide bombers? Not that I have anything against these people -- they're an essential part of this world like everyone else -- but considering how NON-NIETZSCHEAN your moral system is, I'm sure that you find these types of people objectionable. So I laugh at your stupid logic and the logic of all humanists, for that matter.

Justice: I will let history answer this one for me. You are defiantly on my list of the top ten ignorant individuals that I have ever had a conversation with. History will answer this question for me. But I will say this-------that is not justice.

And you are "DEFIANTLY" on the TOP OF MY LIST of people WHOSE SKULLS I WANT TO SMASH. Dude, "justice" in the United States (and basically all western countries) is exactly how I described it (AND HOW NIETZSCHE DESCRIBES IT TO THOSE WHO PAY ATTENTION): someone weak is "wronged" (i.e., they had no RIGHT at the time because they lacked MIGHT -- see Stirner) by someone with MIGHT -- i.e., RIGHT -- and thus turns to the STATE to "RIGHT THE WRONG" (LOL) when in FACT NO "WRONG" WAS COMMITTED HERE -- there is actually nothing MORE UNJUST than this! READ SOME FUCKING NIETZSCHE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

Democracy is not even a good system...Do not use Democracy to justify your claim

WHEN THE FUCK DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT DEMOCRACY? HAVE ANY OTHER BULLSHIT YOU WANT TO PUT INTO MY MOUTH? You know, it's SHIT LIKE THIS that reminds me why I can't hold conversations with ILLITERATES. I keep pointing out all of these stupid retardations and poor reading comprehension on your part, and ALL OF YOUR DUMB ARGUMENTS JUST FALL APART, IN FRONT OF EVERYONE READING THESE POSTS.

So if nothing else, thanks for making my job a lot easier!

I look for ways to maximize the well-being of conscious creatures since I realize that we are all interconnected to one another.

LOL, YEAH, so you maximize the well-being of bacteria, viruses, flies, maggots, rats, mice, cats, dogs, elephants, rapists, murderers, and best of all, even me! Thank you! I am very appreciative of all of your HARD WORK!

You are not an immoralist because you would not be on this computer right now(you'd be in jail).

Again with the bullshit. Yeah, because an immoralist is too stupid to figure out how to work around the system!

Nietzsche was not an immoralist

YEAH, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SAY THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN HIS WRITINGS. So when the fuck ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE UP THE FACADE OF KNOWING PHILOSOPHY?

You are not creative and will not make progress. No one will follow your philosophy because they realize that the human condition is not about suffering and being miserable.

I'm plenty creative, thanks. And yeah, haha, maybe not any of your RETARDED progress -- because, again, I am not RETARDED -- but I make plenty of progress for myself every day, simply by being alive! Again, more shit that you will never understand.

AND THANKS FOR MORE BULLSHIT, BECAUSE OF COURSE THIS WHOLE TIME I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT BEING MISERABLE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT NIETZSCHE AND I ARE SOME OF THE MOST OPTIMISTIC PEOPLE WHO HAVE EVER LIVED. Dude, YOU ARE BEYOND HOPELESS.

So while you are wasting your time concerning yourself with "the human condition" or whatever retarded shit, I am LOLLING at you and all of your stupid kind and living a GREAT LIFE. So yeah -- you wanna wallow in shit, fine, but please keep the flies to yourself!

[The Barking Snail]

Someone's hit rewind on Good Will Hunting one too many times.

[Gad]

If you leave 'not' in the first sentence it is written as an expression of exasperation, which is elaborated upon by a list in the subsequent sentence. Each of the listed is purported to reference the object of concern of different philosophical doctrines ranging from the political to the metaphysical which in each case neglect the one to whom they are nevertheless addressed. The final sentence is Stirner imputing to 19c civil society and those who espouse such doctrines the response he imagines they might give to one who has the presumption to make himself the primary concern before all else.

Had you grown bored or was it that they had tired of you on Libcom & Anarchist Blackcat?

