Amir Arsalan vs. Ahreeman X: Morality & Atheism

Start your Formal Debates & Discussions here.

Moderator: Club Operations

Amir Arsalan vs. Ahreeman X: Morality & Atheism

Postby Ahreeman X » Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:24 pm

Dialogue of AA & AX (Morality & Atheism)


Well, it seems like you want to go head to head and discuss philosophy. Even though I am dead busy, yet in between my work, I shall find time to do an official formal debate. I shall post the background information and discussions so the public will not get lost.

There is no need to go to “Formal Debates Proposals Room”. I am beginning it right here. The only parameter needs to be discussed is if you want to let others in or do you want to go head to head, just the two of us?

I say, Let’s go one on one, but if some worthy member wants to input an opinion, then let them include; however, if some retard, degenerate or Bache Kun would interfere with this thread to post Bull Shiite, then right away we delete the post and kick him out of IPC in one shot. As Lib says: “Some just ask for it to be banned!” In other words, kill the mother without any trial! What do you say?

Well alrighty then, let’s roll:

Background Information for this discussion:

Moral Revolution – Alternative Tactic
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/movement/moral-revolution/

Why Moral Revolution is our Salvation?
viewtopic.php?t=16


* * *
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Ahreeman X » Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:28 pm

Amir Arsalan Wrote:

“Philosophy 101

Dear friend,

I like your explanation regarding the need for a moral revolution as well as some of your suggestions. Nevertheless, I wish to emphasize two points of contention regarding your latest addition to the thread within the subject of morality.

I understand that by posting this, I may be presenting myself as a target of a dozen flying Qurans. Fortunately, the missiles will be Qurans. I have learned to easily dodge flying Qurans, Bibles, and Torahs that have been thrown at me in the past.

I. Nationalism

I consider myself a nationalist, and I applaud other nationalists. However, I don’t think that nationalism itself is necessarily a part of morality. Certainly, if one considers one’s nation to be one’s extended society, and if one also considers benevolence towards one’s society to be a component of morality, then it follows that nationalism has a link to morality. Although nationalism and morality may have areas of overlap, it is not necessarily true that love towards country equates to morality. Certainly, there may even be occasions whereby nationalism may jeopardize one’s moral stance, as nationalism and morality may sometimes be antagonists.

This last point is one that most philosophers have been aware of in their lives. It is the reason that many prominent philosophers and moralists have been anti-nationalists. Nationalism and morality have a complex relationship, at times conducive while at other times unfavorable towards each other. In the future I may write an article regarding the matter of nationalism, but for the present time this short point should suffice.

I mention this because great portions of the examples of morality that you cite are in fact examples of nationalism and not necessarily of morality. Again, I applaud one’s love for country, but it is a separate matter than morality. I encourage all to follow your nationalistic suggestions, but I would separate them from your suggested examples of morality. Those examples, of course, bring me to the next point.

II. Examples

You set out to explain morality, but gave a long list of examples of what you consider to be moral acts and the negative of immoral acts. This is fine, and it helps to give a general idea of the premise of morality. However, examples do not define a concept. They only explain specific situations.

The problem of only giving examples in order to explain a concept is twofold.

First, by nature examples are not exhaustive. There may be an infinite number of potential citable examples, and the exclusion of even a single one leaves room for ambiguity. If one defines a concept using examples, one must cite them all in order to completely explain the matter. Obviously, this is impossible.

Second, although each example that is given cites the concept at hand, it may also include with it premises that may not be related to that concept. That certain additional factor may therefore become erroneously affiliated with the description.

What do I mean by all this? Consider the heart of philosophy: logic itself.

-What’s in a word? The answer is logic.

The word “logic” is of course Greek. It is derived from the word “logos,” meaning “word.” The concept of the word is of paramount importance to philosophy, because analytical thinking depends not just upon the process of deduction (whether inductive or deductive), but also upon the point of origination, or definition. Consider what is usually involved in a mathematical or geometric proof. One almost always begins with a definition. If not a definition, then it is based on an axiom or another theorem, which in turn is based upon a previous definition. Therefore, definitions are of utmost importance, as they dictate the deductions that subsequently follow, which contemporaries have dubbed as “logic.”

Consider what is implied with the concept of a “word.” What are words, if not definitions of subjects? Words in language serve the purpose of conveying predetermined defining features. Therefore, the core of philosophy as the Greeks saw it is based upon the starting definition, or word. Hence, the process itself has been deemed as “logic.”

Now that I’ve explained why examples are inadequate as defining features, let me expand upon the point by…. citing an example (don’t you just love my sick humor)?

-Nice table

The example of the table is of course one of the oldest and most widely used examples in philosophy texts to explain this point.

Suppose I asked you the following question: What is a table? Now also suppose that you took me down to the local furniture store and started to point out table after table to me and said: “those are tables.” You may have given me a good idea of what is a table, but that idea may not be completely correct.

The tables you showed me might all be made of wood. Does that mean that a wooden constitution is a necessary requirement for being a table? Of course it does not. Also, all the tables you showed me might be rectangular. Is that a necessary requirement? The answer is again no.

So then, it becomes necessary to consider what are the necessary minimum requirements for qualifying a table as being a table. Those minimum requirements (whether of inclusion or exclusion) would then mount as a working definition of a table.

Such a definition might be along the lines of the following: A table is an object that is supported by its stand, and presents a flat surface which could serve to in turn support other objects off the ground. This definition may not be the best definition of a table, but it is nonetheless a definition that serves to adequately describe the concept of a table without having to show endless samples of tables.

Notice that its shape, size, color, material, number of legs, height, etc are conspicuously absent form the definition. That’s because these features are not minimum defining features, and their absence or presence does not qualify or disqualify an object as being a table.

-Where were we? Oh, yes…morality.

I was not the one that asked you to define morality. It is not a burning question for me to pose to you, and I don’t want to pressure you into providing an answer. I have posed that question to myself, and answered it as best as I could in my prior writings. I am, however, always curious about others’ take on the subject.

So then, X, how do you define morality?”


* * *

Morality, The Definition
Ahreemanic Log 600 and 60 plus 6

I truly wanted to ignore this post yet once more due to my good and large size Red Heart, I am going to respond to another Moral Related post!

Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have a,
Second Camran in the House
Second Mollah Loqati in the House
Second Fan of Word Games in the House
Second Philosopher Knit Picker in the House
Second Bold person who even went one step beyond Camran and dared to once more ask me what the Frag is Morality?!

I must admit, you got balls!
You may want to watch out for your balls!
Now before I throw everything @ you and smoosh you like a little pesky neurotic obsessive compulsive pest who enjoys getting on my nerves, I shall grant you the pleasure of a definition,

Morality, The Definition for Deaf, Dumb, Blind, Iranian Frustrated Philosophers (such as Camran), Iranian Professors with Issues (such as Amir) and the rest of the past, present and future Knit Picking, Ball Busting, Pesky Pests, Word Players, Troubled Philosophers, or simply ILL People,


Morality (The Definition)
From Encyclopedia Ahreemanica
(The Only Encyclopedia you will be needing till either Eternity or when Hell Freezes over!)

“Morality is a doctrine or a set of principles which a society, a community, a group, an organization or individuals set for themselves to define and distinguish between Right and Wrong, so they can live by it.”

And if you need Ahreemanic Examples, then look back into my article.

I am going to add the above definition to my article, so there will be no more issues!

I believe that by now, every single Iranian inside or outside is pretty clear about the definition, examples and the whole doctrine of the “Ahreemanic Morality”.

