Urwrongx1000 and the objectivist mind

[Urwrongx1000]

I'm ready to be open-minded.

Are they...?

[Peter Kropotkin]

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

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.)

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.

K: my post was completely non-political...and UR did miss the point of IAM post..
as IAM post was completely non-political...and UR responded with a political answer....
hence he missed the point......

IAM was seeking an overall, big picture look at what he see's as UR mind set....

and that is exactly what UR missed... the big picture look at his beliefs...
not the nitty gritty beliefs about his claims to election fraud or other such nonsense

but why hold these beliefs over other beliefs? what factors "make" one hold
these beliefs over other beliefs? why should we hold one set of beliefs over
another set of beliefs? that was the question asked.

as for my post, I don't see UR or observ for that matter holding any
real intelligence based upon the fact they are fixed upon a set group of beliefs....

my beliefs, be it for one "team" or another is based upon my many transitions from
one set of beliefs to another.. I have been a mild democrat, an anarchist, and now
a fairly liberal democrat... Many have accused me of being a "socialist" or a "communist"
and I am not... I have held other set of beliefs, for years in fact, so to paint me
as one who is entrenched into one set of beliefs is to miss my life history....

I see the universe as shades of gray.... UR and Observe, and perhaps you even, still
see the universe as black and white...and it is a sign of wisdom to see the universe
as shades of gray and not black and white...wisdom and age.....

As for Ur and Observe being lost and not being able to save, I hold to that given
the fixed positions that those two hold.....ever hear of the reeds that bend but
don't break.... holding to a fixed position is to hold a position until it breaks...
you have to bend in order to survive... and UR and observe seem unable to bend,
which means they will have to break before they can be saved......

now I know that these words mean nothing to you, but as I have learned,
words of wisdom are often wasted on the young.... quite often,
you don't get these words of wisdom until one is older.... I had to gain a bit
of experience before many of the words of wisdom I was told in my youth made
any sense...

and now I am passing them unto you...... reject them.. I am sure, but remember
them so when you become old and suddenly, they will make sense...a whole lost
of sense to you.....

Kropotkin

[Urwrongx1000]

As per usual, PK, you are spewing complete bullshit. Here is the very first sentence lamb 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.

Read it carefully. It's a personal attack. Why should I bother with this petulant nonsense? I will do so for entertainment purposes, but not philosophy. Lamb (and you) shot yourselves in the foot. If you want to be "fair and balanced", then at least pretend. If you're not going to pretend, then I'm not going to pretend.

Secondly, I don't "show contempt" and especially against those who "refuse to think exactly as I do". I show contempt for shitty arguments and bad reasoning, which is pretty much the point of philosophy. If you can't produce good arguments, and good reasoning, then maybe philosophy isn't for you. It isn't for a lot of people. But this forum, hypothetically, is where people are at least interested in (good) philosophy, if they are not capable of it themselves.

Thirdly, I don't care one iota about "exactly as I do". Here is the real straw-man in this thread, that people "need to" think exactly the same? Never would I suggest such a preposterous idea. I don't want anybody thinking exactly the same. I enjoy debate, argument, difference of opinion, as-if it could be any other way? So here, rather, lamb is projecting, and he is unveiling his underlying psychology. It is *HE* not me, who believes that people should think "exactly as he does", and that this would make somebody "Objective", which I finally disagree with.


That's not Objectivity or Objectivist, TO ME, but rather it is to lamb.

There's no such thing as thinking "exactly as anyone does". If anybody bothered to read anything I write, they would know this pretty immediately. I like debate and argument, why else am I so consistent around here?

It is through conflict that any "progress" is made, if it is made at all. And often times, it is not. Especially when some "thinkers" are too cowardly about a point, and need to work about in a roundabout way, because they cannot confront certain ideas, arguments, or other thinkers directly.


Because losing arguments, and generally failing at philosophy, is embarrassing. You have to take risks; that's my position.

[Urwrongx1000]

The reason that people physically cannot think the same way, often times not even close to resemblance, is how and why people are Unique.

Individuality is a forced concept. You can't "agree" as completely as this thread presumes, which is also why lamb doesn't understand Objectivity.

He's under the impression that it's possible for people to think "exactly the same", which I have always disagreed with.


Guess the matter is exposed in the very first sentence, isn't it??? lul

[Urwrongx1000]

Even if it were possible for two, or more, or one billion humans to think "somewhat the same thought" or have a similar belief then...

#1 They did not arrive to that belief the same way

-or-

#2 They will not react to that belief the same way


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?

[Karpel Tunnel]

K: my post was completely non-political...

I didn't say it was political. It was objectivist in a number of ways. It also went against other core notions of Iamb's as I pointed out. Which is fine, of course, but in the context of a thread criticizing UW for his objectivist mind, this all is ironic in the extreme.

Your post goes on to say things that relate to positions that have merit. But they have nothing to do with what I pointed out.

Your being on a team with Iamb, I think, relates to shared political positions. It might be something else. But what I was pointing out was not your political position in that post. You didn't take one. It was your implicit and explicit philosophical positions, iow those related to the topic of the thread.

