Urwrongx1000 and the objectivist mind

[Urwrongx1000]

Look, I don't mind your cowardice. It was never a threat to me or anybody really.

But don't pretend you have any opinion to 'Objectivity' when you can't respond to simple questions even a child could ask, and answer.

[Meno_]

Reduction ad absurdum: circling around the subject by similar structural affinity, using literal devices, fearing the substantiated entrance into points being raised.

Why?


Probably because the self admitted fracture is brought on by a willing choice , so as to enable the rationale to argue for the lack of connecting and healing the fracture.

It is a carefully plotted pseudo structural attempt to restructure the transcendental will to overcome that fear . Nihilism is an attempt to shift the focus from the. Significant to signifier and the signal in simultanity, , in which way it becomes an attempt to gloss over the optical disharmony produced , which produces an unacceptable and latent(repressed) objective transcendence.

This counter, reverse movement, is re-described as intellectual garbage, in order to nihilize any sense of substantial , primary SIGNIFICANCE.( I am universalizing signal to significance here, in order to emphasize the structural pull away from a specific das ein to something more inclusive) - dasein.


SORRY, there is no other 'down to earth' way to describe this-
- In a common , sensible way, even try to describe any connection to the positivists- and why they failed, is way beyond the scope in this ongoing struggle. By the way, if that were possible, at least the universal of overcoming personal limitations would/ could be overcome.

[iambiguous]

Me:

lamb didn't you cower out of an argument with me a month ago?

Yep, you did, don't be a hypocrite

And that argument would be...what?

Let's bring it here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=196492

In fact, I dare you to.

Him...

Answer the question, coward,

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

Look, I don't mind your cowardice. It was never a threat to me or anybody really.

But don't pretend you have any opinion to 'Objectivity' when you can't respond to simple questions even a child could ask, and answer.

Okay, believing subjectively in your head that you can fly by flapping your arms and soaring off into the sky is not the same thing as being able to demonstrate that objectively you can fly by flapping your arms and soaring off into the sky.

New question:

If you believe subjectively in your head that Donald Trump is a great president is that the same thing as demonstrating that objectively he is a great president?

What if others believe subjectively in their heads that he is a terrible president?

How would we go about demonstrating once and for all that in fact he is one or the other?

[Urwrongx1000]

Donald Trump demonstrated that he is objectively a better president than any other since Reagan.

He beat Clinton. He beat Bush. He beat Biden, but was (objectively) defrauded in the general election.

Why objectively? Because a data analyst reverse-engineered the voting machine algorithm. Math doesn't lie.


Next!

[iambiguous]

Donald Trump demonstrated that he is objectively a better president than any other since Reagan.

He beat Clinton. He beat Bush. He beat Biden, but was (objectively) defrauded in the general election.

Why objectively? Because a data analyst reverse-engineered the voting machine algorithm. Math doesn't lie.


Next!

Is this is actually how he goes about, uh, thinking this through?

He merely asserts that Trump has demonstrated that he is a best president since Reagan.

That's what makes it true: he believes it.

But, okay, let's say that his math doesn't lie and Trump should still be president.

Let him choose a particular issue that divides liberals and conservatives. Let him explain to us why Trump's policies are objectively better than Biden's.

[Urwrongx1000]

Appealing to the Audience is a fallacy and makes you look foolish.

Anything else or is that it?

[iambiguous]

Appealing to the Audience is a fallacy and makes you look foolish.

Anything else or is that it?

Nope. Still this:

Let him choose a particular issue that divides liberals and conservatives. Let him explain to us why Trump's policies are objectively better than Biden's.

[Urwrongx1000]

Ah yes, politics, that's all you can think about hm?

Trump's Presidency is objectively superior to Biden because Biden has been bought-off by the China Communist Party for $1 billion.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-econ ... quity-firm

Trump on Thursday called on China to investigate Biden, now a leading Democratic presidential candidate, and his son, alleging the younger Biden used his position of influence to secure US$1.5 billion in funding from the government-owned Bank of China for a private equity firm he was involved in and made millions in the process.

Filings in China’s National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System database show that Hunter Biden is listed as a director of BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Company, a company incorporated in December 2013 with registered capital of 30 million yuan, or about US$4 million at the current exchange rate.

Anything else?

[iambiguous]

Ah yes, politics, that's all you can think about hm?