How many more years should we dance around this issue? Soon we will be ending the 7th year (March 30, 2007 = IPC Birthday) and entering the 8th year?

Now don’t get me wrong, I do not mind keep on dancing around this issue but I have tendencies to Dance On People’s Graves! It is one of my specialties and it is called:

“Ahreemanic Dance on The Graves”

It is kind o like Indian Rain Dance yet on the Graves!

Now, go ahead and ask another question regarding Morality, its bloody definition, the bloody examples and the whole shebang? I dare you? I dare all of you?

Yous think I am joking right?
Try me?

This time, I am sparing your life Amir
Just a mild injury, few stitches, a Brick Fall!

Next time,


Watch it Fellow,
I am warning you!

Later

Sincerely,

The Moral Killer X
Son of our Father @ Under

* * *
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Ahreeman X » Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:29 pm

Amir Arsalan Wrote:

“Back To Basics


Thank you for that definition, in addition to the examples you had previously given. It is thoughtful. Now we are getting somewhere. However, we’re not quite there.

It is a definition, but let’s dissect it a bit. When the decorative words surrounding the center of the matter are removed, and the definition distilled down to its core, then the following is summarized: That morality is the pursuit of “the right,” and that the converse of morality, or immorality, is the pursuit of “the wrong.”

In summary, the use of one word, or synonym, is being used to define another. With your definition, the word “morality” is thereby substituted with the word “righteousness.”

I do not think that you are trying to be vague or avoiding the question on purpose. I take your response to be genuine, and I suppose that you sincerely consider the matter closed. However, my intent is to move past synonyms and go back to fundamental principles.

The reflex question that your definition prompts is therefore “what is righteousness?” What is “wrong,” and what is “right?”

Most would consider such a question to be unnecessary, as they would claim that the answer is obvious. However, most of those same people would not be able to adequately answer the question without giving only examples. Of course, I don’t think that you are one of those people, and I think that if pressed, you will be capable of finding the answer. If I thought you couldn’t, I would not waste my time with this discussion.

The answer to that question is much more difficult for an atheist than it is for a theist. Let me explain why that is so. As usual, the simple unthinking theist will retreat to his fantasy and invoke God. For a theist, such matters are pre-dictated from his God. “Right” becomes that which God condones, and “wrong” becomes that which God condemns. Again, God has become the first cause for the theist, after which no explanation is required. Of course, that is one of the reasons why belief in God acts as an obstacle to intellectual growth and discovery.

Atheists such as you and me cannot and wish not resort to the same childish answer as that of the theists. However, that also poses a greater challenge to us. As there is no God to dictate and define morality to us, how do we define morality, or righteousness? What makes a particular act right, while another one wrong?

Please try to define morality without using synonyms that describe a similar concept, such as “righteousness,” “justice,” “virtue,” “decency,” "goodness," etc.

So then, I ask you again, what is morality (or righteousness)?”


* * *
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Ahreeman X » Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:35 pm

Amir Arsalan:

I understand that you are not keen on defining a term via examples; however, I have given you a definition in this article:

Moral Revolution – Alternative Tactic
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/movement/moral-revolution/

Morality (The Definition)
From Encyclopedia Ahreemanica
(The Only Encyclopedia you will be needing till either Eternity or when Hell Freezes over!)

Here is my definition of morality:


Morality

"Morality is a doctrine or a set of principles which a society, a community, a group, an organization or individuals set for themselves to define and distinguish between Right and Wrong, so they can live by it."

Then I have also given you examples:


Examples of Morality

“What does morality mean?
Morality means do not cheat
Morality means do nor steal
Morality means do not lie
Morality means do not embezzle
Morality means no fraud
Morality means have conscience
Morality means be fair
Morality means be just
Morality means no corruption
Morality means have principles
Morality means have honor
Morality means be proud Persians
Morality means do not Arab Worship
Morality means do not Foreign Worship
Morality means do not be Westoxicated
Morality means do not betray Iran
Morality means love your fellow Persian
Morality means be honest to yourself
Morality means be honest to All
Morality means be consistent in your beliefs
Morality means do not change with the wind
Morality means do not be an opportunist
Morality means respect others' property
Morality means respect others' privacy
Morality means protect the innocent
Morality means do not oppress
Morality means be noble and decent
Morality means stay true to Iran and yourself
Morality means do not harm the innocent
Morality means Persian Values
Morality means Human Values
Morality means to be liberated
Morality means to be Free
Morality means respect human rights
Morality means respect freedom of speech
Morality means be productive
Morality means be constructive
Morality means educate yourself
Morality means educate others
Morality means study your heritage
Morality means be proud of your history
Morality means be proud of your culture
Morality means be Real and not Fake
Morality means worship Iran
Morality means Pure Persian Pride
Morality means Persianhood


Should I continue or do you get the point?”

So I have given you first the definition and second the examples. Now, some of my examples such as nationalism, are not according to your standards, and qualify for Moral examples. Some of my examples maybe symbolic but I have a reason to include them!

Morality means different things to different people. Moral examples are also different to different folks. But before I go further with this, why don’t you tell me what is your definition and examples?

As an atheist, what are you basis for morality? What is morality? What are your examples? What are the proper, scientific and logical answers to above questions?


Moral Dilemmas

You see, unlike what you and Lib mentioned before,

These are not moral dilemmas for me:

IPC Horoscopes
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/horoscopes/

IPC Models and Fashion
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/fashion-models/

Because I believe “Ends” justifies the “Means”. So this is just a “Tactic” to Achieve the “Strategy”. What is the strategy?

To Provide Mass Readership for IPC
To provide Mass Advertisers for IPC
To Jump Start The Moral Revolution
To Jump start The Political Revolution
“By All Means Possible”

Not that adding Horoscopes and Nude Modeling to the Website is not a moral dilemma for me, but even having a few million Dead Islamists as Casualties of War to overthrow IRI is not a bit of a moral dilemma for me!

This is my primary goal:

Nationalism a vision for Iran of tomorrow
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewtopic.php?t=483

This is my secondary goal:

Pan Iranism
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewtopic.php?t=897

When Xerxes punished Greeks for interference in internal affairs of the Persian Empire and agitating the Greek citizens of Anatolia to separate from the Empire, and when Xerxes returned the favor (destruction of Sardis in Anatolia by Greeks) via burning down Athens to the grounds, he did not have a moral dilemma!

Refer to:

Grand Admiral Artemisia of the Imperial Persian Navy
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/history/artemisia/index.htm

Greeks needed to be taught a lesson to not stick their nose in Persian affairs no more. When there is a higher goal such as securing an Empire or overthrowing IRI or ending Islam in Iran, then to have moral dilemma about burning down a few cities, leveling a few towns, slaughtering a few thousands, beheading a few million heads, flooding rivers of blood, etc. are small sacrifices! Afterall, Ends justifies the Means!

Once you said:

What’s wrong with Iran?
Iranians whom are living there?
Then what’s is there to worship?
The Persian Soil?


You see, the nation has gone beyond degeneration and way off course. Nothing can bring it back but a major “Change” and I mean major!

Major Change takes major Balls. Major Change takes Kheshayari (Xerxesi), Aqa Mohamad Khani, Naderi and Reza Khani Balls. Major Change to absolutely delete the past 28 years, like Reza Khan had done in 1925, takes Balls.

When I speak of balls, I am not talking about the present Reza Mellow Jello de Nim-Pahlavi and Sissy Faggoty Susul Monarchists. Today’s Monarchists are worth o Shiite.

