This is another invitation to the distinguished I.A. Biguous to join me in another hopeless debate that he can’t contribute to without a context. Well, as fortune would have it, we have a context. We have one hell of a mother fucking context–the Freedom Convoy in Canada. No need for hypotheticals. And I’m the perfect person to engage with. I am a Canadian and I am involved! You no longer have to ask me what would I do. I can tell you what I am doing.
Sure, or you can give me the link to where it happened.
But let me just say… iambiguous is an unstoppable force. You cannot beat him, at least he’ll never admit it. His entire approach is designed to drag debates on forever. This is why I always caution people about getting into debates with Biggy. You need to know that you are getting sucked into a black vortex from which you cannot escape (like light trying to escape from a black hole) and it spits you out onto an infinitely adhesive spider web from which, again, one cannot escape.
So your claim to have broke the web or escaped the vortex is, you will understand, hard to swallow. The very notion is tantamount to a logical fallacy. I don’t like to say things like this are impossible, but I’ll have to hear the argument and how Biggy responded.
Actually, I don’t follow the news as I once did. Yes, I’m aware of the Canadian protest, but no where near in depth as I once would have been. After all, once you reach this point…
“If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.”
…political conflagrations of this sort leave you no less “fractured and fragmented”.
Instead, my main interest [as always] revolves around the manner in which those participating in the protests come to embody their own subjective political prejudices. And I suspect it’s as I did re abortion in the OP here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
And [of course] the extent to which they then frame their point of view given the mentality of the objectivist. In other words, they are part of the protest because they are in touch with the “real me”, in sync further with “the right thing to do”.
They are absolutely, positively right about the government reaction to the pandemic and if others don’t agree with their dogma, they are necessarily “one of them”. And thus wrong.
If you ask people on the street that if their mothers lives would be better if they were aborted, most of them would agree to be aborted.
The people who disagree, don’t care about their mothers.
He knew I was right. That’s why he doesn’t talk to me anymore. So he never responded. Even to this very day, even though he knows I beat him, still offers up the abortion debate as a context never solved.
I beat him in that debate. The factual answer is pro choice.
If you want to treat babies as consenting beings… treat them as such and ask adults whether they’d consent to their abortion.
Now, I figure it really is some “condition” you acquired over the years and it is now more or less “beyond your control”.
Either that or Ecmandu is just this “character” you play here for your own amusement. And for whatever personal reason.
On the other hand, if you can demonstrate to me that you do indeed “know how to send everyone to hell” and, further, describe what in great detail it means for others to “sign off on a new plan for all beings”, I’ll reconsider my own assumptions here.
As for the abortion debate, beyond what you merely believe is true here in your head about it, how would you go about providing us with definitive proof that you did in fact beat me?
I know your lack of access to the spirit world makes you feel inferior. It shouldn’t.
As for the abortion debate. Just ask anyone on the street. If 2 seconds of suffering meant your mother would have a great life instead of a horrible life…
Do you want to have a debate that’s intellectually honest?
Yeah… I’m one of those moral objectivist scums…
Can you handle it?
That you’ve been a piece of shit for decades?
I know how hard it is. I’ll be nice to you.
You’ve been brainwashed.
I’ve told you on several occasions that we don’t have every math problem solved, and morality is like a math problem … but we do have some of them solved.
^ You see, Biggy? We don’t have to speculate on this one. We don’t have to ask anybody. All we have to do is dig up videos.
But you haven’t started on me yet. I’m soup to nuts in support of the protest. So ask me what I would do if I were in a particular world, under a particular situation, in a specific context… where a world of words hits the tar mat and gets put into action. Ask me how my values play out in this (actual) context.
You mean you rose to Biggy’s challenge? You actually demonstrated once and for all, in a manner that all rational men and women are obliged to agree with, that pro choice is in fact the objectively correct answer?
Biggy, is this true? Did Ecmandu, of all people, finally deliver what you’ve been longing for all these years? That which no one else on ILP, not even the most intelligent among us, could deliver? A demonstrably and objectively true answer to the question of abortion that isn’t just another intellectual contraption? I am beside myself in awe! Ecmandu is truly a god among men.
I’d be careful with this one, Biggy. You don’t want to enter into a challenge with a man who can send you to hell in a heart beat.
My context? The trucker convoy?
Biggy, this is one of those things about you that always bewilders me. You often ask for someone’s position to be put in terms of the strangest of contexts. How does Ecmandu’s claim that he knows how to send everyone to hell get put into the context of the trucker convoy? Is he to explain how he could end to protest right now by sending all those truckers to hell? And what would that prove?
Which draft is this now? Fifth? Sixth?
Biggy’s in you? I don’t think anybody wants to see that (nor would I think Biggy wants to deal with that, whatever the category).
So Biggy is in you but he’s asleep? God, he’s in for a rude awakening. He must be pretty deep in their if you have to wait for him to wake up before doing something about it.
Nonsense. It takes a while but if you and your friends have a few cups of coffee and stay up past midnight, it can be done:
Wouldn’t we first have to determine, with some amount of specificity, what group of people qualifies as rational?
Let’s imagine all rational people already realize that calling the truckers terrorists is an affront to reason. That because they are reasonable, they don’t even need anyone to convince them.
So what then?
What qualifies the gentleman I.A. Biguous himself as rational?
Is it not possible that he is not, and that to “convince” him would take something different than objective reality?