Would be curious about the composition of the background of that intelligentsia.
Wars bind us. For a reason.
We obliterated the Nazis for a reason.If blood isn’t objective, I don’t know what is. We didn’t want to put up with their overbearing, genocidal to boot, shit.
Now, many years later, I sit here on this forum, reminding y’all that it’s not necessarily entirely healthy to think of a whole bunch of people as tinder for the glorious fire of the future.
Sure, I spoke about burning nazis at stakes, and probably would if it was a real nazi, but it is more a subjective memory of a shitty idea than an objective condemnation. One I assume men of good will, understood as reasonable set as standard, share with me.
That is, intelligence shuts down the need for objectivity. A good guess is always gonna be your best, so maybe work on guessing better.
ILP is not real life, but a virtual place where we discuss real life. Thus, arguments are expected.
Showing indifference, rather than arguments, on a forum dedicated to philosophy is not a plus but a minus.
Your display of indifference is merely a display of how much you want to be but can’t be indifferent.
You are offended and are now trying to defend yourself by pretending you are not offended.
The fact you’re numb does not mean you are not offended.
Drugs can only help you hide your feelings but they cannot help you overcome them.
Unfortunately that is not the case. The Soviets obliterated the nazis after Churchill had the heart to attack. Then Hitler started exterminating his prisoners. Then the US swooped in. All of Germany was carpet bombed into dust. Sure, blood was evaporated, but plenty still stuck. It makes no sense to proclaim that ‘we’, the Atlantic Alliance, haven’t been bloodthirsty. The USA is the most purely warlike state that has been since Rome. This is to be affirmed, I think - which means also affirming all the German brass and brilliance that went from Prussia to Maryland…
The enemy isn’t historical, but immanent in the patterns of power distribution. Perhaps it is wise to return the abbreviation nazi back to its original form; national socialist. That was not an arbitrarily chosen term. The national socialist party spoke to the disenfranchised, to women in particular, and to hysterics most of all. Clinton is exactly the same. But these times dont provide for an equal adversary.
I am still waiting for your defense of the idea that drugs are manly.
Drugs are manly because they are a “value”, which is to say, because Fixed says so.
The end.
(Reason? What do you mean “reason”? No . . . that’s a separate “value”.)
Yes it does… equally as it realizes how nonsensical the concept of it is.
Functionality is always a limited going-forward with a trust that all the other relevant parts are also going-forward; this is why I can only laugh at Hume. He is like the bicyclist that went to meet the German tanks to tell them the Netherlands wouldn’t simply surrender to tyrants.
Speculative Ethics, as Parodites named it on before the light in '11. That has always been the project; the same thing that informaticians in their inability to figure it out call quantumprocessing - using uncertainty not as a ceiling but as a ground.
Dude, you’re talking to your room-fucking-mate over a forum. Like, you’re literally sitting across him, and instead of talking to him in person, you are talking to him via your laptop.
Magnus is perpetually confused about what it means to be a man. I think he’s gay.
He’s just modern.
Isn’t everything that’s happening right now modern?
I appreciate your effort to defend me from Mr. R’s silly accusation that I am gay, but what is it exactly that makes me a modern?
I am not an anarchist (human or animal.)
I am not a libertarian.
I am not a value relativist.
I don’t do drugs nor do I think they are manly.
I don’t think that philosophy is friendship.
I don’t think that money is expertize.
I don’t talk to my roommates sitting across me indirectly via forum.
I don’t think Nazi equals evil.
I don’t think that joy is what everyone is or should be striving for.
Fixed, I am at a loss.
I 'spose. 
Yes. Elegantly put.
As Carleas noted on yet another locked thread here, you have allowed yourself to be become virtually indistinguishable from Turd. And at least Turd is willing to circle the periphery of philosophy.
Come on, why do you still come here?
Thank you, my friend. The check is in the mail. 
Okay, so how is a “guess” here not basically a political prejudice rooted existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?
Let’s explore this by way of examining some of your own guesses.
As for the objectivists here, how are your values not either guesses or political prejudices rooted in the components of my own philosophy?
Isn’t there anyone here willing to go there?
.
Would difference would it have made? If they had their way, it’s likely that the wars would just have happened earlier, and if so, might have been even bloodier because the memories would have been closer to WWII. On the other hand, the dissenting view could have been negotiated and settled in a more diplomatic ways. Who knows?