The Reasonable Standard

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:28 am

You didn't respond to my question about selective enforcement of rules. AND, I certainly have responded to his argument.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25302
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:02 pm

He's also been in my threads constantly, spreading the most idiotic lies about me. It just gets supremely irritating.

I wish the mods would read a bit more of the posts in their forums. It seems they are completely ignorant of what has been happening for the past years.

I appreciate you taking the trouble to write this all down mr R. Not that it will be read, of course - the mods don't seem to think their job has much to do with the art of reading, it seems to offend them to be expected to engage in this discipline.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7516
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:25 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:An answer to a challenge made in jestful jest by Iambiguous.

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p2630835

I claim that mr Reasonable is a philosopher, and that his standard is as follows:

Life is good and you need to be powerful to handle that.



I looked up the definition for reasonable standard...

The reasonableness standard is a test which asks whether the decisions made were legitimate and designed to remedy a certain issue under the circumstances at the time. Courts using this standard look at both the ultimate decision, and the process by which a party went about making that decision.

How does ~~ Life is good and you need to be powerful to handle that pass as a reasonable standard in and of itself?
Where are the examples and the proof to show that?
What is actually meant by"powerful" used in that statement?

You made the comment...

Mr R is a bona fide philosopher, maybe the most important one on this site.
If he'd not write here, that would genuinely suck.


I do not know if you were actually being facetious here or trying to win friends and influence people :lol: (too much wax) but it is otherwise just your opinion/perspective.
I know that there are some truly awesome philosophers here, including yourself I would say, but would you !really! place him above all of the rest in here who are?
Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.


The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.


“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”


You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:21 pm

Iambiguous,

But then out in the world that we actually live in, different individuals engage in different preparations in order to enjoy the different things that they do.


This is true. This is what makes the world go around. I would also say that those same individuals sometimes actually enjoy engaging in such preparations. I do. The journey is just as important as the destination to me.


And that's fine until the things that some do collide headlong into the things that other's do.
Call them, say, conflicting goods.


True. We do not all share the same values. But how do we manage to respect one another's values (unless they are truly ridiculous)? An individual experiences and sees *conflicting goods* within his own personal life.
What is the best way to determine what to keep and what to leave behind?



The distinction I make is between the preparations people are required to master in order to successfully do the things that they want to do and the preparations they are required to master in order to defend the things they do when others insist that they stop doing them.


Can you give me an example of what you are speaking about here?
Aside from that, I am not sure what *insist* means to you here. (I know what the word means :mrgreen: ) People do not necessarily have to stop doing what they do because someone else *insists* on it...unless one is breaking a law or a rule ~ in that case, one would just need to decide what is most important depending on the repercussions.


Why some choose to eat meat while others do not is, in my view, embedded and embodied in an existential contraption.


Some simply like the taste of meat and it does have iron in it.
Some are conscious bound not to hurt an animal or eat its flesh. It is just all according to how we see and experience things, how much compassion and empathy we experience.
Existential yes but when dealing with the human psyche and the human experience, not so much a contraption.
The line "to do no harm" can come into focus here.


Personally I do not see right or wrong here in any regard except perhaps when you really delve into the quality of animal life and waste ad continuum. What I see as wrong is killing an animal, a healthy beautiful animal, who would have years more to live and thrive and enjoy, for sport and deriving great pleasure from that kill. But certain individuals need to do that to feel that they are so powerful and alive unfortunately.
What take precedence ~ hedonistic human pleasure or the right of the animal to live out his wild days?


But if you do choose to eat meat you either are or are not proficient in preparing it.


No happy medium here?
Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.


The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.


“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”


You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Dan~ » Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:12 am

Fixed Cross wrote:He's also been in my threads constantly, spreading the most idiotic lies about me. It just gets supremely irritating.

I wish the mods would read a bit more of the posts in their forums. It seems they are completely ignorant of what has been happening for the past years.

I appreciate you taking the trouble to write this all down mr R. Not that it will be read, of course - the mods don't seem to think their job has much to do with the art of reading, it seems to offend them to be expected to engage in this discipline.


I want to help.
What should we do first?
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9955
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:10 am

Mr Reasonable wrote: It just can't be the case that every single thread on the entire fucking site has to revolve around this guy's confusion about how moral and ethical decisions are made. If so then the entire rest of the group of people who posts here might as well just get up and leave. Why is it completely ignored that he follows people around and tries to force every conversation here to revolve around those 3 or 4 things that he's been copying and pasting here for the last few years?


