Posts by Mark Torres14

Gregory Garcia said:Maybe there's some other motive behind repeating the same tired point over and over, but I'd bet my life on this: it's a war of attrition. They keep hammering the same thing just to wear everyone else down. Once you're too exhausted to keep fighting back, they'll swoop in and claim victory, acting like you simply ran out of arguments. Total coward move.
Besides, it’s just plain disrespectful to everyone else. You’re basically implying that people aren't even reading the posts if you can't just accept what's been said without making us repeat ourselves over and over again. 🤷

That kind of behavior gets you sanctioned even on the much less "serious" subforums. 😉

Who even are you, man?
Look, I’m not going to argue about whether you support the moderator or not. That’s your business and your personal opinion. I have zero interest in getting dragged into that.
You're just recycling the same old arguments again, trying to wear everyone down until they give up. Typical.
Look, I’m asking you nicely: show me. Point to the specific post numbers if you have to. Because right now, this isn't even about the actual topic anymore—it's just a personal attack on me. I'm staying strictly within the bounds of the discussion thread, so quit making things up out of thin air. Did you just pull that straight out of your ass?
What’s the deal? Did I do something to offend you that I don't even know about, or are you just jumping into a fight that has nothing to do with you just to feel important?
The worst part is you didn't even participate in the discussion.😕

Gregory Garcia said:Look, I get Mark Torres14's position. I see where he's coming from. That's fine. But if he keeps hammering the same point over and over in every single post, he's violating the spirit of this forum. If anyone—whether it's Mark Torres14 or someone else—starts looping the same arguments just to wear down people with different views, that's straight-up flooding and spam. It needs to be handled. 👍

Respect your take on the mods.

But since you decided to jump in and critique my posts regarding the very topic that triggered this complaint—especially since we've never even talked on this forum and you haven't posted in the philosophy sub ever in the last 4 years—you should probably show me exactly where I was endlessly repeating myself with the intent of wearing people out or baiting them.

If you can't back up what you're saying, then shut up and stay out of it.😠

Dennis Rogers6 said:Give me a break. Insulting you? I think you're taking things way too seriously. You're seeing a threat where there isn't one—it was actually just some decent advice.

Look, you're entitled to your opinion. It doesn't matter that I never explicitly called you some wannabe intellectual, or that I was just cleaning up off-topic posts. All you care about is that I'm supposedly pushing you out of a debate (which you walked away from yourself) and insulting you with whatever names you've cooked up. Now you're claiming threats, too. Believe what you want. As far as I'm concerned, this "debate" ended a long time ago.

🤷

Fine. Whatever.
Since you're a moderator and you have—in my opinion—extremely bizarre standards for how to moderate, I'll just try to avoid you on this forum as much as possible moving forward.

Dennis Rogers6 said:Look, Igor Mandić isn't some pseudo-intellectual hack, but he’s certainly not some titan of thought or a philosopher either. As for that massive blunder of his? shamantrixx already laid it out perfectly—short and sweet. And don't even try to lie to me; that post from Brlja was totally fine.

So, you're calling that an "argument"? Give me a break.😕

I don't know what to tell you. Just facts. No fluff. said:Mandić is alright, but like so many from his generation, he completely missed the boat when it came to digital media. He never caught the wave with the internet, which leaves him stuck in a position similar to an illiterate tribe trying to go to war against a literate society.

It’s a decent read, sure, but when someone starts lecturing about things they clearly don't understand—you've got to take that with a massive grain of salt.

If you really want to split hairs, that "quasi-intellectual" comment was about something else entirely. It has absolutely nothing to do with this situation or your post regarding WikiLeaks.

What do you think about this?

Dennis Rogers6 said:I’m guessing those posts were nuked because they were part of that whole pointless argument—the one Mark Torres14 started, if I recall correctly. Honestly, the entire thread should have been deleted anyway for a dozen different reasons. I let it slide at first, but now? I’m all for my blood brother wiping it from existence.

We need some new trolls. Maybe specifically for that pseudo-intellectual crowd—people who love subtle trolling and just dragging down the quality of the entire discussion. 😁 Look, when someone starts whining about whether a discussion needs to be "high quality" or complains about people dropping links in a thread like this... that’s how you know things have gone off the rails. They clearly don't get the point of being here. ☕

How am I supposed to wrap my head around seeing Dennis Rogers6 instead of Mark Torres14?

