Luther was mean, and polemic person, against minorities. Such as Jews, and perhaps one key figures behind the antisemitic holocaust. Perhaps even inspired Hitler, and other Nazis with his work that he dedicated to Jews. He was an author behind "On the Jews and their lies.". And Hitler mentioned in Mein Kampf that Luther was his inspiration. Also Nazis did commit the horrors, literally in many ways as mentioned in his book. Luther is nowadays kinda famous among Neo-Nazis. — batsushi7

Well then, how do you explain this:

I've read his catechisms, and I find his ideas are still very appropriate and applicable in today's world. He argued that the head of the household should discipline the family in Scripture. — dimension72

Even the strongest rhetoric is essentially hypothetical, and acceptance of this truism is an epiphany that breaks down the psychology of submissiveness to orthodoxy, allowing human minds to embrace unincarnated possibility, epistemic progress and paradigmal obsolescence with alacrity, gaining a concept of freedom that maximizes the willpower necessary to strategically remodel our world. — Enrique

Subjectivity does not equal freedom. Further, where did you get this idea of "willpower" being the agent of renovation? Your conclusion is mistaken. If humans progress it will be because they figured out how to produce quality (healthy humans) at the level of individual development. The good news is, we have done this and are continuing to do it.

It sort of looks a bit like: if you're part of these conflicts, then you're part of the problem. — jorndoe

It demonstrates a consciousness that was unable to get behind the mirage of social constructs, or to put it another way, a consciousness that was totally given over to idealism. As much as one thought they had escaped the error by separating themselves from particular attributes of idealism, they were still entirely locked in the system. The higher awareness has always sided with those who have the ability to comprehend that religious ideas, are in fact, social ideas.

Surely there are more important things in the world than these kind of abstractions? What's the point of this? Let's not do anything "for the sake of argument" and see where this leads us.

"We ought first to know that there are no good works except those which God has commanded, even as there is no sin except that which God has forbidden. Therefore whoever wishes to know and to do good works needs nothing else than to know God's commandments."

"The first and highest, the most precious of all good works is faith..."

Luther was an authentic revolutionary within the Christian tradition, he shattered the power of the Priest cast. But tragically he was never able to get beyond the ideological power of Christianity itself. If we had lived in the time of Luther we would have been terribly burdened by the papacy, and life was already hard enough. Luther freed the poor from this ideology but left the general ideology of Christianity intact. Instead of the monarchy of the papacy the structure of the Church become more democratic. Nevertheless it was still an authoritarian structure, but the leaders of the Church were now subject to the criteria of scripture, held accountable by the congregation.

Luther's position is legitimately reduced to subjective emotivism:

"...if these things are done with such faith that we believe that they please God, then they are praiseworthy, not because of their virtue, but because of such faith, for which all works are of equal value, as has been said."

Here the sole criteria of truth is not scripture, but one's belief regarding the authentic status of one's faith.

"In brief, nothing can be in or about us and nothing can happen to us but that it must be good and meritorious, if we believe (as we ought) that all things please God."

All quotes taken from: A treatise on Good Works together with the Letter of Dedication by Dr. Martin Luther, 1520 Published in: Works of Martin Luther_ Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol. 1, pp. 173-285.

I've read his catechisms, and I find his ideas are still very appropriate and applicable in today's world. He argued that the head of the household should discipline the family in Scripture. — dimension72

Example of how cultural stupidity gets transferred to the next generation. Head of the household? Discipline the family in the Protestant Canon? I would advise intelligent parents to teach their kids critical thinking and bring them up to date on the advances and discoveries of science. There's no need to confuse things with the old Hebrews: contrary to popular opinion, Paul was not an educated man.

Everything becomes about battling the the bad guys -- those religious people! — Xtrix

You are sore mistaken if you think your rosy view of religion is reality. The horrors and tyranny of religion have only been put in check by secular humanism. Religion is not some innocent belief system that merely makes people feel happy, it's a vicious historical dogma that is always seeking to propel itself to a place of power. Your view on it is emotive as opposed to objective. The historical acts in which religion has engaged, the brutality it has justified, slavery, torture, war, suppression of free thought, these are not mere fictions but realities. When you talk about "growing up," that is precisely what religion cannot do. It is not a mere act of emotion to refute error, but an intellectual responsibility. I wish our species was advanced beyond the primitive, psychological state of religion. I would rather not have to deal with it at all.

