Top Ten List

For all practical purposes, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

And what supports my second statement is the fact that literally millions upon millions of people around the globe believe that God’s Commandments are a fundamental part of their own lives. Why? Because it is believed by them that their behaviors on this side of the grave will be judged by God. You may not believe this, I may not believe it, John Rawls may not have believed it, but “distributive justice” either takes this frame of mind into account or it doesn’t.

What on earth does noting this…

[i]My main aim here is to nudge – spin – the discussion in this direction:

How might Rawls’s “method” be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don’t pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, “distributive justice” is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

We? What “we” do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don’t overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between “distributive justice” and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls’s “methods” be applicable here?[/i]

…have to do with metaphysics?!

Unbelievable. Is it even possible to take philosophy further away from the world that we actually live in?

What in general? What specifically?

Bring Rawls’s “method” and his “conclusions” down to earth with respect to a particular set of conflicting goods that most here will be familiar with.

We can explore the extent to which the components of his own moral narrative are more or less relevant to such things as “the abortion wars” than the components of mine.

Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

I’ll respond to that.

Again, what on earth does this mean?

One’s “frame of mind” in regard to what set of conflicting goods?

Or, as I suggested to Pedro above:

[i]Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

I’ll respond to that.[/i]

I will if you promise to tell me how

Gets

On my honor.

Note to others:

Kidstuff. About what you figured, right?

In context, no.

The topic was Nietsche. He asked a for specifics from you…

and here, in response to your response to Faust.

Without responding to his requests for specifics or concrete examples, you throw the onus over to him…

IOW you just ignored explaining your conclusions about N and ignore his second request regarding whoever is using or misusing N’s ideas.

You make claims. When asked for concrete examples of claims you make, you ignore them. You ask him to now answer your age old question - as if this had relevence regarding your position on N and also yours on those who use his ideas.

IOW you 1) shift the context.
2)Do not consider you own assertions in need of any support
3) Find a way, relevent or not, to challenge other people with your habitual issue, even though this is not your thread, as if it was a response to what they wrote.

When, in your estimation, not adequately responded to, you insult him, despite not even managing a childish response to his requests, you simply ignore them.

Pedro, stop responding to this retarded troll and start making beats.

Look, it shouldn’t take a genius to understand that “iamgbiguous” means literally nothing of what he writes, that the only thing that is sincere is the nausea that is conveyed in all his debilitated, and debilitating posts. But apparently it does. So in my capacity as apparently the only remotely qualified psychologist on this site, I suggest you stop wasting, nay, soiling your time and commit to get some fucking work done.

Already.

I mean it man. If you can’t see that this dude doesn’t read 90 percent of what he responds to you’re really not paying attention. If you can’t see he truly hates life and is only here to make it run out in a least resistance kind of way, you’re just not very smart.

Lets have a really difficult question instead.

Who is the most dishonest poster, Iambiguous or Sauwelios?

Yes, philosophy is largely the art of consciously dealing with the difference between the particular and the general.

This should be pretty obvious, it is in everything from Heraclitus to us here at the present moment, the village idiot himself included. Only this record-retard has the fucking negative IQ to not even know that.

Well except, he doesn’t really think or know. He is literally just wasting his time and that of as many idiots as he can get to believe he is actually trying to ask a question. The painful thing is that this makes him, in all his reeking debility, smarter than you lot. He is smarter by successfully taking your hearts out of philosophy.

Dumbasses.
Jesus.

but fragmented Mcees will at some point be forced to examine the manner in which their “I” is in sync with the role that rappers, conflicting beats and hiphop economy play in conflicts like this. the question ‘how ought one to beat’ is no less an existential hip-hop contraption rooted in historical, cultural and interpersonal interactions inexplicably embedded in the studio, than anything else.

how on earth might a ‘serious Mcee’ bring his own rendition down ‘out of the clouds’ and provide a particular context in which we can explore the manner in which pedro construes the beat?

Socrates, maybe. Trolling for its own sake.

Speaking of psychology, it’s quite the psychological phenomenon to see people trolling their own lives, wrapping others into that in order to cast a cloak of legitimacy around what they are doing which makes the joke even funnier, if only to themselves.

Too bad they are always the butt of their own jokes. “Depression is rage turned inward” lol.

Making beats… now that does sound interesting.

Dang.

Interaction: worth it.

Please.

The aim of my discussion with Faust here is to bring the exchange around to this:

[i]How might Rawls’s “method” be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don’t pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, “distributive justice” is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

We? What “we” do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don’t overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between “distributive justice” and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls’s “methods” be applicable here?[/i]

And, with Pedro, around to this:

[i]Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

I’ll respond to that.[/i]

If, instead, your own aim here is to focus in on all of these accusations that you level against me, let’s take it to a new thread.

In the Rant forum if you prefer.

In Sauweliambigious web the average human goes like

but I refuse ya hear. I will have my intrawebz as I please em and that doesn’t include any of this dumb crap trolling iambobladiebla was pulling out of his head like hairs since time immemorable.

This is what I am able to reduce some of the Kids here down to. And on the philosophy board no less.

Yeah, what he said.

[img]http://ilovephilosophy.com/download/file.php?id=4757[/img

Lol, that’s me every time I trade.

wtffff Why can you post the img and I can’t?

Carleas, dog. wtf.

Well it’s fun when you can find limits to iambiguous. Define contours.

I just found one. It’s like catching an athlete at a mistake. He quickly recomposes himself and figures some drastic dribble to get out. But you have that moment.

A simple question.

“Nietzche objectivism.”

“Like when?”

“Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.”

We had the moment though, neh? I personally shall cherish it.

“Like those people that do this.”

“Which people?”

“Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.”