Yes. WW III Angry is the one who has a very vage theory. So we are allowed to expect him to give evidence or a justification of his very vage theory, if it is possible, but he does not or merely in a very vage way again. That does not surprise me. But moreover, instead of evidence or a justification he mostly gives accusations (for example: “you haven’t …” [see also above] … and so on) or moral imperatives (for example: “you should …”, “you should not …”, “you need …” [see also above], “you have to …”, “you must …”, “don’t say …” [see also above] … and so on). That is so ridiculous.
Is my “standard” of understanding through reason not acceptable? I mean, all I asked for was a reason to back up James’ claim. Was that request unreasonable?
Sure, my theory isn’t the most cogent. It’s vague to some, very vague to others, and can be promising to others as well. The problem is communicating it effectively, so I already alluded to this multiple times this requires much more justification that I haven’t laid out yet.
If I am mostly “giving accusations” that aren’t reasonable - I would think you don’t understand why I don’t see the reason. That being, any counter points need to be presented with reason, not just bald assertions. If you find it ridiculous, perhaps you find philosophical discourse ridiculous on a deep level. It can be and ought to be very pedantic - particularly when a theory comes about that isn’t fully explained in a forum such as this. As such, discourse like this is needed. I appreciate it, because it lets me know what many people won’t understand initially.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand what others say?
Please! Stick to the topic and try to give evidence or justifiactions for your vage theory and not - again and again - counter-questons, accusations and moral imperatives. Others are not fault for the content of your texts, but you are.
It is allways the same with you: no evidence, no justification, no back up, nothing but accusations, counter-questions, moral imperatives, cocksure behavior, …
If someone (you, for eaxmple) has a very vage theory and is not capable of giving evidence or justification of it, then this theory, if it is one at all, can be considered as false. Moreover, there is no single poster of this webforum who agrees to what you are trying to say.
And this is what others let them know what you will never understand: You are one of those who are cocksure (cf. Bertrand Russel: „The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.“).
We all here know what you are trying to say, but you are not capable of understanding.
Can you believe in your own position? If so, then you would admit that you believe.
You are more a believer than the average human, because you hide your beliefs and are not aware of this fact.
No, no, no. Step by step. I think that this is also your problem. First of all, one has to understand what others say and then, secondly, what they mean. If you read my words I am just writing, then you have to be capable of knowing the letters, the syllables, the words, the sentences, the whole text and, of course, the grammatical structure and the relations of all that, and after it you can begin with your interpretation of what the people mean, because the people and their world are part of the context but not the text itself.
Right, like this isn’t applicable to all of the moral and political objectivists here.
To understand them is to agree with them.
Or, as I recently noted to James on another thread:
[b]Instead, when you embrace a moral or a political agenda in the “society and government” forum we are, what, just supposed to assume that if we did understand RM/AO and the Real God as you do we would embrace the same agenda? As though that in and of itself demonstrates it to be the most [or the only] rational moral and political frame of mind.
That, in other words, we are then in fact obligated as rational human beings to behave exactly as you do when confronted with the ghastly liberals?
[/b]
And, sure, it works much the same regarding the liberal/left wing objectivists.
At best in discussions of this sort we can attempt to align our own political prejudices with whatever objective facts might be garnered in noting the manner in which particular sides embody conflicting goods such that an attempt is made to either debunk or to defend a particular position.
