the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

The retard wants me to accept his premises as true.

Me being outside of his premises is me being “up into the stratosphere of abstractions”.

Him being trapped within his absurd premises is him being on the ground.

This is how stupid he is.

No questioning of his premises allowed.

The moment you question them, the moment you are accused of being too abstract.

The mentally stunted abortion of a child-fagot has been on this website since 2010. Has he been doing anything but tirelessly reasserting his didactic assertions?

Here’s a topic from a year ago, where I deal with him in a ratatata manner.
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 4#p2484604

Back then I didn’t read his posts, because he was so boring and so stupid no reading was necessary.

It’s funny it is only now that I realize that he’s been saying EXACTLY the same things he’s saying now.

Yes, but that would contradict your absurd and insulting statement that; “The retard wants me to accept his premises as true.”.
If that were the case, he’d hardly be ignoring you.

You are an idiot Lev, we all know that, now go fuck yourself.

Back on topic.

The retard thinks there is such a thing as “free will”.

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 5#p2486335

Makes sense, considering he’s a Christian.

I think not.

I don’t know how to make it any clearer:

[b]With respect to moral and political value judgments [about which the OP is aimed], my argument [here and now] 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.

What I am curious about are arguments from others able to poke enough holes in it so that I might be able to reconsider it as perhaps a less than reasonable manner in which to construe the “human condition” sans God.

Instead, I tend to bump into the abstractionists like you and Lyssa and Satyr – scholastic sorts who spew out intellectual contraptions that have almost nothing whatsoever to do with the lives that we live.

All I am trying to do here is to actually engage your words down here. Why in the world is that something you always avoid?

Again, [size=200]you[/size] can pick the topic.[/b]

Even Lyssa [over at KTS] is now willing to scratch the surface in this regard.

Lev, are you fucking follow me?

The retard must be told how to live.

There must be a God who will tell him “listen kid, do this, and you go to heaven, or do that, and you go to hell”.

Or if there is no God, then all is permissible.

Moral obligation, he calls it.

He does not understand that when I say that he’s an utter imbecile that does not mean that he is morally obliged to become an intelligent person.

He’s so stupid, for fuck’s sake!

The retard can’t stand social judgment!

He will even listen to me! if I were only convincing enough!

But I am not . . . And why am I not convincing enough?

Because people disagree . . .

He will do what I tell him to do and I’ll go like “good doggy!”

That would make happy.

But then, he will come across this other group of people who will make fun of him for doing what I told him to do . . .

So, in order to be convincing enough, I’d have to take him as my personal slave, lock him in one of my basements, so that he has no contact with other people, and so that the only judge on whether he is a good doggy or not would be ME.

But as an emancipated slave, out in the world of conflicting goods, freed from any kind of singular human authority, he does not find me convincing enough.

I must become popular first.

I must be aired on his big plasma TV.

Songs must be sang about me.

Girls must be crazy about me.

That kind of shit.

Since that’s not the case, I am just an objectivist who’s pretending to be an “alpha male” . . .

Sure, let’s talk about abortion. Let’s talk about John and Mary.

Mary accidentally got pregnant.

To abort or not to abort?

John says “yes”, cause they are not ready for a family.
Mary says “no”, cause she says it’s a murder.

Who’s right, who’s wrong, I say John, because he’s rational whereas Mary is emotional.

So now what, dude.

In his anecdote Mary aborts without John’s consent.
Was John being emotional in wanting to participate in the decision?

Someone questioned the distinction between superior and inferior earlier.

How naive.

Superior/inferior refers to what promotes life and what promotes death.

You can abstract it further by relating it to a goal, but I take it for granted that we all agree that life is superior to death.

Superior/inferior not in relation to other people, but in relation to one’s past self.

We change, we either become superior or we become inferior.

We decide, to either become superior or to become inferior.

Lift some weights, see what I’m talking about.

Make some good decisions, see what becoming superior means.

Make some bad decisions, see what becoming inferior means.

No need to compare to other people, so don’t confuse it with hyper-masculine vanity.

Other people’s inferiority, such as that of iambigot, becomes a problem when it becomes a problem for those of us who are pro-life.

Why is iambigot a problem? Because his suicidal way of thinking corrupts people’s minds . . .

He is a deadly virus spreading across memetic lines.

Not all inferior creatures are problematic. Pugs are inferior but I find pugs to be cute little monsters.

