What is different about the logic is that Hegel connects it to the process of people living together over time.

For instance, the question of what is moral cannot be reduced to a set of universal principles applicable to all times. But to say it is completely arbitrary according to custom is also not acceptable because that ignores a logic displayed in human interaction.

Without that background of interaction, the statements are mere theological musings upon a completed world. The discussion of Master and Slave in the Phenomenology of Spirit crashes the cosmopolitan party.

You can find some fellow travelers here.

On whose part?

You recited a well-established talking point. I am just a person noticing the repetition.

I like the pre-loaded ad hominem of your question. Yes, I am beating my wife.

You have done your part, no need to apologize.

Also, My point was, and this is undeniable: It is incomprehensible to the other side. The mere fact that Biden has said such utter, and complete shit as accusing blacks who vote for Trump of not being black wouuld lead to this. I'm not saying their right, or across the issues. — AmadeusD

Nice agitprop.

The cunning of geist is that the mind/spirit of the age will use what you think of as your mind for its own grander purposes without you necessarily being aware of it or of its purposes. — unenlightened

The flipside of that view of living in a particular situation with a limited view of the horizon is that the 'dialectic' starts with the desire of an individual. The impulse of the tyrant is located in the formation of logic as experienced by a proposed 'first' logician.

fuck this place.
Nosferatu has been playing it for years to satisfy his pleasure and he just admitted that was the case.
He is your bitch.
Time to spend more time reading and shaping materials.

[Edited at mod's request]

To whom are you directing this remark?

I live in a place and have lived in places where the result of the game is consequential. You appear to reside in a bunker where all the results are equally important or not.

You admitted it yourself.

The "I know i am but what are you" is straight from Pee Wee Herman.

Henceforth I intend to fact-check anything you write in this thread. — Wayfarer

He hopes you will do that to further fuck with you. He has accepted that it is just a game for him:

I’m just passing the time. — NOS4A2

I’m just passing the time. — NOS4A2

So, no skin in the game.

Does dissent from The Narrative frighten you? Because I haven’t seen try to impugn anyone else’s motives. — NOS4A2

Very funny, in view of all the assumptions you have made about motives. I appreciate the clear answers.

I have thought about this statement for several days and it strikes me as a perfect parody of what some people think.

Are you completely cynical and pulling on people's reactions or do you have any skin in the game? Do you want something for yourself and yours or are simply amusing yourself?

About a quarter way into Life And Fate by Vasily Grossman. I would have to be him to describe what it is like.

If all this turns out to be true it's just another instance of corruption in Trump's opponents and the justice system. — NOS4A2

Are you suggesting an abuse of power like this:?

NEW YORK, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Donald Trump cannot assert presidential immunity from a defamation lawsuit by writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday, dealing the former U.S. president another legal setback.

Ecce homo.

It is reasonable for them to do so. I measure that against my desire to be a human being as I see fit.

Are you referring to people arguing for some version of the status quo because of particular circumstances?

Were the causes reasonable? — jorndoe

Is that to be measured against what people might reasonably expect for themselves or some degree of freedom that they have no control over?

I grew up when using the word was a concordance with the past and present danger of discrimination. My parents raised me to resist that, even if it caused me harm.
I sort of get how the use is a source of expression for new generations.
But it will always be a betrayal, to my ears, of what so many people fought so hard to resist.

I would feel triggered if it did not sound like a Philip K Dick scene. It should play softly in the background of the place nobody will claim as their own.

Thanks for the update and hope he is feeling better.

Surely the outcome of the later case will be materially relevant to the appeal, would it not? — Wayfarer

Trump is not charged with insurrection in that case. The statement given is:

Good evening. Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia and sets forth the crimes charged in detail. I encourage everyone to read it in full. — Jack Smith

As the question of eligibility has been raised by States in their different processes of determination, there has not been a Federal set of laws established that States have to recognize when judging upon facts. When the 14nth Amendment was written, the insurrectionists were not hiding from the charge but proudly spoke of their service to the Confederacy.