One issue you raise is black and white thinking. Well....

anytime you want to weigh in on the links I added in your thread showing tthe context of the pardon ...iow there you painted the pardon issue in a binary way. It was an admission of guilt, period. Via links to articles on presidents using the pardon I showed that there are precendents when it is clear the person is innocent and that is the intention of the pardon, and I also showed the context of the quotes from Burdick that make the issue at best for your opinion much more complicated (read: gray areas) if not outright contradicting it. You have yet to show that you can shift from your binary, black and white, condescendingly presented position, in that thread, to one with more nuance. Showed UW how it's done. How you can concede that an issue you presented as black and white is at best more nuanced.

NOt the pardonpalooza, the earlier one aimed at the kids.

Oh, and it's humorous being told that things need not be binary - a point I often make here - after I respond to a post where you say UR has no moral value, will never be redeemed or saved, is a lost cause.....

[Silhouette]

uuuuh huh huh huh.... uuh huh huh. hey beavis, he said 'ad hominid'. uuuuuuuuh huh huh huh

When a claim against him is made, rather than against his argument, it's an ad bovid.

Ah yes, so somebody uses Ad Hominids, and you defend them and strangely ignore their logical fallacies. Instead you join in their attacks.

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.

I'm ready to be open-minded.

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]

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.

Basically, your "answer" provides nothing in the way of past experiences and and exposure to philosophy. This being a philosophy venue.

Instead it's only a reflection of your reaction to what the other side did.

Actually, I'm more interested in a more detailed examination of a political conviction of yours. More along these lines:

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.

And, again, you skip this part...

"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.

On purpose?

[Lorikeet]

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

Imagine someone allowing himself to be reduced down to intellectual drivel of this sort. Is it even possible to reconfigure human interactions into something more general and abstract than this?

Again, I dare him to choose a particular context relating to conflicting goods...a specific situation in which to explore that which can be communicated objectively and that which reflects more the political prejudices derived subjectively from dasein out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially.

In fact, we can make the whole point of the exchange be to make fools out of each other.

How about it, Satyr? You can start the thread with regard to your context. Or, if you prefer, I can start it with a context of my own.

Put up or shut up as they say.

[Lorikeet]

Objectivity bad...subjectivity good.
Bringing it "down to your level of comprehension".

Give me a context.
Show me the way.
Lead by example.

[Lorikeet]

I really want to see what a simpleton, like you, means by "bringing it down to earth"....go ahead, show me.

[Urwrongx1000]

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.

What can I say, other than bad arguments are rather limp and non-threatening? You or anybody else can attack the positions that I actually do have, at anytime, go ahead, prove me wrong.

Ad Hominids, from the start, indicate to me you and yours don't have the ammo under you. How you start an argument is the most important move, seconded by how you end one.

Starting with personal attacks, are just a waste of my time.

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.

As-if you are my peer? This thread is based on lamb's obsessions with "dasein" and objectivity.

If you are demanding on your own behalf, it's a two-way street. Show me that you are open-minded. Return to the Advanced Freedom thread and finish what you started.

[Urwrongx1000]

Actually, I'm more interested in a more detailed examination of a political conviction of yours. More along these lines:

This isn't a political forum. If you want to know my politics, then address my philosophy first.

And, again, you skip this part...

I didn't skip it. I answered it. Politics is not philosophy.

So go on with your "objectivist mind". It's your thread to derail as you like, of course. But don't pretend to focus on one topic without the other.

You seem obsessed with politics, so how does that relate to "objectivity" hmm?

[Silhouette]

Ad Hominids

Yeah!
Keep owning it like it's a thing
Lol.

As-if you are my peer?

Oh God no. Not your peer, don't worry yourself there!

Return to the Advanced Freedom thread and finish what you started.

Oh no thanks, it ended long ago. I think you were there, in body if not mind.

[Urwrongx1000]

I understand, cowardice in the face of philosophy is quite common. I expect as much from you.

[Meno_]

Again & again notice Heidegger's distinction between das ein and dasein. That distinction speaks volumes.

[iambiguous]

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.

Typical of the objectivist mind.

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.

How about it urwrong? 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]

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?"

[iambiguous]

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?"

Would anyone here like to take a stab at explaining what on earth any of this has to do with the point I raised above?

Seriously, how far removed can it be from Ecmandu's "condition"?!

[Urwrongx1000]

Ah yes, you believe that you are entitled to questions and answers and I am not,

Objectively?

[iambiguous]

Ah yes, you believe that you are entitled to questions and answers and I am not,

Objectively?

Questions?

No, the point of contention between us here revolves around the points I raised above:

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.

The way it generally works here is that you note these points and then come back with points of your own in order to rebut them if you disagree.

So, again:

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".

Or, as per usual, wiggle out of it by posting something else completely extraneous.

[Urwrongx1000]

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?"

[iambiguous]

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?"

Gasp! He went for extraneous again!!

[Urwrongx1000]

Answer the question, coward,

Believing you can fly, arms flapping, jump off a cliff, do you fly, subjectively or objectively?