This is yet more evidence that you troll threads to project your anger towards
Theism. — 3017amen

Don't flatter yourself. I don't consider theology of any importance. I ignore just about every theistic thread on this forum, as they are full of intellectual poverty and third-rate thinkers at best. I usually only deal with Christians when they get in my way, and I do it swiftly, the same way I dealt with you.

If you had stated you posted to argue with Christians, it would have made sense. — Philosophim

This is exactly what I said I don't do.

Your irrationality — Philosophim

Yeah, still waiting for this charge to be sustained.

There is nothing better for a person of faith, in developing his thought, than to go up against a quality contrary intelligence. — Philosophim

This would not be good for faith.

you are simply expressing the other side of the same coin that those who are overzealous for Christianity often times do. — Philosophim

There is no equivalence here. Those who indoctrinate the species with delusion cannot be compared to those who refute it.

Further, an attitude of dismissal can quickly bring you to ruin. It becomes all too easy to write off those who disagree with you as "unskilled" — Philosophim

I agree with this.

Your own mind will try to trick you of its own greatness so it does not have to think to hard on its own conclusions. — Philosophim

I agree with this.

A good thinker realizes this, and stays vigilant against these types of thoughts. — Philosophim

I agree with this.

We should speak to all types of people, not only those we deem, "worthy", because we all too easily can narrow our scope to that which we find comfortable to us. — Philosophim

I agree with this as well. Vetting in this sense should not be conducted on the basis of superficial considerations.

There was no need to place your distaste of Christian's to the OP's question. It was an irrational addition. — Philosophim

Irrational??? There are lots of Christians on here and I do not cater to their sophistry. This is no more a crime than resisting those who try to promote the existence of faeries or unicorns.

I reject your false moralism that elevates error and delusion to a level of deserving intellectual respect. I deny this, and not only deny it, but will continue to deal critically with these sophists.

who are you to think you know anything. — Outlander

Listen, game player, epistemological hypocrite, let's watch you contradict yourself:

Affirmations of knowledge:

I mean- by all understandable observation it does. That's reality. Until it was disproved. — Outlander

one may be mistaken. — Outlander

Just as one Nicolaus Copernicus did to a dark and confused society not 500 years ago. — Outlander

By first teaching them the importance and relevance of intellectual standards.

Kinda odd to just single out a certain dish out of an identical buffet if you ask me. — Outlander

I'm an American, in America we deal with Christians. I don't have time to deal with every religion in the world. My provincialism in this sense is a matter of focus and relevance.

Have you ever seen an electron? A black hole? Witnessed nuclear fusion? Observed evolution? Performed carbon dating? — Outlander

If you want to talk about reality that is one thing, if you want to attempt to use reality to sneak in your idea of God, that is another thing. I don't have time for this game and will not suffer your abstraction.

But if I now told you, as I believe, that classical empiricism died a long time ago, how would that affect the project? — Srap Tasmaner

Maybe in some idealistic form, but you are a material being and you live in a material world. I don't think your object much applies to this original posters position. We refute and prove things most powerfully with evidence, any idealism you embrace that takes you away from this premise, is just that, idealism.

I don't have a problem with you at all. On the contrary I enjoy your input very much. Is it because I said "some more clumsily than others"? Because that wasn't at all meant as an insult at you, but rather at QAnon folks. If so, I apologize to have caused this misunderstanding. I should have phrased that clearer. — Hirnstoff

Right here, sign that this person is serious about 1) not being a hypocrite and 2) actually achieving civil discourse.

There is nothing better for a thinker, in developing his thought, than to go up against a quality contrary mind. One cannot replicate this vital negativity themselves. However, it can actually be degenerative to go up against unskilled thinkers because they drive the emphasis away from intelligence. In this case, one is not necessarily progressing but regressing. This is why I don't suffer the stupidity of Christians, their emphasis is nonsense.

As Plantinga argues — Dfpolis

It does not matter what this wack-job argues. This guy tries to pass off the Holy Spirit as a valid premise in philosophical reasoning. The guy is a nut case, Notre Dame has lots of them.

"There should be little doubt that Christian belief can be and probably is justified, and justified even for one well acquainted with Enlightenment and postmodern demurrers. If your belief is a result of the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit, it may seem obviously true, even after reflection on the various sorts of objections that have been offered. Clearly one is then violating no intellectual obligations in accepting it." Plantinga, Knowledge and Christian Belief

"Is Christianity really Satanic?"