Here is the link to your posts at ILP: search.php?author_id=8885&sr=posts

Note for us all of the times that I have followed you around and forced you to discuss only those 3 or 4 things that I want to pursue here.

Note to others:

Same thing. Cite examples regarding your own contributions here that demonstrate how I am following you around in order to derail threads and to goad you into discussing only my own interests here.

The charge is nothing short of preposterous. Which is why my own sense of intrigue here revolves more around why you would make it. There is something going on here I gather that even you aren't privy to. But, I can assure you that, given my ample experience with reactions just like yours, I have my suspicions.

As for my confusion regarding how moral and ethical decisions are made, you are just one more smug objectivist convinced that only the manner in which he makes these decisions reflects the way in which all rational men and women are obligated to go.

Mr Reasonable wrote: Are you even reading the threads or just responding when he clicks the button when someone calls him a name?


Please, expound on this. Who is pushing what button in regards to what names? Again, call me any name you please. On the other hand, you strike me as just one more example of someone who, when the exchanges shift to repartee, can dish it out but not take it.

Your reaction to me here speaks volumns regarding just close I may well be coming to yanking your chain. And, perhaps, to that stuff a hell of a lot more, say, substantive?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25542
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:47 am

If constantly tapping someone on the shoulder and saying, "why? why? why? then why? why? why?", until they are annoyed is somehow gratifying to you, then you are legitimately mentally ill. I've made no claim that the means by which I make moral decisions is objective or that anyone else is obligated to do anything at all. You're arguing with the same strawman that you postulate onto everyone that you engage. You're not even within the range of forcing some kind of existential crisis in anyone, which is what you seem to think you're doing. It used to be funny, but it's like watching the same show over and over and over again. Eventually, even the funniest episode just becomes annoying. Being an idiot and harassing people until they tell you to fuck off is not the same as forcing them to confront some flaw in their philosophy, it's not the same as forcing them to confront nihilism or to go into some existential crisis. Most adults are so far past this sort of thing that I can't even conceive how any of it could still be interesting to you. You're an intellectual cripple who's aptitude ends at the level of a sophomore existentialism class. The entirety of your set of thoughts is something that I passed in my first year of college almost 15 years ago. How you can't grasp that I think you're not only boring, but also confused, and unable or unwilling to learn how to get out of your crippled state at this point is beyond me. I've never met anyone so insistent on talking to people who don't want to talk to them.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25302
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:52 am

Dan~ wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:He's also been in my threads constantly, spreading the most idiotic lies about me. It just gets supremely irritating.

I wish the mods would read a bit more of the posts in their forums. It seems they are completely ignorant of what has been happening for the past years.

I appreciate you taking the trouble to write this all down mr R. Not that it will be read, of course - the mods don't seem to think their job has much to do with the art of reading, it seems to offend them to be expected to engage in this discipline.


I want to help.
What should we do first?


A start would be that no one be allowed to copy and paste long blocks of text more than 10 times in 10 threads in a year. This would stop 90 percent of everything he says. Just search, "belly of the working class beast", or "skyhooks", or "dasein kids" and you'll see what I mean. There is literally no purpose that is served by reposting the same argument in 500 places.

If he actually wanted to defend or elucidate his position, then he would start a thread and do it there. Instead, since he just wants to go in a loop harassing people, he pops into unrelated threads and does it there so it's harder to maintain a record of how many times and how many ways he's been corrected. He can just walk away from a thread after he kills it with his copy and paste routine, and then go into another one and do it there. If he had to do it in one place, then he would be exposed within the first few pages and if it went on it would just become a monument to his stupidity.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25302
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:52 am

Dan~ wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:He's also been in my threads constantly, spreading the most idiotic lies about me. It just gets supremely irritating.

I wish the mods would read a bit more of the posts in their forums. It seems they are completely ignorant of what has been happening for the past years.

I appreciate you taking the trouble to write this all down mr R. Not that it will be read, of course - the mods don't seem to think their job has much to do with the art of reading, it seems to offend them to be expected to engage in this discipline.


I want to help.
What should we do first?


Mr R has been very helpfull, explaining the problem with a lot of patience. Just upholding basic ethics, respect for posters and just humanity, the spirit, is a start. Meaning someone should tell the problem-poster to quit his harassing and derailing and lying or there will be some consequence. He has done such endless damage to our work here, terminating hundreds of potentially great discussions.

People mat sat to just ignore him, but invariably he draws some one in the threads away from the topic into his shallows and lies and lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies and just derails and discourages and chokes and terminates it whatever the OP tries.

Its not a very powerful guy but he's been going at it unchecked for five years at least. Truly a debasing experience to constantly be confronted with his graceless and dehumanized nihilism.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7516
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby MagsJ » Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:38 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:You didn't respond to my question about selective enforcement of rules. AND, I certainly have responded to his argument.

I did respond.. in the first DM I sent you, regarding this thread.. happy to discuss it further, so will await a reply to respond to.

Responded without getting personal? he says 'Kids', you say 'Your mom'.. we can tighten the rules back up, but posters don't like that either, so the options are: ignore posts, block that poster, report a post, and.. ask a post to be deleted from your thread to un-derail it.

When people (including myself) respond to posts, I thought it was because they wanted to engage in that discussion, so do excuse us mods for thinking otherwise.

In the past, I have responded to reported posts, and resolved those situations, which Iam did not argue over.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17305
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:30 pm

I don't mean selective enforcement of the name calling rules. I mean, why is that the only rule you're enforcing. Why just select one rule and ignore the others?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25302
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:01 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote: Iamb, you're not misunderstood. We all understand what you're saying. It's just that literally no one gives a fuck about it.


Then why all this fuss? No one is required to read my posts. No one is required even to interact with me at all here at ILP.

You know what to do, right?

And your reaction to me on this thread sounds like anything but someone who doesn't give a fuck about it.

And, given the threads of late addressed specifically to or about me, some folks certainly do seem interested in understanding and/or in challenging my point of view.

On this thread for example. There I am on the first line of the OP. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this exchange at all.

Mr Reasonable wrote: No one has any desire to look at the world through the lens that you describe yourself as being stuck behind. We don't see any utility in it. Philosophy is not about figuring out a way to intellectually cripple yourself and others, and it's just you who seems to miss that point.


Utility? Sure, the aim of philosophy -- of ethics -- can revolve around dispensing useful information. On the other hand, from my point of view [down in the hole], it is always only useful from a subjective/subjunctive point of view rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

And that can be a truly grim and gruesome frame of mind. Consequently, if "I" am profoundly fractured and fragmented when confronting moral and political conflicts [and "I" am], what practical recourse is there other then to pursue those who are not.

After all, back in Nietzsche's day, I can well imagine those who might have confronted him with "no one has any desire to look at the world through the lens that you describe yourself as being stuck behind."

Nietzsche however was stuck in a No God world only until he concocted the uberman. His uberman. Satyr's uberman, Fixed Cross's uberman. The ubermen who thrive on "money and hos and clothes". Hell, there are lots and lots of hopelessly conflicting renditions of them, right? Indeed, didn't Satyr once hold you in contempt -- as shit-smears -- because your own rendition of a "natural morality" was not in sync with his?

Well, I don't have that to fall back on myself. The uberman is just one more existential contraption to me.

Mr Reasonable wrote: For the most part, I think a lot of people here who have encountered you and seen the state of mind that you're stuck in, sincerely feel sorry for you. No one wants to be mean to a retard.


Here, once again, I reduce you down to Satyr's mentality. Go ahead, see how closely his own reaction to me on the Chimp thread overlaps yours here.

Towards the end almost no real substantive points were made at all about human morality in a No God world. It was all just huffing and puffing.

His solution? He put me on ignore. He simply stopped responding to my posts.

Go ahead, try that yourself.

It's sad though that I am able to reduce you down to pathetic retorts like this:

Mr Reasonable wrote: But sometimes a retard just annoys the shit out of everyone which is basically your primary role here. There is no justification that you can offer to satisfy any reasonable person about your incessant spamming of every conversation that's had here.


And all I can do is to ponder what is really going on here. What prompts you to take a dump on me like this? Why are you so contemptuous of the points I raise? Again, I have my own suspicions. And they basically revolve around the speculation that you feel yourself being tugged down into that hole. What if your "I" too is just an existential contraption rooted in the particular life that you have lived? What then of the rather smug lady's man bravado that revolves around your persona here?

Mr Reasonable wrote: Whether you see it or not, your view of morality is incorrect. Refusing to accept that does not prove your position. Some people are smarter than others. They can give answers, explain reasoning, and demonstrate best-possible solutions in practical terms to philosophical problems that in theory are impossible to solve.


Okay, back again to the distinction I make between playing the stock market as a rational human being and defending capitalism as a moral pursuit to those who see it instead as the very embodiment of evil.

Why your answer here and not theirs? How can either argument not be predicated largely on a set of political assumptions [rooted in history, rooted in dasein] that revolve around the extent to which human interactions ought either to revolve more around "I" or more around "we"?

Then back up into the "general description" stratosphere of words merely defining and defending other words.

Mr Reasonable wrote: The issue at hand here is that the one learning can only understand these things up until the point that their aptitude for understanding is maxed out. Yours is before the solution to your problem can be soaked in. You can't learn your way into being smarter. That's the problem. You're wrong about something fundamental about the way that decisions are made and you're not smart enough to understand why.


Bring this down to earth. Note how the manner in which you construe the meaning of this particular "world of words" is relevant when your own value judgments come into conflict with another.

Hell, anyone can give me arguments regarding what they construe to be the right and the wrong behaviors.

But how did they come to acquire those values over the course of their actual lived life? And why their own set of values and not the values of those who are in opposition?

Come on, how out in the real world, can this not come down to endless historical, cultural and experiential combinations of might makes right, right makes might and/or moderation, negotiation and compromise? In a world that clearly is racing pell-mell into a postmodern future awash as never before in contingency, chance and change?

Okay, I note, but embed the discussion here in an actual moral conflict. For example, with Kennedy retiring from the Supreme Court, there is a real possibilty that abortion might be made illegal in America.

If you are a serious philosopher in pursuit of an ethical narrative best suited for adjudicating the conflicting goods here, what might that argument sound like?

Would it [could it] be closer to an actual deontological assessment...or embedded more in a pragmatic contraption revolving around one or another rendition of "the greatest good for the greatest number".

And what of those who argue that this is a religious issue, or a value judgment derived from the most rational ideological perspective, or that which can only be properly understood to the extent that one is in sync with Nature?

Oh, and I almost forgot:

What of those who construe morality here solely in terms of that which furthers their own self-interest? The narcissists, the sociopaths, the psychopaths.
Last edited by iambiguous on Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25542
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:08 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote: Has it occurred to you that people who aren't crippled in the same way that you are just aren't interested in whether there's a philosophical justification for their moral choices?


Why on earth would they be?!!

If someone has managed [for whatever reason] to convince herself that there is in fact a "real me" -- a "soul" -- that they are "at one" with, why pursue philosophy in order to grapple with whether there might be narratives that challenge this?

After all, if they come into places like this, they take the chance they might bump into someone like me.

Right?

And, concomitantly, if this "real me" is, psychologically, able to provide them with the comfort and the consolation of grounding "I" in something substantive, doesn't this enable them to, in turn, feel in sync with the "the right thing to do"?

What might prompt them then to seriously explore a frame of mind like moral nihilism?

What would they have gain as opposed to what they would have to lose?

On the other hand, philosophy wasn't invented in order to sustain what people have come to think they know about the relationship between "I" and "out in the world", but to provide the tools necessary to examine it more thoroughly. After all, it's not for nothing that, back then, Socrates was known for rattling people's cages.

And, as well, what prompted the powers that be to react to him as they did?

If folks don't want their boats to be rocked existentially by people like me, they should certainly steer clear of places like this.

Mr Reasonable wrote: The question of whether there's a god, or whether my actions align with an objective morality are about the most boring and uninteresting things that I can think of. Your dilemma assumes that every action occurs in a vacuum and that there is always a choice.


Well, we'll see how bored folks are if Trump manages to garner that crucial fifth vote on the Supreme Court. The one that makes abortion and/or gay marriages illegal in America. My dilemma assumes that the choice faced by women saddled with an unwanted pregnancy may well soon be either 1] forced motherhood 2] a back alley abortion or 3] jail

My point then revolves not around vacuums but around contexts in which objectivists from both sides will insist that only their own political agenda reflects the one true moral obligation of all rational and virtuous people.

On the other hand, moral nihilism suggests that both sides are able to embrace reasonable arguments based on conflicting sets of assumptions; and that, in a No God world, the best of all possible worlds when engaging conflicting goods is still moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Mr Reasonable wrote: It poses a question that assumes that the existence of god is relevant to anything at all. Your view of the world, and more so..of philosophy is so narrow that the "problems" that you pose are laughably simple and can be, and have been...right before your eyes, solved in numerous ways.


Again, I can only picture you in a context -- at, say, a clash of demonstrations -- in which folks on both sides of an issue like abortion are confronted with this point of view. What on earth are they to make of it? How "for all practical purposes" would it be useful to them when either the baby is killed or the woman is forced to give birth?

Where does the "simple" part come in?

Instead, we get the exhaustively opaque "general description" from you.

Mr Reasonable wrote: That answer is too low to the ground, that answer is too far up in the sky, that answer is one that I will ignore, that answer is too practical, that answer is too philosophical and so on ad infinitum.


Note to others:

How do you imagine folks from the pro-life and the pro-chioce camps reacting to something like this?

Then this:

Mr Reasonable wrote: You are the definition of an actual, technical, by the book idiot.


I am really getting to you, aren't I? Only now you need to ask yourself why.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25542
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:43 am

If you're rubbing your hands together and giggling about the idea of "getting to someone" on a forum, then you're an idiot.

Read back up there and try and understand that there's a difference between annoying someone and causing them to have an existential crisis.

You are annoying. I don't find you to be intellectually stimulating. I think that you are borderline autistic and socially awkward. I do not want to be your friend or a partner in a conversation with you. I don't think that the subject of inquiry which you've centered your life around is relevant to any part of philosophy that I am interested in. I do not know how to be any clearer about the fact that I find your trolling, baiting and stalking to be obnoxious.

If you convincing yourself that you've somehow made me analyze my point of view, or that you've somehow caused me to question anything at all about myself or the world is important to you, then I'm flattered.

If I tell you that you've convinced me of your position and that I'm in agreement with you...would you fuck off and stop harassing me?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25302
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:09 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:You didn't respond to my question about selective enforcement of rules. AND, I certainly have responded to his argument.

I did respond.. in the first DM I sent you, regarding this thread.. happy to discuss it further, so will await a reply to respond to.

Responded without getting personal? he says 'Kids', you say 'Your mom'.. we can tighten the rules back up, but posters don't like that either, so the options are: ignore posts, block that poster, report a post, and.. ask a post to be deleted from your thread to un-derail it.

When people (including myself) respond to posts, I thought it was because they wanted to engage in that discussion, so do excuse us mods for thinking otherwise.

In the past, I have responded to reported posts, and resolved those situations, which Iam did not argue over.


MagsJ you're full of shit, sad to say.
You've obviously not done any off the work you're supposed to do.

Go back and read iamfucksticks last 50 responses to me. If youve got some spine, make that the last 100. Do it, and then you'll want to apologize for the games youve been playing with ILP.

Shame on you for getting in here and using your authority AGAINST the people who give the site substance.

I just talked to Carleas about the nazis, he has given me some confidence in his intentions. But now with you jumping in to defend the one who ruins the most discussions of everyone, I have no idea what the hell we are supposed to be on here for anymore.

Thanks a lot.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7516
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:38 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Aside from my film, music and mudane irony threads, I respond only to a teeny, tiny percentage of the threads/posts created here at ILP.


This is just further evidence that you're stalking people. If you only respond to a small percentage of threads, and I've watched you copy and paste your shit a million times, then I'm being disproportionately targeted.


Think of it like this:

What's more pathetic, someone who "copies and pastes shit a million times" here or someone or who trudges along behind him from thread to thread in order to note that he does this?

Still, I will make a more concerted effort to avoid rankling you.

You know, whatever that means.

Really, I don't know what to say. Sure, given that part of what motivates me to post here revolves around...

...he was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest...

...it's possible that on some complex, deep-seated psychological level I go after you.

In the future, please note when you think this might be applicable.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25542
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:42 pm

Fixed Cross wrote: He's also been in my threads constantly, spreading the most idiotic lies about me. It just gets supremely irritating.

I wish the mods would read a bit more of the posts in their forums. It seems they are completely ignorant of what has been happening for the past years.


Same thing. Here is a link to your posts: search.php?author_id=37292&sr=posts

Note how I have "constantly" followed you around from thread to thread. And note for us just, say, the three biggest idiotic lies about you that I have concocted so far.

Or is this all just an exercise in irony?

Fixed Cross wrote: I appreciate you taking the trouble to write this all down mr R. Not that it will be read, of course - the mods don't seem to think their job has much to do with the art of reading, it seems to offend them to be expected to engage in this discipline.


In other words, the mods refuse to react to my words in precisely the same manner that you do.

A classic symptom of, oh, I don't know, the objectivist mind?

In my own opinion of course.

Still, as with Mr. R., I'm curious to explore what actually might be motivating these tirades of late. Rather than in considering what you claim it's all about. Which appears patently preposterous to me.

You're pranking me, right? Or is it punking these days?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25542
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby MagsJ » Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:45 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
Mr Reasonable wrote:You didn't respond to my question about selective enforcement of rules. AND, I certainly have responded to his argument.

I did respond.. in the first DM I sent you, regarding this thread.. happy to discuss it further, so will await a reply to respond to.

Responded without getting personal? he says 'Kids', you say 'Your mom'.. we can tighten the rules back up, but posters don't like that either, so the options are: ignore posts, block that poster, report a post, and.. ask a post to be deleted from your thread to un-derail it.

When people (including myself) respond to posts, I thought it was because they wanted to engage in that discussion, so do excuse us mods for thinking otherwise.

In the past, I have responded to reported posts, and resolved those situations, which Iam did not argue over.


MagsJ you're full of shit, sad to say.
You've obviously not done any off the work you're supposed to do.

Go back and read iamfucksticks last 50 responses to me. If youve got some spine, make that the last 100. Do it, and then you'll want to apologize for the games youve been playing with ILP.

Shame on you for getting in here and using your authority AGAINST the people who give the site substance.

I just talked to Carleas about the nazis, he has given me some confidence in his intentions. But now with you jumping in to defend the one who ruins the most discussions of everyone, I have no idea what the hell we are supposed to be on here for anymore.

Thanks a lot.

Next time, I'll simply give you a warning, and not allow you to entangle me in your web of...?

Neither Iam nor I are pawns, and I have seen the build-up to your game/this moment evolving.. your end goal being? a win? payback? destroying reputations? Step back! =;

You verbally abused another member!

He annoys you and others with his viewpoints, but that does not justify that post. There is no more to this than that! Stop making this into something more than it is.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17305
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:05 am

It's not his viewpoint that's annoying. It's that he derails every conversation that he joins by copying and pasting the same thing and drowning out any conversation that's not about the same thing he's copied and pasted 1000 times.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25302
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:07 am

Like no one in this thread is claiming that there is an objective morality that dictates what the right decisions are for any given situation. But that's what he's talking about...how there isn't one in his view. That's fine. He can think that. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. That's not the point. The point is that the thread isn't about that and he's not going to stop until it either is, or until the thread is just dead.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25302
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby MagsJ » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:14 pm

Outlook.. viewpoint.. call it what you will, but in such similar situations as this.. report it.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17305
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:25 pm

Magsj: Agreed! Can any one after this, sit down and call this philosophy? Best thing, would be to see how it strayed from rapport and empathy, from properly distanced 'objective' conversation.

Course, I am at a point for the opposing reason, of be of being a Kantian, prone to the weakness of being attacked by Humians, a conflict so old, but one that is always able to set the tone and death, over a struggle, which even Marx noted, and eventually cost the lives of countless souls.

Who ever would think that such landscape is not one which would incite feverish and often unmanagmeble debate, as this is?

At times we only appeal to a rhetorical battle on the surface of a tidal wave, and forgetting that Trumpism and all its intricate deep seated, deep state concerns may at some point cause an unpredictable result?

That he, Trump repeats things on a daily basis, has no parallel prohibitive agency with which to appeal to reason!

We often forget that the framework, : set down by Kant, Mills, with such constructs like hidden objectives, predictability, maximum pleasure were set in a time when they appeared as objective measures by which to evaluate and make reasonable assessments , however that time of certainty has been eclipsed , and there is nothing to return to, except return must eternally, into a void, where only fragments remain: fragments of our self, which we can only recapture through broken images of ourselves, images that only an objective reality can try to put together, the 'look' or an 'eye' a visual search for clues, to try to reconstruct the self.

Who are we, after all, but a collection of clues of signs leading to, or away from who we are or think we are, or should be?
No wonder we have become reticent to look into the mirror, and hide behind masks in changeable circumstances? Surely we did not do this to ourselves , others brought it upon us.

At time like these, the mirror changes as in fun houses all over the world, and often the straight and narrow, becoming flat and one dimensional becomes of more concern then the utilitarian subtle change of images from convex to concave and that con-cave that the mini abyss as the huge Black Holes of cosmological understanding, fears the numerous small black holes of our existence and being, noting that the scholastic had indeed a simple vision of that of illumination through the essential:: the essence. I think it was a Persian philosopher, Avicenna , who saw the real Reason behind the facade.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Black Sun
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3329
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:00 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote: Iambiguous,

But then out in the world that we actually live in, different individuals engage in different preparations in order to enjoy the different things that they do.


This is true. This is what makes the world go around. I would also say that those same individuals sometimes actually enjoy engaging in such preparations. I do. The journey is just as important as the destination to me.


That's certainly a reasonable standard. My point is that if you want to enjoy particular things you had best prepare properly to attain them.

For example, Mr. Reasonable apparently wants to attain these things: "money and hos and clothes".

So he properly prepares each day to make the rational choices necessary to achieve this.

But what if he comes upon folks who prepared an argument that capitalism is in fact the embodiment of evil. That trading in the stock market has to be stopped in order to attain the far more ideal socialist alternative.

Conflicting goods. Are philosophers able to arrive at the most rational answer here? If so, how would they go about preparing to construct it?

Or consider all of the demonstrations today in opposition to the Trump immigration policy. There are all of those rational choices that need to be made in order to make the demonstrations the most effective.

But how does one prepare an argument that effectively establishes the moral foundation of the protestors as in fact "the right thing to do"?

That's the hole that I am in.

How then are others not in it? How and why are they able to convince themselves that their own point of view is not just an existential contraption rooted in dasein? That it is instead rooted in the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do"?


And that's fine until the things that some do collide headlong into the things that other's do.
Call them, say, conflicting goods.


Arcturus Descending wrote: True. We do not all share the same values. But how do we manage to respect one another's values (unless they are truly ridiculous)? An individual experiences and sees *conflicting goods* within his own personal life.
What is the best way to determine what to keep and what to leave behind?


That's why I prefer democracy and the rule of law as the "best of all possible worlds". Let's face it, however folks acquire a particular set of value judgments, they are inevitably going to clash. Then what?

From my frame of mind, there is no "best way". There is only what works and what doesn't work. And even the "ridiculous" values are just existential contraptions to me.

After all, in the abortion wars, one side sees the killing of babies as a ridiculous thing to justify, while the other side claims it's ridiculous to force women to give birth.

That revolves precisely around the distinction I make between preparations that can be calculated with some measure of objectivity and preparations that appear rooted only in personal opinions rooted in dasein.

The laws "insist" that you stop doing something or you will be punished. Or, in particular communities like the Amish, you either stop doing something or you will be "shunned".

But who gets to "insist" on one set of behaviors rather than another? And to what extent are philosophers/ethicists able to construct one or another deontological assessment of any particular context out in any particular world when points of view/behaviors come into conflict?

Why some choose to eat meat while others do not is, in my view, embedded and embodied in an existential contraption.


Arcturus Descending wrote: Some simply like the taste of meat and it does have iron in it.
Some are conscious bound not to hurt an animal or eat its flesh. It is just all according to how we see and experience things, how much compassion and empathy we experience.
Existential yes but when dealing with the human psyche and the human experience, not so much a contraption.
The line "to do no harm" can come into focus here.


Where are the lines to be drawn then between existential contraptions here and actual moral obligations?

Where do you draw it yourself with respect to the animal rights wars? Other than as a set of political prejudices rooted in a set of assumptions about what "here and now" you deem the most reasonable relationship ought to be.

Clearly it would be absurd to argue against the killing of animals among those native communities up North who could not survive without doing so.

And what of things like disease bearing fleas and mosquitos? Is it wrong to kill these animals too?

Doesn't "situational ethics" seem a more reasonable manner in which to approach these things?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25542
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:21 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:If you're rubbing your hands together and giggling about the idea of "getting to someone" on a forum, then you're an idiot.

Read back up there and try and understand that there's a difference between annoying someone and causing them to have an existential crisis.

You are annoying. I don't find you to be intellectually stimulating. I think that you are borderline autistic and socially awkward. I do not want to be your friend or a partner in a conversation with you. I don't think that the subject of inquiry which you've centered your life around is relevant to any part of philosophy that I am interested in. I do not know how to be any clearer about the fact that I find your trolling, baiting and stalking to be obnoxious.

If you convincing yourself that you've somehow made me analyze my point of view, or that you've somehow caused me to question anything at all about myself or the world is important to you, then I'm flattered.

If I tell you that you've convinced me of your position and that I'm in agreement with you...would you fuck off and stop harassing me?