[hawkins21]

Exactly!!!!! I already proved my point without even trying. The funny thing is is that your trying to embarrass me. You mentioned for your own benefit and for those who read this post they are going to watch you tear me a new one. The funny thing is no one has agreed with you, tried tearing me a new one or even applauded you for your efforts. Quite frankly they do not really care what you (and even perhaps me as well) have to say. And if you were not putting on a facade then why are you trying so hard to fit the profile of an immoralist or an egoist? You feel the need to prove this(that I find very funny and interesting). I wasn't going to waste my time at first but then I realized that I'd tear you a new one..My responses will be in the same format as yours and I'll cut out all irrelevant material since most of it is pretty much forlorn and worthless. Lets proceed shall we

Dude, I answer people in whatever way I want. If that means I want to call you a fuckface while I attempt to pull your head out of your ass, then so be it. I am not posing. There is no "facade." I'm not "trying" to be cool -- I am ALWAYS cool regardless of what others think of me. I am being myself, and how the hell could I be anything else? (You will have trouble answering that question because, as a Christian -- oh, sorry, humanist? -- you believe in free will.)

this has nothing to do with anything....So I'll cut out all my bullshit

However, for the benefit of all the internet readers who stumble upon this page and for myself -- because I take great pleasure in showing people how I utterly DOMINATE weaklings like you with just my words! -- I will tear not only you a "new" new one (because I already gave you a "new one" in my last post) but also all of the miserable abortions who are directly related to you. On with your execution:

I'll be awaiting my execution, so far though it has yet to come and how screwed up you logic is I doubt if it will come from you..

I've read Nietzsche, I love Nietzsche and I know a lot about Nietzsche.

Except anything about his philosophy.

yes of course, how could I not know anything about Nietzsche. I ordered and bought his books only to not read them. Hey at least Walter Kaufman's family is making money off of my purchases..How horrible of me.....Oh man I guess my independent study of Nietzsche was just a waste of my time, wow I can't believe how I got that A...Wow Nietzsche notion of Aesthetics being the only means of value in this world, I cannot believe that I did not understand that. Man Nietzsche notion of Eternal Recurrence has not made me reevaluate my thoughts and decisions. I take it as if I happen to come back to live my life I will just be miserable. Oh how Nihilistic am I...There is no value in the world due to false christian doctrine. Wow I take that that since I am not an egoist like you I will be forever doomed by this conception of slave morality? I will resist change therefore being an impediment to my own progress, I cannot believe that I ever did let this happen. I guess I can always blame democracy and Christabel for promoting this notion of slave morality. I should always remember that man is not our ideal....thank you Nietzsche for allowing me to not know anything about you. I owe you one pal.....darn me......do you want me to stop now or keep on going? I think I'll stop, I proved my point..oh by the way you are nowhere near the Ubermensch...just thought I'd let you know..shall we proceed.

Anyhow you have no idea of how I am or what I do, so you shouldn't judge anything you do not know.

Weak defense mechanism. "Even though I've spewed paragraphs and paragraphs of vomit for you and everyone else to digest, you shouldn't 'judge' any of it because you don't know me personally." Yeah, way to attempt to protect yourself because you knew I'd come back for your ass. Look dude, after reading all of your shit, I know EXACTLY how you are, and all the astute readers of this page can see it too. We all see you for what you are -- a weak, confused, and illiterate little shit who can't take his education from his superior LIKE A MAN. Your words are on this page for everyone to read, along with my rebuttals -- either continue wallowing in your stupidity in front of everyone or just give up. It's hopeless, dude. I'm so far above you that I can barely see you.

haha you have no idea of who I am..For all you know I could be playing devils advocate. For all you know I could be an evil genius having fun with you. For all you know you could be talking to a serial killer who also happens to have friends who are hackers and will soon find you based off the computer that you logged in on....you said it yourself, objectivity as truth does not exist. what happened to that. If that is true then there is no way that you can figure out who I am, no matter how hard you've tried....I take it as that does not apply at this moment? This situation is an exception to that rule? oh well I thought you'd give a better response than that...oh by the way I'm still jerking you around. I'm actually enjoying this, you actually think you are doing something by ATTEMPTING to make me look bad, hilarious

All because someone decides to be creative and take a different and original position on a certain topic, this does not qualify them as a dumbass.

I'd hate to learn your definition of "creative." Probably someone who uses something other than toilet paper to wipe his ass.

Seriously, taking a "different" and "original" position on a topic is something "creative"? How about taking an INTELLIGENT position?

This I do agree with you, I actually do not remember saying that and it obviously has nothing to do with the topic so good job. About time.

I tend to focus on the secular humanistic, moral and conscious aspects of these topics

Which is, again, proof that you think like a Christian (more on this later). And what the fuck, "conscious aspects"? What are there, "comatose aspects" that you avoid talking about?

