God didn’t make iambiguous. I did.
I’m the cunning cat, you’re the myopic mouse.
If you’ll agree, I’m willing to leave it at that.
The rumors that Rambo was based on my life are, to the best of my knowledge, still just rumors. As for the rumors that deputy sergeant Gault was based on the life of polishyouth…?
Let’s ask the bastard.
lol this guy is such a fucking creep 
If hapless attempts at being clever were a sin [and they sure ought to be] you’d go straight to Hell.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s practically immoral!! 
bro i am serious look after yourself…have some whiskey, play with a dog or a cat…
And around we come full circle:
[size=50]yap yap yap[/size]
What are you even talking about lol you make zero sense
Okay, okay, you win:
CRAP! CRAP!! CRAP!!!
Note to SATIRE:
I’m begging you: TAKE HIM BACK!!!
you are an old nutjob bro take your meds what does SHITTHYSELF or satyr have to do with anything right now???I take shits bigger than that whole forum, focus on yourself and your own shithouse.
Pick one:
1] [size=50]this is really clever[/size]
2] [size=50]this is really insightful[/size]
3] [size=50]this is really both[/size]
4] NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!
Extra credit:
What does any of this have to do with morality?
Seems rather childish to me. In fact, can you even imagine SATIRE allowing it at his own truly august venue KT?
On the other hand, there, in regard to morality and everything else, both polishyouth [I suspect] and I are met with this:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
So, whatever we think of each other here [not much], at least we’re not chickenshits.
you are the same kind of chicken shit as the dickheads over there are because…you dont take people you disagree with seriously and you dont seriously allow for the possibility that they are right and you are wrong…and hence you simply dismiss these people and never even bother to take up a serious argument with them…just like the kook SATIRE and his puff side kick KVASIR.
anybody can pose as a genius if he simply runs away from real exchange and avoids having to show his true quality of mind and knowledge, any autistic dumbass can write pages of bizarre and seemingly deep and eloquent idiocies that sound and seem very intelligent and perceptive but it is when somebody comes and pushes a knife into your bullshit that is a deciding factor which either shows your real quality or reveals you as a pretentious and moronic charlatan with a giant chip on your shoulder or, alternatively, an insane kook spouting nonsense about philosophers you did not even bother to familiarise yourself in the most basic way and instead talking about them as some kind of mystery(the case with you)…somebody like the Bolshevik traitor from Canada simply runs away from every single intelligent person he comes across, bullies the fuck out of morons he comes across and then never stops bragging about them, to remind his homosexual buddies about his victories over them…
Look, I’ve given you ample opportunity to be clever, insightful or both. So far, nothing even close.
And lines need be drawn.
Nail it on the next post or I’ll be force to move on.
Nature to iambiguous:
You got that right.
very simple and something you have ran from few times already: define, in your own words and without using being and dasein as words, what is dasein, in 5-20 sentences. my internet enemies tried to frame me as insane and angry lunatic, but this is a bullshit tactic that has no grounding in reality because there is no evidence on the internet of me being hostile to anybody who was not being a cunt to me…not one…the goonies want to pick fights with me and then cry that i do something about and, like typical Yank weaklings, turn the cat by its tail and play the victim and pathologize their opponent instead of simply doing their best to defeat him…
Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website
There you go. What you ought to do when there are little or no consequences for others and what you ought to do when the consequences for others is considerably more significant. In the first context morality would seem moot. Playing tennis poorly or playing tennis well isn’t likely to be seen as, say, a matter of life or death.
But in acting like a beast it can be. In the is/ought world there are any number of situations in which beastly behavior will be turned into a moral issue.
Now, as a moral nihilist, do I recognize this distinction? Sure. But I have thought myself into believing that in a No God world there is no necessary distinction. Some choose to be beasts [rooted in dasein] and there does not appear to be a philosophical argument able to encompass the distinction necessarily. It just then depends on whether any particular moral nihilist comes existentially to embody the behaviors of, say, a sociopath.
Yes, and this “standard of goodness” changes over time historically, across the globe culturally, and, depending on the life any particular one of us as individual lives, can vary considerably for each of us.
That’s why to me it would be interesting to note Wittgenstein’s reactions to my own arguments regarding identity, value judgments and political economy. How wanting would he find them? Could he grasp and then empathize with the idea of being “fractured and fragmented” if the “good” is wanting enough.
Thus: Any Wittgensteinians here who what take it there?
There being here:
Basically my point. The moral objectivist playing Kant. Only twisting it around such that everything that he or she feels is categorically and imperatively moral others are obligated to feel the same. In other words, instead of God being the font here the moral objectivist him or herself becomes the God.
reading this shit makes me think you are not much dumber than SATIRE, maybe when you were his age, you were actually sharper??? you denying morality is your own morality moron…morality is simply ones regulation of ones actions when they affect others and his/her belief in regards as what he should and should not do in this context. where do you get a god from? Christian morality is as valid as with or without God, if people accept it and Kants philosophical elaborations of what morality(or rather ethics or moral law) is and isn’t aren’t any less valid if you assume God exists or not…
Let’s settle this:
Pick one…
1] Yap! Yap!! Yap!!!
2] Crap! Crap!! Crap!!!
Now, imagine this is a philosophical issue. You are obligated to choose the right answer or be deemed irrational.
Or, how about a moral/religious issue.
It’s Judgment Day.
You are asked to choose one. But: if you choose the wrong one you go down instead of up.
A new thread perhaps?
i am not gonna lower myself to a level of getting into petty fights with you you old fart, who the fuck do you think you are to limit the narrative as you like???the same old fart megalomania as the cunt SATIRE…you know the direction in which truth lies, others dont…
Let’s settle this:
Pick one…
1] Yap! Yap!! Yap!!!
2] Crap! Crap!! Crap!!!
Now, imagine this is a philosophical issue. You are obligated to choose the right answer or be deemed irrational.
Or, how about a moral/religious issue.
It’s Judgment Day.
You are asked to choose one. But: if you choose the wrong one you go down instead of up.
Then it’s turtles all the way down.