Political Revolution takes balls. Political Revolution takes courage, sacrifice, blood and BALLS.

I am speaking of a Grass Root Movement with Men and Women with gigantic size Balls and strong stomach to commit to a major Change in Iran. This is the only way that we can make a Major Change in Iran and put Iran back on the course. The course which has been perverted 28 years ago.

Otherwise singing “Ey Miran, Ey Marze Por Goh Ar ……….” , waving Derafsh Kaviyani in cheesy TV shows and Kun dadan in LA or London is not Nationalism!

I do not see a shred of Balls, Guts and Determination in majority of the present opposition specifically Sissy Faggy Monarchists.

This Change is not easy. This change will take a major bloodshed.

Now you may ask me, then what is my moral dilemma?


This is my moral dilemma:

Ann Coulter, a Liability for GOP
The Secular Conservative Dilemma

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/politics/an ... /index.htm

To align myself with Christian Fundamentalists in GOP is worst than eating Shiite and die!

You see, now you are getting in to a Deep Philosophical Discussion! This discussion is too mind bending for Religious Crowd to even ponder about! This discussion is also very thought provoking for Secular Atheist Scientists such as you and I to ponder about, discuss, analyze and to seek answers.

This discussion is worthy enough to be a thread in this room. A new dialogue. I started it and now you have the tribune, so shoot?

So again I ask you Amir Semnani ala Parthi:

Why don’t you tell me what is your definition and examples?
As an atheist, what are you basis for morality?
What is morality?
What are your examples?
What are the proper, scientific and logical answers to above questions?



Sign,
:wolfen:
Gorg Ali The Exiled Wolf
(Gorg Ali dar Qorbat)
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Amir » Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:15 pm

Well, it seems like you want to go head to head and discuss philosophy. Even though I am dead busy, yet in between my work, I shall find time to do an official formal debate.


I realize you are busy, as I am. You are busy with the operations of the website, while I am busy with putting little Koon Baches in their place. Jokes aside, I knew this would be too interesting a topic for you to pass up, and I appreciate your taking time and effort to invest into it. I am more than happy to have a discussion on the topic with you. However, I would like to clarify that I do not view this as a debate, but as a discussion. A debate would involve arguing two opposing sides. I don’t think that we are necessarily arguing opposing sides, but instead having an in depth discussion on the matter. Therefore, I call this a discussion, and not a debate.

I say, Let’s go one on one, but if some worthy member wants to input an opinion, then let them include; however, if some retard, degenerate or Bache Kun would interfere with this thread to post Bull Shiite, then right away we delete the post and kick him out of IPC in one shot. As Lib says: “Some just ask for it to be banned!” In other words, kill the mother without any trial! What do you say?


Agreed. I see no need to restrict this discussion to just the two of us. I would welcome input by others regarding the subject. In fact, the more input the better. My purpose is not to drive my opinion as the prevailing one, but to understand how others have struggled to define and understand morality. I also agree that if a Bache Kooni or similar degenerate wants to come in here and ruin the thread, that his comments should be removed into an alternative post. If you wish to completely delete it, that’s your choice, and I have no problem with it. Either way, let’s not allow this topic to turn into a circus.

So I have given you first the definition and second the examples. Now, some of my examples such as nationalism, are not according to your standards, and qualify for Moral examples. Some of my examples maybe symbolic but I have a reason to include them!


My criticism of your nationalistic examples was not a criticism of the examples themselves, but in their categorization. I would also ask others to follow those patriotic examples, but would not cite morality as its justification. There are some overlaps of morality and nationalism, but I do not believe that nationalism is all-inclusive within morality. Nationalism is among other things a call to uphold and protect one’s extended society. It calls for the greater beneficence of that society, and in that respect morality and nationalism have common ground. However, I believe that nationalism goes beyond that simple request, and at other times may be in conflict with morality. Therefore, I do not accept that a call to morality necessarily involves a call to nationalism. For that reason, I say that your examples of nationalism do not belong within your examples of morality, even though I like your examples of nationalism and would encourage all to uphold them.

We may be speaking of morality, but allow me to also clarify that I do not hold morality to be the only important issue in the broader sense of existence. Morality is perhaps one of the most important issues, but not the only issue. This will become more apparent later in the discussion.

Perhaps one of those issues is nationalism. What do you think?

An issue or act may be viewed from a moral perspective, as with any other perspective. Logically, there can be three possibilities. The first outcome is for it to be viewed as “moral,” or in accordance with one’s accepted notion of morality. The second outcome is for it to be viewed as “immoral,” or in direct conflict with one’s accepted notion of morality. The third, and less realized possibility is for it to be viewed as “amoral.” Many will erroneously interpret the word “amoral” to be the equivalent of “immoral.” I suppose it depends on how one defines the word “amoral.” Many will define it as the absence of morality, and therefore view it as the equivalent of “immoral.” Others, such as myself, define it as moral neutrality, neither in accordance with nor in contradiction to one’s accepted notion of morality.

One may hold that moral neutrality cannot exist. This claim may be true for some people, but it depends on how one defines morality. If one defines morality in such a rigid and specific way as to exclude all acts that are not in accordance with that specific definition to be immoral, then amoral acts by default also become immoral acts, and amorality becomes synonymous with immorality. Most fundamental religious philosophies actually do so.

You may be wondering why I am bothering to expand upon the issue of amorality. That’s because I find it relevant to the statement I made earlier, that morality and immorality are not all-inclusive of all notions and acts, and that there are other issues of importance outside the realm of morality. Some of these concepts may be irrelevant to morality, and so they are morally neutral.

According to my definition of morality (which you will get a chance to scrutinize later), parts of nationalism are moral, others are immoral, while others still are amoral. Therefore, as a whole I see nationalism as not bound by morality. Perhaps you see it otherwise, and define morality in such a way that nationalism becomes embedded with morality. If so, I am anxious to hear your definition, and see how nationalism subsequently becomes wedded to morality.

Morality means different things to different people. Moral examples are also different to different folks.


Correct you are. The concept of morality is very much subjective. It is for that precise reason that it is also so elusive. You will not find a discussion by numerous people on the length of a meter, for instance. That’s because the concept of “length of a meter” has been precisely defined in an objective way that everyone will agree. No variation exists. There is no room for subjectivity. Morality, however, is very much subjective.

But before I go further with this, why don’t you tell me what is your definition and examples?


First, let me start with your request for “examples.” In order to avoid redundancy, I will not give any examples because you have already done that. I suppose I could give examples, but most would be similar to yours (with the exception of your examples of nationalism). You see, my point was not that your examples are incorrect or that I do not agree with them, but that examples as a whole are not adequate in order to define a concept. Suffice it to say that I like your examples, and if I chose to define morality via examples, that mine would essentially be the same.

Second, with regard to my definition of morality, you will get it soon enough. I suppose I could just blurt it out right now, but then the fun would end. This is my first reply in this post, and to say everything now would not leave much else to talk about in subsequent posts. You show up to dinner and want to gulp down the main course as soon as you arrive? Come; let’s take our coats off first. Let’s have some tea. Let’s see the menu. Let’s have an appetizer or two first. You will get your Chelo Kabab Koubideh soon enough.