As usual, I don’t understand what you’re talking about.

I am not saying you are stupid, phoneutria, I believe you are a very smart girl, beside being extremely sexy, of course, just that, I, me, Magnus, do not understand what you’re talking about . . . as usual.

Must be your charm.

No, I am merely pointing out the obvious. That with respect to the biology of human sexuality leading to a pregnancy leading to an abortion, there there objective truths that transcend dasein.

Facts, in other words, that are not predicated on a subjective interpretation. A man and a woman either engage in sexual copulation or they do not. The woman either becomes pregnant as a result of this or she does not. And if she does become pregnant and chooses an abortion, it is either successful or it is not.

But where is the same either/or denouement with respect to the precise moment when, after conception, a zygote, embryo or fetus becomes a “human being”. Some will even go further and make a distinction between a “human being” and a “human person”. That way they are even able to rationalize infanticide.

What you said above is this:

Scientifically documented.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viab … thresholds
Therefore, it is moral to abort a fetus before week 22. Objective reasoning.

Therefore, I surmised that you surmised it is objectively moral to a abort the fetus because the science in the link had objectively established it. Then I provided you with a link that suggested this is not the case at all.

Then I acknowledged here that science does not seem able to establish beyond all doubt when in fact the unborn becomes a human being. Objectively.

I’m not trying to argue here that my point of view is right or that your point of view is wrong. I am only suggesting that it is a point of view that is predicated on certain conflicting assumptions that are made regarding when the unborn become human beings.

And even if that can be decided objectively, we are still stuck living in a world where if all unborn babies are required to be brought to term, then any number of women will be forced to give birth.

In other words, the part about conflicting goods doesn’t just go away.

You should take that up with God. Aren’t these God’s own abortions? And why should the women be held culpable when in most cases they do everything they possible can to secure the birth of their child. In fact, most are devastated when the baby dies.

But then God does work in mysterious ways, right?

But the thrust of the OP revolves precisely around the manner in which certain folks do embrace a particular religious or political narrative/agenda and then claim that moral certitude is derived from the assumption that their God or their Reason is there to back them up.

Now, in that respect, yours either is or is not. And you will either discuss that pertaining to an issue like abortion or you will not.

Come on, Phyllo, we know what the objectivists mean when they assert something like that. They mean that they have already assertained what the “bare minimums” are here and that this almost always revolves around agreeing with them that this is in fact what the bare minimums must be.

Really? You read those two sentences, and you don’t understand them, in the context of your post previous to it?

Does that make you feel smart.

No, just slightly perplexed.

Whatever, you are boring.

Yo mamma doesn’t think so.
Zing!

This exchange is really rather amazing. Especially in the context of…

In the first quote we have two processes for reaching a conclusion - at least it is assumed that there are two different processes. Process A is rational, process B is emotional, therefore process A is right. As if one cannot rationally reach incorrect conclusions (or emotionally come up with correct ones). I’ll leave aside the issue of whether one can assess something like ‘readiness to have a child’ (at least in most of the West) without emotional and intuitive processes being involved.

The second quote is putting pressure on the binary thinking present in quote one. That this is not clear strikes me as very odd.

Then that this all happens not far from the last quote, where Superior promotes life and Inferior promotes death just adds even more strangeness. Are we to suppose that rationality in this instance is inferior because it is promoting death. Or are we to assume that the rational man could somehow weigh, rationally, the total sum of ‘life’ including things like, say, added stress since the man must work more overtime to pay for Huggies. And this is a reduction of life, his, and one can create a mathematical inventory and decide that there is less life with the added child if the pregnancy is allowed to come to term.

And just a jump to the side: wouldn’t it be strange if emotional decisions were inferior and wrong, per se, given that the most powerful and dominant animals on earth, including of course, us, are social mammals with powerful emotions. You would think we would be more like robots if emotionless decision making was the best.

(no offense intended towards Araneae, though I must say that in general they seem to make decisions based on preferences rather than emotions)

How far can a thing resembling a brain go in order to deny rank is something we can infer from the post above.

Dude what the fuck are you talking about.

Putting pressure on what, you mean on my patience. Do you really think I will bother responding to phoneutria’s low level of intelligence and high level of pretense?

Mary is retarded because her goal is a short-term one, not a long-term one.

She cares not about the family, she cares only about her feelings.

She is inferior because she is prone to self-deception.

Now ask yourself what’s the point of your stupid post.