Look, I hope you realize this whole thing is just subtle trolling and mental gymnastics. I’m only putting up with your bullshit for as long as it takes to justify finally kicking you out. So, hang tight—you've only got a little time left. 😁

Look, when someone tries to kick me out of a discussion just because they can't handle my take—all while throwing around insults like "pseudo-intellectual" and hiding behind their moderator powers—I’m going to use the same rules they're using to demand an explanation. This forum has guidelines for a reason, and I have every right to hold people to them.
That’s why I’m asking. Why are you doing this?
I really hope you aren't being serious with these threats, the warnings, and the constant insults. It’s just mindless trolling at this point.

N'Dug said:Sure, but Mandić is a controversial guy. Even if he’s inconsistent or plays fast and loose sometimes, you have to admit he maintained a certain standard—even when he was diving into Freud, eroticism, or food. That’s a level of depth way beyond your average WikiLeaks reader. Mandić belongs to that tradition where authors were first and foremost strong personalities, true individuals, or at least tried to be. They built their uniqueness through deep thought and by measuring themselves against significant, cult classics—not some random idiots in a coffee shop sipping lattes. We're talking about authors who weren't global megastars like Chomsky, but had massive individual stances and a unique fingerprint. It makes sense that people like that hate modern tech, where everything boils down to a mindless mob, counting upvotes and downvotes on some digital scrapbooks or Facebook feeds. They’d rather stick to their old typewriters, mentally staying "connected" to Sartre, Adorno, Camus, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Lukács, and other giants of leftist thought, instead of networking with the crowd that thinks writing graffiti is peak expression or believes clicking a mouse to take down a website is some kind of revolutionary act.

🙏👍
Bravo, N'Dug. Looks like besides us, Igor Mandić is now officially a quasi-intellectual in your eyes. Have you noticed most people haven't even read his piece? Nobody has even attempted to dismantle his arguments. Instead, you just label anyone with a different opinion a "quasi-intellectual" and then, if possible, get their post deleted or just insult them.
If this Brlja guy had written the exact same text but with a different slant—say, praising an Igor Mandić piece—he would've been slapped with a warning for trolling and had his post nuked immediately.
Unbelievable.

Dennis Rogers6 said:I don't get why this argument is even controversial, or why anyone cares. Nobody died because of my take, and frankly, nothing bad happened because of it. Posts get nuked for being off-topic regardless of who’s posting them. When I tell Mark Torres14 that I don't have a problem with him, it's strictly because he keeps insisting on things that are flat-out wrong—just like he did with shamantrixx.

Gotta admit, your sense of humor is pretty twisted.😕
By the way, nowhere in the forum rules does it say my arguments have to align with yours or Sham's. You're just pulling rank as a moderator to force your own perspective on the discussion by labeling my posts "trolling" or "off-topic." Then you delete or move my stuff so I can't even give you a proper response.

soadfan said:We need new rules, maybe to cater to pseudo-intellectuals, subtle trolling, or just to tank the overall quality of the debate. 😁 I mean, when someone asks "where does it say the discussion has to be high-quality?" or complains about posting links in a thread like this... then you know something is wrong. You also know exactly what the goal here is. ☕

Whatever. 👍I didn't realize my takes on this topic were polluting the thread so badly that we need new rules. If the majority thinks I’m intentionally trying to sabotage the quality of the debate or insult people with my views, fine—I'll walk away and stop commenting.
Also, if you're implying that after 4,500 posts I'm actually here with some conspiracy-driven agenda to cloud the truth, then have the guts to finish your thought and tell me what exactly leads you to that conclusion.

I only care about one thing. Who is this person whose specific opinion or methodological stance serves as the objective yardstick for whether a discussion is "high quality" or not?

In practical terms, can any single person here point to a specific piece of info or document released by WikiLeaks that actually gave them, or their community, more transparency, democratic influence, or any tangible way to change their social standing or impact policy in their own backyard?

Since I view the deletion of my posts and these remarks as undemocratic censorship—which isn't backed up by the forum rules or even the reasonable discretion of a moderator—I'm done with this thread.
Peace.