You see, unlike what you and Lib mentioned before,

These are not moral dilemmas for me:

IPC Horoscopes
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/horoscopes/

IPC Models and Fashion
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/fashion-models/


Now, I think you are perhaps confusing what I said with what L said. It is true that I was critical of your “fashion show” and the “horoscope section,” but not for alleged immorality. My criticism of the horoscope section was mainly for its intellectual poverty and antagonism to what I perceived was your intent to enlighten and educate your readers. You gave a justification for it, and I saw it as adequate. My criticism of the “fashion show” was not that you were behaving immorally because of the sexual content of that spread (spread…Ha Ha…I kill myself). My criticism was:

1. That you were calling it something that it obviously is not. If you put a sexually suggestive photo on the site, at least call it what it is. Don’t try to disguise it as art.

2. While I find nothing wrong with sex and sexuality in general, I find it in poor taste when it is mixed with material that was intended to be non-sexual in nature, such as the quest for history, philosophy, news, or politics (well, maybe not politics). My point was that people coming to IPC are usually not looking for porno at that time, and most probably do not appreciate having it shoved down their throats.

So you see, morality or immorality had nothing to do with my objections on the two topics. Practicality, purpose, and taste were the driving forces, and not morality. Those matters are closed as far as I am concerned, and I do not wish to refocus upon them now in this thread, and I do not see a link between them and morality. However, I understand why you brought them up. Sexuality is always mixed up with morality, thanks to religion, and you may have extrapolated that my objections were moral in nature in protest of sexuality. I assure you, that was not the case. In fact, I think that sexuality ought to be divorced from morality.

Because I believe “Ends” justifies the “Means”. So this is just a “Tactic” to Achieve the “Strategy”. What is the strategy?

To Provide Mass Readership for IPC
To provide Mass Advertisers for IPC
To Jump Start The Moral Revolution
To Jump start The Political Revolution
“By All Means Possible”


I recall we had a similar discussion a while back, regarding the ends and the means. I understand that you believe that the ends justify the means. Fair enough. I could accept that you hold that notion, as do many other logical people. I sometimes may even agree with the ends justifying the means, although usually I do not.

However, in this statement you have provided a very crucial inclusion. That is: “To jump start the moral revolution.” All the other statements I can accept, but this one provides a problem, does it not?

How can you possibly start a moral revolution “by all means possible?” What is a moral revolution, if not a call to adherence to your notion (or even the populace’s notion) of morality?

You have not yet defined morality as far as I am concerned, but you have given some examples. Allow me to ask a question. If “by all means possible” involves direct disregard for some or all of those examples you cited, what becomes of this “moral revolution” which you wish to achieve?

If, for example, one of your examples of morality is to not lie, but in order to achieve your “moral revolution” you and your colleagues must tell lies, have you really achieved a “moral revolution?” What kind of moral revolution have you really achieved, if not a farce?

It becomes similar to the paradoxical request of “you must always tell lies, in order to never tell lies.”

but even having a few million Dead Islamists as Casualties of War to overthrow IRI is not a bit of a moral dilemma for me!


Well then, I suppose that depends on how you define morality.

This is my primary goal:

Nationalism a vision for Iran of tomorrow
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewtopic.php?t=483

This is my secondary goal:

Pan Iranism
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewtopic.php?t=897


I like your vision, but I believe that it is a separate matter from morality. Unless of course, you view morality in such a way that the issues become mixed, in which case I am more than interested to hear that argument.

When Xerxes punished Greeks for interference in internal affairs of the Persian Empire and agitating the Greek citizens of Anatolia to separate from the Empire, and when Xerxes returned the favor (destruction of Sardis in Anatolia by Greeks) via burning down Athens to the grounds, he did not have a moral dilemma!


I doubt that any of us can truly know Xerxes’ mental state at the time, since no record of his philosophical ponders exist. Perhaps he did have a dilemma, but made a choice to go ahead and burn it down anyways. However, judging by his goal and actions, this in unlikely, and your assertion is probably correct. Nevertheless, using the actions of a particular politician or monarch, whether from current times or times of long ago, makes for a poor justification of morality or acceptable behavior.

Perhaps the Greeks had it coming to them and deserved what they received. Whether such an action was wise or moral, however, is a different matter. Now that you bring it up, overall I view Xerxes as a magnificent figure and take great pride in his rule in Iran. However, his burning of Athens is an act for which I am ashamed. As you know, two wrong acts do not make for a right. Vengeance is not a virtue, and it usually begets more vengeance.

As you know, when Gay Boy Alex invaded Iran, one major driving force for his burning of Persepolis was revenge for what Xerxes did to Athens. There are no winners in destruction and revenge. This, of course, is an issue aside from morality itself. One may argue that Xerxes’ act was immoral, and must be condemned based on that reason alone. I would hold that in addition to that, his act was illogical, as it offered Iran little or no benefit, while resulting in a potentially avertable disaster that befell its beloved city of a jewel more than a century later. Revenge for the purpose of revenge is illogical.

Greeks needed to be taught a lesson to not stick their nose in Persian affairs no more.


Of course you know that Alex the Gay gave the same reason right before he burned Persepolis, substituting the words Persians for Greeks, and Greek for Persian.

You see, the nation has gone beyond degeneration and way off course. Nothing can bring it back but a major “Change” and I mean major!


I agree with you on that. The question is, what is that “change,” and how do we go about bringing it on? How far can we go, what is realistic, and what type of sacrifice is deemed an acceptable one?

Major Change takes major Balls. Major Change takes Kheshayari (Xerxesi), Aqa Mohamad Khani, Naderi and Reza Khani Balls. Major Change to absolutely delete the past 28 years, like Reza Khan had done in 1925, takes Balls.


Yes, I am aware of your fascination with balls. No doubt, testicles will be needed for the task. However, if balls dictate everything, then screwing will become the national pastime. It will take more than just balls. Brains will be needed, and unfortunately they are in short supply. Also, a certain level of heart and compassion will be needed, and that is in even shorter supply.

This Change is not easy. This change will take a major bloodshed.


Unfortunately, I believe you. I certainly do not welcome such bloodshed, but I realize that given the current stranglehold that the IR has on Iran, it will not let go without force. The tenaciousness of religious fervor that has been instilled in the minds of the fanatics will result in their own destruction, whether people such as myself welcome it or not. Furthermore, the decades of abuse of the people will undoubtedly unleash a wave of vengeance by the tormented upon their tormentors. I do not condone such action, though I realize that it will be the reality of the matter.

To align myself with Christian Fundamentalists in GOP is worst than eating Shiite and die!


Isn’t it though?

Whether one bows to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other religion, fundamentally it is all the same. Christianity is the same shit as Islam; it just comes covered with whipped cream in order to mask the flavor.

Why don’t you tell me what is your definition and examples?
As an atheist, what are you basis for morality?
What is morality?
What are your examples?
What are the proper, scientific and logical answers to above questions?


I will answer these questions, and more. However, let us for now enjoy the smell of the Kabab, and have some Mast-o-Khiar and some Kashk Bademjan. Pass the Dolmeh, please.

For now, tell me your thoughts on what I have said so far. In my second or third reply, I will get to the meat of the matter and answer these burning questions.

PS – I will be out of town for the next couple of weeks. I’m visiting Tehran Geles. I’ll try to continue the discussion from there, but if I don’t get back to you quickly enough, please be patient. The wife gets particularly annoyed when I spend time on the computer when we are on vacation.
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
User avatar
Amir
Gunnery Sergeant
Gunnery Sergeant
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:05 am

Postby Ahreeman X » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:51 pm

The Goal is the Ends.
The Tactics are the Means.