Interesting argument, Christianity is a form functional Satanism. Psychologically this makes sense, because the concept originated from the same psyche that created God, which means it is lurking in there, ready to manifest itself unconsciously. Based on the actual function of the Christian God, He is far worse than Satan. I think you have a valid kind of deconstruction argument here.

If you ask people why they were trying to do science -- for instance, QAnon interpretation -- what will the answer be? I don't know, but it has to do with tribe. We can say they've engaged in motivated reasoning and fallen prey to all sorts of cognitive biases, and that guarding against that can be taught. But it's a game of whack-a-mole. — Srap Tasmaner

What's interesting about this belief is that those who arrive at it do so through an online procedure that makes them feel like they have accomplished serious research, that their conclusion is the result of some kind of scientific process. This is what they believe about what they did to arrive at the belief, and it locks them in the belief because they have to admit to themselves that they were duped and incompetent in order to refute the belief. This is an interesting scheme to deploy on people as a form of interactive propaganda.

are humans a selfish creature or a selfless creature? — dan0mac

Your ability or lack of ability for empathy comes from your maturation environment. Humans are what their environments shape them to be. There is no such thing as Human Nature, this is an old myth now laid to rest, there are personality structures that get shaped as they pass through social environments and take in nutrients. Conservatives and Christians hate this fact because it robs them of being able to talk about humans in idealistic terms and forces them to pay attention to social causation. It shatters both the conservative and religious ideology of man.

not every horse can become a champion no matter how much training they receive. — Janus

Ignorance needs to die. When horses get the proper training they fluctuation on and off from winning. The horses that do not get the proper training would not stand a chance against those who do.

"New scientific research shows that environmental influences can actually affect whether and how genes are expressed. In fact, scientists have discovered that early experiences can determine how genes are turned on and off and even whether some are expressed at all. Thus, the old ideas that genes are “set in stone” or that they alone determine development have been disproven."

Source: https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/what-is-epigenetics-and-how-does-it-relate-to-child-development/

I am simply stating the obvious — Janus

No you are emphasizing a vague category to the detriment of concrete reality.

Michael Jordan is a tall, powerfully constituted athletic type of person — Janus

These are not talents now are they? These are physical attributes. And without the right resources and environment these would not only lead to nothing, but they wouldn't' even exist! Refuted, again.

You know nothing about me or my life. — Janus

I know what you have asserted about natural talent and the like, and it's false. You tried to claim that talent is an attribute that pops into existence as a magical genetic structure. This is false. Even the genes you are referencing are themselves contingent on qualitative historical development. The fact that you tried to posit this category, that some people are just magically superior to others, this is why you have been charged with elitism and privilege, not because I know the details of your life, but because you are arguing for privilege!

Quote one example of anything I have said that would reasonably count as a "brutal, material contradiction" or show that my "position" is "idealist". — Janus

"...it would require everyone to be a highly critical thinker. I just don't believe most people have the capacity for that..."*

And you do? Why?

Where did you grow up?
Did you have both parents?
Were they home or gone most of the time?
Did they have any substance use dependence?
Were you abused?
Did you face adversity in your social life?
What color is your skin?
Were you born into a working house family or inherited wealth?
Did you have quality mentors?
Did you have quality reading material?
Did you have a nutrient rich diet?
Did you suffer any trauma in the development of your brain?
Was your community experience one of calm or anxiety?

*There is another way to approach this, "most" does not mean "all," which means "some" people do have this capacity, the question is why? You tried to posit genetic inheritance as the reason, this is false, so I repeat myself: 'You are a material being, and ALL of your quality originates not from yourself but from your experience of collective community.'

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc -- are themselves so varied and range from one moral extreme to another that it's difficult to lump them in to "dumb" or sluggish or whatever. — Xtrix

Not true. Man is only religious in his psychology. Reality is material, religion is not. You are here thinking about religion absent from meta-cognition, instead of comprehending it from the inescapable reality of materialism you are interpreting it through culture, which makes you, in one sense or another, duped by it.

Master ideologies are often right in front of us as well. — Xtrix

Depends on what you mean by, right in front of us? If you mean they are "obvious," this is false. Man validates the administered world as reality, until he achieves a critical capacity he has no power to separate himself from it. And part of the tyranny a master ideologies is that they foster conditions to promote critical poverty, thus making use of religion while consciously standing above it.

