On the other hand, you’ve been doing that yourself now for…years?
Though I suspect that, after all this time, you do grasp what it is about my “fractured and fragmented” self that most disturbs you. This: the extent to which it is also applicable to you.
After all, you’re not the objectivist that you once were, right?
On the other hand, throwing a fractured and fragmented mud pie involves considerably less arrogance than regarding those hurled by the moral and political objectivists.
If I do say so myself. 
That’s just your other indentity.
Come on, as obsrvr524 would insist, “stop deflecting”.
In fact, I so exasperated Ierrellus – whose intelligence I do respect – I had to promise him not to post on any of his threads here.
Here’s where we still need to take your own objectivist rants:
Just out of curiosity, you wouldn’t happen to be a thickly disguised moreno/karpel tunnel?
As with you, he and I both shared many of the same prejudices in regard to religion and politics. But, as with you, he had a very thin skin when it came to those who did not share his own arguments. I think that when push came to shove his “pragmatism” was just another rendition of objectivism. And I believe that he reacted to my “fractured and fragmented” self in much the same manner as the actual hardcore objectivists here.
Eventually it drove him to attacking me as a Stooge.
Just like you.
You’re Shemp, right?
Says the master of deflection.
Note to nature:
How in the world did you come up with a name like Shemp?!
Not that it doesn’t fit perfectly.
To a simpleton such as yourself, it must seem that way.
iambiguous:
Yes, as intellectual assessments go, I would generally agree with this.
But we still need to focus in on a particular set of circumstances in other to explore more fully the manner in which I make a distinction between those things that, in the either/or world, we seem able to communicate to each other in complete agreement, and those things in the is/ought world where, in my view, “I” is more likely to become fractured and fragmented in defending one moral and political value judgment [prejudice] rather than another.
[/quote]
GL: What a bumbling collection of words this is. =D>
This is an insight into a feverish confused mind, at best, and a person with schitzophrenic tendancies at worst.
Why do you not just say what you want to say? Or is you mind the jumble it appears to be?
[/quote]
To a simpleton such as yourself, it must seem that way.
[/quote]
K: as someone who has read Iam with interest over the years, I for one have found
him to be far brighter then most here, including you… his word are over your head…
way over your head…his message quite clear and loud… and plain and
intelligent… his message is of the scalpel, not your method of the hammer…
and that is why he confuses you… it is a bit too subtle for you…
Kropotkin
I was responding to what Sculptor said, not to iam.
PK you really gotta work on your reading comprehension, you’re confusing things I said with things Sculptor said.
Me and iam are roughly in agreement on this topic.
PK, I’m not even sure you’re capable of recognizing me as a distinct person, I think everyone you tend to disagree with sort of blends into the same person or entity for you, as you tend to struggle with nuance and recalling detail.
The same goes for Sculptor.
A large % of people on this forum may be suffering from onset dementia.
To you I’m probably just some ‘rightwinger’ or Trumpist, even tho I must’ve mentioned I’m a social democrat 50 times since I joined this forum.
Moving on to the “fractured and fragmented” self …
Do you have a reason for using this worn our phrase.
It always seems so meaningless.
Indeed.
How about this…
Given a moral or political context – where in my view “I” is far more likely to be fractured and fragmented – how would you encompass your own sense of self as more or less drawn and quartered when confronted with another who challenges your value judgments?
I can assure you that in such a discussion I am able to be far more detailed as to what I mean by it.
It’s an inside joke between me and nature. But since nature compels me to use it, I’m not privy as to why.
Trust me: better to just assume we live in a real deal free will world. Even though, given that, I do make a fool out of you time and again.
Or, rather, that arrogant and caustic Stooge character Shemp. Which, as I noted elsewhere, I’d be curious to explore with you. Why do you feel the need to be so fucking arrogant and caustic with some?
Now, sure, put that crap aside and we may well sustain some invigorating and challenging and substantive exchanges.
Right, Karpel Tunnel?
K: in fact, most of you do blend in because of your refusal to work out your beliefs,
because the beliefs you hold are not examined or understood…it is not enough to say,
for example, “BLM is a Marxist organization” you have to work out what that means, give it some
context, and then work out what it is you actually do hold to be true…
If BLM, for example is wrong, then what is right and why?
you say you are a “social democrat”… great, give us some context as to what that
actually means, say in regards to BLM… or you can use another example if you wish…
why are your beliefs so “superior” to my beliefs?
Kropotkin
never
don’t know that person
Himt: he is #2 stooge replaced a group of comics who were known to have said " who is on second or third."
Curly died age 48 years old and Shemp replaced him.
The game of numbers placed both on second base because of that. Prior to that, the configuration was different
However, ‘shemp’ derives various meanings, but can be placed into the wider context of someone disliked.
No idea.
I thought watt what on second and who was on third.
Who’s on first, What’s on second, Idontknow’s on third.