Sometimes, we need to twist and shake, slip and slide, wiggle and jitterbug to reach our destiny. No one will prepare us the Breakfast in America, but we have to attain it.

Life is not a Box O Chocolate
Life is a Box Full o Shiite

One can go through many udesired tasks and hardships to gain his goal. This does not mean bending his principles!

Lenin used the backing of the German Empire to overthrow Tzarist Russia.

Hitler used the backing of the British to overthrow Weimar Republic.

Reza Khan used the backing of the British Empire to overthrow Qajar’s Constitutional Monarchy.

Alahazrat used the backing of CIA to overthrow Mosadeq’s Regime.

But did they bend their principles? I don’t think so! They have used “All” the “Means” available to them to reach the “Ends”!

AX
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Amir » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:16 pm

X, I waited all this time, and you give me two paragraphs, and only pertaining to the issue of means vs. ends? I am disappointed that you didn’t give a much longer contribution to the issue of the discussion, but I realize you are busy. Busy or not, I won’t accept a “the dog ate my homework” attitude. I expect that you come better prepared to have a longer discussion, instead of this telegraphic response. I’ll look the other way this time, but next time I expect a much more detailed, in-depth, and broader contribution than just the means vs. ends sub-topic. 2,000 words or more, please.

Now that I have gotten the complaints out of the way, let me address your comments regarding this issue of means vs. ends.

You cited 4 examples of individuals that you claim used “any means possible” to achieve their ends. I will now explain why these examples do not support your point as it pertains to our discussion.

Your premise is that these individuals went through undesired tasks and hardship in order to gain their goals, and that their principles were not compromised.

I do not disagree with this premise, but I do not see how you then jump from this to their using “any and all means available in order to reach the end.” Anyone using a certain mean in order to achieve a certain end does not qualify as an example of “the ends always justify the means.” It is precisely because of your point that they did not compromise their principles that they do not qualify as examples of the ends justifying the means. Had you cited an example of someone going against his own principles in order to achieve an end, then that would have been an example supportive of your point.

You see, the heart of the argument is not whether one is justified in using a mean that causes hardship or that is undesirable. One’s daily life may comprise of many hardships, however one is considered of no less character for performing them. One may go to work every day, which depending on the job, may be a hardship, in order to put food on the table for his family. Such examples are not at the core of the matter at hand.

The heart of this argument lies with the following question: Given one’s accepted code of ethics of acceptable behavior, ought one be willing to break that code, in order to achieve a certain desired end?

What makes the question even more difficult for you to answer is that we are now talking about an even more specifically restricting question. As the discussion related to the moral revolution to which you refer, the question becomes specifically this: Given one’s accepted code of ethics, ought one be willing to break that code, in order to achieve the specifically desired end of “ethical progression and dissemination?” As I pointed out before, to answer yes to this question is to undermine one’s ethical code, rendering the ends of ethical progression unachievable.

Let me repeat this to you. To answer “yes” to this specific question, as it pertains to a moral revolution, is to render the ends, or moral revolution unachievable.

I will demonstrate this conundrum with the following thought example. Suppose that more than anything else in the world, that I wish to see a unicorn. Now suppose that someone tells me where to find a unicorn, but warns me that if any person gazes upon it, the unicorn changes into a regular horse and ceases being a unicorn. What to do? By attempting to achieve my goal of gazing upon the unicorn, I will surely cause it to no longer be a unicorn. The act of looking at a unicorn, that which is my final end, renders this end unachievable. (Either that, or the guy is just pulling my leg, sending me to look at a regular horse).

In this example, the mean has changed the end.

So too, if you say that you will accept any means possible in order to achieve your ends for a moral revolution, I say to you that this is too broad a statement. “Any means” implies ones that may be contrary to the foundation of a moral revolution, rendering the resulting moral revolution a fantasy.

Logically, “any means” cannot be accepted in the pursuit of this moral revolution, because there are some means (namely, ones contrary to morality) that would destroy the desired end for a moral revolution.

Since the ends (moral revolution) is by nature destroyed by the act of using a mean that is contrary to morality, then one may assert that an immoral mean is not a mean at all, since ultimately it cannot lead to the desired end of moral revolution.

It should be evident by now that by nature, a moral revolution is impossible to achieve without omitting all immoral means.

If you now change your statement to “I will fight for a moral revolution, using any means possible, except immoral ones” then at least logically this statement is not flawed. You may wonder why to even mention the part about “except immoral ones,” as it is evident from my above discussion that immoral means are not useful means at all, and that it is a redundant phrase. It is necessary, because not everyone will have analyzed this matter to this level of depth. If it is not mentioned and accepted, due to short sightedness, some may deploy immoral acts while having only a far fetched goal for a moral revolution, not realizing that with such acts they are in fact placing that moral revolution more out of reach.

I am still curious regarding your explanation of morality, but as I understand it so far with the examples you have provided, what this implies regarding your moral revolution is the following:

“I will fight for a moral revolution, by any means possible, except immoral ones, which include:

-I will not steal
-I will not lie
-I will not cheat
-I will have a conscience
-I will not commit fraud
-I will not embezzle
-I will be honest to all
-I will respect others’ property and privacy
-I will not harm the innocent
-I will not oppress
-I will respect human rights
etc…”

BTW, as I was reviewing your list, I noticed that the statement “morality means do not kill (or murder)” was absent from your list. Is that intentionally absent, or is it simply because as I said before, a list of examples is usually not exhaustive, and may leave out certain important points?

So then, Mr. “I drink blood as if it were cranberry juice,” what are your thoughts regarding killing and murder as it pertains to morality?
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
User avatar
Amir
Gunnery Sergeant
Gunnery Sergeant
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:05 am

Postby Ahreeman X » Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:07 pm

Camran Mirza:

What is the story with Body, Mind and Heart/soul as 3 elements? Are you being symbolic? You are a scientific practical man, then how can you use symbolic Religious terms? It comes back to bite you on the ass!

As you are aware of, we have 3 elements in philosophy (up to now):

Energies, Maters, and spirits.

Matter is what you can sense with your 5 senses directly.
Energy is what you can sense with your 5 senses directly or indirectly (tools).
Spirit is what you cannot sense with your 5 senses.

Evolution vs Creation
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewtopic.php?t=118

Body is mater (can be sensed directly with 5 senses)
Mind is spirit (cannot be sensed directly or indirectly with 5 senses)
Heart & Soul are terms used in literature and holy books! You are messing up Camran! You are screwing up, even according to your own Word Games!

Of course I understand your point; however, you are using “Religious Terms” to get there. Aren’t you forbidding “All” to use these terms? You Hypocrite?!

“Therefore, one CAN’T use the “all means” available to reach the “ends”, it simply cannot happen. There is not one example for anybody to bend their principle to reach the ends. The only way to reach an end is to stay on the path of one’s principle, or change principle, if has to be bent, then again, we are talking about different sets altogether.”


That is my point. Principles are not bent but the “Means” have been changed. I don’t bend principles, but I change means to reach the ends.

“Chaw!!!”


Are you trying to say Chiao or are you hungry for Chinese food “Chow Mein” or do you simply want to finish the post and get down to Chow?

In addition,

After 7 years, we have finally got you to admit and accept that you are The Master of the Word Games! You confessed to it in your other post in Iran Room! You have been denying it for 7 years! That, I call progress! You are indeed Master of Word Games. Your specialty are the recognition and the dissection of the “Religious Terms”!

BTW

Have you read my respond to your “Question on Nationalism” post in Iran Room, or have you skipped it due to Bache Kuni’s interference over there?

