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.
Now please, go ahead, let us see you argue that blindness is equal to vision.
With the truth, all given facts harmonize; but with what is false, the truth soon hits a wrong note.”
“For he who lives as passion directs will not hear argument that dissuades him, nor understand it if he does; and how can we persuade one in such a state to change his ways?”
― Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
Kid chill out. There is no Mary. She is a hypothetical woman who has in this thread both aborted and not aborted a child.
Can’t you tell you are reacting emotionally, yourself?
You do not understand what’s meant by emotional, you married middle-aged “coquette”.
I chose to be emotional, you retard, I wasn’t forced into being emotional, you curly haired vagina.
But Mary has no choice, you imbecile, she is forced into denial, and this is what is inferior about her.
CAN YOU PLEASE STOP BEING A WHORE FOR A MOMENT AND TURN ON YOUR BRAIN JUST FOR A SECOND.
How stupid modern people are they think that every emotion is necessarily exaggerated emotion . . .
They see no difference between genuine emotion and exaggerated emotion.
Whenever there is some intensity involved, it is automatically assumed to be exaggerated.
I get this shit all the time.
Profound in that it exposed to me how the gap [enormous at times] between the words we use to sustain our value judgments [and the way in which they seem clear to us “in our heads”] is not able to be translated as seamlessly out in the world. Prior to this experience I was more or less able to ground my value judgments in one or another religious or political “truth”. Afterwards, that became increasingly more problematic. Now I am all but hopelessly entangled in the way in which I construe a moral dilemma in dasein.
Again, 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.
And I have found that, as a rule, many objectivists are particularly unnerved by this frame of mind. Why? Because they are able to glimpse the manner in which it might also be applicable to them.
But, again, that is only how it seems to me.
And many, like you perhaps, construe this dilemma not as an immoral frame of mind but as an amoral threat to a world that they see as one in which we must be able to clearly distinguish right from wrong behavior.
But, absent God, how is this possible? Even folks like Plato and Descartes and Kant recognized the need for a transcending font here.
This sort of argument always seems reasonable to me – on paper. But when you take it down into the nitty gritty complexities of human interactions awash in conflicting goods awash in contingency chance and change, sides must be chosen and rationalizations advanced. It’s just that my own leaps [here and now] are considerably more wobbly than others.
Forever that.
Try changing the color at least.
Ask a didactic objectivist to bring his intellectual contraptions down to earth and this is what you get! =D>
Seriously though, how is this not the embodiment of your own personal experiences pertaining to abortion? And how do the personal experiences of others inclining them to disagree with you make them necessarily wrong?
Because you say so, right?
You are merely making your own existential leap to a particular political agenda. You have offered no argument that makes the conflicting goods go away.
In other words:
If abortion is deemed objectively moral [and made legal] then many unborn babies will die.
If abortion is deemed objectively immoral [and made illegal] then many pregnant women will be forced to give birth.
What is the objective philosophical argument that makes this go away?
How, using the tools of philosophy, are we able to know for certain which point of view the rational, virtuous and noble uberman is obligated to embrace? You know, so as not to be seen as one of the sheep.
Yeah, that’s an idea:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which one is most appealing to you. Or choose your own color.
Now, let’s move on to this part:
[i][b]And I have found that, as a rule, many objectivists are particularly unnerved by this frame of mind. Why? Because they are able to glimpse the manner in which it might also be applicable to them.
But, again, that is only how it seems to me.
And many, like you perhaps, construe this dilemma not as an immoral frame of mind but as an amoral threat to a world that they see as one in which we must be able to clearly distinguish right from wrong behavior.
But, absent God, how is this possible? Even folks like Plato and Descartes and Kant recognized the need for a transcending font here. [/b][/i]
No, I don’t think so.
But where I disagree with you, is where you state that because there is no ONE RIGHT OPTION, all options are equally good.
I ought not to tolerate actions that I find wrong. Allowing for all morals is the same as having no morals at all.
There can’t be a decision that is right, because circumstances aren’t
the same.
What is more moral to you, the death of a child, or a child being abused and neglected?
Some things are worse than death.
To me, the standard for moral isn’t “that which promotes life”. It is “that which promotes a thriving life”.
A world which allows for a man, the philospher-king of his own home, to determine the moral obligation of his household, and raise his children to uphold them and preserve them through #2, and when that fails, #1.
Even the christian bible says that all things are permitted, but not all are expedient… something like that.
There is no need to be willing to accept anything. Acceptance or not does not change the fact that we live in it. Accepting that fact is an exercise in understanding human nature. That’s about it.
And yet I still spend a lot of time in places like this looking for arguments that might allow me to extricate myself from my own “dasein dilemma”.
[/quote]
How can I delicately put it… nobody cares.
The only reason anybody would want to try to understand what something means to you, is so that they can replace that understanding with one of their own.
We’re memetic viruses 
What you said here is the same as to say that because you can throw paint at a canvas a million different ways, there is no real painting!
The sum of all of the colors, and all of the solvents, and all of the hand gestures that landed the paint on the canvas, and all the motivations behind it, and all of the themes within it, those things all together are the real painting. And it doesn’t end there. Solvent cures, paint cracks, dust sets over…
I think that it is the same as to say that one saves the child when one feels morally obligated to do so, given the circumstances.
El oh el…
The irony seems to escape you that you cannot even conceive of a hypothetical female making a rational, calculated decision, because you, yourself, are so emotionally vested in your spite for women.
Are you quite certain? Can you think of a scenario in which a person’s sense of right/wrong might overrides his/her sense of self-preservation?
Doesn’t gravity pull objects to the ground EVERY time?
Doesn’t the sun rise in the east EVERY time?
I didn’t contest the notion that we want to convince people. I contested whether we can or not.
You are not the center of the universe, estupida, you are not WOMEN, you are A WOMAN, and a stupid one at that.
PAY SOME CLOSER FUCKING ATTENTION TO MY WORDS, YOU . . . YOU . . . whatever.
This is what YOU get, your mom, however, will get something else, something MORE down to earth.
Seriously, you imbecile, how is this not you just wasting my time here by asking me to start a discussion only so that you can put an end to it with your pathetic annoying never-ending drivel.
Either just swallow the sperm or shut the fuck up.
Whine whine whine . . . let’s just continue whining . . . because I say so . . . because Magnus says so . . . because your daddy does not say so . . . because your neighbour does not think so . . .
I am merely wasting my time here by ejaculating inside an anus of a braindead failure of an abortion of a monkey of a . . .
In other words, you imbecile, you are an robot recycling word leftovers of dead philosophers such as “dasein”, “conflicting” and “moral” and “goods”.
If you keep your head deeply stuck into the anus of Ayn Rand you will never be able to see, let alone understand, anything.