Now you have the people who made the 1/6 action happen shaking pom-poms for the day or denying responsibility for it depending upon which room they happen to be in.

The wind blows through the empty diorama, causing the rope of Mike Pence's gallows to swing and twist alone.

I accept that you are done with this but have to ask,

Where did they go?

That is not central to the claim you have made about wealth.

Did those leaving have all the money?

I get the idea. How does that actually happen in a place like NYC?

The irony is that the big Democratic sanctuary cities are losing high income tax payers to be replaced with homeless and welfare subjects. — jgill

Those cities are challenged by the influx of poor people. On what basis should they be seen as replacing people?

Which text are you quoting?

Well done. Plenty to think about.

Whether Heidegger was right or wrong to describe Nietzsche as producing the last metaphysic is a question here. Is the ground of personal being wrestled with here or are conditions not so easy to approach?

There is no right or left. It's uniparty all the way down. Trump has single-handedly upset it and its glorious to watch. — NOS4A2

This explains your indifference to culture war issues regarding civil rights and the interests of those influencing the makeup of judicial appointees. Those issues have a direct bearing on who has power in communities. Trump has been a very good boy in that regard.

To act as if this was not going on is to misunderstand the support for Trump. Your vision of politics excludes the simple ingredient of perceived self-interest.

I am not sure how or if it fits into the questions surrounding history but there is something visceral about Nietzsche's reaction to Pascal. The idea that another person could have lived a different life.

It is easier on the ego of those of Trumps' critics to say that Trump has "mislead" or "deceived" people than to consider the possibility that many people already are that way, with or without Trump. — baker

For a number of Trump voters, being put in a "basket of deplorables" by H Clinton was a critical factor in their support. But there were others who gladly wore the "I don't care" sweatshirts.

Seeing the contrasting reactions suggests that a coalition of different views amongst the supporters had more to do with the results than critics assuming a common connection that was not there.

Your facts are appeals to authority. Deep down you know how obsequious it is. — NOS4A2

The sources you use rely upon what they credit as reliable witnesses to facts. It often sounds like you are working for some of them.

The ready contempt is bountiful there. If what you are doing is different from that, how can a reader of your comments know that?

The odd thing about the situation is that there is no overriding context of law on the Federal level to place a judgement made by a State into.

The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decisions are essential to what degree Trump is considered a 'viable candidate'. The decisions will require a profound change of law if the 'electorate' does not agree. Change of that sort takes a lot of time.

What's more, those who suffer from mental disorders may not be insane, but could be individuals in the purest sense, because they are by nature isolated from society." — Vaskane

This runs into the problem of what isolation might be. Your description tells a story about it.

Conviction can't be required, because insurrection isn't a crime (Congress has passed no law against engaging in insurrection). Nevertheless, the 14th Amendment spells out a penalty for engaging in it: ineligibility for office.

You may be right that the Justices will find some procedural excuse, but they need the ruling to apply to all states - not just the specific issues with the Colorado decision. That seems tougher. — Relativist

The gap is there. The authors of the amendment seem not to have imagined an insurrectionist(s) who would act like they are not one in some places.

With Maine also striking Trump from the ballot, maybe the U.S. Supreme Court will come up with more than a due process objection which you pointed out is quite possible. With States having undergone interference from a national party organization in the electoral vote process, it would be helpful to recognize how that is wrong if it is to be distinguished from insurrection. If the Electoral College is to continue, it needs a basis upon which States can protect themselves from partisan influence.

They are not simply biased tribalists either, as is evidenced by how they cut ties with or get rid of those who no longer serve their cause. — baker

Can you articulate what that cause is? Have you associated with a range of Trump voters where this lack of simple bias has been demonstrated to you?

On the face of it, you assert a unity of purpose while denying that it exists.