Died age 75,of cancer.

€œIt is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.€�

Sir Roger Scruton

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

The Natural Philosopher wrote

Died age 75,of cancer.

€œIt is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...
it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned
into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive
every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.€�

Thats overstated. Its just as true of other
beliefs that are not reasoned into like
religion. That one is much more about
crutches for pathetically inadequate minds.

Sane with royalty, it isnt really about power
for the believers.

Or the greenies either.

Sir Roger Scruton

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:57:25 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote

Died age 75,of cancer.

´It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...
it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned
into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive
every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.¡

Thatÿs overstated.

Is it, you auto-contradicting sociopathic senile pest?

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:20:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

"it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into"

A bit like Brexit then.

'Most people', didn't vote for us to join the EEC / EU / whatever and
so have lived with it as one of those things.

So, give them the idea that something that was mostly transparent /
irrelevant to them was the big bad wolf, and that things are going to
get worse because of what they are intending to do or how better off
we will be if we kill the big bad wolf (and mud / fud sticks), some of
the great unwashed will fall for that sort of thing, pick their side
and can't be reasoned into justifying their choice.

They can't in most cases because there is no 'reasoned' reason, just a
load of crystal ball predictions, gullibility and 'beliefs'. ;-(

I'm not suggesting that leaving the EU might not actually be a good
thing for 'most people', all I'm suggesting is that most of us who are
adamant it will be have yet to convince most who haven't heard those
voices in their hears or believed what has now been mostly proven to
be lies and FUD in the first place.

Further complicate the facts by promising the great unwashed that they
promise to act on what should have only been an advisory poll and you
can pretty well wave goodbye to any level of real democracy.

Cheers, T i m

On 13/01/2020 08:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:20:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

"it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into"

A bit like Brexit then.

'Most people', didn't vote for us to join the EEC / EU / whatever and
so have lived with it as one of those things.

Only up to 2016, when voters rejected the option of staying in the EU.


--
Spike

On 13/01/2020 08:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:20:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

"it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into"

A bit like Brexit then.

You really need to get something new to obsess about...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 13/01/2020 15:47, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/01/2020 08:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:20:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

"it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into"

A bit like Brexit then.

You really need to get something new to obsess about...


I really wish you'd put an explicit "in place of" on that

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:47:13 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 13/01/2020 08:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:20:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

"it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into"

A bit like Brexit then.

You really need to get something new to obsess about...

I'm surprised at you John, normally a beacon of reason being so much
against real democracy?

But it seems like fanatically voting leave has the same impact on
peoples reason as cat ownership! ;-)

But hey, you won (although that may turn out to be a strange
interpretation of the word 'win') and you of all people should be able
to killfile me if you really can't stand me continuing to have strong
having feelings on the matter?

But this seems to be the MO fanatic brexiteers (you can see from even
this sub thread how it brings all the real trolls out) ... ranting and
foaming rather than just letting the 1/3rd of the electorate who voted
to remain and the other 1/3rd who didn't vote at all just why they
were so wrong to not vote as you / they did?

You would have thought that 3+ years on it would have all been made
pretty clear by now and 100%[1] of the electorate would be behind it?

Or is it that you realise you have got away with something you really
shouldn't and are frightened enough of the great unwashed will also
cotton onto that?

Cheers, T i m

[1], Well, for the left brainers we know that 100% would be highly
unrealistic so a more utilitarian threshold would be required.

John Rumm Wrote in message:
On 13/01/2020 08:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:20:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

"it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into"

A bit like Brexit then.

You really need to get something new to obsess about...



Or nym shift & see how long it takes the rest to spot him....
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:39:37 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Jimk
wrote:

John Rumm Wrote in message:
On 13/01/2020 08:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:20:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

"it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into"

A bit like Brexit then.

You really need to get something new to obsess about...



Or nym shift & see how long it takes the rest to spot him....

Oh Jimmy, you *are* oh-so-funny!

By 'the rest' you mean the other left brained fanatic Leave
voters//////chancers here?

Oh, what's that, you thought your views represented the majority of
people (let alone the electorate) in the Country ... ;-(

Aww bless ...

Cheers, T i m

T i m Wrote in message:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:39:37 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Jimk
wrote:

John Rumm Wrote in message:
On 13/01/2020 08:34, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 04:20:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

"it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into"

A bit like Brexit then.

You really need to get something new to obsess about...



Or nym shift & see how long it takes the rest to spot him....

Oh Jimmy, you *are* oh-so-funny!

By 'the rest' you mean the other left brained fanatic Leave
voters//////chancers here?

Oh, what's that, you thought your views represented the majority of
people (let alone the electorate) in the Country ... ;-(

Aww bless ...

Cheers, T i m



Bwahahaha ;-)
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

OK I'm afully sorry about that, but who was he?
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Died age 75,of cancer.

"It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we
can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed
system of thought."

Sir Roger Scruton

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:13:27 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)"
wrote:

OK I'm afully sorry about that, but who was he?
Brian

A great man. A very noteworthy conservative philosopher, Brian.
--

No deal? No problem! :-D

On 13/01/2020 04:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Died age 75,of cancer.

€œIt is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it,...the fact that it is not a truth-directed .€�

Sir Roger Scruton


Utter nonsense from Sir Roger Screwtape there.

The reason Marxism is such an enduring set of ideas is only that it
provides a model and a language for describing historical changes that
continues to be true and useful. For anyone who doesn't know it, in the
simplest terms Marx's fundamental idea was that the primary thing that
drives history on, that changes society, that creates the irresistible
currents that we are all subject to and that it is vain to resist is not
religion or God, not wars and armies, not great men of destiny, not
ideas, not compassion, not darwinian struggle, not any of those
secondary factors but economics. It's about wealth and the way that
wealth is created. It's how we all see the world whether we think we are
marxists or not, and stupid of TNP and a dumb second rate lecturer to
imagine otherwise.