PS:
You screwed up one of your quotes and I fixed it because it bothers me (Obsessive Compulsive Perfectionist)! Don’t let it happen again. You as a moderator, must set an example for others on how to post.

Cheers

Someone too old to Rock & Roll
And too Young to die!
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Ahreeman X » Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:16 pm

Amir Arsalan II:

“Your premise is that these individuals went through undesired tasks and hardship in order to gain their goals, and that their principles were not compromised.”


Not necessarily hardship during the periods in which they received help from a powerful source, but hardship during the total process from zilch to the moment in which they had achieved their goals.

“I do not disagree with this premise, but I do not see how you then jump from this to their using “any and all means available in order to reach the end.”


When I state “By All Means Possible” to reach the “Ends”, I am speaking of the “Means” which do not break or bend my principles and this is taken for “Understood”, unless my debate partner is a “Mullah Loqati” and “Master Word Gamer” who enjoys Word Games (such as Camran Mirza)!

For instance:

I do not consider “Nude Modeling” an immoral means.
I do not consider “Advertisement” an immoral means.
I do not consider revolutionary repossession of IRI capitals and assets an immoral means.
I do not consider revolutionary elimination of IRI agents an immoral means.
I do not consider Force, Violence, Trickery and Well meant Cons an immoral means.

But I do consider accepting “Advertisement” from an Hezbollah friendly source an immoral means.
I also do not accept articles, anime, graphics, toons, etc. from Hezbollah friendly sources. That is an immoral means.

”Anyone using a certain mean in order to achieve a certain end does not qualify as an example of “the ends always justify the means.”


I have never said that Ends “Always” justify the Means (as an absolute), thus there are No Absolutes, in our version of philosophy (Atheism and Science)! However, I believe that Ends justifies the Means 95% of the times, unless the person is either a sellout, changes ideology or simply a confused bastard!

“The heart of this argument lies with the following question: Given one’s accepted code of ethics of acceptable behavior, ought one be willing to break that code, in order to achieve a certain desired end?”


The answer is No.

But that is not the Heart of this discussion!
The heart of this discussion is: What is Morality to an Atheist?

“What makes the question even more difficult for you to answer is that we are now talking about an even more specifically restricting question. As the discussion related to the moral revolution to which you refer, the question becomes specifically this: Given one’s accepted code of ethics, ought one be willing to break that code, in order to achieve the specifically desired end of “ethical progression and dissemination?” As I pointed out before, to answer yes to this question is to undermine one’s ethical code, rendering the ends of ethical progression unachievable.”


This whole analysis is wrong!

I have never stated that one should use immoral means (according to his philosophy) to reach ends! I stated that one should use “All” means (allowed by his philosophy) to reach ends!


“Let me repeat this to you. To answer “yes” to this specific question, as it pertains to a moral revolution, is to render the ends, or moral revolution unachievable. “


The answer is No and the Moral Revolution is achievable even if it means for us to cleanse Iran from Iranians (just kidding)!

“If you now change your statement to “I will fight for a moral revolution, using any means possible, except immoral ones” then at least logically this statement is not flawed. You may wonder why to even mention the part about “except immoral ones,” as it is evident from my above discussion that immoral means are not useful means at all, and that it is a redundant phrase.”


Yes indeed.

“ It is necessary, because not everyone will have analyzed this matter to this level of depth. If it is not mentioned and accepted, due to short sightedness, some may deploy immoral acts while having only a far fetched goal for a moral revolution, not realizing that with such acts they are in fact placing that moral revolution more out of reach.”


I am not discussing this issue with Hassan, Taqi and Shamsi Kureh! This is a highly sophisticated philosophical debate and discussion which I am arguing about with the elite selected brains of Iran including yous.

It is “Understood” and taken for granted that by Means, I do mean the “Morally Accepted Means (allowed by my ideology) to reach the Ends!

Stop playing Word Games, Camran Number II!

I am Beyond these Episodes.

“I am still curious regarding your explanation of morality,”


Curiosity Killed The Cat!

“BTW, as I was reviewing your list, I noticed that the statement “morality means do not kill (or murder)” was absent from your list. Is that intentionally absent, “


Are you putting me on the spotlight and at the inquisition?

Correction,

Murder is a crime.
Killing is a different story.
A soldier in war does not commit murder, but he commits killing.
We (Iranian Opposition) are at war with IRI. Unless we are Pacifist Faggots (such as Reza Pahlavi and Ass Kissers around him or Iranian Liberals), then we use “All Means” to achieve our goal.

What I cannot stand are:
a) Sissy Faggy Bleeding Heart Liberals
b) Loud Mouth Pacifist Faggoty Exiled Monarchists
:shootlurk:

They are both blocks on the way of the future Nationalist Revolution of Iran. They are useless to Iranian opposition. We may as well line them up next to the wall and ………….. (OK OK, don’t freak, I try to control myself)!

Revolution does not come cheap.
Revolution comes with Blood and a lot of it!


“So then, Mr. “I drink blood as if it were cranberry juice,” what are your thoughts regarding killing and murder as it pertains to morality?”


What do you have against Cranberry Juice? Now would you rather for me to drink Blood? Or would you rather for me to control my urges and settle with Cranberry Juice? Make up your mind fellow?
:cran:

Question:

How long should we ejaculate around, before you spit it out and state:

What is Morality to you?
What is Morality to an Atheist?
What are Moral Acts and Immoral Acts and Amoral Acts to an Atheist?
Does everything goes for an Atheist?
Spit in out Professor? :cough:
Don’t choke on it?

Still waiting to hear your side, so we can begin this debate and take off this discussion?
The Dead Man had cum, yet you still did not reveal your take?
You enjoy keeping people in suspense, don’t you?
Look at how many people do follow this thread and waiting?

It is amazing, as always and unlike other forums, majority of our members and readers never say a word, but they follow and read IPC in silence. Maybe this is a good thing because our members speak less (or non) but they read and listen more! They learn more and they educate themselves!

And still waiting …………… :waiting:

Sign,
:UFO:
The Beyonder
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Ahreeman X » Wed May 02, 2007 6:02 pm

Camran Mirza:

Without reading your nostalgic and final post on this thread, I am going to reply,

Regarding using Religious Terms (Heart/soul), once again you have danced around the bush and twisted the subject. You did not admit that you broke your own codes!

Regarding fundamentals of philosophy and elements in philosophy (Energy, Mater and Spirit), once again you have danced around the bush and twisted the subject. You did not admit that you broke your own codes!

Regarding being Master of Words (word games), once again you have danced around the bush and twisted the subject. You did not admit that you broke your own codes!

Regarding scientist (Scientific), once again you have danced around the bush and twisted the subject. You did not admit that you broke your own codes!

Keep it up and you will become a professional Dancer!

What you discussed above and in regards to above subjects, were not natural discussions using logical discussion methods. In fact you have used “Safsateh” and “Maqlateh” to get to your point!

Safsateh (using irrelevant issues and connecting the temple to fart to reach one’s goal)
Maqlateh (using false analogy to reach to your goal)
Both are void.

Safsateh and Maqlateh are twistations and false analogy. Socrates and Sufestaiyoun (Arabic) used to use these methods!

“I am not a scientist, nor I know of any human to be capable of. However, they may well have scientific minds, but mind is not a 100% of a human being, it’s only about maybe around 2% tops, the rest lies in our body. Is any one willing and wanting to ignore the 98% of their human capability sacrificed to contain the 2% of total? Are you in favor of burning the village in order to save it?? “


This does not make sense! I am preaching the opposite, I am a materialist, then how can I be in favor of burning the village in order to save it?

