Reductive world view.

[SkyNigger]

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/...because_o.html

My comment responding to an imbecile alleging (in lieu of a counter-argument to a single point I'd raised) that my world view was "reductive". He was sneering, idiotically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Frost

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

I'd give 3 limbs to be able to write like le Carre; 2 for Frost and 1 to write like Alone.

Quote:

What's wrong with being reductive? Do you think your picture isn't reductive? Would that mean it is false? Try to look past the pejorative connotation. That I think it's a bad thing in a worldview doesn't have any bearing on it's accuracy, so it would be insane of you to be offended by characterization, and silly to deny it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with simplicity when complexity is not required; it's merely that "reductive" (certainly when used in the context above) has connotations that are inaccurate. I'm glad you didn't take offence (I got a different read, is all).

I certainly almost never take offence. It's basically the calling card of insanity. It's either imagined or pretended; neither of which are valid.

The problems of this world are incredibly simple to solve, but everyone plays dumb(er) whilst simultaneously pretending the issues are all somehow complex. They are not. They are about as basic as issues can get.

Presently Humanity is divided up into something like 208 separated 'sovereign' slave plantations. Inside each 'sovereign' nation-state, we're divided up even further in ever-smaller concentric circles of 'trust'. We have no sane reason to trust the person in the smallest of those circles; actually, we should be suspicious of ourselves more than any other party (we lie to ourselves more than anyone else will ever have the capacity to match).

Inside these 'sovereign' nation-states, we survive lives of misery which we lie about non-stop. I think they call this phenomenon polite; fake it until you make it, (pretend to) smile and the world will (pretend to) smile with you, dreaming big and positive thinking - it's what slaves use when reality is unbearable and thinking accurately won't do). Our minds erase the trauma of our misery as time passes.

We survive lives under tyranny (but of course, many do not). Is it not 'fantastic' how the dead don't scream and the human scars blame themselves for the horrific injuries they sustained as victims of sociopaths? Our overlords insult us with outrageously patronising crap like democracy. What's wrong with democracy? Have you met...people? 95% are too stupid to be plausible and the remaining 5% of us aren't a great deal brighter than they are. I'm talking about IQ.

When it comes to EQ, 99% of the globe are literally emotional Toddlers (i.e. insane). The remaining 1% of us aren't a great deal saner; but of course everyone believes they are sane when the truth is that there is not a single human alive who is sane (with the exception of some newborns and tiny toddlers who haven't yet been corrupted).

100% of humans are conditioned from birth to be exploitable and emotionally insane. The insanity has gone viral; and it is, unfortunately, 'hereditary'.

70% of planet lives under the filthy, imbecilic, degrading heels of the three distributions of the Abrahamic religious kernel. What's the problem? They are incompatible. Only one (1) can 'win'; which means, no one can Win.

Parents are raising their children from birth to (suffer to) please. In other words, children are raised to be insane slaves who feel passionately (in lieu of sane humans who think critically). We have the IQs to destroy the planet and the EQs to make it (effectively) inevitable.

Humans are punished to 'teach' them lessons. It doesn't matter if they've done nothing wrong; they're punished anyway. It doesn't matter that justice is a religious construct of insanity; that's the illogical point. There are better ways to teach humans how to be humane; but there is no better way to condition a human to feel and act like a dog / slave than 'teaching' with violence.

Whomever controls a slice of the US$1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion USD) illicit drug trade is almost impossible to compete against, in a domestic political contest. What does this mean? In reductive terms, almost every nation on the planet is governed by warlords & gangsters (funded by the illicit drug trade). But then if you knew anything about Westphalia, you'd know this has been the case (more or less) since long before 1648 (sociopaths controlling their domestic vassals via the feudal / patron system). The Holy Roman Emperors structured everything to be how it is.

Humans are literally less than 1% of 1% of the people we should be; and would be if we weren't brainwashed and conditioned from birth to feel it's intelligent / crafty / shrewd to take 'advantage' of religious disparities (i.e. take 'advantage' of each other). If billions of humans understood the horrifying reality that has been the constructed nightmare of sociopaths for 3500 years; we'd all be worth between 10,000 to a billion times our present value.

We're running out of fresh drinking water & the guys who control the global illicit drug trade are buying up the land around those wells. What does this mean? In reductive terms, you should prepare for a life of thirst in the near future.

_________________

There are many more simple problems that no one is addressing for patently obvious reasons. But until they are addressed, everything else is superfluous and a distraction. Asserting that the above issues are reductive implies over-simplification where simplicity is inherently appropriate and sufficient.

My arguments are reductive, correct; and yet, still no one can counter them. Most cannot understand what I'm saying and I can do complexity. I played $20,000 buyin HSNL online when I was 1/5th as 'bright' as I am now. I'm merely an inept writer.

Clearly, my arguments require even more simplification. Don't you agree? The way logic works in a sane debate, the respondent either counters or accepts the logical argument put forward by the other.

But of course, this is not a sane world. And it's not remotely ironic but it is terrifying that every insane person believes they're sane and every imbecile who cannot do logic believes they can. They neither counter nor accept the logical arguments proposed; they choose Option C: Remain entrenched in their insanity.

They think they're being crafty & shrewd but they're are neither shrewd nor crafty. Nor are they even thinking at all.

It's just they way they feel.