TW

In article ,
TimW wrote:
On 13/01/2020 04:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Died age 75,of cancer.

”It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it,...the fact that it is not a truth-directed .•

Sir Roger Scruton


Utter nonsense from Sir Roger Screwtape there.

The reason Marxism is such an enduring set of ideas is only that it
provides a model and a language for describing historical changes that
continues to be true and useful. For anyone who doesn't know it, in the
simplest terms Marx's fundamental idea was that the primary thing that
drives history on, that changes society, that creates the irresistible
currents that we are all subject to and that it is vain to resist is not
religion or God, not wars and armies, not great men of destiny, not
ideas, not compassion, not darwinian struggle, not any of those
secondary factors but economics. It's about wealth and the way that
wealth is created. It's how we all see the world whether we think we are
marxists or not, and stupid of TNP and a dumb second rate lecturer to
imagine otherwise.

Quite. And well worth reading his book 'Sexual Desire' Gives a true
insight into just how narrow minded he actually is.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

TimW wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Died age 75,of cancer.

€œIt is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it,...the fact that it is not a truth-directed
.€�

Sir Roger Scruton

Utter nonsense from Sir Roger Screwtape there.

Yes.

The reason Marxism is such an enduring set of ideas is only that it
provides a model and a language for describing historical changes

Yes.

that continues to be true and useful.

Nope.

For anyone who doesn't know it, in the simplest terms Marx's fundamental
idea was that the primary thing that drives history on, that changes
society, that creates the irresistible currents that we are all subject to
and that it is vain to resist is not religion or God, not wars and armies,
not great men of destiny, not ideas, not compassion, not darwinian
struggle, not any of those secondary factors but economics.

But misses the point completely when it is clear that the
Marxist approach to economics works much more badly
than the non Marxist approach, everywhere it has been tried.

And dont try running that hoary old line than no one has
ever actually tried the Marxist approach in the real world.

It's about wealth and the way that wealth is created.

And the Marxist approach does that much
more badly than the non Marxist approach.

It's how we all see the world whether we think we are marxists or not,

Its actually about whether marxism works or not. It doesnt.

and stupid of TNP and a dumb second rate lecturer to imagine otherwise.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 05:40:25 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Its actually about whether marxism works or not. It doesn¢t.

Capitalism doesn't work too good either, if it produces sick assholes like
you! Just look at yourself, senile asshole troll!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

Tim Streater posted
And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was
not reasoned into,

Cobblers.

--
Max

On 13/01/2020 12:11, Maxwell Boltzmann wrote:
Tim Streater posted
And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was
not reasoned into,

Cobblers.

You have just demonstrated it to be fact


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

The Natural Philosopher posted
On 13/01/2020 12:11, Maxwell Boltzmann wrote:
Tim Streater posted
And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he
was not reasoned into,
Cobblers.

You have just demonstrated it to be fact


How d'you work that out?

--
Max

On 13/01/2020 15:36, Maxwell Boltzmann wrote:
The Natural Philosopher posted
On 13/01/2020 12:11, Maxwell Boltzmann wrote:
Tim Streater posted
And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he
wasÂ* not reasoned into,
Â*Cobblers.

You have just demonstrated it to be fact


How d'you work that out?

"Cobblers" is not a reasoned response. Ergo someone using it in this
context is proof of Scruton's thesis.

You are simply an example of what he was talking about.

The typical kneejerk denialism of the Left, when faced with any
challenge to their worldview.


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

The Natural Philosopher posted
On 13/01/2020 15:36, Maxwell Boltzmann wrote:
The Natural Philosopher posted
On 13/01/2020 12:11, Maxwell Boltzmann wrote:
Tim Streater posted
And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he
was* not reasoned into,
*Cobblers.

You have just demonstrated it to be fact

How d'you work that out?

"Cobblers" is not a reasoned response. Ergo someone using it in this
context is proof of Scruton's thesis.

Cobblers.

--
Max

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/01/2020 15:36, Maxwell Boltzmann wrote:
The Natural Philosopher posted
On 13/01/2020 12:11, Maxwell Boltzmann wrote:
Tim Streater posted
And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was
not reasoned into,
Cobblers.

You have just demonstrated it to be fact


How d'you work that out?

"Cobblers" is not a reasoned response.

Yes, its a succinct statement of disagreement.

Ergo someone using it in this context is proof of Scruton's thesis.

No it is not. Scuton's claim is that it is futile to try
to reason someone out of something that was not
reasoned into. That is just plain wrong with some
of the ways that some get into a thing, most obvious
when its just accepted because its your parent's
position. It isnt futile to reason someone out of that.

You are simply an example of what he was talking about.

No he is not.

The typical kneejerk denialism of the Left,

He isnt even of the Left.

when faced with any challenge to their worldview.

That isnt even a challenge to his world view.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 13/01/2020 12:11, Maxwell Boltzmann wrote:
Tim Streater posted
And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was
not reasoned into,

Cobblers.

You have just demonstrated it to be fact

No he has not.

There are plenty of examples of people who have
accepted something and have not been reasoned
into that, who have been reasoned out of it. Most
obviously with those who have accepted something
that their parent have instilled into them who have
later been reasoned out of that,

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 06:26:05 +1100, , better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the auto-contradicting clinically insane senile idiot's latest
troll****

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/