Moved from "WikiLeaks - philosophy of transparency"

Edward Flores4 said:Look, you aren't exactly a lost cause either .. and I get what you're saying — sure, the focus is on him .. but honestly, I'm not convinced he's going to walk away from this any wiser than when he started. It's not even a question of whether he *can* change .. it's more that he simply *won't*. At the end of the day, you're just spinning your wheels and wasting your own time.☕

It took me a long time to realize just how much time actually matters. We really need more philosophers like that.🙏 Look, Edward Flores4 and redtinker36, it’s just plain stupid to waste time on topics this trivial. It’s like firing up the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland just to brew a cup of coffee.🙂
Look, I’ll apologize one more time to the people involved for even opening this thread in the first place. I just hope humanity didn't suffer too much while their "profound" intellects were busy wasting time on this nonsense.😍

It’s honestly a little late in the game for me to be worrying about parenting. My son is already 27, one daughter is 21, and the other is 18. What’s done is done.
Unfortunately, they're raised to be too damn polite.🙂😠

Ronald Rogers27 said:Look, Servantes, your question is way too broad. It’s so vague there isn't even much point in trying to debate it.

It’s basically just a synonym for asking: Should the world be entirely White or entirely Black?

(Let's face it, idealists don't exactly have it easy in today's world) 😬

Ronald Rogers27

Life is easiest when you're either for something or against it.
But I think it was implied what I meant by good. That's why I gave that long-winded intro. I drifted off with David and Brecht for a second, but we got back on track eventually.
By good, I mean socially good. Or being a man of his word, having ideals, being worthy, and not trying to screw over anyone else.
We can put it another way.
Take a business school, for example.
Do we teach students how to rip off customers or how to be honest? Which path is actually realistic and sustainable for the long haul so our future economy doesn't collapse (assuming the world is like America or just some chaotic region)?

driftingbear20 said:

Mark Torres14 It’s funny how things turn out, isn't it? I was just thinking about what someone said the other day, and it really stuck with me.
We have kids to raise, and I really feel like our biggest job is teaching them how to actually stand on their own two feet when they head out into the world. It makes me think back to when my own kids were little and we started letting them handle small chores around the house; it’s those little moments that build real confidence. What kind of life skills do you all think we should be focusing on most?
Do you think people should be corrupt to the core, or is it better to just stay hardworking and honest?😕🤷☕

He’s such a hardworking, honest guy.

I totally get where you're coming from... there's a real chance that if we raise our kids to be hardworking and principled—instead of teaching them how to be "corrupt to the core"—they might actually struggle a bit more once they hit adulthood. They’ll probably face longer stretches of unemployment because they refuse to compromise their ideals, take lower paychecks, work way harder than necessary, and ultimately never become obscenely wealthy. I remember my own father used to say that integrity always comes with a price tag, and looking at how things work in America today, it really feels like he was right.
It’s just so heartbreaking when you have to watch your child go through all that struggle... as a parent, seeing them face those kinds of battles really weighs heavy on your heart.
It really hits home when you see how easy life seems for those kids who grew up with everything handed to them on a silver platter.
You know, I catch myself wondering if I actually made a mistake sometimes. Was I just being foolish? It’s honestly pretty easy to play the fool when you're only dealing with your own life, but when it comes down to your kids and making sure they're okay, all those rigid rules about what's "right" or "proper" just go right out the window.
Honestly, I don't really think they need to be moved at all.
I honestly feel like someone who lives their life with genuine energy and stays true to their word just ends up so much more satisfied, you know? It’s like they get to enjoy these much sweeter, more beautiful dreams at night because their conscience is totally clear.

Besides, I’ve always found that time is a pretty relentless ally when it comes to the truth, isn't it?
I’ve always believed that if you just stay focused and keep your head down, doing things the right way, your hard work will eventually catch up to you and everyone will see what you're truly made of.
There’s really no reason to worry that having those kinds of qualities makes someone "weak."
In the grand scheme of things, that approach always ends up being a huge advantage.

That's a really interesting point. But why is she more satisfied?
Ever notice how you get this little rush of satisfaction when you finally pay off a bill, settle a debt, or give someone a gift and they actually appreciate it? Why does that happen?
A total Scoundrel would just feel miserable having to part with anything.
Reminds me of that old saying, "Give a hand to a friend."😁

ironmarlin1 said:Just so they can be productive and corrupt. 😁

Honesty is such a slippery concept, isn't it? In some sort of grand, cosmic moral arithmetic, one person's integrity inevitably balances out as someone else's injustice somewhere down the line. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiFFdQUxO1Y 😍

Since you brought up Brecht, I have to drop his next poem on you:

Questioning Goodness

Step forward; we have heard
That you are a good man.
You cannot be bribed, nor can the lightning
That strikes a house—that too
Cannot be bribed.
You stick to what you said.
But what was it you actually said?
You are honest, you say your piece.
Which piece?
You are brave.
Against whom?
You are wise.
For whom?
You don't care about your own gain.
Whose gain, then, do you care about?
You are a good friend.
Are you also a good friend to good people?

