Karpel Tunnel wrote:Can someone, whose posts PK actually considers might have value, point out to PK the ironies involved in him describing UR (as distinct from others) as having no moral value and as someone who cannot be saved or redeemed in a thread calling UW out for being an objectivist? Or in telling Iamb that UW will never change (irony present, given Iamb's position on dasein, changes in philosophical position given experience, etc.)Peter Kropotkin wrote:Iam, it is nice to know that UR completely missed the point...
but as I said, he isn't smart enough to see the point.....
or has courage enough to engage with what you brought up....
let him be... he can never change or become anything other then what he
already is....he is a lost cause... he cannot be saved nor redeemed... he has no
more value then dirt on Mars has....
Kropotkin
The complete NOT understanding Iamb's positions is hilarious, but he doesn't seem likely to me to be open to listening to any political opponent or critic on the issue.
Or we can allow this to pass unnoticed and just maintain team loyalties over elephants in the room. UW and allies insult PK. PK and Iamb insult UW. Maintain team loyalty at all costs. Never mention anything that might (seem to) jeapordize my team winning.
iambiguous wrote:There are few here at ILP who can match urwrongx1000 when it comes to showing utter contempt for those who refuse to think exactly as he does.
Peter Kropotkin wrote:K: my post was completely non-political...
promethean75 wrote:uuuuh huh huh huh.... uuh huh huh. hey beavis, he said 'ad hominid'. uuuuuuuuh huh huh huh
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Ah yes, so somebody uses Ad Hominids, and you defend them and strangely ignore their logical fallacies. Instead you join in their attacks.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:I'm ready to be open-minded.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:iambiguous wrote:Also, if you might be willing, would you provide me with a chronology of important events in your life that led you to being an authoritarian right-winger. Along with your experiences with philosophy.
When the Liberal-Left-Communists started Censoring, DOXing, Unpersoning, MSM Blackout, then I went hard-right.
I will always oppose those who violate the First Amendment and Free Speech, especially all those consuming and supporting MSM.
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
"In regard to a really important political issue, have you ever been wrong about something?
Note some important issues where you had to admit that you were wrong and then changed your mind."
I ask this because, as a particularly fierce objectivist, I'm curious as to how his mind has evolved over the years in regard to moral and political value judgments.
In other words, I have found that most objectivists like urwrongx1000 will never admit to being wrong about something really important. Why? Because once they admit that they were wrong about one important thing they are admitting that they might be wrong about other important things as well.
Lorikeet wrote:In short...
Objectivity evil.
Subjectivity good.
Generalities bad and painful.
Species types, eidos, all evil categories that prevent unification in a big loving whole.
Let us break down all categories that keep us apart...and let us embrace the void.
Silhouette wrote:Ironically, this accusation of ad hom is itself also a type of red herring fallacy: to attempt to excuse yourself on behalf of the faults of another.
Others can be as wrong as you like, but that doesn't distract from you still being wrong x1000.
FYI: to quote you isn't to attack you. I'm simply juxta posing things you've said to openly demonstrate your continuous hypocrisy as clear as day.
Why don't you copy your idol and simply deny that the clear record of all these quotes exists even though everybody has direct access to them?
You want me to "get in line"? Is this your inner dictator coming out yet again?
As this thread highlights, you are the least democratic, most dictatorially insistent and least tolerant of opposition here.
Silhouette wrote:Great, and we're all ready to witness you being open-minded for the very first time in the entire history of every single one of your all-too-many posts.
What do you plan to be open-minded about?
What might you change your mind about?
What might you have been wrong about?
All of this directly opposes your record of being unwilling to build bridges, and to admit you're wrong (your "first rule of politics") as in this very thread.
I'll believe the above quote when I see the slightest evidence.
iambiguous wrote:Actually, I'm more interested in a more detailed examination of a political conviction of yours. More along these lines:
iambiguous wrote:And, again, you skip this part...
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Ad Hominids
Urwrongx1000 wrote:As-if you are my peer?
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Return to the Advanced Freedom thread and finish what you started.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Whatever the "Left" is now, they have reversed on Free Speech and the First Amendment. Whereas it used to be the most valuable aspect and defining mechanism of the Left, that has dissipated and rotated.
Free Speech is now a matter and core value of the Far-Right.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Quid,
Pro,
Quo,
Mr. lamb.
If you want your questions answered, then answer some of mine, I'm waiting:
"Because Genetics. Because Psychology. Because Sociology. Because your internal brain chemistry and synapses are slightly different than the next person, not even Genetically Identical Twins will have the exact same beliefs, there will be discrepancies and small differences which ultimately separate them. Even space and time cause separation. Any belief a person ever has, at age 7, is not the same as it is at age 17, or 27, or 97. Beliefs change across time, growing stronger and fixed when they are reinforced, growing weaker when they fail to mesh with reality, and must be reasserted over and over again.
How many times that a person can fly, does it mesh with reality, when somebody jumps off a cliff flapping their arms?
Objectively?"
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Ah yes, you believe that you are entitled to questions and answers and I am not,
Objectively?
For example, back in the 1950s, conservativism reigned in America. Then came the 1960s. Here the liberals and leftists championed free speech because they wanted that speech to revolve more around their own moral and political value judgments. And then once that was more the case -- more mainstream -- then it became important to keep it that way. Conservative speech had to be reined in as much as possible.
But then came the 1980s and conservativism was back in vogue.
Now with urwrong, of course, this doesn't hold for the conservatives. Their own demand for free speech has nothing to do with reining in the speech of those on the left. Instead, it revolves around the fact that as far as they are concerned speech is only free when you think exactly as they do.
But they are so blinded by their own light, they will never, ever own up to this hypocrisy.
Choose a context in which the left and the right are ever at odds and note for us what you construe to be "free speech" in regard to the First Amendment".
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Little Lamb, you are arguing in bad faith.
If you want to speak with me about Objectivity, then you must do so philosophically, objectively.
No more responses for you until you Answer.
"Because Genetics. Because Psychology. Because Sociology. Because your internal brain chemistry and synapses are slightly different than the next person, not even Genetically Identical Twins will have the exact same beliefs, there will be discrepancies and small differences which ultimately separate them. Even space and time cause separation. Any belief a person ever has, at age 7, is not the same as it is at age 17, or 27, or 97. Beliefs change across time, growing stronger and fixed when they are reinforced, growing weaker when they fail to mesh with reality, and must be reasserted over and over again.
How many times that a person can fly, does it mesh with reality, when somebody jumps off a cliff flapping their arms?
Objectively?"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users