OK, so this thread is basically about this:
Here, iambiguous presents a clearly objectivist worldview, where everything is determined by his three options. When challenged on this, he answered with:
Do you all nazis read anything other than Dawkins?
I mean for an anti-objectivist, you sure hold his writings to be some objective-ass truth.
I, of course, pointed out that this is a typical objectivist reaction. Namely, that the source of the objectivist ideas cannot be named because that would mean they are subjective ideas, and not objective truths. This went on, you get the gist.
And here I simply would like iam to bring his objectivist ideas down from the skyhooks of evolutionary theory academia, and down here on Earth where we can examine how they are not simply another instance of “I am right and whatever you say is wrong,” and how they can help us resolve a situation of conflicting goods.
Pick a context, iam, and let’s explore how your ideas about genes/memes are not simply rooted subjectively in dasein but can aply objectively to everybody, here and now.
Or, sure, if he has the huevos .
iambiguous
December 18, 2020, 8:03pm
102
youtu.be/waf46eBajkw
I couldn’t have said it better myself!!
In fact, I dare someone to put together an argument that refutes it.
Yo, urwrongx1000!
So you have given up posing arguments altogether? Total admission of inadequacy to the task?
You know, of explaining your own positions?
iambiguous
December 18, 2020, 10:12pm
104
So you have given up posing arguments altogether? Total admission of inadequacy to the task?
You know, of explaining your own positions?
Like that would actually matter to you!
Like you would actually create and then sustain arguments yourself!
Like I haven’t given you any number of opportunities already to go down that path here!
And not just in regard to the 2nd Amendment.
Here is more or less where we left off there:
In what way would this seem to be the case? Where is the condition mentioned?
Also, Arms is also capitalized. The arms? Don’t be stupid.
Where does it say anything about well organized militias other than that they are important?
iambiguous:
Actually, what I am noting is that the Amendment is open to conflicting interpretations. That both liberals and conservatives can make arguments the other side merely explain away.
You don’t really address the points I am making. The condition is encompassed in the words themselves. And in how those who have come to embody conflicting political prejudices interpret their meaning.
And the militia is important only to the extent that it is “well regulated”. Otherwise, why put that in the Amendment in the first place?
And, again, where you and the other objectivists won’t go is in examining your political prejudices here down in the “hole” that I have concocted philosophically.
Why? Because in my view you come to recognize [more or less] that it might me yanking you down into it instead of you yanking me up out of it.
So, okay, one more chance for you to explain your arguments.
You’re up.
Or, sure, pick another context.
No no no, we have been at this for months now. This is it, thou shall not pass.
Answer for your proven objectivist and communist positions, or stick to the status quo. Where you purr and I’m attractive… I don’t know I can never keep track but it’s some creepy fucking shit.
Pretty straight forward:
OK, so this thread is basically about this:
Here, iambiguous presents a clearly objectivist worldview, where everything is determined by his three options. When challenged on this, he answered with:
Do you all nazis read anything other than Dawkins?
I mean for an anti-objectivist, you sure hold his writings to be some objective-ass truth.
I, of course, pointed out that this is a typical objectivist reaction. Namely, that the source of the objectivist ideas cannot be named because that would mean they are subjective ideas, and not objective truths. This went on, you get the gist.
And here I simply would like iam to bring his objectivist ideas down from the skyhooks of evolutionary theory academia, and down here on Earth where we can examine how they are not simply another instance of “I am right and whatever you say is wrong,” and how they can help us resolve a situation of conflicting goods.
Pick a context, iam, and let’s explore how your ideas about genes/memes are not simply rooted subjectively in dasein but can aply objectively to everybody, here and now.
Or, sure, if he has the huevos
"So you have given up posing arguments altogether? Total admission of inadequacy to the task?
You know, of explaining your own positions?"
Oh god no you dont ever do so after it’s been built up so much like this. Ur gonna disagree with him no matter what he says, at this point. C’mon everybody knows how this works. You’ve all been at the forums long enough so dont play stupid.
Why should he care if I agree or not? What is this a fucking, is that how low the confidence and self confidence level are around here?
I just want to discuss these objectivist and communist postulations of his down here on Earth, off the skyhooks.
I take the milk and the coffee separate .
Woah that dont even look right. The word ‘were’ outside of a sentence. Its like half of werewolf and nothing like where… but so close to the spelling, your brain wants to see ‘where’ instead… and so the strange spelling sits there for a brief second and you almost say weeer re.
Would that it were so simple.
Yeah there’s an art to the iam, there’s no doubt about that.
He stole “paraquoting” from me though.
iambiguous
December 18, 2020, 11:47pm
116
No no no, we have been at this for months now. This is it, thou shall not pass.
Answer for your proven objectivist and communist positions, or stick to the status quo. Where you purr and I’m attractive… I don’t know I can never keep track but it’s some creepy fucking shit.
Pretty straight forward:
You bitch about me avoiding arguments. About me explaining them. I note an example of an argument that I had with you in regard to the 2nd amendment. A debate that you abandoned. That you continue to avoid in being chickenshit when it comes to making and sustaining actual arguments on a philosophy board. Why? Because I make a fool out of you over and over and over again.
Instead you resort to doing your “stupidest man in world” shtick.
And in Stooge mode no less!
Well lol how about we start with the one this dang thread is about!
No?
Too hard?
OK, so this thread is basically about this:
Here, iambiguous presents a clearly objectivist worldview, where everything is determined by his three options. When challenged on this, he answered with:
Do you all nazis read anything other than Dawkins?
I mean for an anti-objectivist, you sure hold his writings to be some objective-ass truth.
I, of course, pointed out that this is a typical objectivist reaction. Namely, that the source of the objectivist ideas cannot be named because that would mean they are subjective ideas, and not objective truths. This went on, you get the gist.
And here I simply would like iam to bring his objectivist ideas down from the skyhooks of evolutionary theory academia, and down here on Earth where we can examine how they are not simply another instance of “I am right and whatever you say is wrong,” and how they can help us resolve a situation of conflicting goods.
Pick a context, iam, and let’s explore how your ideas about genes/memes are not simply rooted subjectively in dasein but can aply objectively to everybody, here and now.
Or, sure, if he has the huevos
iambiguous
December 19, 2020, 12:01am
119
Okay, make an argument that, from your frame of mind, demonstrates that I am both an objectivist and a communist in regard to my views on the 2nd Amendment. An amendment that I wholeheartedly support.
What on earth does that even mean?
I merely note that arguments can be made that focus in on the “right to bear Arms” not being “infringed”; or that focus more instead on the government’s role in making sure that it is all “well regulated”. And the ambiguity embedded in the word “Militia”.
If Joe is accumulating a stockpile of military grade chemical and biological weapons to defend himself against hostile neighbors, does the 2nd Amendment establish his constitutional right to do so?
iambiguous
December 19, 2020, 12:03am
120
What else can I say: youtu.be/waf46eBajkw
