I will be in the streets of San Francisco protesting Da Fuhrer
on both Fri. the 20 and the 21st…
Kropotkin
Maybe God does exist, and everyone who touches a Bible will burst into flame
So just a typical weekend, in other words?
I will probably attend a Conservative Party live streaming of it, somewhere in Whitehall, or wherever they are planning to hold it.
Oh… If that’s so, you need to document that too Magsj, a few pictures for the forum.
I think Nigel Farage will be celebrating it laughing hysterically from a rented blimp as he does laps around London.
K: not at all, my weekends are about work as I work in the
grocery business as a checker and I usually work Fri, sat, and sun…
my days off are during the week…
Kropotkin
Also, according to the liberals on Twitter, Trump is not normal.
Trump is a moderate. Why he won.
Just out of curiosity, Turd, how did you celebrate Obama’s? He had two as I recall.
TV, like most people.
So, an admission then that you did in fact celebrate them.
And he’s almost a liberal.
I’m a independent. I cant be a objectivist like you.
Farage might have a personal invite to the event for all we know… seeing as how awesome Trump thinks Farage is.
Not sure how UKIP view Trump’s election to office, seeing as they are such a mixed bag of absconded members from the various other parties.
Hmm. An independent objectivist?
Well, let me ask you this then…
Are you of the conviction that your own moral and political values reflect the most rational and virtuous manner in which a man or a woman can come to embody such values?
That is how I have come to understand the meaning of objectivism.
It’s not what they believe but that, re God or Reason or Nature, what they believe encompasses the optimal frame of mind.
As oppose to, say, the perspective that revolves around “you’re right from your side, and I’m right from mine”.
Or the perspective [mine] that revolves around this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
Thus [pertaining to the OP] Carleas ought to be celebrating the inauguration of Trump because all reasonable and virtuous human beings are obligated to. And folks like PK ought to be protesting it, because all reasonable and virtuous human beings are obligated to do that instead.
Does that seem reasonable to you?
Note to others:
See how I’m trying to nudge this thread closer to philosophy. 
No
And your opposing supposition isn’t exactly a balanced duality, but a desperately contrived opposition that isn’t logically obvious. But it does show your a objectivist in asserting Dasein, Dasein, and only Dasein, it is the only thing your worth talking about, and you want everyone to join your chorus of one, am I right?
Okay, then cite some examples of this. If your moral and political values do not reflect the most rational and virtuous manner in which a man or a woman can embody such values, then how are you not basically arguing that “here and now” you believe that you are right from your side while others [with conflicting values] are able to argue in turn that they are right from their side?
And if that is what one believes “here and now”, they would seem to be acknowledging that “there and than” [down the road] they might believe something other than what they believe “here and now”.
In other words, if, through new experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge, one might change their mind regarding their moral and political values today, they are acknowledging that “here and now” they may well be wrong.
Are you acknowledging this?
And then, concomitantly, is there or is there not [using the tools of philosophy] a way in which to actually demonstrate which particular behaviors a rational and a virtuous human being is obligated to embody?
What “on earth” does this pertain to? What particular context is it applicable to? A “balanced duality” with respect to what particular human behaviors that have come into conflict? If those celebrating Trump’s inauguration come upon those protesting it, how is your assertion here applicable?
And over and over and over again, I make it abundantly clear that with respect to the overwhelming preponderance of human interactions, dasein is entirely irrelevant.
Dasein, as I understand it, pertains only to those interactions in which, having been “thrown” adventitiously into a particular historical, cultural and experiential context, our human wants and needs come into conflict over values that are understood and ranked in very, very different ways.
In other words, pertaining to the “rules of behavior” that are absolutely necessary in any given human community where means and ends come to clash.
I can’t, my Ontological understandings aren’t Value based. I said this before on this site, after seeing the Nietzsheans here abuse the word into a state of vacous nothingness, it encouraged to to investigate values as a concept, found it wanting as a skeptic, and abandoned it. I only use it now in a vestigial sense, as a rough and ugly indicator, but I wouldn’t ever established a strong philosophical idea on it.
Absolutely not the case. I’m a Cognitive Dualist, but for the longest time my primary debate opponents we’re Advaitian Non-Dualists. They would absolutely and completely refute your ontological presumption here. We don’t really have such a person on this forum, Sauwelios comes the closest, but that’s not saying much.
I’ve recommended this book as ready a dozen or so times on this site, it’s my favorite example of that school of thought.
You can see how I view this section as largely meaningless, devoid of real philosophy, if I can’t see the point your trying to make before. Your insisting I think in your pattern of thought, I can’t. The end statement, a dianetric strife between operations and tekelogy, might have validity, but you never coherently explained it in a way that matters to anyone.
Right, like out in the world of actual human interactions that come into conflict [b]over[/b] moral and political values [including your own] this has any substantive meaning at all.
It doesn’t, does it?
Again: what on earth does this have to do with anything? Which particular Nietzscheans abusing which particular words pertaining to which particular circumstantial contexts.
Note to others:
Sure, sure, I always presume that “explanations” like this may well be of some importance. That, in fact, the problem might be my own inability to grasp the point that is being made.
Any assistance you might care to extend here will be greatly appreciated.
Okay, okay, I think I get it now…
This is all meant to be ironic. You’re throwing this pseudo-intellectual Satyrean “analysis” over the net to see if I will actually swat at it.
So, you tell me: Did I? 
Sure, I can see how you might view this. You are, after all, in the manner in which I construe it, an objectivist.
From my perspective on your perspective, “real philosophy” [sooner or later] has to come around to connecting the dots between God and Thomas Byrom and Donald Trump.
On the other hand, my own understanding of dasein revolves considerably more around this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
We will just have to agree that we are not talking about the same thing at all here.
Indeed, nary an objectivist that I have come across over the years has ever been able to find any meaning in the points that I raise here. I merely speculate that this derives largely from the fact that if they were to find it meaningful, their own particular objectivist juggernaut would come crashing down.
And it is to this that, psychologically, they have anchored “I”.
Ever and always folks like you come back to one or another rendition of a “dianetric strife between operations and tekelogy”. Anything to avoid actually discussing what goes on in your head when your values do come into conflict with others.
I try to get folks like you to connect the dots between what they argue in the Philosophy forum, in the Religion and Spirituality forum and in the Society, Government, and Economics forum.
As that pertains to one or another actual set of circumstances out in the world that we live and interact in.