That is reflective of your own mind - and another of your lies.
When I say that a group of people are doing something that is inherent evil - I am not “heaping scorn” - I am testifying to what I see as a truth that needs to be known.
And in this case - your case - it really is You who “heap scorn” on those who disagree with you - exactly what you accuse of others - you are “projecting” your own self image because - how you accuse is how you think - it is what you inwardly see yourself intending and what you would have meant by those words you read. Others are not intending what you intend - so you are reading them wrong. You are assuming they are as crackers as you.
It is evident in politics all of the time - “He only said that because he is secretly doing something evil (because if I said that I would certainly be doing something evil)”
Can you link to a post where he acts like a “fulminating fanatic”? Just to be sure what you mean when you say that he “heaps scorn” on those who do not share his “objectivist moral and political dogmas”.
I believe that Sculptor attacked you first. From what I’ve seen, he does that rather frequently. Nonetheless, I am not sure that you enter your polemical mode only when others attack you first. You seem to have a habit of accusing people of being “objectivists” even when they are not engaing in a discussion with you. You also have a habit of redirecting them to one of your signature threads where you describe what that psychological disorder entails. And you seem to do these things in order to lure people into having a discussion with you. There’s no kindness in any of that. And this is only scratching the surface. In my eyes, you are far from being innocent.
I’m going to pass because I don’t think I can have a fruitful debate with you.
Note that he keeps talking about a fractured or fragmented “I”. I take it that this refers to a divided mind – a mind that issues contradictory commands i.e. “Do X and not X”. An example would be someone who’s eating a cake (because his brain is telling him “Let’s eat a cake! Let’s eat a cake!”) while at the same time feeling bad about it (because his brain is also telling him “Don’t eat that cake! It’s bad for you!”.) There’s a stronger inclination (the inclination to eat the cake) and a weaker inclination (the inclination to not eat the cake.) I think that’s what’s taking place in the heads of the two psychological types expounded by iambiguous. They are split between multiple mutually-incompatible beliefs. iambiguous himself is at the same time pro-gun and anti-gun while being a bit more pro-gun than anti-gun. The difference between the two types is merely in how confident they are with regard to their favorite belief (“the demon belief”.) “Objectivists” are very confident even though they are not completely so (since the opposing belief is still present albeit in a weaker form.) The other type is merely less confident. Both are fractured, it’s just that one admits it and the other denies it. And of course, I believe iambiguous is actually talking about his own psychological mode before and after “the traumatic event”. And he’s also assuming that everyone must fall in one of the two categories (since these are the only two categories known to him.) So I do believe his mind is divided and that he’s not merely a liar i.e. someone who says he holds opposing beliefs while not really doing so. That’s why he says things such as “All sides can present reasonable arguments”. He means that every side can convince him that he’s right. He can’t decide which one is right. Even though he does have a favorite side. So what he’s doing now is waiting for others to “make other people’s arguments go away” i.e. to help him heal his divided mind. Don’t think he’s ever going to get the help he’s asking for with that attitude though.
And to think, if I understand Saint correctly, all of this was inherently, necessarily set into motion going as far back as he can connect the dots between RM/OA and a thoroughly comprehensive understanding of existence itself.
But I think that to the extent you are willing to bring your own moral philosophy down out of what I construe to be “intellectual contraption” clouds…focusing in on a particular set of circumstances…it might be an interesting educational experience for all of us here.
If nothing else, you would have an actual exchange in which to point out all of your accusations against me.
I challenged you above and on other threads to defend your own assessment of me in regard to conflicting moral and political value judgments. And, to the best of my knowledge, you refuse to.