Trump's Presidency is objectively superior to Biden because Biden has been bought-off by the China Communist Party for $1 billion.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-econ ... quity-firm

Trump on Thursday called on China to investigate Biden, now a leading Democratic presidential candidate, and his son, alleging the younger Biden used his position of influence to secure US$1.5 billion in funding from the government-owned Bank of China for a private equity firm he was involved in and made millions in the process.

Filings in China’s National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System database show that Hunter Biden is listed as a director of BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Company, a company incorporated in December 2013 with registered capital of 30 million yuan, or about US$4 million at the current exchange rate.

Anything else?

Yeah.

I need you to realize that just because you hold a particular political prejudice in regard to Biden and the Chinese, that does not make it true. You know, necessarily.

That's like arguing that capitalism is superior to socialism simply because that's what you believe. As though there are not many, many others who simply believe the opposite.

Now, my point here revolves basically around three things:

1] that both capitalists and socialists can make reasonable arguments based on particular sets of assumptions. Arguments that the other side can't just make go away:
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5002 ... apitalism/
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1472 ... socialism/

2] that any particular individual's thinking about either capitalism and socialism is rooted largely in the trajectory of expereinces, relationships and ideas they came upon over the course of actually living their lives.

3] that those who embrace one or the other as objectivists are likely to be afflicted with what I call the "psychology of objectivism" https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Now, none of this is meant for you, of course. In my own opinion, your "thinking" is so shallow, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that any of this could possibly sink in.

You are frighteningly ignorant of what some call "critical thinking". And, in Trumpworld, there are millions of you.

If I do say so myself.

[Sculptor]

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.

So, let me ask him this:

"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."

Yes, I was wrong about Obama, when he ordered the murder of Osama Bin Laden when the raid was perfectly capable of bringing him back to justice. And when he also ordered the suppary execution of American citizens without trial by drone strike.
He preached the Ameica would be different, in the end he made the US no better than the terrorists that he murdered.

I'm not sure this is about "an objective mind" though. Urwrongx1000 is simply mentally deficient in basic cognitive skills and lives in a world of his own make believe. I assume he simply selects the whacky theories he wants like picking out cherries from the trifle, ignoring the custard and jelly of inconvenient truth.

[Sculptor]

lamb is obsessed with Objectivity because it is what he lacks the most.

What's that phrase???

Pot calling kettle black.

No one can claim true objectivity, least of all urwrongx1000, whose very choice of handle betrays his idiocy.

[Urwrongx1000]

Yeah.

I need you to realize that just because you hold a particular political prejudice in regard to Biden and the Chinese, that does not make it true. You know, necessarily.

Tell me what is false about the $1.5 billion Equity deal between CCP and Hunter Biden?

It's quite common knowledge. Be objective.

[Sculptor]

Yeah.

I need you to realize that just because you hold a particular political prejudice in regard to Biden and the Chinese, that does not make it true. You know, necessarily.

Tell me what is false about the $1.5 billion Equity deal between CCP and Hunter Biden?

It's quite common knowledge. Be objective.

BE OBJECTIVE.
CHECK YOUR FACTS
Do your self a favour. Actually READ the following and check out the details.
There is no voter fraud.
There is ZERO evidence of voter Fraud.
Guillianni offered NO EVIDENCE to any of the courts. It was all just performance to get idiots like you to BELEIVE.
Trump was talking about voter fraud 4 years ago because he thought he would lose. It's just a performance.
Four years ago he got 3 million fewer votes that Hilary Clinton, but won because of the pro-republican antiquated voting system of the Electoral College.
This time Trump got SIX MILLION fewer votes and that was enough to tip the balance, despite the electoral collage, for a DEMOCRATIC WIN.

There is no evidence and the Trump team had noting to offer the courts,. They did not even persueclaims of fraud because they had nothing to offer.
Out side the courts they banged on about fraud, but inside the courts they said nothing. Then they came out of the courts complaining they had not been heard.
FOR YOU TO BE HEARD you need to have something to say.

So do yourself a favour.
Stop being a complete arse and look into the details of what has happened over the last 8 or so weeks.

[Urwrongx1000]

A Data Analyst reverse-engineered the voting machine algorithm.

The MSM refused to call victory for Trump when he clearly won on Election Night.

4am Ballot Dump in the middle of the night.

Post Masters back-dating ballots.


We have mountains of evidence, but you are a Communist Shill, promoting an Illegal election and its Illegal outcome.

[iambiguous]

Yeah.