Listen to us; we know
That you are our enemy. So we will
Put you against the wall now. But considering your
Merits and virtues
We will put you against a good wall and shoot you
With a good bullet from a good gun and bury you
With a good shovel in good soil.

Bertolt Brecht – from Slavoj Žižek’s book – on violence "can a man

Can a person truly be good, or is everything just a matter of measuring different levels of corruption?

Imagine if we were stuck living in that awful era described by Mr. Matoš.😁

“False nobles – imperial tax collectors,
Empty Dark Knights, kin to the devil,
Liars, actors, battalions of gold,
Fake shepherds and fake barons,
Slaves to phrases and holy youths,
Vain pedants, white tombs,
Fake journals and fake jewels,
Cheapskate dolls and bazaar slaves,
Subservient slaves, filthy sophists,
Superfluous zealots, sweet egoists,
Descendants of the Scoundrel and Branko’s Wolf,
Merchants of thought, swindlers of the masses,
A beggar clutching a doctor’s degree,
Old Debauchees wearing churchmen’s faces,
Syphilis-progress and cultural woes,
An advanced nation eating the weak,
Shallow prophets of United Kingdom benefits,
New vices on rotting pillars....“

(Mr. Matoš, Mora)

We have kids, and we need to prepare them to handle life on their own. What should we teach them?
To be corrupt to the core, or to be hardworking and honest?😕🤷☕

Thomas Booth5 said:To put it simply, humans are evolutionarily—and ultimately humanistically—built to be generalists.

Spot on. 👍That’s exactly how I’d answer Vivian and jademarlin26.

jademarlin26 said:I don't see how specialization relates to returning to an animal state, regardless of what that implies. Isn't specialization actually the move toward the "modern," an evolutionary step forward?

If that is true, how did that essence lead to the division of labor, specialization, and civilization itself? I likely misunderstood your definition of specialization, which explains the disconnect.

Almost everything living out there is specialized in some way. Elephants have trunks, eagles have sharp vision, storks have specific beaks... you get the idea. Humans aren't specialized for anything. So, isn't specialization actually just a retreat back to being animals?🤷

Then how did that essence lead to the division of labor, specialization, and civilization? I probably haven't quite grasped your definition of specialization, which is why we're talking past each other.

Hope that clears things up.🙂
As Nietzsche writes in Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

"We have invented happiness," say the last men, and they blink their eyes... From time to time a little poison: that makes for pleasant dreams. And at last, a lot of poison, so that dying is easy. There is still work to do, for work is play. But watch out that you don't wear yourself out from all the playing.

Laura Rivera3 said:That’s a great way to put it. Still, I’m a little confused here. If the essence of humanity is found in non-specialization and having all those paths open to us, why do you think that leads to losing one's personality or intimacy?

Isn't it actually the opposite—that we preserve our personality precisely because it remains untouched by the narrow constraints and influence of specialization?

No way. Personality changes and fades too. What do you think your personality looks like after eight hours of this kind of grind?😁

soadfan said:You need to meditate on death every single day. When things are calm and your head is clear, you should visualize the worst: being torn apart by gunfire and blades, swept away by a massive tidal wave, tossed into a raging forest fire, struck by lightning, or crushed by an earthquake. Imagine plummeting from a skyscraper, wasting away from sickness, or taking your own life out of loyalty to your leader. You have to live every day as if you’re already dead. That’s the core of Bushido.
(Miyamoto Musashi, The Art of War)

For seventy-two years
I kept the bull under tight control.
Now that the plum blossoms are back,
I'll let him run wild in the snow.

Japanese Rinzai Master Bob (1384 – 1455):

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose... it means that the moment you start fighting against something, you have to internalize it. All the real battles, I guess, they happen within the soul first and foremost. And Dostoevsky... he used to look at the human soul as if it were a battlefield.