Buddhist care about humanity as well does that mean I think like a Buddhist? (if you doubt this try looking up the joke with the Buddhist, atheist, and christian, it might make you cry knowing that Christians or secularist are not the only ones who cares about humanity).. Gosh, this is too easy....

The guy who is in contemplation alone is far more better than the guy who follows the customs of society.

Only if he actually has a brain. Thinking on your own just doesn't cut it, dude.

having a brain does not mean anything and proves nothing. What if the guy is an egoist who is concerned only for himself, does that cut it? oh wait is your second sentence implying that one needs humanity? wow, there is still hope for you, time to turn things up a notch now!!!!

2. I am no christian (thank Zeus) and it is people like you who are impediments to progress since you are not concerned with the right things but yourself.

What PROGRESS, moron? What RIGHT THINGS? The PROGRESS of your precious HUMANITY or your precious RIGHTS FOR ALL? I am only concerned with my PROGRESS -- i.e., my natural, INEVITABLE progression, the one thing that is closest to me -- and cannot see ANYTHING else as being right. What is good for me IS the only right thing! Why is it so hard for you to see this?

I see it all right and your progress is dependent on someone else. (think about that for a moment and if you if you still fail to realize this on your next response I'll hold your hand and explain it to you but I'm sure a so called intelligent person like yourself is will figure it out).

This may be bad news for you but your not the only one on this planet so your thoughts matter, your actions matter, the intentions that your formulate towards other people matter. Believe it or not but we are all interconnected(no this is not a christian concept). I can prove this economically, politically, biologically, scientifically if you want me to. I have no problem with that. Its ok though I understand, Nietzsche tends to make people act stupid at first then they realize this is not what he meant.

This may be bad news for you, but this concept of "interconnectedness" has been known for THOUSANDS of years (read Heraclitus). Even a quick glance at modern physics will make it obvious to anyone in denial. But of course, though you, the weak subhuman, understand this concept, you STILL manage to take it and draw all of these SLAVISH conclusions from it! I, a man far mightier than you, say that yes, indeed, we are all connected, BUT THIS IN NO WAY OBLIGATES ANYONE TO HELP OTHERS! Because INDEED, YES, my thoughts, actions, intentions matter -- BUT THEY MATTER ONLY TO ME and MY RIGHT, MY PLEASURE, MY POWER, and fuck those who stand in my way!

your telling me something that I already know so your point is? Also this notion of interconnectedness proceeds Heraclitus. And yes this does make you obligated to other people. The fact that our actions have consequences (good or bad) indeed makes us obligated towards others. And your thoughts should matter to you (I would hope so) otherwise you would not be living your life. But remember what I said only ACTIONS can bring consequences(thoughts can as well but since one is capable of separating one's thoughts from their actions makes thoughts somewhat irrelevant).

By claiming that objective truth exists, you are saying that "somewhere" there exists this gold standard by which everything must abide. It's like the silly "laws of nature" concept, whereby people believe that laws -- i.e., MAN-MADE FICTIONS -- must certainly exist in nature, and that every day in science we come closer to discovering "THE TRUTH" about how nature functions. Except that no matter how many new models physics generates, they are still just that -- MODELS -- and can never irrefutably show how the world works. In order to explain everything about this world, one must STEP OUTSIDE OF IT and look in, which is clearly a contradiction -- for smart people like me, that is, but not for religious people like you, who believe that there exists "something beyond" this realm or whatever retarded shit you hallucinate while you are on drugs.

Whew, I'm glad we are over the boring stuff now, time to turn it up just one more notch.Funny response and now mark your ammo. I'll bring things closer to home since you have a hard time understanding my point (which my 12 yr old nephew understood without my explanation). If you've meditated you'd understand that there is something beyond the vicissitudes of human experience(you'd understand that life is more than just searching for happiness and sorry joy and wonder, pleasure and pain). For me whats beyond is not some distant Utopian land but consciousness, the one element that is aware of itself and this is capable of being known from a third person perspective but only smart people like me will understand that. I'm not going to waste my time proving if I'm religious or not, you are certainly free to think what you want. Also there are metaphysical truths to the world. Science, philosophy, history, physics, etc are not going to find every single answer to every single metaphysical question but answers have been found and some will never be found due to human limitations....but this does not take away from the fact that there are TRUTHS.....Despite how many times the Dahli Lama meditates or the top scientific keeps formulating theories or the greatest philosopher in history philosophize, Pandora's Box will never be opened but this should not be the bases of trying to understand what we can and search for new answers. Only religious people or some nut head will come to conclusions about metaphysics and admit that there is no other alternative, something I oppose greatly of. so to be honest we are much closer on this than one realizes. the difference is is that your the nut head and I am not.

