Deconstructing a Radically Autonomous Box of Subjectivity

SkylineOver the course of my last two blog posts, How to Get More Traffic to Your Blog and The Mentality Behind Baiting and Trolling, as well as their respective comment sections I have been having a dialog with an individual named Thordaddy. I assume from his perspective our discussion has been a debate about what he thinks “Liberals” believe about abortion and contraception. From my perspective the dialog has been more of an exploration of his belief structure. In particular I have observed that he maintains this belief structure through the use of a box of subjectivity. Within this box he is free to make up his own definitions and rules of logic. In a sense he is free to believe anything he wants because inside the box his subjective mindset becomes objectively true.

Most notably, Thordaddy argues that Liberals believe abortion is reproductive right. He also argues that Liberals believe contraception is reproductive right. He defines reproductive right as the right to reproduce. Abortion / Contraception and reproduction are antithetical. Therefore Thodaddy concludes that the Liberals’ belief structure is illogical and wrong.

There are many problems with Thordaddy’s argument however.

First of all not all Liberals are in favor of abortion. In fact, it has been my experience that most people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. A good example of this are Libertarians who tend to be conservative on issues of economics, public policy and foreign policy but liberal on social issues. So the label of Liberal as a monolithic category in which to place people is highly suspect. I suspect people who are monolithic in their thought structure (like Thordaddy) will always see the world and other people in this way. This tendency to categorize and label (in effect to place people in boxes) is analogous to the box of subjectivity in which he has placed himself.

Second, Thordaddy argues that because Liberals believe abortion “is reproductive right” and Liberals also believe contraception “is reproductive right” then abortion and contraception are per se the same thing. This is the transitive property which holds that if A = B and B = C then A = C. The problem with this argument is, however, that no one but Thordaddy use either phrase “abortion is reproductive right” or “contraception is reproductive right.” It would be more accurate to say that the right to abortion and the right to contraception are legal rights related to a person’s reproductive right. As such you might be able to say that C = A + B + Other rights not discussed in this blog post. But, this in no way makes A and B equal. A reading of the comment section in the previous posts will show that I pointed this out to Thordaddy but he did not acknowledge it. This is a great illustration of how he is free to believe what he wants within his box of subjectivity.

Third, Thordaddy switches back and forth between saying Liberals believe Abortion IS REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT (which no one does) and saying Liberals believe ABORTION IS A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT whenever it suits his purposes to do so. These two phrases do not mean the same thing. The first phrase if true and if it is also true that Liberals believe “contraception is reproductive right” would support his transitive property argument. However, none of that is true. Thordaddy also says Liberals believe ABORTION IS A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT (which is true to the extent that abortion is a legal right which is related to the reproductive process). However, the fact that he has argued using both phrases further diminishes the potency of his transitive property argument. Unfortunately, explaining these nuances is complicated. Accordingly, it is a simple task for him to persist in his illogical argument as if its logical flaws have not been demonstrated. This is a key strategy that allows him to remain inside his self constructed ideological box.

Fourth, Thordaddy self identifies as a Christian but does not seem to follow any of the tenants of Christianity. I do not say this to judge his religious beliefs, mind you. I am pointing it out because he has judged other people’s religious beliefs rather harshly. He seems to argue that because he self identifies as a Christian and he self identifies as a white supremacist that therefore Christianity is white supremacy. This is another obvious misuse of the transitive property objectively speaking. But it serves his subjective purposes well in that it provides moral cover for his racist beliefs even though there is no logic or reason supporting it. But logic and reason exist in the realm of the objective which he is not ultimately interested in. His ultimate interest is to remain encapsulated within his subjective box thinking that it is objective.

Fifth, Thordaddy argues that I am not Christian because I use contraception in the context of marriage after having had two children. Because he equates contraception and abortion he sees this (I presume) as a violation of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou Shall Not Kill.” (Ex 20:13). Let us put aside the argument that contraception is not killing a life but rather preventing a life from coming into existence in the first place. Let us also put aside the argument that abstinence and contraception produce the same result. Now, Jesus Christ (from whom Christianity gets its name and belief structure) stated that the “Great Commandment” is to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. (Matt 22:36-40). This in effect, elevates Love Thy Neighbor above Thou Shall Not Kill in importance. Why then would he believe that the use of contraception bars a person from being a Christian whereas hating one’s neighbor does not?

Clearly, both logic and Christian doctrine are not his strong suite. But none of this matters to him while he is encapsulated inside his radically autonomous box of subjectivity.

Advertisements

27 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

27 responses to “Deconstructing a Radically Autonomous Box of Subjectivity

  1. thordaddy

    wS…

    Gosh dang, how many errors must I correct in one response?

    First, IF I wrote “abortion is reproductive right” THEN that was simply a grammatical error.

    THE CLAIM of the LIBERAL is “abortion is a reproductive right.” Ergo, abortion is a “right to reproduce.”

    Where you fail SUBJECTIVELY is in possessing any objective definition of “reproductive right.” In fact, your understanding of “reproductive right” IS EVERYTHING antithetical to the “right to reproduce.” Ergo, your best “objective” definition of “reproductive right” is abortion and contraception.

    Secondly, I identify as a white Supremacist and not a Christian or “white supremacist” and this makes a profoundly objective difference BECAUSE THE ISSUE at hand is the white race’s existential crisis (and with him a dying Christianity) and the SELF-ANNIHILATING ETHOS of the liberals AND mainstream liberal “Christians.”

    And of course, no issue brings this SELF-ANNIHILATION to the fore like abortion, contraception and the “right to reproduce.”

    So there is a case be made that a “Christian” such as yourself CANNOT be a self-annihilator AND “love thyself” SO AS TO be able to “love thy neighbor.” And furthermore, there is a case to be made that the good liberal self-annihilates in order to “love thy neighbor” as he “loves thyself.”

    You have to figure this out for yourself. And you need to seriously delve deep into this idea of YOURS that Christianity demands a “self-annihilation for salvation.”

    Abortion is self-annihilation

    Contraception is a self-annihilating ethos.

    Self-annihilation and the self-annihilating ethos under the guise of “reproductive right” is DIABOLICAL.

    But, it is, in fact, the “nature” of “universal equality” to make equal the “right to reproduce” with the “right to terminate.”

    And you have clearly submitted to this madness at a time of existential crisis.

    • According to your belief system would a married couple who had children but then decided to use abstinence and the rhythm method to not have any more children be affixed with your self annihilating label?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I would say that if in your premeditated desire to have sexual relations with your wife there was a spoken or unspoken agreement to avoid procreating then a self-annihilating ethos is there within you and your wife… An ethos which states that “we” shall bring no more of ourselves into this world.

        And at a time of existential crisis, this is a crucially deleterious mindset.

      • So you concede that the a couple who uses contraception is not necessarily self annihilating in that they still can procreate.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You and your wife, in particular, are a net zero… You neither add nor subtract from the existential crisis.

        SO…

        “We” must wait and “see” whether you have “successfully” perpetuated a self-annihilating ethos to your children who shall be more dogmatic in the idea of bringing no more of themselves into this world?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No… I simply attest to what I have written.

        IF in your premeditated desire to have sexual relations with your wife there is a spoken or unspoken agreement to willfully contra-cept THEN right there at that point is a self-annihilating ethos within which may or may not be a precursor to its finality. In other words, the thought of killing one’s self is not exactly equal to the finality of killing one’s self, but the consequence thereof remain the same to each respectively. The mere thought of self-annihilation… The premeditated act of willful anti-creation is physically deleterious each and every time for all time. And only Christian repentance is able to ultimately transcend this most subtle material process of self-annihilation. But the thought… The thought that within these oh-so sublime human “mechanics” of perpetuation is ample room for a self-annihilating ethos can never be obviated nor its consequences erased from the “record.” And until you once again bring forth some of your Self into this world there is no evidence of your procreative capacity and even in the event that such capacity becomes self-evident, the residual effect of a once-before self-annihilating mindset still exists as historical fact and will redound somewhere and somehow into eternity.

      • What about celibate priests and monks? Do they engage in self annihilation as well according to your unique belief structure?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No… Because the truly celibate stands as empirical exemplar of immaculate spiritual, intellectual and physical discipline. His incredible discipline is neither the thought of nor an act of self-annihilation. His celibacy JUST IS devotional discipline of the highest empirical kind. His motivation simply is not anti-creation, rather, his celibacy is the faithful attempt at verifying Creation itself… Confirming that Man can truly strive towards Supremacy POSSESSING a will of exceptional devotional discipline. True celibacy can mark such an extraordinary will.

      • So in your world even if an act results in the annihilation of one’s “race” it is not an act of self annihilation so long as the act is executed with discipline and without the motivation of anti-creation, correct?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Witness the psychological power of “equality” as you attempt to turn the truly celibate into self-annihilators while simultaneously arguing the benign innocuousness of abortion, contraception and sex for strictly pleasure…

        The intent of the truly celibate IS NOT TO self-annihilate or refuse to bring more of one’s Self into this world, but rather, a calling to bring the most spiritually, intellectually and physically disciplined SELF that one can muster into REALITY.

        The intent of contraception is to simply reject bringing more of one’s Self into this world UNDER whatever pretense and/or justification.

        Quit trying so hard to equate yourself to the truly celibate with your use of contraception as “responsible family planning.” It’s absurd.

  2. thordaddy

    wS…

    You cannot deconstruct “radical autonomy.” You can only attempt to give “it” a particularly concrete “form” in the guise of your being. This attempt is nearly antithetical to a true deconstruction and a seeming paradox to radical autonomy itself. Ergo, the desire for radical autonomy JUST IS the rejection of any particularly concrete form of being.

    I desire to be something particularly concrete, namely, a genuine white Supremacist.

    • thordaddy

      wS…

      You, on the other hand, are trying to be a liberal “Christian” and this just cannot ever formalize in reality. Your “liberal” aspect ultimately subordinates and neutralizes whatever Christianity of yours may peek the light anywhere and everywhere “it” catches a glimpse. In fact, your “Christianity” is fundamentally grounded in the worship of a truly celibate “self-annihilator.” And so your liberalism and “Christianity” are finally equal. Your belief is in “universal equality.” Your belief is in a universe chock full of self-annihilators with not a regnerate soul in sight. And Christ is lead “self-annihilator.” And this is why I shall call myself a white Supremacist so as to avoid this very nefarious take on reality and the dominant religion of the white race.

      • So you do not self identify as Christian? This seems like a pivot on your part?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I identify as a white Supremacist which is a racialized Christian versus a mainstream (read: liberal) deracinated “Christian” who has chosen “self-annihilation for salvation” as the inherent message of Christianity. The white Supremacist takes the message of Christianity as the claim for the existence of Perfection, ie., objective Supremacy, and consequently the open reality to regenerate towards this “end.”

      • From what part of Christianity do you derive your unique message?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        There is no derivative here.

        The CLAIM of Christianity is the existence of The Perfect Man properly defined as He who wills all right. This FACT ALONE falsifies “universal equality” in the most thoroughly fundamental manner.

        And so you have forgotten what “it” is that you worship and what the consequences of said worship entail. And this is best exposed by your attempt at constructing a liberal “Christian” way of being. It cannot be done.

      • You must have found this “claim” in scripture, no? If not, where does your “claim” come from?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        It’s not MY claim… The claim of Christ’s perfection IS Christianity’s most incredibly unbelievable claim. Thus the absolute necessity of faith.

      • So you believe the Semitic race is perfect?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Ansolutely not? Why? Or, how were you able to draw that conclusion.

        If Christ is The Perfect Man (and the obvious rationale for His worship) then how does this have you conclude that the “Semitic race is perfect?”

        I don’t get it?

      • Christ was a Semite. You say he was perfect. Therefore you must believe his race is perfect as well.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Christ was a Semite and CHRISTIANITY SAYS He was perfect…

        AGAIN…

        How do you then conclude that the Semitic race is perfect?

        In fact, can you provide any verification that the Semitic race strives towards Supremacy or even attests to that desire?

      • So you are now saying that race is irrelevant in terms of perfection?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No, not at all. That doesn’t even make sense in the context of Creation. One understands Perfection through his race, ie., his father(s). There is no other way. “We” can also ascertain that one cannot understand Perfection through liberalism.

        And to the point of Christ’s race, its overall relevance is uniquely particular to Jew and Gentile.

      • So you are saying Christ was perfect in everything but his race? Wouldn’t that make him not perfect?

  3. Pingback: Deconstructing a Radically Autonomous Box of Subjectivity Part II | Winston Scrooge

  4. Pingback: The Zero Sum Game of White Supremacist Love | Winston Scrooge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s