Paul Jones7:

I suppose, if one is truly going to attempt an interpretation, it really ought to be done by looking at the whole picture. It seems to me that you shouldn't just pick at bits and pieces... it feels like you might end up trying to eat interpretation rather than actually understanding it, if that makes sense. One should probably consider the entirety of things. Well, I suppose I should probably quote Nemruth Dag here, specifically regarding what dustyskipper3 said about him having "eaten interpretation." Nietzsche says in his book "above good and evil": I suppose... I guess every true thinker might actually fear being understood more than they fear being misunderstood. It’s a strange thought, isn't it? Perhaps, if that's true, the fear of being understood is just a matter of pride—of vanity, really—but the fear of being misunderstood... well, that hits the heart. It stems from a sort of misplaced compassion. A sort of pity, maybe. Like they're looking at everyone else and thinking, "Oh, why would you want to go through the same struggle I have to endure?" It's a heavy way to live, I suppose.😁

So... there it is. I suppose any true deep thinker eventually has to trip themselves up—sort of jump into their own mouth, if that makes sense. It feels necessary, really, because you can't truly claim depth unless you're willing to be contradictory. Maybe. And then there’s this idea of "compassion," too. I've been thinking that maybe compassion is actually just a form of vanity. It's probably just a question of which type of vanity is more powerful. Or perhaps I'm overthinking it. I guess. 😬

I see it differently.
Human beings are built for freedom. We know there are endless paths open to us at any given moment. But every time you hesitate or stall, you shrink that freedom and trap your own consciousness. Eventually, your narrow interests become your entire identity, and you start seeing yourself only through that lens.
Just look at how many people define themselves solely by their job or a single obsession. Anything outside of that feels like a distraction to them.
That leads right back to hyper-specialization—which is really just a regression to primal, animalistic behavior.
The whole point of being human is staying unspecialized and keeping the ability to pivot in a thousand different directions. But that’s also the fatal flaw. By spreading our freedom too thin, we end up losing our sense of self and our inner core.

Sandra Morgan2 said:Poor guy. 😢
He went searching for truth and only found misery.
He let himself eat interpretation, just like dustyskipper3 so beautifully put it...
That one sentence alone explains exactly why he ended up so incredibly frustrated.

Suffering is just a luxury for the weak.
There’s an old saying:
"Mastery is when you act without overthinking."
Thinkers are always suffering. They see the truth, but they can't do a damn thing to change it. They're weighed down by the past instead of looking forward. They have zero power.

dustyskipper3 said:Well, I suppose N. was quite specific about being "a certain kind of man," mostly so people wouldn't just twist his words to fit whatever narrative they felt like following. He definitely wasn't a nihilist—I mean, how could he be if he wrote "God is dead" and then actually took the time to stare into the void left behind by His absence? And you really can't just lazily label that void as "evil." Not when you consider he's the same author who penned "above good and evil" and spent so much of his life trying to construct a new system of values—something that sits above our usual concepts of "good" and "evil"—to distinguish what truly affirms life from what simply stifles it. Though, I guess the real struggle is even defining what "life" actually is, or what exactly it is that suffocates it. It’s possible that the author's own life, and the massive influence he exerts even after his physical passing, is actually what stifles him through over-analysis. Looking at the endless mountain of academic papers, essays, and various critiques regarding N., it feels as though he didn't just die physically; he died as an author too. He basically had to
eat interpretation.

The full thought goes like this:

Whoever fights monsters should look to make sure they don't become a monster themselves. And if you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.

If you're going to interpret something, you've got to do it holistically.
But I want to bring Nemruth Dag into this regarding what was said about him "eating interpretation."

In the book "above good and evil," Nietzsche says:

"Every deep thinker fears being understood more than being misunderstood. The latter might bruise his pride, but the former wounds his heart—his compassion, which always asks, 'Why must you also suffer as I do?'"😁

silvercobra68 said:I read 1984 back in the early 70s. Back then, Ornella Vanon was topping the charts, and I spent those years pondering the world and my place in its future—not necessarily specifically 1984. Now that we've long passed 1984—we're well into the 2000s—I can look back and see how much my perspective has shifted since then. But honestly, the main reason I picked that year? It was all about Ornella.

What on earth does the year 1984 have to do with an Italian singer like Ornella?😕🤷
It’s perfectly normal that you view the future differently now. Your thoughts today aren't going to be the same ones you had thirty years ago—doesn't even mean they're "wiser," just different.
It all boils down to that age-old question:
Who are you?
The ten-year-old, the twenty-year-old, the fifty-year-old, or the eighty-year-old?