obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Okay, here’s a thread in which you and I can explore particular topics that we both agree on.

Note where you addressed my point about vaccinating children in regard to who decides whether more harm is done in vaccinating or in not vaccinating them. In regard to covid-19. And in regard to these afflictions:

cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/di … eases.html
who.int/teams/immunization- … s/diseases

That’s preposterous. In regard to all of the physical, biological, chemical, demographic etc., facts that can be accumulated pertaining to human interactions, there is no bias. There is either what can be or cannot be demonstrated as in fact true for all of us.

What the political objectivists here do, however, is to insist that in regard to things like masks, social distancing, lockdowns and vaccines only their facts and their assessment of the facts count.

Indeed, let’s focus again on another point of contention between us: the 2nd amendment.

Here’s where we left off on Pedro’s thread:

If those are the posts we “agree on” - zookers, I’d hate to see the ones we disagree on.

And despite your obvious love for attention -
“Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it”

That goes for little yappy dogs, worms, and trolls as well. =;

Maybe you want to start a thread on logic? - not that you will stay on the subject for long. :confused:

But that does seem to be an underlying issue with your disagreements with a lot of people.

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that you missed the point. The agreeing part isn’t in reference to the arguments we make about vaccination or the 2nd Amendment.

You were bitching on the other thread that I was being off-topic. Thus the agreement I am referring to here is that we both concur regarding what the topic actually is. Thus the creation of a new thread!

Then [once again] you refuse to respond to the points I raise above in regard to vaccination and the 2nd Amendment…and instead allow yourself to reduce yourself down to this:

On the philosophy board!

But, okay, logic and vaccination? Logic and the 2nd Amendment?

You first.

No. Just logic itself first. Simple examples that might later be exemplary on more current concerns would be good. But don’t try to start out of your depth.

From the vaccine thread:

Members here can decide for themselves whether to read all of if. Or any of it. I certainly wouldn’t make that mandatory.

But more to the point, I will remind them that yet again you refuse to actually address any of the points I make.

Instead, you provide us with but another general description intellectual contraption about socialism [three sentences long] in which others either accept your assumptions or they must be wrong.

Right?

After all, do you or do you not see yourself as an authority on all things socialism?

And you can’t admit that maybe you are wrong about something here because once you do that you are acknowledging that you may well be wrong about something else too. And what kind of an authority would that be?

That’s how the objectivist mind sustains itself. Many all the way to the grave. And we know that on the other end of the political spectrum are those who set themselves up as authorities on capitalism too.

Ideological matter and anti-matter. And curse the world for actually being far, far too complex…for ever and always evolving in a slew of contingency, chance and change…making it so damn hard to sustain that arrogance all the way to the grave.

Note to others:

What on earth is he trying to tell me here about “logic itself first”?

And why on earth doesn’t he note some simple examples himself.

Or is this the part embedded in James Saint’s and Fixed Jacob’s “intellectual contraptions” here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … y#p2787283

With the “Real God” thrown in for good measure?

I dare him to bring that pedantic jargon to bear on vaccination or the 2nd Amendment.

Why not forget “others” for just a while. Try a little introspection. You have been arguing against yourself seemingly for years - and taking sides. That is not healthy (subjectively speaking).

So you don’t even know what logic is?

That would explain a lot.

The sides that I take today are no longer embedded in objectivism however. Christianity, Marxism etc.

I construe them to be political prejudices ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas. The same as you. Only you still cling to objectivism to keep fragmented “I” at bay. Trust me, I get that part.

What you want is a discussion of logic that is never out of sync with the words you use to anchor it to your own rendition of Saint’s intellectual contraption. “Up there” how can accounts relating to vaccination and the 2nd Amendment really make any logical sense at all.

You have your sub-mental dogmatic political prejudices for that.

Oh, and I’ll still need some examples from you of what logic is.

It wouldn’t happen to be definitional logic, would it? :laughing:

That is the problem. It seems that you never learned that logic doesn’t do that - any more than maths.