Similarly, for "absolute truth" to exist, you need to point to something transcendental, something that can't be explained within this world -- like all fictions, really. And you know what "transcendental concepts" are, right? -- yeah, they are NONSENSE. For example, all religious babble is transcendental -- because it points to "something beyond" -- and is thus impossible for us to talk about because it's something "outside" of this world (whatever that means -- it's not even something we can discuss!). So "absolute truth" -- something "beyond," something "intangible," something we can never point to, something that we can't even FUCKING TALK ABOUT because it's so nonsensical -- is only something that religious people believe in (for obvious reasons -- if you believe in a god or science or whatever the fuck religious people worship, you probably throw "truth" and "universals" and whatever other Platonic democratic fixed moral systems in there just for shits). Just read some fucking Wittgenstein and be done with it already.

Dude I love Wittgenstein's notion of devotion and timelessness(oh wait I'm supposed to play the dumb ass role, whoops!)...It would have been better if you would have quoted what I said but I think I know what you are talking about. Ok I'll bring the questions closer to home. Is there answer to this: Given the right manipulation is it possible for every cell on the human body to be a potential human being? Or try this one. Is Edwards Bernays concept of Manufactured Consent based upon an understanding of how the human mind/consciousness/psychology, neurobiology, psycho-physiology, etc? or since they brain of a fly consist of about 100,000 neurons (approx) are we, as humans causing more suffering to a fly than we are to a two day old human embryo? (if you respond you'll understand my point on my next response)..there are answers to these questions thus constituting as truth. These are all scientific as well so you cannot blame transcendentalism for this one. Also the point to my last post was to prove two things,one that you already mentioned and another that you had no idea about: the first being that we cannot know the answers to every question and the second being that despite our ignorance on certain things, there are answers to those questions, even the one's we will never know.

Next, moving on from this transcendental babble, absolute truth breaks down in another manner. We agree that the world contains many "people" and thus many perspectives since each person, whether dead, alive now, or yet to be born, had/has/will have a COMPLETELY UNIQUE perspective that, from their end, appears completely valid. For example, take someone who is colorblind and sees green as brown. I mean, you can explain the color green to them all you want, but who are you to say that they are "wrong" for saying that it's brown? How do YOU even know that your perception of colors is correct? What if there exists a small set of people who actually perceive colors in finer shade than everyone else (hint: they do exist) and thus what you call "green" is actually light green, lighter green, turquoise, dark green, darker green, etc., but you cannot tell the difference? And what about all other creatures who see the colors in a different (wrong? correct?) way? Seriously, WHAT IS THE TRUTH OF THIS CONUNDRUM? But that's the problem -- there is no truth here. Nothing is "green", and even people who agree that something is "green" are just mapping a term from language onto something that they see in the real world, which naturally ALWAYS involves a loss of information. Try telling someone that you are sad and see how they react -- the feelings that they invoke in their brain when they hear "sad" are FAR DIFFERENT than what you or anyone else invokes.

Very good, concise, straight to the point and wrong(not completely). First off it has already been proven why people are colored blind(blame the rods, cones and genes for not producing the right Trichromacy)...Also weak argument. If the general population is sees brown (w/o being diagnosed with color blindness) and a few people see green (due to color blindness) then there is no way that the color blind persons perception of the object (in terms of light stimuli) is correct, especially when it is reduced to science. Now it is true that everyone's perception of the world is different and this is more on a conscious level, this is to suggest that some people are right and righter and some people are wrong and wronger about there subjective perceptions and this seems to be something you fail to see. For example the question you asked on this post. My perception of it was completely different than yours and Bob's perception is perhaps different than both of ours. But this does not make us equally correct or equally wrong. There is an answer to the question that you asked and the fact that I am free to put in my own interpretation due to my perception of how i saw the question does not make me correct at all. The same goes for you and anyone else who responded to it. But some people would be more correct than others and others will be more incorrect than others. This is exactly what moral relativism advocates as well and I find it completely forlorn and justifiable for unjust actions.... So as far as the color blind individual who sees the world as Grey instead of yellow does not make him correct at all, he just sees the world from a different perspective. Animals hear things that we do not hear but that does not mean that any of us are wrong when it comes to metaphysics, its just a different understanding of the world.

