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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Note to others:
How do you imagine folks from the pro-life and the pro-chioce camps reacting to something like this?
Then this:
I am really getting to you, aren’t I? Only now you need to ask yourself why.
(too much wax) but it is otherwise just your opinion/perspective.
) 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.