Proving my prior statement.

google.com/search?source=un … 42&bih=597

:laughing:

He’s not too smart, obsrvr.

I have to object.
The word “too” is far too inappropriate and should be struck from the record.

Huh?

How difficult is it to grasp that in regard to any number of social, political and economic contexts, there are those who insist that one set of behaviors are the good ones, while others insist that another, opposing set of behaviors, are the good ones.

Conflicting goods.

As in regard to the 2nd amendment above. Should “good” revolve around the part that says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” or the part that says, “a well regulated Militia”?

Does someone have to be in this well regulated Militia, to qualify for this right?

And how could the part about the right to bears Arms being “well regulated” not involve the government?

So, as I noted above, if a citizen accumulates military grade chemical and biological weapons to protect himself from enemies, some will insist that the good here revolves around his constitutional right to do so, while others will insist that the good revolves instead around the government’s obligation to regulate against such behavior.

Again, conflicting goods.

Now, my point of course is that any particular American citizen’s “personal opinion” here is rooted subjectively in the arguments I make in my signature threads. Rather than in some theological, ideological, deontological etc., “whole truth” that a moral and political objectivist will insist that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace. In other words, his or her own “whole truth”.

Hope that helped.

I had already worked out what you meant by it. That isn’t what I asked. So - no help so far.

I have seen you say that a lot too. It seems strange that you would think it an issue that people express their opinions and rationales. Then you make that accusing proclamation - “moral and political objectivist will insist that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace” as if anytime anyone says anything they aren’t doing exactly that same thing - including you.

But that wasn’t exactly what I asked either.

Don’t get your hopes up so easily.

What I asked is why you are obsessed over the issue of people having different opinions and expressing them as if their opinions are right. What would you expect? What is the alternative? And seeing that it happens all the time, why are you constantly willing to derail discussions over it?

Can you perhaps give an example or two of how a discussion would go without your accusations being applicable?

Again, however, what does any of this have to do with your own views on things like the 2nd Amendment? Are you acknowledging that your views on it are just an expression of your personal opinion “here and now”?

That, indeed, a new experience or new relationship or access to new information or knowledge might convince you to change your mind and focus, as the liberals do, more on the “well regulated Militia” portion of it?

And note when I have ever argued that all rational men and women are obligated to think as I do? That’s what the objectivists insist. “I” on the other hand, am “fractured and fragmented”. I recognize that both sides can raise reasonable points that the other side can’t just make go away.

Consider: gun-control.procon.org/

Pro 1: The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns.
Con 1: The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

I challenge either side to make their opponents argument go away.

And then right down the line to all of the other points.

And then the part where I suggest individual’s derive their own personal opinions about guns subjectively from political prejudices derived from the actual experiences in their lives…more so than from the optimal or only rational assessment of the conflict.

How is that not applicable to you?

Iambiguous,

Let’s take your own words and use them against you on gun rights.

Your personal philosophy is compromise (a middle ground) yet here you are contradicting yourself by making the choice binary.

What if I just wanted to use a gun to shoot my cat litter box open. Vs. someone who wants to shoot up a school.

Now, as humans, we keep trying to learn more about psychopaths… we gain new knowledge everyday. The more knowledge we gain, the more we learn about gun control.

It’s a process… so you contradict yourself once here with your binary option. You also are not even in reality when you think that if ANYONE makes a SINGLE mistake, that this means that EVERYONE is mistaken.

We learn you idiot! We learn. We do actually find proofs. It’s a real thing. We’ll find even more as we continue to learn. And iambiguous will be seen in future generations as a fossil that may be slightly curious to people who are interested in the past of false arguments.

I am not interested in derailing this discussion to a different discussion about my thoughts on the US 2nd Amendment and your endless objections to whatever I might say. Is it just that you are obsessed with derailing? With arguing? With putting others on the line? What?