So, to summarize, since "absolute truth" crap can't exist, if we want to construct a "weaker" version of it, for every possible opinion, we would have to get ALL INDIVIDUALS to agree! -- then maybe we can call it truth! And what a stupid task that would be! So instead of thinking in these binary false/true terms, you must think in terms of less correct/more correct (which translates to less powerful/more powerful -- see Nietzsche). So for example, someone with poor vision might report to you that they see "a person" down at the end of the street, but another person with better vision will say that they see a short, bald man with glasses wearing a red shirt and blue jeans, and someone with even better vision will also add that he is wearing Nike shoes, etc. This is the only way to talk about "truth": in terms of degree. Read some of Heraclitus' fragments or just bother to read Nietzsche (actually read him this time, not Wikipedia) where he says the same shit.

I already mentioned this before I even read it so nice try you ALMOST beat me to the idea....

And I mean, look at your fucking bullshit:

Your logic is completely off. For example, Is it true that they day that JFK got assassinated that birds were flying in the sky? Is it true that the day he got shot that the sun was out? Is it true that JFK had a last thought before he took his last breath? Is it true that people were having the greatest day of their lives the moment JFK was shot?

I wasn't alive then, so as far as I'm concerned, none of it really happened! And try asking all of the people who also weren't alive or who lived in parts of the world where they weren't forcefed boring news from the West. All you are giving me are "strong opinions" for what happened, but even what you say can be picked apart. For example, the one about the sun "being out." I mean, fuck, at ANY TIME OF DAY the sun is "fucking out" somewhere in the world, so what exactly do you mean by being "out"?

But this does not take away from the fact that there are answers to these questions and that's my point. The questions were not meant to be answered and the fact that they cannot be answered does not take away from the truth of the claims(whatever they may be). That's the point I wanted to make. It would not have mattered if you were born then or not. But there are answers to these questions despite our ignorance...and also to jerk you around since since I already had anticipated the answer you were going to give. Instead of admitting that you had no clue you still provided and excuse as to why you could not answer these questions and then tried to insult me. The funny thing is, is that if you would have read what I had wrote in the first place you would have realized that I mentioned that there are answers to these questions.

I suggest you take a intro to philosophy course and read up on Plato again.

Plato, yeah, MAYBE IF I WAS STILL A CHILD WHO LIKED TO READ FLOWERY BOOKS WITH NO REAL SUBSTANCE. Or I guess that doesn't make sense to you because you haven't read Nietzsche and thus have no clue that he is an ANTI-PLATONIST and would have nothing to do with Plato or his contemptible ideas -- and contemptible they are for throwing philosophy off course for 2500 fucking years!

If you know anything about Nietzsche you would have realized that he admired the Greeks and read much about them, especially Plato.........you really have no Idea how influential Plato is on philosophy and the world in general, despite the fact that most of what they say now can be refuted.

and I suppose that you do not know much about him based off your statement. If you did then you would not say that freedom does not exist. To say that is to say we have no free-will. what is free about any individual is the "WILL".

YEAH, and I WOULD SAY THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN FUCKING READ THE MAN -- if you did, you wouldn't even DARE mention this bullshit about freedom and having "free will" and all this other CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT.

That is funny because Sartre, who was highly influenced by Nietzsche, would say the exact same thing..The essence of existentialism is the fact that we are capable of creating our own lives, developing our own values, we are FREE to do whatever we want.....I take it as Sartre is wrong as well.

YEAH, TO "CHOOSE" THE ONLY LIFE THAT YOU CAN LIVE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES.

your other responses were lame but this one caught my eye, what do you mean by this? (just to make sure we are on the same page since you failed to support what you had to same)

The capacity to realize how profound our moment to moment experiences can be.

DITTO.

this is funny as well, Nietzsche's eternal recurrence advocates paying attention to one's moment to moment experience...

the capacity to change all future experiences and outcomes.

LOL, YEAH, MY ASS. So we have the ability to change ALL future experiences? So you and I and everyone else has the power to "change the future"? Great thinking there, buddy! You never were great with philosophy, were you?

and yes we can. Our actions now will effect all future outcomes. If we actually pay attention to the flow of experience we can. But despite how rational one is we can change the outcomes of our future experiences. this is so simple that I will not wast my time providing an example. As far as I know I've gotten A's and 1 B(stupid world religions course) in all my philosophy courses and all my professors still remembers me and would recommend me to go to the top schools. But I was never great nor do I have to prove this any further).

