Karl

They were a riposte in a similar tone to the one delivered. I'm sorry but I don't like people who complain that 'they haven't been presented with a good enough argument' because they are either unwilling, incapable or already decided. I'm fine presenting an argument to someone who has a genuinely open mind and wishes to debate, but someone who enters a debate armed with a club and knuckle dusters bores me. I think you have a genuine case, I think you are wrong, but I accept that your decision is based on where you currently live and work. I don't think that's what SB is doing. He/ she is acting like a spoilt child fighting a parent over his right to do whatever he wants, because that's what he thinks is his right to rebel. I'm not going to convince someone who has that attitude and it usually ends in 'I told you so'. So let's start there. I already know where things are going. I already know we will end up in Shengen, we will end up swamped by immigrants, with the Euro as our currency and even more of our money going to bailouts and boondoggles. I know because Brussels told us so and they have demonstrated their intent with Greece and the number of unemployed youth that are running to Britain to get service jobs-otherwise the unemployment rate amongst continental youths would be even higher. So, you know what, fuck 'em. When it all goes to hell I won't have even the tiniest bit of sympathy. I will sit on my pension nest egg and let them polish my shoes and make my morning coffee. You are right, it is an appeal to emotion and an ad hominem, that sometimes is the only argument an irrational person can understand.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/sir-james-dyson-so-if-we-leave-the-eu-no-one-will-trade-with-us/ how about James Dyson giving his reasons we should leave. Because we will be wealthier and have more job opportunities for the kind of work that doesn't involve young adults competing against baristas, waiters and sports direct clothing packers.

You were already so that's no surprise. You don't hold individual sovereignty as a value. Let's hope you don't witness what others have when they plumped for that option. For me, at my age it's possibly better to vote remain, but for the young :-/ you will have to live with the decision you made if it's to remain. Remember that you voted for the oligarchs and the Neo-aristocracy. Maybe you already sit amongst them ?

No I'm not. I'm showing you how you are forced into judging and that justice is the corollary of judgement. There is no way to avoid it. I'm not implying that justice is necessarily laws and courts, only that this is where justice ultimately springs from. That is why we have judges and evidence. These are the same things that humans engage in every second of our lives.

We evade what we should do. This is the cowards way. We seek ways to shut up the internal accuser and then to justify the violence we have perpetrated against our own bodies and minds. This is equally a selfish act, but it is an introverted kind of violence. It is self repression and self censorship of who we really are. People in this state have given up. Suicide is a selfish escapade as is saving your kids and wife. We make that decision that we value something more than our lives. In my case it is freedom. I would rather be dead that a prisoner-even of and particularly of my own mind.

There is only one sage and that's the self. You can choose to be the hero in your own life, or you can spend the time evading what you know to be true. You can refuse to use your mind, you can lie to yourself, justify your actions, or any other multitude of things people do, but you cannot escape the negative feelings and pressures that arise from those action. No need to read a book or seek out a guru to know that this is true, a few minutes of introspection reveals the fragility of an ego built on weak foundations. If you need the respect and admiration of others to bolster your weak ego, if you need to drink, take drugs or retreat into addictions to mask the pain, then you know it. The ignorant are ignorant by choice, the evaders are evading by choice. These things can be changed, you can choose to know, to let the light in and banish that darkness and misery ignorance brings.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3636143/Greediest-snouts-EU-trough-Not-sure-vote-Read-stinking-wealth-hypocrisy-Brussels-fat-cats-Kinnocks-help-decide.html and as if by magic this is what appears in the daily wail. Vote leave and get these arseholes out of our wallets. Let's not just vote out, let's bring the entire stinking thing down.

I was watching the drunken Junkers welcoming the leaders by slapping them around the chops and I remembered Farage's haranguing of Van Rumpoy (who are you? No one has ever heard of you etc). Then the penny dropped. Farage is for real. All these men who have been appointed to the EU are weak minded, easy men, that had no possibility of gaining any kind of life after their failure in politics. This is what the like of Dan Hannan and Farage have been trying to say, but they cannot say it directly or they will be closed down. These EU bureaucrats have been bought and that it why we have these very poor kind of politicians Governing in EU countries, because it's a career gravy train and in the UK it was Tony Blair that exemplifies it. It's no wonder this referendum has been carefully staged to put UKIP out of the frame. The danger is that some politicians cannot be bribed-where as, at least, Boris is an easy man to buy, someone like Farage can't. Any politician that has integrity is marginalised and the more ideological (like the Greens) are used as useful idiots. I now realise what Peter Hitchens had warned about. 'You can check out but you can never leave'. If we vote to leave we are only voting for them to undergo a metamorphoses into something that appears to be more democratically accountable. An out vote is just the first stage in a long struggle to depose a wealthy Neo-aristocracy which stretches to Hillary Clinton, Wall Street and the Bildenberg group in America to The EU and Davos. I think that Chang has it right. I've wondered why the Government hasn't really tried to control immigration and now it's clear. They want to remove all vestiges of power from the people. They want us terrified and subservient.

I was thinking about all those EU funded plaques that have mysteriously appeared on public buildings, road schemes and the like. We have a plaque on our local sports centre. It suddenly made me realise something that I had hitherto been complacent about. Those plaques are deliberate subterfuge, they are an an attempt to give the population the notion that the EU is some kind of benevolent God bestowing his blessing on the people. This is precisely what Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin did. When I ran a business support unit in the North East we continually relied on EU funding for various projects. Many of these projects were specified by the EU and every piece of literature, website or course had to have the EU sign on it. I never gave a second thought about the origin of the funding, but it is of course the British taxpayer. I can't ever remember our UK Governments or parties putting up plaques to suggest they had funded various projects, they know they wouldn't get away with it. We would instantly spot that kind of petty self aggrandisement going on and see the similarities to the kind of autocrats and tyrants that we have always rejected. I think this is the proof that the EU project is far more of an insidious coup detat than I had previously thought. It isn't a democracy at all, it's a group of people and their wealthy corporate backers who are worming their way in using our money. I think this is why most of the elite are falling over themselves to persuade us to stay. They are part of a governing class that no longer wants any kind of dissent or people power. They want us to accept that they know what's best for us and comply. This is why it is the middle grounder so of Blair, Major, Cameron, Chukka that are so keen to keep us in, they are lining themselves up to fit in (or already have a position) in this new autocratic elite and we are just the shit on their shoes.

There has certainly been little attempt at trying to curtail immigration into the UK, even those coming from outside the EU. I have watched Cameron and lately Hilary Benn avoiding the question on how we control our borders. Several times the question of immigration external to the UK has been asked-and it's a fair question, squarely aimed at the present Government and its promises. Neither Cameron, nor the opposition seem keen to tackle it, or even to use it as a political hammer which seems strange. What's also strange is the complete lack of any admission of failure of the Euro currency by those who tried to force us into joining it and are now trumpeting their great foresight on why they now think Brexit would be such an economic disaster. I don't even get why Cameron is supporting 'leave'. There is no argument for staying beyond are rather emotive 'stronger together' feeling of it being a nicer thing than not being 'together'. Yet we are not together in any sense and Cameron proved it when Brusseld gave him nothing. The EU and the U.K. Have radically different agendas and visions for Europe. Most of the leave side are scathing about the current EU and consider it anti- democratic, bloated, corrupt and arrogant, yet seem to believe that somehow it can be changed ? After 40 years of trying, if the threat of a £46 billion export market and its second highest contributer leaving didn't give them pause for thought, then I doubt anything will. The EU isn't an economic project, it is an entirely political one. Cameron may believe he has won the argument with his economic deceit and the help of his friendly elite (interesting that he is unable to make that argument himself and is simply substituting external 'experts' who have a vested interest in Britain remaining close coupled to the EU), however, for the EU the economics are secondary to the political idealism. These people will trample the European nations into the dirt in order to achieve their aims. As Draghi said "whatever it takes" (and by heck has he not showed it through his NIRP, talk of a cashless society and tearing up the constitutional elements on which the Euro was founded). Junker the drunkard, the alcoholic that has no self restraint who presides over the presidency. A man with no integrity who in his own words believes it is 'OK to lie when things get serious'. This is Ancient Rome before the fall. Pissed up bureaucrats, massive corruption, currency destruction, tyranny and an population getting poorer by the day. Where is the fucking logic in staying connected to that pile of shit.

:-) The rational man, the moral man, has no self doubt. He uses his mind properly, is independent in action, is honest with himself and in all his dealings, has totally integrity-he does not evade, he is productive, he judges and is prepared to be judged, he takes pride in holding to his virtues. This is the way of the hero.

I was careful to avoid the use of the more important term which is of course justice. Animals cannot conceive of such a thing, but it is implicit in the human condition. How many times do you hear it said "I, they, he, her, they deserved better, less, didn't deserve". We must judge and we must judge 'values'. What is a greater and lesser value, which values we will reject, which we will keep, which we desire. How do you make those judgements ? Which datum do you use to as the measure ? The primary value of your own life. If you judge your life as 'worthless', then you will squander it. This is precisely how people act. They find the effort of continuing to maintain reason and to hold/earn values, can become too much effort judged against the value they place on their own lives. They simply give up, they stop trying and drift. People say these things to themselves. They say I deserved that promotion, job, car, wife, house, or that they felt guilty that they got things. We judge ourselves and others all the time. We judge values against each other. We want that chocolate bar, but we know we will get fat. We know we should take some excersise but we can rest today and work out twice tomorrow. We decide if it's a Pizza or a Pasta, to buy the large or small bottle of sauce.

We don't always optimise our welfare, addicts know they are harming their bodies-unfortunately people do not know when they are harming their minds, which is a far worse thing that bodily damage. A failing body is preferable to a failing mind. What is this behaviour ? It is self directed, self initiated ? It is evasion. It is the actions of a man who is committing slow suicide. This is a man who does not feel he deserves to hold life as a value, but is incapable of the direct act needed to end his life. Instead he takes succour and a certain twisted kind of pleasure out of his behaviour. He does not care about the damage he does to his friends and family, his concern is to act nihilisticly, to do whatever it takes to avoid reason.

Subconsciously we never give it a second thought. It is implicit in our holding of all values and our desire for future values.

They choose that as well. We can choose ignorance or evasion.

You wouldn't want to lose it, so it must have value to you. :-) it's your primary value. I did not say the 'will to live' was a value, that is the need to retain the value. Easier to ask 'do you value your life?'

Rational animals-if we choose to be.

Then you don't regard it as such ? You don't feel you deserve to survive ?

:-) Rand would probably have called her philosophy existentialism had it not been taken. If the stuff is in empty space then it isn't empty. :-)

Has identity, is identification.

I can only answer that it's not expanding into anything. It's the universe, it expands and contracts and has always done so. Consciousness has identity. It is something and not no-thing. We each have individual identity of which consciousness is an integral part. It is impossible to know what consciousness is, only that it is.

As far as you are concerned it's land bordering the sea, some sand, shingle, scrub trees rising inland, rocky headlands, some cliffs, shells, birds. The weather is reasonably settled with the potential for rain looking at the clouds. There is no obvious sign of human habitation or activity. The breakers are fairly large, but you could paddle the boat out with some effort. There is only sea on the horizon. The temperature is cool. So far you are assessing your values. As you checked yourself over first and what you will require, then can I confirm you have decided that living will be your primary value ? You are also evaluating your needs, so, can I confirm you will be honest about your condition and the values you must seek, or will you think that things will sort themselves out if you hang about a bit ? As there are no people around can I also assume that you are of a mind that you will have to shoulder the burden of seeking anything you don't have independently and that you intend to be productive by obtaining anything you need ? Further, have you considered if you deserve to survive ? I assume the answer is that you do, but I need to check.

I have not said some 'noble principle'. It's you that insist this is what I am saying. Animals don't have morals, they are amoral. Humans aren't anything like animals. The three questions are not simply separate questions. They are answered in sequence. Imagine you found yourself marooned on an Island. You have a compass and a few basic rations, plus a functional raft. You have no idea where you are. You don't yet even realise that it's an Island. Now let's see how you would approach that situation. You can just act like an animal and begin ferreting in the bushes for prey, or curl up in the undergrowth for a sleep. You don't have an animals hunting instincts, it's senses or its lack of fear in the pursuit of its ends. Let's see if there are hidden principles that you hadn't been conscious of having. What is your first order of things ?

It isn't. The law is no taxation without representation. Parliament cannot simply give away that right because it never belonged to them in the first place, they are only custodians and thus public servants.

When you say "empty space" then you slip back into scientism. I do not mean that "empty space" contains energies even though it probably does, I'm saying that space is relational, it is a product of our conscious understanding of the universe and so it is something from that perspective, not simply the chemical/energetic properties of the stuff that is between planets. There are no 'beyond the outer boundaries" otherwise the universe wouldn't be the universe and would have to expand to include all those things you consider external. Here you are creating a dichotomy, much as Plato did. You perceive the universe as I do. You may not contemplate the universe as I do. :-) Did you think I said the primacy of consciousness ? I most certainly didn't. I pointed out that it's possible that you do hold this to be partially true. Nietzche was certainly no objectivist, completely the opposite, but people get confused about that, even objectivist can be drawn into seeing similarities because of the hero characters in both Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead, but they are not Neitzcshian supermen ;-)