Subtle ideologies do not begin with the assertion of phantom deities. This could not be cruder or more stupid. Subtle ideologies usually begin with socially normative precepts, trying carefully to avoid all criticism regarding the intelligence or fairness of such activity, working to reinforce the status quo.

The view that I am contradicting is the one that claims that self-interest is rational, whereas altruism is irrational. — unenlightened

Whoever claims this, did they have a mama that fed them when they was a baby? If selves only existed there would be no selves. The party claiming this is smuggling in the altruistic world that accounts for his quality, so the claim cannot even be made without presupposing the value of the thing it tries to deny. It is able to make the claim only because of the existence of the thing it denies. End of story.

This fella should be applauded for using his time to foster civil discourse. This is a good thread.

Part of the problem is the limited format of things like twitter, youtube and reddit, these formats lend themselves, not to quality, but to misinformation, they literally give an advantage to pathological personality types. That's one thing I like about this Forum, it doesn't lend itself to misinformation because truth has time to express itself without being suffocated by platitudes and insinuations of error.

It's not a question of how I'm speaking of it; it's very straightforward, it's just natural variation. Are you seriously claiming that some people are not more naturally talented than others in the various fields of human endeavor? — Janus

Out of courtesy and respect for the discourse I was trying to simply presume your terms. This is often the more mature way to discourse. Asking for a justification of every last term, though one can do it, is really the mark of a novice dialectician. However, you have forced the issue here, so you must explain what you mean by, "natural variation," that some people are "more naturally talented?"

What I suspect is that you are equivocating. A natural variation can only mean that a person has some kind of genetic advantage, but once again, this genetic advantage is not a "natural variation" in any magic sense, genes form through historical process, further, the existence of talent is a matter of privileged conditions. I have already refuted what you say, 'Subtract the material and you have nothing left but an empty category.' You can be given all the natural advantage in the world, but if you pass through an impoverished environment your advantage will be negated. Would you rather have the greatest genetic, natural advantage and grow up in Syria, or have one that is only moderate and grow up in wealth and the stability of a healthy home and society? The answer is obvious, and it refutes your emphasis on "natural talent."

What you are trying to do is argue with abstract, empty categories, when I call you out and demand that you substantiate the category, we find that material reality doesn't match up with the presumptions of your ideals. Talent is not an attribute without a history, remove the concrete and it doesn't exist. (There is no Michael Jordan without the basketball court and hoop he had access to as a boy).

I think it's time for a reality-check, dude. — Janus

No, I will not play by your privileged rules. Like I said, it was people like you, specifically with this kind of self-righteous attitude of superiority, that crushed people like my grandfather and father. You need to be knocked off your perch, all the social benefits you received from society, that's what accounts for your quality, remove this and there is nothing left.

I have not been attacking you personally but drawing out brutal, material contradictions of your idealist position.

you are too deluded — Janus

you are apparently just another proselytizer, who would rather distort what your interlocutors — Janus

your tendency to distort the words — Janus

despite your apparent pretensions — Janus

you are actually a closed-minded ideologue, and thus also a self-deluding hypocrite. — Janus

Yes, this is how privilege responds and usually works. This kind of authoritarian reply would have crushed my grandfather and father, because they could not defend themselves from people like you. Not I little man. I am calling out your privilege and will continue to do so. It signifies what is wrong with so many intellectuals. You are not alone in this, it is the common disposition.

By hedonism I am not necessarily referring to a philosophy of pleasure, I am referring to the pursuit of subjectivity over that of social responsibility.

So very well said, though tragic. It's quite hard to fight off hedonism from this vantage.

Turns out economic dogma is worse than religious dogma — Xtrix

Religion is just a crude form of ideology, the master ideologies of the world do not reveal their presence so easy. I always try to tell young atheists not to feel like they accomplished something by escaping religion, there is no congratulations here, religion is but the dumbest and lowest slug on the ideological tree.

Thanks. That was swift help, even though I didn't need it. Good to know about the Eye of Mordor lurking at the bottom of the sub-forums. :grin:

Also, superb job on this Forum, very well administrated. It's a great place to be. :grin:

Hopefully others will find it.

I would like everything, minus the lounge, to show up under All Discussions. This is where I spend most of my time, and I would like to see what's going on. I don't want to have to click on every single category.

If you can’t rule it out, then you need to provide your reasons. — apokrisis

Yeah, well I did reference a book that argued exactly this thing. Further, is it the case that your democratic interpretation is the only one that can be deduced from the theory?

