I understand, cowardice in the face of philosophy is quite common. I expect as much from you.
Again & again notice Heidegger’s distinction between das ein and dasein. That distinction speaks volumes.
Typical of the objectivist mind.
For example, back in the 1950s, conservativism reigned in America. Then came the 1960s. Here the liberals and leftists championed free speech because they wanted that speech to revolve more around their own moral and political value judgments. And then once that was more the case – more mainstream – then it became important to keep it that way. Conservative speech had to be reined in as much as possible.
But then came the 1980s and conservativism was back in vogue.
Now with urwrong, of course, this doesn’t hold for the conservatives. Their own demand for free speech has nothing to do with reining in the speech of those on the left. Instead, it revolves around the fact that as far as they are concerned speech is only free when you think exactly as they do.
But they are so blinded by their own light, they will never, ever own up to this hypocrisy.
How about it urwrong? Choose a context in which the left and the right are ever at odds and note for us what you construe to be “free speech” in regard to the First Amendment".
Quid,
Pro,
Quo,
Mr. lamb.
If you want your questions answered, then answer some of mine, I’m waiting:
"[i]Because Genetics. Because Psychology. Because Sociology. Because your internal brain chemistry and synapses are slightly different than the next person, not even Genetically Identical Twins will have the exact same beliefs, there will be discrepancies and small differences which ultimately separate them. Even space and time cause separation. Any belief a person ever has, at age 7, is not the same as it is at age 17, or 27, or 97. Beliefs change across time, growing stronger and fixed when they are reinforced, growing weaker when they fail to mesh with reality, and must be reasserted over and over again.
How many times that a person can fly, does it mesh with reality, when somebody jumps off a cliff flapping their arms?
Objectively?[/i]"
Would anyone here like to take a stab at explaining what on earth any of this has to do with the point I raised above?
Seriously, how far removed can it be from Ecmandu’s “condition”?! =D>
Ah yes, you believe that you are entitled to questions and answers and I am not,
Objectively?
Questions?
No, the point of contention between us here revolves around the points I raised above:
The way it generally works here is that you note these points and then come back with points of your own in order to rebut them if you disagree.
So, again:
Or, as per usual, wiggle out of it by posting something else completely extraneous.
Little Lamb, you are arguing in bad faith.
If you want to speak with me about Objectivity, then you must do so philosophically, objectively.
No more responses for you until you Answer.
[i]"Because Genetics. Because Psychology. Because Sociology. Because your internal brain chemistry and synapses are slightly different than the next person, not even Genetically Identical Twins will have the exact same beliefs, there will be discrepancies and small differences which ultimately separate them. Even space and time cause separation. Any belief a person ever has, at age 7, is not the same as it is at age 17, or 27, or 97. Beliefs change across time, growing stronger and fixed when they are reinforced, growing weaker when they fail to mesh with reality, and must be reasserted over and over again.
How many times that a person can fly, does it mesh with reality, when somebody jumps off a cliff flapping their arms?
Objectively?"[/i]
Gasp! He went for extraneous again!! 
Answer the question, coward,
Believing you can fly, arms flapping, jump off a cliff, do you fly, subjectively or objectively?
Look, I don’t mind your cowardice. It was never a threat to me or anybody really.
But don’t pretend you have any opinion to ‘Objectivity’ when you can’t respond to simple questions even a child could ask, and answer.
Reduction ad absurdum: circling around the subject by similar structural affinity, using literal devices, fearing the substantiated entrance into points being raised.
Why?
Probably because the self admitted fracture is brought on by a willing choice , so as to enable the rationale to argue for the lack of connecting and healing the fracture.
It is a carefully plotted pseudo structural attempt to restructure the transcendental will to overcome that fear . Nihilism is an attempt to shift the focus from the. Significant to signifier and the signal in simultanity, , in which way it becomes an attempt to gloss over the optical disharmony produced , which produces an unacceptable and latent(repressed) objective transcendence.
This counter, reverse movement, is re-described as intellectual garbage, in order to nihilize any sense of substantial , primary SIGNIFICANCE.( I am universalizing signal to significance here, in order to emphasize the structural pull away from a specific das ein to something more inclusive) - dasein.
SORRY, there is no other ‘down to earth’ way to describe this-
- In a common , sensible way, even try to describe any connection to the positivists- and why they failed, is way beyond the scope in this ongoing struggle. By the way, if that were possible, at least the universal of overcoming personal limitations would/ could be overcome.
Me:
Him…
Okay, believing subjectively in your head that you can fly by flapping your arms and soaring off into the sky is not the same thing as being able to demonstrate that objectively you can fly by flapping your arms and soaring off into the sky.
New question:
If you believe subjectively in your head that Donald Trump is a great president is that the same thing as demonstrating that objectively he is a great president?
What if others believe subjectively in their heads that he is a terrible president?
How would we go about demonstrating once and for all that in fact he is one or the other?
Donald Trump demonstrated that he is objectively a better president than any other since Reagan.
He beat Clinton. He beat Bush. He beat Biden, but was (objectively) defrauded in the general election.
Why objectively? Because a data analyst reverse-engineered the voting machine algorithm. Math doesn’t lie.
Next!
Is this is actually how he goes about, uh, thinking this through?
He merely asserts that Trump has demonstrated that he is a best president since Reagan.
That’s what makes it true: he believes it.
But, okay, let’s say that his math doesn’t lie and Trump should still be president.
Let him choose a particular issue that divides liberals and conservatives. Let him explain to us why Trump’s policies are objectively better than Biden’s.
Appealing to the Audience is a fallacy and makes you look foolish.
Anything else or is that it?
Nope. Still this:
Ah yes, politics, that’s all you can think about hm?
Trump’s Presidency is objectively superior to Biden because Biden has been bought-off by the China Communist Party for $1 billion.
scmp.com/economy/china-econ … quity-firm
Anything else?
Yeah.
I need you to realize that just because you hold a particular political prejudice in regard to Biden and the Chinese, that does not make it true. You know, necessarily.
That’s like arguing that capitalism is superior to socialism simply because that’s what you believe. As though there are not many, many others who simply believe the opposite.
Now, my point here revolves basically around three things:
1] that both capitalists and socialists can make reasonable arguments based on particular sets of assumptions. Arguments that the other side can’t just make go away:
economicshelp.org/blog/5002 … apitalism/
economicshelp.org/blog/1472 … socialism/
2] that any particular individual’s thinking about either capitalism and socialism is rooted largely in the trajectory of expereinces, relationships and ideas they came upon over the course of actually living their lives.
3] that those who embrace one or the other as objectivists are likely to be afflicted with what I call the “psychology of objectivism” ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
Now, none of this is meant for you, of course. In my own opinion, your “thinking” is so shallow, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that any of this could possibly sink in.
You are frighteningly ignorant of what some call “critical thinking”. And, in Trumpworld, there are millions of you.
If I do say so myself.
Yes, I was wrong about Obama, when he ordered the murder of Osama Bin Laden when the raid was perfectly capable of bringing him back to justice. And when he also ordered the suppary execution of American citizens without trial by drone strike.
He preached the Ameica would be different, in the end he made the US no better than the terrorists that he murdered.
I’m not sure this is about “an objective mind” though. Urwrongx1000 is simply mentally deficient in basic cognitive skills and lives in a world of his own make believe. I assume he simply selects the whacky theories he wants like picking out cherries from the trifle, ignoring the custard and jelly of inconvenient truth.