I need you to realize that just because you hold a particular political prejudice in regard to Biden and the Chinese, that does not make it true. You know, necessarily.

Tell me what is false about the $1.5 billion Equity deal between CCP and Hunter Biden?

It's quite common knowledge. Be objective.

Once again, he completely ignores the points that I am making about political prejudices of individuals being rooted in dasein, in conflicting goods and in political economy.

In fact, my point is that everything he says about the Bidens and China can in fact be true objectively.

For all I know, the Bidens are themselves moral nihilists -- even sociopaths -- who are concerned only with sustaining political policies that enrich themselves.

Instead, my argument is that, in a No God world, philosophers, political scientists, ethicists etc., seem unable to come up with an argument able to establish and to confirm that one particular policy in regard to China is that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace.

And that if you want to grasp the existential motivation behind his own frame of mind "here and now", you need to grapple with it given the points I make on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Now, let him -- or any of the fulminating fanatic objectivists here -- do that and get back to us.

But I suspect that is not likely to happen. And, given his/their posts here to date, how hard is it to guess why I have come to conclude that?

[Urwrongx1000]

That's not very 'Objective' of you to continually Appeal to Audience while "debating" somebody you claimed to want to debate.

I think that's it then. There's no more use for me or anybody continuing this charade. You obviously want to have an "objective" political debate to prove some kind of point, to somebody, although I can't imagine any serious thinker / philosopher enthusiast would read you for more than a couple pages before getting bored witless.

Return to your Dasein, stick head in sand.

[iambiguous]

Blindness of vision is forgivable.

Blindness of the mind, is not.

Allow me to translate the latter:

"If you don't think exactly as I do about moral and political value judgments then you are blind."

Only this particular fulminating fanatic chickenshit refuses to defend his own in an exchange with me. His very handle here -- "you are wrong times a thousand" -- speaks volumes regarding his peabrain mentality.

Look, I'll even be willing to have an actual serious and civil exchange. One in which I agree not to make a fool out of him as I do here.

Anyway, do yourself a favor...

HBO has an ongoing documentary on the QAnon movement. It's on tonight.

If these morons aren't the very embodiment of how far the objectivist minds on the right can go!!

[Urwrongx1000]

Lambo, don't drag your personal politics garbage into other people's threads.

I know you can't help it, but it embarrasses you.

[iambiguous]

Lambo, don't drag your personal politics garbage into other people's threads.

I know you can't help it, but it embarrasses you.

Right.

Maia starts a thread about dreams and you attempt to shift the discussion to unforgivable minds. I'm merely reminding you what this actually involves when you are a fulminating fanatic objectivist.

This thread was created in order for you to defend your own mind in regard to moral and political value judgments.

That, however, you are chickenshit and won't go there other than in Stooge mode, is something for you to deal with.

Grow a pair. Choose a value judgment and a set of circumstances and convince me that your own mind is not unforgivable.

[Urwrongx1000]

You and others brought up her blindness and condition unnecessarily.

Point the finger inward.

[iambiguous]

You and others brought up her blindness and condition unnecessarily.

Point the finger inward.

Of course those who are not blind are going to be curious about the dreams that blind people have. In fact, many assume that blind people don't dream at all. I noted an article to that effect and she commented on it favorably. Then I noted some of the peculiarities of my own dreams. And now we've begun an exchange about dreams from her end and from my end.

So, in regard to moral and political value judgments, let's you and I do the same here.

No huffing and puffing, no name-calling. Just the two of us exploring the components of our own moral and political philosophies.

On the philosophy board. Pertaining to a "conflicting good" that liberals and conservatives are often at odds regarding. And one that is likely to be familiar to most of us here.

[Urwrongx1000]

Note to others:

This is Lambo being both a hypocrite, and an asshole,

And then, for those of us who are not blind, the fascinating factors embedded in this:

[iambiguous]

Note to others:

This is Lambo being both a hypocrite, and an asshole,

And then, for those of us who are not blind, the fascinating factors embedded in this:

Note to others:

Yep, no doubt about it now: another "condition".

[Urwrongx1000]

Note to others:

This is Lambo talking to myself.

[Bob]

First lesson of politics:

Never admit you're wrong.

So, no, I have never been wrong, politically.

That is quite sad, to be honest.

Over the years I have often been so wrong. In my youth I was so ignorant of so much, now I look back and shudder because I am getting other perspectives better than I did before.

That still doesn't mean I am right, it means I am now better aware of the complexity of issues.