It is a scientific claim. So it is either supported by the evidence or not. — apokrisis

No, your casting of nature as a normative, ethical category is not scientific!

The people at the top of the social order lay down the rules that suit their personal purposes. Then the people at the bottom find their actions completely determined by some rigid system of control. — apokrisis

The question is whether or not Hierarchy Theory really escapes this model, or just ends up reframing it under the name of "organic hierarchy?" I don't believe we can rule this out, your good faith and democratic intentions, don't necessarily prelude other interpretations.

I am pointing out that nature is in general organised by the rational principle of striking functional balances. — apokrisis

And I have been pointing out that what we observe in nature is not the final word of exemplification, but is subject to the mediation of thought. You are claiming that these observations all fall in line with democratic process, and suppose they don't, suppose another interpretation sees mechanistic hierarchy in nature, what is your conclusion then? We already know, you have stated it, one cannot argue against nature (see your final quote below). Here is the creation of a category immune to criticism.

Further, and this is perhaps the most significant point I have made, what we observe in nature is lacking thought's mediation! If I am reading you correctly, you seem to be saying that the process you observe in nature, must always be considered superior, is in fact, the standard of thought, the very basis of what constitutes an intelligent ethic? If this is the case I do not call it intelligence, but mindlessness disguised as intelligence.

And if that is the order that Nature demonstrates to be rational, it would seem you would have to offer some new reason for why that wouldn’t also be optimal as the “ethical basis” of human social organisation. — apokrisis

This is exactly my problem. The answer has already been given, because what we observe in nature is lacking the mediation of thought, it is mechanical and mindless in this sense. You are arguing that we are not even allowed to apply thought here, that what we observe (more like, interpret) must be taken as a divine natural law. So tell me why humans could not decide to apply thought to organization? Nature is not the standard, thought is, most specifically as it pivots itself from the angle of man's context.

You seem to fail to comprehend that thought is always standing in a position of mediation here, it is transcendent in this sense, not in any supernatural way, but in a way that you are already determining, that the thing you are observing in nature, qualifies as being ethical and intelligent, not from the basis of the thing, but exterior to it. It is by the power of thought that you conclude that Hierarchy Theory is a good thing. Not sure you understand this?

What point are you trying to make? — Janus

That this topic is not just "much ado about nothing."

No you are failing to make the crucial distinction between fundamentalist — Janus

This delusion is not confined to fundamentalism. If you believe in the existence of unicorns it doesn't matter whether you classify the belief as extreme or moderate, it is false. The status of delusion doesn't change just because you say "the former consists in quasi-empiricist reification of spiritual metaphors." I am not surprised just disappointed that you think delusion is somehow more preferable, just because it is not classified as fundamentalist delusion.

It would be elitist if I had said that, but I haven't. — Janus

---->

"...it would require everyone to be a highly critical thinker. I just don't believe most people have the capacity for that..."[/quote]

Then, I guess I fail to understand what you are advocating as an alternative? I saw you mention Spinoza believing that people had to have religion because they were too stupid for reason. (This is a paraphrase, I don't remember your exact wording). The direction and implication of what you are saying is that delusion is okay because society makes it hard for people to obtain skills in critical thinking. Of course you would never state your position this way because it makes it obvious that the position is absurd.

If you deny that there is any natural variation in intelligence..." — Janus

That is, what accounts for intelligence? Why do you have it, for example, while millions of people born into abject poverty don't? Please do explain.

I deny that the natural variation you speak of is what accounts for the quality in intelligence.

It is not a matter of "either/ or" but "both/ and". — Janus

I agree with this, but this is not an equivalence. Environment, psychological as well as physical, is the dominant feature of determinism when it comes to the health of human beings.

Nature and human life are not as simplistic as you would seem to like to paint them. — Janus

I don't think nature is simple, but I also don't think every detail of its complexity comprises relevance.

think that there are no such things as material differences between people. — Janus

You mean material advantage makes the difference? Yes, I agree.

we are naturally variant in our gifts — Janus

Gifts? You mean superior genes? Even so this doesn't matter, if you gave any human the greatest genetic advantage, if his genes are subjected to an impoverished environment, they will yield no "gifts." You are a body. Your mind is material. Suffering impoverishment in these areas will destroy your intellectual qualities and any other so-called "gifts" you might have. Further, the passing on of genes is itself based on the qualitative historical experience of your parents and grandparents. You make it sound like God is dishing out magic genes to people, as opposed to them being shaped by a material, historical process.