All this is possible because of the WILL, the eternal consciousness that lies within us.

Yeah, because even though I will someday be dead, a "consciousness" will lie "eternally within me." Can you at least FOR ONCE lay off the fucking drugs?

That is not what I am saying....I'm not talking about Braham, nirvana, the dao, etc . Since consciousness is composed of experience and awareness it would have to be limitless otherwise we'd all be dumb. You'd know this if you've meditated....

You mentioned slave, democrats, women, etc. A women has no control over her gender but this is not a good basis to suggest that she is not free. All because their society locks them up in chains does not mean they are not free.

Or perhaps they aren't free because, REGARDLESS of what society does to them, they CONTINUE to be weak and show no signs of gaining ANY POWER on their own. Look at the so-called "women's rights" (LOL) groups around the world. All of the "power" that they have gained was CEDED to them by the MEN IN POWER, and even with all of this "GREAT, USEFUL, FREE HELP," women still have done NOTHING with it. I'm still waiting for a woman to write something worthwhile in philosophy (HINT: I am NOT holding my breath).

I wont waste my time with this.. I'll allow someone else to tear you a new one.

Free will blah blah we are free blah blah black people etc.

GREAT, I'll explain this to you too, since you seem to enjoy taking Nietzsche's ideas and interpreting them IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE manner than what he intended!

So when you are born -- actually, while you develop -- you inherit characteristics and traits and fuck knows what else from your parents. Now imagine how you act in response to every stimulus, including the "first" one -- you take all of the information in your mind, all of your opinions, your biases, your inherited traits, etc., and from these you "decide" how to act -- but there IS ONLY one decision! Think of any action you have ever taken in your life. Take yourself back to the time when you took it, and freeze that frame. Inspect your mind, your past, all of the decisions that you made leading up to that moment, and you will see a clear "line" from the beginning of your life up until that moment -- in other words, given everything that came before that moment, there indeed IS ONLY ONE WAY YOU WILL ACT. This is true for EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD -- not just living creatures! -- but as I have stated above about physics, we will never be able to determine the "underlying" model to it all, or else we would be able to predict what people are going to do -- which is ridiculous because, after being shown your "personal roadmap," you could just do the opposite!

There is not only one decision...there may be one correct decision to be made in a specific circumstance but there is not only one decision....I could have chosen not to act in the way that I did...are you sure you've read Nietzsche because what you say sounds very deterministic? Lets tear down this wall...Every possible situation that I was in and every decision that I made could have always been different. Right now I'm on the computer wasting my time with another individual. I could have chosen to go eat, hang out with friends, etc.The fact that I have the freedom to choose what I want to do constitutes as freedom. Can people decide to be robots? absolutely. There are multiple choices we could make in every moment in our lives...we can only choose one but that does not mean that there is only one. What is interesting though is a friend of mines said the exact same thing but instead he came to the conclusion that we are free and you are nowhere near a philosopher otherwise a great mind like you would not be on this post. And of course things are more convoluted then just, hey I'm free....

BUT OF COURSE, since we can't find a model, people like you thus conclude that OH OF COURSE, WE MUST HAVE FREE WILL THEN, when in fact THINGS ARE MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, but of course it takes a REAL MAN -- a PHILOSOPHER -- to explain all of this shit.

But just ask those fucking scientists and they will probably tell you some other nonsense.

3. Humanity: Once again your are one forlorn individual and it is people like you that will be impediments to progress.

Yeah, WHAT PROGRESS? Have you and a group of assholes now decided upon the "progress" of "HUMANITY"? If so, I am HONORED to be an impediment to your bullshit!

Answer me this though, how can you not be concerned with other individuals? If you really are not concerned about other individuals, if you really believe that people are not concerned about you or have an impact on you then why don't you run every red light that there is? Why do you stop at every stop sign? Why do you slow down when you see a police. Why do you not rob every store? Why are you even bothering to have a conversation on this forum? Better yet how are you not connected with other individuals?

THINK, HAWKINS, THINK! It's not that hard! (for me, at least!) So why don't I run red lights/stop signs all the time or "slow down when [I] see a police" (LOL) or rob every store? Simply because, in my OWN INTERESTS, that is, in my course of THINKING ABOUT MYSELF AT ALL TIMES, I realize that driving through these intersections isn't worth the risk of me getting side-slammed by another car and causing me injury or death, and I will only rob a store at the right opportunity. I mean SHIT HAWKINS. Aren't you supposed to be an "ANARCHIST"? One of the naive and very poor arguments against anarchism is that EVERYONE will start committing crimes at EVERY opportunity, which is the same claim you're making against me just because I said I am an egoist! Jesus Christ, man!

no it is because it is not you in your interest to go to jail due to not wanting to harm your fellow man....if you were truly an immoralist then you would not be concerned about anybody and anything, regardless of the consequences..it is not really your own interest that matters, it is the fact that you know that your actions, thoughts and intentions matters and affects everyone else....so once again, put down the facade.

And I'm having a conversation on this forum because I AM ENJOYING MYSELF. Tearing you down is GREAT EXERCISE.

Blah blah blah some shit about ARGON blah blah

Since we're all connected, why don't you stop being a hypocrite and help EVERYONE in the world, including cannibals in South America and Africa, all murderers and rapists, and suicide bombers? Not that I have anything against these people -- they're an essential part of this world like everyone else -- but considering how NON-NIETZSCHEAN your moral system is, I'm sure that you find these types of people objectionable. So I laugh at your stupid logic and the logic of all humanists, for that matter.

As a matter of fact I do......need details?

Justice: I will let history answer this one for me. You are defiantly on my list of the top ten ignorant individuals that I have ever had a conversation with. History will answer this question for me. But I will say this-------that is not justice.

And you are "DEFIANTLY" on the TOP OF MY LIST of people WHOSE SKULLS I WANT TO SMASH. Dude, "justice" in the United States (and basically all western countries) is exactly how I described it (AND HOW NIETZSCHE DESCRIBES IT TO THOSE WHO PAY ATTENTION): someone weak is "wronged" (i.e., they had no RIGHT at the time because they lacked MIGHT -- see Stirner) by someone with MIGHT -- i.e., RIGHT -- and thus turns to the STATE to "RIGHT THE WRONG" (LOL) when in FACT NO "WRONG" WAS COMMITTED HERE -- there is actually nothing MORE UNJUST than this! READ SOME FUCKING NIETZSCHE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

Democracy is not even a good system...Do not use Democracy to justify your claim

WHEN THE FUCK DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT DEMOCRACY? HAVE ANY OTHER BULLSHIT YOU WANT TO PUT INTO MY MOUTH? You know, it's SHIT LIKE THIS that reminds me why I can't hold conversations with ILLITERATES. I keep pointing out all of these stupid retardations and poor reading comprehension on your part, and ALL OF YOUR DUMB ARGUMENTS JUST FALL APART, IN FRONT OF EVERYONE READING THESE POSTS.

I suggest reading it over and look for your self, you mentioned it...

I look for ways to maximize the well-being of conscious creatures since I realize that we are all interconnected to one another.

LOL, YEAH, so you maximize the well-being of bacteria, viruses, flies, maggots, rats, mice, cats, dogs, elephants, rapists, murderers, and best of all, even me! Thank you! I am very appreciative of all of your HARD WORK!

wow I did not know bacteria an viruses are conscious...lol....and there is no hard work to be done here...I'm waiting for you to actually start formulating arguments...otherwise I'm going to keep playing around with with you...

You are not an immoralist because you would not be on this computer right now(you'd be in jail).

Again with the bullshit. Yeah, because an immoralist is too stupid to figure out how to work around the system!

actually they are...they always get caught.

You are not creative and will not make progress. No one will follow your philosophy because they realize that the human condition is not about suffering and being miserable.

I'm plenty creative, thanks. And yeah, haha, maybe not any of your RETARDED progress -- because, again, I am not RETARDED -- but I make plenty of progress for myself every day, simply by being alive! Again, more shit that you will never understand.

uh no your not..all you are doing is taking other people's philosophy and using it to support your own conclusions..that is not creative.


So while you are wasting your time concerning yourself with "the human condition" or whatever retarded shit, I am LOLLING at you and all of your stupid kind and living a GREAT LIFE. So yeah -- you wanna wallow in shit, fine, but please keep the flies to yourself!

my life is grand thank you, also when you decided to be serious and actually formulate your own arguements then I'll decide to be serious...nice try thou....i'm ready for round three when you are...this is fun...