“Principle stays, only if the means stay. Changing means is changing principle.”


This is the fundamental of your speech and I do disagree with it.

Principle stays but the means can change to reach the Ends.

“then claiming I have the principle and only braking rules for the end result. A brick wall is made of brick, to change the brick one will not end with a brick wall, maybe a damn, maybe a barricade, but not a brick wall. To keep a principle, the means must be unchanged.

In the one hand you keep saying this is the member’s club, on the other hand, you are running the show and oppose a collective decision-making. I must remind you that people can dance to music, but not two music at once. “


If you want to get back to this discussion, then first you must go to:

“Iran Room” => Monarchy or Republic Topic and respond to all the questions which I had asked you in regards to this topic and this post which you had never answered them:

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewto ... 9e9a5#5939

This argument belongs there.

“in reference to BK, ……..”


Look, if I kill Bache Kuni, she will be dead forever. The way I kill is permanent (unlike what the ex members of IPC Op aka Monarchist cheeseballs had done)! But why kill the court gesture? She is the IPC Malijak!

Even if the whole club votes on killing her, the constitution still says:

Thou shall not kill!

Now if you want her to avoid vulgar cartoons and profane words, then give her a warning and if she does not listen, then delete her posts. Even if you must ban her, then at least take her posting rights away temporarily to teach her a lesson, but for Allah’s sake, don’t kill the poor child permanently!

She is my subject of torture, abuse, S&M and laughter. She is like a Punching Bag to relieve stress. Where else can I find a Deranged Malijak like that?

On my watch, I cannot ban anyone from IPC because the way I ban will be permanent. Banning a member is against my principles and against the constitution. Democracy has nothing to do with it! And this is not Double Talk and Dancing around the issue, such as you do!

“The one who can't have a principle because the means keep changing due to going forwad with time.
Cameroni”


So you are stating that yourself, you have no principles, because you are Evolving (moving forward with times)! This also does not make sense and I must disagree!

Scientists and Scientific Persons have principles; however, they also change with times and science. But their principles stays steady. Do you know what is their most important principle?

The most important principle of a scientist is that he believes in “Change” as the only Absolute Element in the universe.

So a scientist does have principles. Above was just one of them!

To believe in the Conservation “Law” (not theory) of matters and energies in physics is another one! And so on to many other scientific laws and principles ……….

Stop doing the Safsateh and Maqlateh Dance!

BTW
One of your quotes was screwed up again! You mixed it (yours and my words)!

OK Cameroni?
That sounds like Macaroni!

I will read your nostalgic posts later.

Adios Amigo
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Amir » Fri May 18, 2007 5:23 pm

Sorry if I haven’t replied quickly enough to the discussion. I’ve been very busy at work recently, and am finding less time to play. The students have asked me to prepare and give more formal lectures to them. That’s what I get for giving good topic reviews…they request more of them, and I get stuck with more work. Perhaps I’ll do a crappy job in the future, so that they’ll leave me alone. On second thought, I probably won’t, because that would be immoral.

Anyways, I would like to push you further regarding the current discussion of means and ends, but because you are also asking me specific questions, I also have to give you satisfaction. I could easily and simply answer the questions you posed to me within one post, but then that would be the end of that. A much greater explanation is needed, I think, and there must be a build-up to that point in order to give greater meaning to the discussion.

For a long while now I have been meaning to write an article or two regarding the topic of morality, but I always get side-tracked by other things. However, now that you dragged me in here and point blank asked me to shed light on the topic, I feel there is no better time to do it than now.

See “On Morality:”

http://www.iranpoliticsclub.net/club/vi ... =6079#6079

I could have just placed the article in here in the form of a reply, but I deem such an article to be too important for it to get lost within what could end up being a lengthy (albeit equally important) dialogue thread such as this. So, I decided to post it as an independent article in another thread. As it will be too long to be contained within one post, I have decided to split it up, piece-meal it, and publish the different parts as I write them.

So, you will see me referring you to that article each time I add something to it. I think it will be two or three parts, but given my crazy nature, it may drag to a few hundred (don’t worry, I’m just kidding).

Within subsequent articles in that thread you will find the answers to your questions. If, once I am done with it, you still cannot locate any of those answers, then ask me again and I will give you the short answer.

In the meantime, if you or anyone else has any comments regarding that article, then please post them in here so that we may discuss them further rather than interrupt that thread.

I’ll be back later to push you on the issue of morality when I have more time.

Your moral bud,

Amir
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
User avatar
Amir
Gunnery Sergeant
Gunnery Sergeant
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:05 am

More on Ahreemanic Views of Morality

Postby Ahreeman X » Sat May 26, 2007 11:17 am

More on Ahreemanic Views of Morality


Amirofsky:

I comprehend that you are very busy these days and so am I. But me being busy is with inside Iran operations (Universities) and the Website. Actually I am dead busy these days, too busy to deal with Bull Shiite of all types and you know that these days Bull Shiite walks all around IPC. Time is money, and money talks but Bull Shiite walks! I would have played with the children but not during the busy season (same as yourself). However, I would continue this discussion with you until Hell freezes over! I know you like continuos philosophical soap operas, so we will continue this forever (on our spare time)!

I have read your post here but not the Morality post series which you began (yet)! Soon I shall read it and I am sure the same as your Russell series it will be enlightening. I understand that you love these continuos philosophical soap operas to continue forever, so the bright mind of Ahreeman had finally discovered on how to inform the public to read them and also not to interfere with your writings. As you know, I started the “Amir Arsalan presents series 1 and 2 under the “Updates” section of IPC Website. Genius are Ahreeman. Solution Finder are Ahreeman.

Below will be posted one of many weekly dialogues with various important Iranian politicians, media lords, business owners, Opposition and IPC Operations around the world. This is a private conversation; however, much relevant to this topic (Morality); therefore, I believe that you will find this dialogue interesting to read. I must blank the private parts to protect the identity of my friend, but this letter is too juicy not to share over here.

There are two types of people in the world:

Those who know Ahreeman
Those who do not know Ahreeman

Those who know Ahreeman are also two types:

Those who Love Ahreeman
Those who hate Ahreeman
But there is no in between and there are no indifferent people there.

This letter being posted here is for those who do not know Ahreeman first hand, so they will get enlightened first hand on what I am all about. That is why I am posting this private letter here. It is an interesting study in psychology and sociology. Bon appetite.

* * *

Interesting Letter in Regards to Morality


… Jan:

Your E-mail has been forwarded to me by Cat. As you requested this conversation will be off the record and private just between you and I. As you were honest and laid your cards on the table, I am going to be frank with you and speak to you man to man.

I don’t know how familiar you are with me or IPC, so before I lay it all on the line for you, it is good for you to read a few links to see where I am coming from:

From Homeless to Corporate Manager, My Life
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/founder/homeless/index.htm

Reasons for the birth of Islamic Republic of Iran
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/history/birth-IRI/index.htm

Why Reza Pahlavi Cannot Lead Iranian Opposition?

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/politics/why-shah/index.htm

Jahanshah Javid, Hezbollah in Disguise!
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/politics/sh ... /index.htm

Jahanshah Javid Tries Monopolizing The Business!
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewto ... a88c5#6061

Now let’s get to the point, it all comes down to “Money”. Let me explain:

You are a businessman first and a … second. I am a Revolutionary first and a businessman second.

