Top Ten List

[iambiguous]

"Then your own behaviors [here and now] are deemed to be either more or less in sync with this frame of mind."

By who iambiguous? By who?

Let's bring this motherfucker down to Earth.

Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

I'll respond to that.

I will if you promise to tell me how

"Then your own behaviors [here and now] are deemed to be either more or less in sync with this frame of mind."

By who iambiguous? By who?

Let's bring this motherfucker down to Earth.

Gets

Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

On my honor.

Note to others:

Kidstuff. About what you figured, right?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Kidstuff. About what you figured, right?

In context, no.

The topic was Nietsche. He asked a for specifics from you.....

Getouttahere iambiguous, I have never read anyone make those connections you just made. You're just making stuff up now.

I need a concrete example from you of people using Nietzsche for an objectivist agenda.

There is a reason the Church considers him a nihilist.

and here, in response to your response to Faust.

"Then your own behaviors [here and now] are deemed to be either more or less in sync with this frame of mind."

By who iambiguous? By who?

Let's bring this motherfucker down to Earth.

Without responding to his requests for specifics or concrete examples, you throw the onus over to him....

Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

I'll respond to that.

IOW you just ignored explaining your conclusions about N and ignore his second request regarding whoever is using or misusing N's ideas.

You make claims. When asked for concrete examples of claims you make, you ignore them. You ask him to now answer your age old question - as if this had relevence regarding your position on N and also yours on those who use his ideas.

IOW you 1) shift the context.
2)Do not consider you own assertions in need of any support
3) Find a way, relevent or not, to challenge other people with your habitual issue, even though this is not your thread, as if it was a response to what they wrote.

When, in your estimation, not adequately responded to, you insult him, despite not even managing a childish response to his requests, you simply ignore them.

[barbarianhorde]

Pedro, stop responding to this retarded troll and start making beats.

[barbarianhorde]

Look, it shouldn't take a genius to understand that "iamgbiguous" means literally nothing of what he writes, that the only thing that is sincere is the nausea that is conveyed in all his debilitated, and debilitating posts. But apparently it does. So in my capacity as apparently the only remotely qualified psychologist on this site, I suggest you stop wasting, nay, soiling your time and commit to get some fucking work done.

Already.


I mean it man. If you can't see that this dude doesn't read 90 percent of what he responds to you're really not paying attention. If you can't see he truly hates life and is only here to make it run out in a least resistance kind of way, you're just not very smart.

[barbarianhorde]

Lets have a really difficult question instead.

Who is the most dishonest poster, Iambiguous or Sauwelios?

[barbarianhorde]

Yes, philosophy is largely the art of consciously dealing with the difference between the particular and the general.

This should be pretty obvious, it is in everything from Heraclitus to us here at the present moment, the village idiot himself included. Only this record-retard has the fucking negative IQ to not even know that.

Well except, he doesn't really think or know. He is literally just wasting his time and that of as many idiots as he can get to believe he is actually trying to ask a question. The painful thing is that this makes him, in all his reeking debility, smarter than you lot. He is smarter by successfully taking your hearts out of philosophy.

Dumbasses.
Jesus.

[promethean75]

Pedro, stop responding to this retarded troll and start making beats.

but fragmented Mcees will at some point be forced to examine the manner in which their "I" is in sync with the role that rappers, conflicting beats and hiphop economy play in conflicts like this. the question 'how ought one to beat' is no less an existential hip-hop contraption rooted in historical, cultural and interpersonal interactions inexplicably embedded in the studio, than anything else.

how on earth might a 'serious Mcee' bring his own rendition down 'out of the clouds' and provide a particular context in which we can explore the manner in which pedro construes the beat?

[ExtraCoronas]

Yes, philosophy is largely the art of consciously dealing with the difference between the particular and the general.

This should be pretty obvious, it is in everything from Heraclitus to us here at the present moment, the village idiot himself included. Only this record-retard has the fucking negative IQ to not even know that.

Well except, he doesn't really think or know. He is literally just wasting his time and that of as many idiots as he can get to believe he is actually trying to ask a question. The painful thing is that this makes him, in all his reeking debility, smarter than you lot. He is smarter by successfully taking your hearts out of philosophy.

Dumbasses.
Jesus.

Socrates, maybe. Trolling for its own sake.

Speaking of psychology, it’s quite the psychological phenomenon to see people trolling their own lives, wrapping others into that in order to cast a cloak of legitimacy around what they are doing which makes the joke even funnier, if only to themselves.

Too bad they are always the butt of their own jokes. “Depression is rage turned inward” lol.

Making beats... now that does sound interesting.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Dang.

Interaction: worth it.

[iambiguous]

Kidstuff. About what you figured, right?

In context, no.

The topic was Nietsche. He asked a for specifics from you.....

Getouttahere iambiguous, I have never read anyone make those connections you just made. You're just making stuff up now.

I need a concrete example from you of people using Nietzsche for an objectivist agenda.

There is a reason the Church considers him a nihilist.

and here, in response to your response to Faust.

"Then your own behaviors [here and now] are deemed to be either more or less in sync with this frame of mind."

By who iambiguous? By who?

Let's bring this motherfucker down to Earth.

Without responding to his requests for specifics or concrete examples, you throw the onus over to him....

Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

I'll respond to that.

IOW you just ignored explaining your conclusions about N and ignore his second request regarding whoever is using or misusing N's ideas.

You make claims. When asked for concrete examples of claims you make, you ignore them. You ask him to now answer your age old question - as if this had relevence regarding your position on N and also yours on those who use his ideas.

IOW you 1) shift the context.
2)Do not consider you own assertions in need of any support
3) Find a way, relevent or not, to challenge other people with your habitual issue, even though this is not your thread, as if it was a response to what they wrote.

When, in your estimation, not adequately responded to, you insult him, despite not even managing a childish response to his requests, you simply ignore them.

Look, it shouldn't take a genius to understand that "iamgbiguous" means literally nothing of what he writes, that the only thing that is sincere is the nausea that is conveyed in all his debilitated, and debilitating posts. But apparently it does. So in my capacity as apparently the only remotely qualified psychologist on this site, I suggest you stop wasting, nay, soiling your time and commit to get some fucking work done.

Already.


I mean it man. If you can't see that this dude doesn't read 90 percent of what he responds to you're really not paying attention. If you can't see he truly hates life and is only here to make it run out in a least resistance kind of way, you're just not very smart.

Please.

The aim of my discussion with Faust here is to bring the exchange around to this:

How might Rawls's "method" be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don't pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, "distributive justice" is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

We? What "we" do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don't overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between "distributive justice" and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls's "methods" be applicable here?

And, with Pedro, around to this:

Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

I'll respond to that.

If, instead, your own aim here is to focus in on all of these accusations that you level against me, let's take it to a new thread.

In the Rant forum if you prefer.

[barbarianhorde]

In Sauweliambigious web the average human goes like

2yevzr.jpg (57.99 KiB) Viewed 9629 times

but I refuse ya hear. I will have my intrawebz as I please em and that doesn't include any of this dumb crap trolling iambobladiebla was pulling out of his head like hairs since time immemorable.

[iambiguous]

In Sauweliambigious web the average human goes like

2yevzr.jpg

but I refuse ya hear. I will have my intrawebz as I please em and that doesn't include any of this dumb crap trolling iambobladiebla was pulling out of his head like hairs since time immemorable.

This is what I am able to reduce some of the Kids here down to. And on the philosophy board no less.

[iambiguous]

but fragmented Mcees will at some point be forced to examine the manner in which their "I" is in sync with the role that rappers, conflicting beats and hiphop economy play in conflicts like this. the question 'how ought one to beat' is no less an existential hip-hop contraption rooted in historical, cultural and interpersonal interactions inexplicably embedded in the studio, than anything else.

how on earth might a 'serious Mcee' bring his own rendition down 'out of the clouds' and provide a particular context in which we can explore the manner in which pedro construes the beat?

Yeah, what he said.

[Pedro I Rengel]

[img]http://ilovephilosophy.com/download/file.php?id=4757[/img

Lol, that's me every time I trade.


wtffff Why can you post the img and I can't?

Carleas, dog. wtf.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Well it's fun when you can find limits to iambiguous. Define contours.

I just found one. It's like catching an athlete at a mistake. He quickly recomposes himself and figures some drastic dribble to get out. But you have that moment.

A simple question.

"Nietzche objectivism."

"Like when?"

"Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power."

We had the moment though, neh? I personally shall cherish it.

"Like those people that do this."

"Which people?"

"Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power."

[Pedro I Rengel]

but fragmented Mcees will at some point be forced to examine the manner in which their "I" is in sync with the role that rappers, conflicting beats and hiphop economy play in conflicts like this. the question 'how ought one to beat' is no less an existential hip-hop contraption rooted in historical, cultural and interpersonal interactions inexplicably embedded in the studio, than anything else.

how on earth might a 'serious Mcee' bring his own rendition down 'out of the clouds' and provide a particular context in which we can explore the manner in which pedro construes the beat?

Yes, iam. This was beautiful. We all saw it.

[iambiguous]

"Nietzche objectivism."

"Like when?"

Again:

With Nietzsche I was thinking more in the way in which many construe the meaning of the "uberman" exercising his "will to power".

In other words, in a world "beyond good and evil", "distributive justice" would reside more in the noble and sophisticated strong prescribing their own "rules of behavior" so as to be considerably apart from [and far, far above] that of the sheep.

I would construe Nietzsche to be an objectivist only to the extent to which he had insisted that all rational men and women were obligated to share his own perspective regarding the "will to power".

And, then, with respect to a particular set of conflicting goods revolving around a particular context.

For example, how might someone who shares what he believes Nietzsche meant by the will to power situate it in the moral and political conflict that revolves around abortion?

Or around any other particularly well known set of conflicting goods?

Give it a go yourself.

Or are you just going to keep wiggling out of that part?

[Pedro I Rengel]

"I would construe Nietzsche to be an objectivist only to the extent to which he had insisted that all rational men and women were obligated to share his own perspective regarding the 'will to power.'"

When? When did this happen?

It is thee who wiggles, sir. Let's not call eachother names and kindly answer the question.

[iambiguous]

"I would construe Nietzsche to be an objectivist only to the extent to which he had insisted that all rational men and women were obligated to share his own perspective regarding the 'will to power.'"

When? When did this happen?

It is thee who wiggles, sir. Let's not call eachother names and kindly answer the question.

I never said that it happened. I noted that had it happened, I would have construed him as reflecting the manner in which I construe the meaning of an objectivist.

And, sure, I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves who is doing the wiggling here in regard to situating their own moral narrative out in the world that we live in.

And, by all means, you can choose the context, the behaviors and the conflicting goods.

Or continue to wiggle out of it.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Well it's fun when you can find limits to iambiguous. Define contours.

I just found one. It's like catching an athlete at a mistake. He quickly recomposes himself and figures some drastic dribble to get out. But you have that moment.

A simple question.

"Nietzche objectivism."

"Like when?"

"Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power."

We had the moment though, neh? I personally shall cherish it.

"Like those people that do this."

"Which people?"

"Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power."

This is exactly what I was pointing out in my previous post, how he avoided your questions, refused to justify, and acted like you had to onus to disprove his assertions about Nietschze. And then he insults you for not doing what he expects of others but not of himself.

This happens all the time with him, but sometimes it is more clear than other times, like this interaction with you.

[iambiguous]

This is exactly what I was pointing out in my previous post, how he avoided your questions, refused to justify, and acted like you had to onus to disprove his assertions about Nietschze. And then he insults you for not doing what he expects of others but not of himself.

This happens all the time with him, but sometimes it is more clear than other times, like this interaction with you.

Yet again:

The aim of my discussion with Faust here is to bring the exchange around to this:

How might Rawls's "method" be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don't pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, "distributive justice" is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

We? What "we" do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don't overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between "distributive justice" and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls's "methods" be applicable here?

Why don't you go there instead of huffing and puffing about me.

You know, until Faust comes back.

On the the other hand, you seem to be reconfguring into just one more Kid here with each passing day. At least in your increasingly more revealing posts to or about me.

[barbarianhorde]

Speaking of psychology, it’s quite the psychological phenomenon to see people trolling their own lives,

Hahahaahah
Im gonna sneeze laughing.

[Pedro I Rengel]

"I would construe Nietzsche to be an objectivist only to the extent to which he had insisted that all rational men and women were obligated to share his own perspective regarding the 'will to power.'"

When? When did this happen?

It is thee who wiggles, sir. Let's not call eachother names and kindly answer the question.

I never said that it happened. I noted that had it happened, I would have construed him as reflecting the manner in which I construe the meaning of an objectivist.

Good, so you admit that including Nietzsche in the list of objectivists wasn't really based on anything real, you know, down here on Earth?

I'm just sayin'. Cause like I said, I had to protest. Glad you are honest and humble enough to accept this mistake.

For example, how might someone who shares what he believes Nietzsche meant by the will to power situate it in the moral and political conflict that revolves around abortion?

Or around any other particularly well known set of conflicting goods?

Give it a go yourself.

No thank you, I have no interest.

[iambiguous]

"I would construe Nietzsche to be an objectivist only to the extent to which he had insisted that all rational men and women were obligated to share his own perspective regarding the 'will to power.'"

When? When did this happen?

It is thee who wiggles, sir. Let's not call eachother names and kindly answer the question.

I never said that it happened. I noted that had it happened, I would have construed him as reflecting the manner in which I construe the meaning of an objectivist.

Good, so you admit that including Nietzsche in the list of objectivists wasn't really based on anything real, you know, down here on Earth?

No, it was you making the claim that I was making the claim that Nietzsche was an objectivist. Now that I've pointerd out that your claim was erroneous, you can't admit that so I've still got to be the one who fucked up here:

I'm just sayin'. Cause like I said, I had to protest. Glad you are honest and humble enough to accept this mistake.

And incredibly enough this sort of thing doesn't embarass you because you can't even bring yourself to own up to the fact that the mistake was your own.

Then this part:

For example, how might someone who shares what he believes Nietzsche meant by the will to power situate it in the moral and political conflict that revolves around abortion?

Or around any other particularly well known set of conflicting goods?

Give it a go yourself.

No thank you, I have no interest.

Note to others:

Ask yourself why the folks here who react to me as Pedro does never seem to have any interest in this part:

How might Rawls's "method" be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don't pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, "distributive justice" is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

We? What "we" do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don't overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between "distributive justice" and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls's "methods" be applicable here?

Only, instead of Rawls's methods/conclusions, I'm after their own.

Note to Faust:

In particular, I am after yours. Someone whose intelligence I actually have considerable respect for. Why? Because it exposes the fundamental weakness of my own position. And that is a lack of sophistication in grappling with the tools of philosophy as they might be useful in allowing me to yank myself up out of this fucking hole I have thought myself into.

In that regard, I truly do miss folks like Moreno and von rivers and only_humean. And I wish that ILP might somehow rid itself of both the Kids and the folks here who seem to use ILP as just another adjunct of the internet's "social media".

A philosophy board in which the participants really do dig philosophy. If only as an "existential contraption".

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous, stop trolling the kids and debate this adult