You just flagrantly admitted to being a troll…
And for no philosophical purpose …
Good luck posting again here…
I recommend if iamb starts… Just link to this thread and ignore
You can actually troll with philosophic purpose…
I actually am autobiographical even though people think I’m trolling…
But you don’t even troll with philosophic purpose !!!
Iam said, “You’re a kid!”. That was a personal attack technically.
Just a reminder…
Should any of you actually wish to explore the manner in which I wish to explore the manner in which dasein is relevant to conflicting human interactions – as this pertains to value judgments – I am more than willing to dispense with all this Kidstuff and exchange some serious philosophy.
Or, for those who insist that what I do here is here not serious philosophy, we can explore this by noting how a serious philosopher would in fact encompass these relationships in a more technically proficient manner.
Then we can take that argument/analysis out into the world of actual conflicting human behaviors.
In other words, he is willing to discuss it, as long as the discussion completely conforms to his expectations. If your posts move away from his comfortable zone, then you are a kid, you are a ranting objectivist, you are not being substantive, your posts don’t make sense to him, your posts don’t address his points … and he will pepper you with his standard questions and his cut-and-paste replies.
Well, obviously, if this is the manner in which you interpret my contribution here, that is your prerogative.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
On the other hand, any number of times in the past, I have encountered folks [as a Christian, a Unitarian, an Objectivist, a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a Democratic-Socialist, a liberal, an existentialist] who managed to tug me outside my comfort zone and then managed as well to convince me to abandon one or another objectivist frame of mind.
How about you? Ever been outside your own comfort zone?
Details please.
In the interim, my challenge to you [as to all objectivists] remains the same:
[b]Choose a moral/political conflagration that we are all familiar with.
Note the manner in which your own values are reflected in a particular point of view. Then note the manner in which your values are not the embodiment of dasein. Or note the manner in which philosophically you are able to transcend dasein.
Then with respect to my dilemma…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…note how, when your own point of view is challenged by another, you are not entangled in it yourself.
Instead, what I am after is the sort of exchange that Gib and I pursued here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190026&start=150
Something more conducive to philosophy than rant.
[/b]
If nothing else, you can use the exchange to demonstrate your point about me above.
You changed your mind about something in 1975 and that’s your evidence that you are not ossified in 2016. 
I have written about my personal experiences. You didn’t acknowledge them at the time and you don’t remember now because you don’t care. You’re looking for fodder to feed your nihilist philosophy and your stereotypical views of objectivists. You ignore everything that does not fit.
Do you actually care about the details of anyone’s life?
That’s the f…g problem - it’s always the same challenge.
And there is only one correct way to accept the challenge … to crawl into your box with you. Because you can’t accept when somebody tries to pull you out of the box. 
Now this has become comical …,
You do realize that if a tree exists inside or outside of your mind, it objectively exists in some way, don’t you…
I think you hung out with the wrong friends iambiguous. …!!
Note to others:
Is this a reasonable manner in which to respond to the point I made? And it was in the 1990s that Supannika introduced me to deconstruction, semiotics and post-structuralism.
And this permitted me to grasp the point I thought Wittgenstein was making about the role of language in our interactions in a whole new light.
And, however long I have held my current views, I clearly recognize that new experiences, new relationships and new sources of information/knowledge [in a world awash in contingency, chance and change], may reconfigure my thinking yet again.
Can he say the same about himself?
I’m sorry, but I do not recall you having done this — other than in noting the antipathy you had regarding, I believe, Communism. And then as I recall you did not respond to the point I made regarding those who react to capitalism in much the same way: conflicting goods.
And how is dasein not profoundly related to and embedded in this particular historical conflagration?
As I already noted, I once embraced both Marxism and feminism at a time when lots and lots of others did as well. What I am curious about is how dasein is factored out of your own moral/political/religious narrative.
What I care about is the extent to which the existential details of another’s lived life either confirms or conflicts with the points I raise here. This being a philosophy venue and not a casual conversation between buddies.
It’s the only challenge that I have given the particular relationships that interest me philosophically.
Again, I don’t believe this is true. We shall have to agree to disagree about it.
Meanwhile your objectivism remains intact. That’s the most important thing.
On the other hand, given your increasingly cranky reaction to me I can’t help but suspect I’ve put a few more cracks in it. 
Are you still here? 
Ahh… Wittgenstein …
You found a buzzword…!!!
How profound of you!!
I wonder is he responded to his name when people said it!!
Riposting. You’re not very good at it, are you? 
Oh yeah, I almost forgot:
What more is there to say…???
You’re a shameless troll…
Suppose I grew up under communism and then I lived under socialism and later capitalism. According to your nihilist philosophy, I did not learn anything about those systems in the process … I simply changed opinions about them. Since there is no right and wrong, then there is nothing to learn because learning means abandoning wrong thinking and adopting right thinking.
Suppose alternatively that I read Marx and I thought that it was absolutely correct and then I learned about the millions of people killed in the process of building the workers’ paradise and I abandoned Marxism … again, I did not learn anything, I simply changed my opinion of it.
Learning and improving is a critical aspect of life and growth and yet in your nihilistic philosophy, it is impossible to learn anything about value judgements. I can’t learn anything about these political or economic systems, either by direct experience or indirect observation and study. People impoverished, people prospering, mass graves, health, disease, education, technological advancement, etc … all count for nothing. 
Since dasein and nihilism require abandoning ways of thinking that work in 99.9% of situations, they can’t possibly be correct ways of approaching value judgements.
You are proposing that the proper approach to value judgements is that of an unthinking, blithering idiot.
I prefer to think. And even if I am mistaken, then I will learn from my mistakes.
(Yeah, I know … how on earth blah, blah, blah?)
Thank you Iam and Phyllo for keeping this on-topic.
Abortion:
People want self-autonomy and self-determination.
The ‘rights’ of the living take precedence over the ‘rights’ of the dead or unborn.
An unwanted child will be more likely to be abused and neglected than a wanted child.
Unsafe, illegal abortions endanger the life of the woman.
No religious woman is forced to have an abortion.
Therefore, it is reasonable to provide an opportunity for a woman to have an abortion.
That’s not quite the argument that works…
People can say the fetus wants self autonomy too…
The main problem (that you touched upon) is that non consensual birth from the mother, positively reinforces non consent in life.
The child WILL grow up in consent violation mentality globally!
And yes, that’s objectively what nobody wants!
And yes, iambiguous is trolling big time…
But MagsJ just patted him on the back for it
One more off-topic post or mention of trolling and this thread will be locked.
Umm… This is strange…
Everyone except iambiguous knows he’s trolling…
Did he give ILP $100,000 dollars or something??
I’ve never experienced this level of censorship for on topic posts, or even off topic posts…
Bizarre…
Thread locked; Ecmandu issued a warning and subsequent 4-day ban.