Note to others:

Please take note of the two posts that I addressed to Mr Reasonable above this latest tirade aimed instead at making me the issue here.

Over and again I attempted to make actual substantive [philosophical] arguments relating to the points he raised. For example:

Utility? Sure, the aim of philosophy -- of ethics -- can revolve around dispensing useful information. On the other hand, from my point of view [down in the hole], it is always only useful from a subjective/subjunctive point of view rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

And that can be a truly grim and gruesome frame of mind. Consequently, if "I" am profoundly fractured and fragmented when confronting moral and political conflicts [and "I" am], what practical recourse is there other then to pursue those who are not.


And:

Okay, back again to the distinction I make between playing the stock market as a rational human being and defending capitalism as a moral pursuit to those who see it instead as the very embodiment of evil.

Why your answer here and not theirs? How can either argument not be predicated largely on a set of political assumptions [rooted in history, rooted in dasein] that revolve around the extent to which human interactions ought either to revolve more around "I" or more around "we"?


And:

If someone has managed [for whatever reason] to convince herself that there is in fact a "real me" -- a "soul" -- that they are "at one" with, why pursue philosophy in order to grapple with whether there might be narratives that challenge this?

After all, if they come into places like this, they take the chance they might bump into someone like me.

Right?

And, concomitantly, if this "real me" is, psychologically, able to provide them with the comfort and the consolation of grounding "I" in something substantive, doesn't this enable them to, in turn, feel in sync with the "the right thing to do"?

What might prompt them then to seriously explore a frame of mind like moral nihilism?


And:

Well, we'll see how bored folks are if Trump manages to garner that crucial fifth vote on the Supreme Court. The one that makes abortion and/or gay marriages illegal in America. My dilemma assumes that the choice faced by women saddled with an unwanted pregnancy may well soon be either 1] forced motherhood 2] a back alley abortion or 3] jail

My point then revolves not around vacuums but around contexts in which objectivists from both sides will insist that only their own political agenda reflects the one true moral obligation of all rational and virtuous people.

On the other hand, moral nihilism suggests that both sides are able to embrace reasonable arguments based on conflicting sets of assumptions; and that, in a No God world, the best of all possible worlds when engaging conflicting goods is still moderation, negotiation and compromise.


This is the philosophy forum after all.

Let him pick just one and we can start a new thread in which we both make a concerted effort to sustain a civil and intelligent exchange.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25542
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:08 pm

Meno_ wrote:Magsj: Agreed! Can any one after this, sit down and call this philosophy? Best thing, would be to see how it strayed from rapport and empathy, from properly distanced 'objective' conversation.

Course, I am at a point for the opposing reason, of be of being a Kantian, prone to the weakness of being attacked by Humians, a conflict so old, but one that is always able to set the tone and death, over a struggle, which even Marx noted, and eventually cost the lives of countless souls.

Who ever would think that such landscape is not one which would incite feverish and often unmanagmeble debate, as this is?

At times we only appeal to a rhetorical battle on the surface of a tidal wave, and forgetting that Trumpism and all its intricate deep seated, deep state concerns may at some point cause an unpredictable result?

That he, Trump repeats things on a daily basis, has no parallel prohibitive agency with which to appeal to reason!

We often forget that the framework, : set down by Kant, Mills, with such constructs like hidden objectives, predictability, maximum pleasure were set in a time when they appeared as objective measures by which to evaluate and make reasonable assessments , however that time of certainty has been eclipsed , and there is nothing to return to, except return must eternally, into a void, where only fragments remain: fragments of our self, which we can only recapture through broken images of ourselves, images that only an objective reality can try to put together, the 'look' or an 'eye' a visual search for clues, to try to reconstruct the self.

Who are we, after all, but a collection of clues of signs leading to, or away from who we are or think we are, or should be?
No wonder we have become reticent to look into the mirror, and hide behind masks in changeable circumstances? Surely we did not do this to ourselves , others brought it upon us.

At time like these, the mirror changes as in fun houses all over the world, and often the straight and narrow, becoming flat and one dimensional becomes of more concern then the utilitarian subtle change of images from convex to concave and that con-cave that the mini abyss as the huge Black Holes of cosmological understanding, fears the numerous small black holes of our existence and being, noting that the scholastics had indeed a simple vision of that of illumination through the essential:: the essence. I think it was a Persian philosopher, Avicenna , who saw the real Reason behind the facade.
Black Sun
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3329
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users