Iamdickuous, spell my name right you turd.
No, I didn’t share my standards, here, you turd-in-the-eyes. I am now sure you never read the posts you respond to.
This is about the Reasonable standard named after Mr Reasonable. Your idiotic refusal to take a perspective as a human being does not count as a standard. Cowardice and hypocrisy aren’t standards, turd-in-the-eyes.
Why FC, why?
Your fault for perpetuating that.
I was just moderating my comment for Carleases ease.
But, Why? Because the guy is a filthy liar. And filthy liars do more damage than the bubonic plague.
Oops I mean MagsJ.
If you cant see why, read the last 50, or hell, 250 posts Iambiguous posted in threads that I made.
You will understand the insifferable disgust this person causes.
Your need for ad-hominem is not my fault… perpetuated or otherwise.
Magsj, is the ad hom rule the only one we’re enforcing now? What about spamming threads? Derailing threads? Going off topic?
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?
Are you even reading the threads or just responding when he clicks the button when someone calls him a name?
Is the content of your section or the order of it important to you at all? Or are you just here to make sure that no one gets called any names?
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.
In other words, I respond by and large only to those threads that are oriented toward that which interest me the most philosophically: the extant relationship between identity, personal values and political power out in a particular world construed from a particular point of view. As that seems relevant regarding the question, “how ought one to live”?
As that might be considered in either a God or a No God world.
I deconstruct that relationship by exposing the extent to which, in my view, our subjective opinions in the is/ought world are largely existential contraptions. Political prejudices.
But some begin to ponder the implications of this given the extent to which that might also be applicable to them. And it bothers them. It troubles them. It upsets them.
Or, rather, that has been my experience over the years.
Next thing you know they are completely ignoring the actual content expressed in my posts; they start in instead on retorting, huffing and puffing, making me the issue.
Come on, Fixed Cross created this thread in order to embrace Smears philosophy: “Life is good and you need to be powerful to handle that.”
Okay, but what on earth does that mean? And what happens when, given any particular context, two or more people come into conflict regarding the actual behaviors that they choose?
Which shall it be?
1] might makes right?
2] right makes might?
3] moderation, negotiation and compromise?
Or any particular combination given a particular context?
My hunch is that my own assessment of “I” here is starting to sink in with some. The way it once sunk in when I first stumbled into it with John and Mary and Barrett’s “rival goods”.
The psychologically comforting and consoling foundation upon which their “self” had been laid over the years is starting to crack a bit. And boy have “I” been there!
You can sense this in the anger and the aggitation on display when they react to me now. Zoots Allure once pointed out this effect I have had on the objectivists over in the philosophy cafe forum.
Me? Well, aside from the occasional shitty mood, I almost never get all riled up in these exchanges. If for no other reason that I recognize my own frame of mind as in turn just another existential contraption. How can I get pissed off when others challenge me knowing that there is almost no way in hell that how I understand these relationships is in fact the way they actually are.
Just for the record, name-calling doesn’t bother me a bit. As a polemicist, I recognize its usefulness.
But I am always willing to dispense with it if someone prefers an exchange that focuses solely on an intelligent and civil exchange of ideas.
Smears reaction here is one that I have encountered any number of times in any number of forums. For many it is simply a given that who they think they are is who they ought to think they are because over the years they have come to understand that which they construe to be the “real me”. And that “real me” has come to collect any number of moral and political value judgments deemed to be anything but just “existential contraptions”.
When that is challenged, however, there is always the possibility of them tumbling down into the hole themselves.
After all, look what is at stake. And I know this because somehow I managed to pull the rug out from under my own religious and ideological foundations. And the consequences of being fractured and fragmented in this way are really, really grim.
But the only place to go to ponder an alternative narrative is a place like this.
So here I am.
Fortunately, at ILP you can always put folks that displease you on ignore. You can’t read what you can’t see, right?
Iamb, you’re not misunderstood. We all understand what you’re saying. It’s just that literally no one gives a fuck about it. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. So, stop embarrassing yourself and fuck off out of threads with your sad routine. If it matters to you at all how you are perceived, and if you can wrap your head around the possibility that you’ve been presented with the best possible solution to your problem numerous times by a multitude of people over the years, then you should take what’s left of your dignity and stop interjecting yourself into places where you’re not wanted with the same old copy and paste.
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? 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. 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.
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. When cornered, it turns into…you’re a kid, those kids, you’re like (insert someone’s name that the respondent would deem to be a negative comparison).
You are the definition of an actual, technical, by the book idiot.
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.
Attack the argument not the argumentor, or simply don’t respond… I will not be repeating myself here again.
You didn’t respond to my question about selective enforcement of rules. AND, I certainly have responded to his argument.
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 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 
(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?
Iambiguous,
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.
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?
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 
) 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.
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?
No happy medium here?
I want to help.
What should we do first?
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.
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?
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.
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.