I haven't said that anyone ought to be treated any differently on account of their natural gifts, though, and if I had that would be elitist. — Janus

No, that would be a direct form of elitism, you have offered a sly, backdoor, I'm better than you approach because I have a "natural variant of gifts." (It's hard to hold my tongue here, I despise intellectuals like yourself). Ignorantly you go about leading with your social privilege, discoursing from it as though the world were divided in terms of it, all the while oblivious to the fact that you are simply luckier. It's hard to respect, and no philosopher should be naive in this sense. Men like you crushed people like my grandfather and father, pounded them into dust with your privilege.

talented individuals are special insofar as their natural gifts exceed the average, and this is the same in the visual arts, in music, in sports, in regard to physical strength and mental acuity. — Janus

More disbelief and a pain in holding my tongue. There is no such thing as a "natural gift," as you speak of it here. Bobby Fisher had to practice chess for 10,000 hours to become a master. Beethoven made thousands of corrections to his symphonies. The development of mastery in any field presupposes a vital chain of material resources, opportunity, historical development, remove these and your category doesn't exist!

Whether those gifts are cultivated and developed is an entirely different matter. — Janus

Wrong. What you are saying here would then mean, a person's skill is a matter of genetic inheritance. False. Subtract the material and you have nothing left but an empty category. This is the exact opposite of idealism!

EVEN IF we 8 billion people, woke up and decided to start acting right now, it would be very hard work to prevent the cascade. I conclude that we are totally screwed. — Bitter Crank

This brings us to interesting questions. What happens to philosophy in light of this awareness? How should a wise person proceed in light of such negativity? If these premises are correct then philosophy must take a new course, it must revise itself in the consciousness, of what appears to be, the most profound negation of being.

You seem naive and idealistic in these matters. — Janus

Where did you grow up?
Did you have both parents?
Were they home or gone most of the time?
Did they have any substance use dependence?
Were you abused?
Did you face adversity in your social life?
What color is your skin?
Were you born into a working house family or inherited wealth?
Did you have quality mentors?
Did you have quality reading material?
Did you have a nutrient rich diet?
Did you suffer any trauma in the development of your brain?
Was your community experience one of calm or anxiety?

You are a material being, and ALL of your quality originates not from yourself but from your experience of collective community.

I don't play your abstract, idealistic privilege that seeks to separate its quality from every material fact that accounts for its being.

If you have intelligence it's not because you are special, it's because you are lucky.

Do you believe you are free from it? — Janus

I believe that all humans, including myself, are tragically prone to error, that is why we make use of intellectual standards.

You are changing the topic here. You said my position only applied to fundamentalism, this is not the case. The fact that you validate my premise means you agree with my position.

No, it is elitist to suppose that you can pontificate as to what is and what is not delusion for others. — Janus

Pardon me, you just agreed with my first premise regarding the God delusion. I reject your self-contradictory subjectivity which states we cannot tell the difference between truth and error. It is not elitist to refute and condemn error. It is elitist to say that people should be fed on a diet of delusion because they do not have the resources for critical thinking. No doubt, there is some truth to this, but not for the fatalistic reasons you seem to portray here. If they lack the resources it is because their social experience was one of poverty.

There are natural variations in degrees of intelligence..." — Janus

The variation you speak of is not a genetic predetermination, it is created by environment and psychological care. By god you are an Elitist! It is thinkers like yourself that weary me most of all, because you have all the benefits of society and you use your own privileged position to construct tyrannical, normative categories, all the while ignoring the material fact that your quality is the result of greater social resources. Every homie born into the projects ought to join me is thrashing your privilege. My family is Native American, genocided and socially alienated. You want to tell me that my father and grandfather were genetically inferior to you? Wrong cowboy, they didn't have your social privileges!

Reading over this thread it seems to be "much ado about nothing". — Janus

Is the ideological text I cited much ado about nothing? It won't be long until we see its proliferation. I think you're the only person on this thread who would take the position that this is not an important topic. The questions here are not so easily swept aside. The affirmative position is basically telling us that Hierarchy Theory has cracked the code of nature. I have raised valid concerns regarding tyranny. Further, when you have a theory with as much authority as Hierarchy Theory, it is precisely something that critical thought needs to be applied to.