fm wrote-
Quote:I actually believe that spendi has got himself convinced of the accuracy of his twisted logic. Poor dumass, must be the pilsner
Scientifically, considering the content of the post this was a response to, it consitutes an unprovoked insult topped off with an unjustified presumption (a satisfying fantasised assertion).
Such things are objectively a form of aggression and even casual perusers of this thread will easily see that such behaviour is not uncommon in fm's responses to my posts, as is often the case with the responses of other AIDsers, and that he bends over with abandon and relish at the mere sight of the drivel wande posts so tediously and at that of other AIDsers which we can presume he finds agreeable and which are generally of equivalent tedium.
Obviously, things being as they are in the absence of the teachings of Jesus, aggression has been exhaustively studied by experts some of whom are world famous as a result of their reports.
The consensus seems to be that aggression can be traced back to infancy and conditioning incidents where temper tantrums such as throwing the toys out of the play-pen have resulted in approved responses from the minders.
Aggression is connected by this consensus of scientists, who are household names in educated circles, to "destruction" and to "sadism" which is, technically, the ego extending its influence over the "other" and ordering this "other" to its satisfaction. Geometrical gardening (ordering nature) and political power (ordering people about) are two examples of where "sadism" is turned to useful account. There are many aspects of "sadism" which are dysfunctional and I'm sure viewers will know the main ones so there is no need for me to mention any.
Destructive and sadistic impulses which give rise to insulting behaviour, especially when unprovoked, are consistent with a felt sense of danger and an urge to destroy it. Given the conditioning in infancy and the felt sense of danger this aggression is a perfectly rational biological goal. When the expression of the impulse gives rise to pleasure at the pain of the "other" it is a sub-division of sadism known as algolagnia. It is algolagnia which is "kinky" and not sadism as such.
As Reich said- " We destroy in a danger situation because we want to live and because we do not want to suffer anxiety."
Therefore amply justified if we are really under threat.
So, in this context, the only danger that can possibly exist and cause anxiety and the insult reflex to kick in is to the position being held by fm on these matters and the risk to his self esteem which, according to the Materialist Theory of Mind is a biological object, being undermined by my contributions. Looking sheepish in not on the agendas of AIDsers which shows their ignorance of Shakespeare if nothing else.
And that is what the dialectic actually is. Debaters are supposed to undermine and test their protagonist's position at all times using logic and critical thinking. Not bloody insults.
The deployment of insults is barbaric and shouts out "I don't want to debate I want my tummy tickling and some more syrup on my comforter."
Now, anybody can read through this thread and pass by all insults as if they have been levelled with the ground and had salt sowed into their foundations.
There's an Insult thread on Trivia where everybody is invited, encouraged even, to give free rein to their destructive impulses, verbally.
I'm here to undermine your position fm because somebody has to do it to stop you morphing into Big Brother which you would if your insults had always won out.
One only need study your avvie to see how important preventing such a thing happening is.