You are saying that you “suggest” that people think like you think. Isn’t that exactly what you were just complaining about others doing? -Now, my point of course is that any particular American citizen’s “personal opinion” here is rooted subjectively in the arguments I make in my signature threads. Rather than in some theological, ideological, deontological etc., “whole truth” that a moral and political objectivist will insist that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace. In other words, his or her own “whole truth”.

And as a part of that suggestion, you are telling people to ignore what other people say and just guess an opinion based on their own personal experiences rather than from the optimal (i.e. the best way) or rational (reasoned way). That seems untenable for several reasons. But that isn’t my concern either - unless that is what is at the heart of your obsession. Is it?

My concern is about your obsession with conflict of opinion (while at the same time you seem to promote it).

Discussion is always about people giving their opinions (no matter how they derived them). Preferably they provide some kind of evidence so that others might be persuaded by that evidence such as rational reasoning, emotional appeal, videos, or whatever.

But it seems that every time anyone does that, you pop in with some barely intelligible rant about conflicting goods and evil objectivists insisting they are right about something. And at the same time insisting that your concern is somehow the only right way to think about things.

I understand that your position in these arguments is a bit senseless and hypocritical. All I am asking is why are you so obnoxiously obsessed with ranting on about it in almost every thread?

Well… you don’t know every trick in iambiguous’s playbook yet.

Iambiguous often ends his posts with, “unless I am wrong”

But this doesn’t hold either…

“I’m right unless I’m wrong” is his ENTIRE argument in a phrase. This is why I call him a troll.

You can give the most cogent argument why “I’m right unless I’m wrong” is false, and he’ll just repeat himself.

Iambiguous would never pass a Turing test.

[b]Note to others:

Decide for yourselves if this is not but another example of him wiggling out of actually responding to the points I raise above. [/b]

He asked me to explain my own rendition of “conflicting goods”. I did. And then I noted the debate about the 2nd Amendment as an example of this.

So, he will either respond in some detail to the points I raised here…

…or he won’t.

No, I am making the distinction between “I” as an existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein suggesting that moral and political value judgments revolving around the 2nd Amendment are rooted existentially in dasein and [u]I[/u] as an objectivist insisting that those who who not share my own doctrinaire, authoritarian assessment of it are necessarily wrong.

I’m just trying to determine where he fits in here.

No, I’m asking those who think as objectivists – left or right – to demonstrate why others are obligated to think as they do given this:

But then he reconfigures into just another Stooge here:

Make it all about me rather than responding substantively to the points I raised above.

Let him note where my arguments in regard to the 2nd Amendment above reflect these accusations that he is hurling at me. In fact I dare him to.

Did you perhaps misunderstand that I asked for an example of your version of a good and proper discussion instead of an example of what you see as a bad conflict of opinions? - just a fictitious discussion between John and Mary over some issue - anything - your abortion issue perhaps. What SHOULD such a discussion look like?

But can’t you see that the only distinction between those is - * “There isn’t any right or wrong. There is only opinion”

  • “I think I figured out what is right”

And then you claim that the second person is “wrong”. Why is his opinion about having figured it out necessarily wrong in your opinion when your opinion is that it is all just about opinions and there is no right or wrong?

That is the hypocrisy issue that I was referring to. You seem to be saying that the person who believes that there is a right and wrong is actually/objectively wrong. :confused:

Again that is separate from my question but since you brought it up.

You didn’t actually demonstrate disagreement with what I said you were suggesting. But ok you want others to demonstrate why you should agree with them - “think as they do”. Isn’t that actually what they are doing all the time when they present argument? What did you think their argument was for if not to try to demonstrate that you should agree?

I am not “making it about” you. My only question was about you to start with. You are obviously and hypocritically trying to make it about me. Look at my first question - “What is this obsession YOU have about conflicting goods?”

And every response you have given has been directing the discussion toward talking about me and whatever I might think about guns. How did guns even get into this let alone any thoughts I might have about them?