At this point of your life, to take your business off the ground, you must make connections, networking, make friends, be politically correct, shake hands with fat belly boys of NY, DC and LA. At this point of my life, I could be care less about money; therefore, I can afford to expose everyone, make as much enemies as possible, be politically incorrect and do not give a rats ass about fat belly boys of NY, DC and LA.

You have invested everything you have on ... You are under debt and you have spent and invested your time, money and soul on ... You have done this for love of … and to create a business in which you can do what you like, so you can enjoy your work. Along the way you also help a number of ... You know what’s good for you, so you must do anything possible to break into the Iranian Circle of Fat Boys and the mainstream media.

I, am a world different from you. I rather starve than consort with the people in which you consort with. Gusaleh Hezbollahi like Jahanshah Javid, LA Mafia, Shahollahi Radios and TVs and the Media Homeless of LA and London. I would not piss on them if they were on fire! You see, in your line of business, you have the LA … Mafia who monopolizes the business. In my line of business, I have the Fat Frogs like Jalq Jalq (Jahanshah Javid) and Hezbollah, also the Shahollah Media Homeless of LA and London who would love to monopolize the business.

Throughout my life I was always in trouble since I was a little kid! I was in principles office on weekly basis in Tehran! Once hit 16, I was kicked out of Iran by parents and Hezbollah or else I would probably be dead by now.

I went against my own dynasty (Qajar) and preferred to be homeless than kiss ass of the Iranian Aristocracy. Presently I am going against Pahlavi Dynasty and their business satellites all over the media.

I trash the left, the right and the Muslim. I do nothing but creating enemies, be politically incorrect and be controversial. I have more enemies in Iranian politics and media than you have hair on your head! Hey wait a second, that did not go well, you don’t have much hair left! I’m only pulling your leg buddy!

What’s the point?

I sell controversy. My readers are Intellectuals and Student Movement. I have the youth audience, screw the old! The old are the reason why we ended up here! Shahollah handed Iran to Hezbollah and in this deal, you and I got Fragged and ended up in Exile! They had their ball in Iran but when it came to our generation, we got the shaft!

So I bash and trash everybody from Jebhe Meli to Shahollah, to Marxists to Mojaheds to Muslim to Iranian Media and the Iranian Community. I have my readers because I am controversial. Hypothetically, if tomorrow, I start being politically correct and become conservative like you, then I would lose all my readers. I will be branded a sellout! They read IPC of course because of all the scholars who write for IPC but mostly they read IPC because of my sharp, bold and filthy mouth. I am the Black Sheep of the Iranian politics and media. I am the most hated man in Iranian politics and media. That is why my readers love me.

You see, everyone who is aware of IPC, is not indifferent. They either love me or hate me but never stay indifferent. That’s how I conduct my business. But let me be honest with you. Even if I did not have my readers and following, I would still be me. I would never sell my principles for anything or anyone. I piss on the world and rather be homeless than make Deals with Dogs!

…, in your case, I have respect for you and what you do. That is the sole reason for me supporting you. Now, if you believe that my … causes more harm to you than benefits, then this is what we can do:

You can never link to any of my ... You can disassociate yourself to have any relations with me or IPC, because this association is not good for your business and it may hurt the Fat Belly boys of Iran, the Desk-Ballers (those who sit behind their desks all day and play with their balls), the media homeless, the … promoters and LA Mafia, also that Fat Frog Jahanshah Javid! This is what you can do.

I can also immediately seize writing anymore … for the … which associate with …, the … which sells … for you and believe me, my …, my distributions of articles around the net, forums, e-mail groups and sites and off the net via flyers in universities, sells ... IPC has at least one member in every single major university of Iran and most major universities outside Iran in the west. What I write, the youth feeds on it. Who buys your …? Old farts? I don’t think so! Therefore, it is no sweat off my back to stop writing … about your … and start writing … about … not associating with you. I can do this for you so our association will not hurt the Iranian Hypocrisy and the Fat Belly Boys, which you consort with.

So that is what you can do, which I know you are already doing, because I don’t see any links to IPC in your site but I see that Fat Fuck (JJ links) all over your site! And that’s what I can do for you by stop writing ...

But you can never ever ask me to change, cool down, calm my wordings, mellow out my tone, behave politically correct, be an acceptable good boy, join the cattle (Iranian Society), respect Iranian Media, respect Fat Belly Boys, respect Iranian Bache Kunis of LA and be a politically correct man! That would occur in a cold day in Hell. I am Ahreeman and I love heat!

My friend, I am what I am and I can see my face everyday in the mirror and bravely state that I am happy with what I see. My conscience is clear. I don’t need to bow or make deals with any of these sons of bitches because all I need is the masses and youth on my side. I get my power from the masses.

Now, you must also try facing the mirror and see if you like what you see! Are you in peace with yourself? Can you still make deals and make friends with pigs all day long and by the end of the night, not to wash your hands before going to bed? Is political and business Ass Kissing Halaal in your book?

…, I read through you like a open book. I am a master sociologist and anthropologist. I can talk 5 minutes with a person and see where do they come from. You and I are same type of species. We were born Rebels.

It all comes down to Money. It is all Money baby!

You are making friends with Rats to get your business off the ground. Maybe this way, by doing changes from within the system, you can influence the Iranian Mainstream … and take a step forward and along the way, make some money for your … and for yourself. Maybe so and more power to you. I can see where you are coming from. I understand your tactics but I do not moralize nor do I recommend your tactics to anyone.

Don’t sit there and tell me it is good to do so! Don’t give me advice on how to make friends! Friends like these Rats, I can do without. My friends and the closed circle of friends around me are some of the most devoted and sincere nationalists of Iran, intellectuals of Iran and youth of Iran. Throughout my life, I have risked everything to mass educate the masses so they can commit to a moral revolution and eventually commit to a political revolution. This may take 10 years or 20 years or 70 years but you and I both know that it is the historical destiny for Iran to one day become a free, democratic, secular, federal republic. That day will soon or late come and that is what I fight for.

I risk everything for my principles. I rather eat Shiite and die rather than make deals with Rats of all types, specifically Iranian Politicians and Media lords. I rather starve on the street corner than sell out. And trust me I been there and done that. I was a starving … homeless in the street but refused to accept money even from my own dynasty of Qajar. It comes down to:

Principles or Money?
Get it Joe?

So, I feel your pain and I feel for you and I understand what you must do to survive. You know what’s good for you and you will decide your agenda. You, I respect. I respect you as a … and as a person who tries to make a “Change”. I maybe respect you as a person but please do not preach to me about being brotherly loved, make friends and try to justify what you are doing as the right thing! As I told you, try facing the mirror first and preach to me second.

I am the most pig headed son of a bitch, which you can find rebelling to the end. I am the one who will stand and fight for the cause until death. I take no Shiite from anybody and I am a straightforward person. That is why I am well hated amongst the Iranian Hypocrisy. Frankly I am too old to change, because you can’t teach an old dog, new tricks.

You see, your goal is to make a … change. My goal is to make a cultural, moral and political change in our screwed up societies both inside and outside Iran!

My policy is Frag them “All”.
No Deals
No Retreat
No Persian Flatteries
No jerking off on the side
No Dancing around the bush
Death before Dishonor and defeat

Jigareto
Best wished to you
Try to Keep Real and Stay Real

Who loves you baby?
Ahreeman indeed!
Who else?

Adios Amigo

Ahreeman X
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA


Return to Formal Debates & Discussions Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron