Urwrongx1000 and the objectivist mind

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!! #-o

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.

What’s that phrase???

Pot calling kettle black.

No one can claim true objectivity, least of all urwrongx1000, whose very choice of handle betrays his idiocy.

Tell me what is false about the $1.5 billion Equity deal between CCP and Hunter Biden?

It’s quite common knowledge. Be objective.

BE OBJECTIVE.
CHECK YOUR FACTS
Do your self a favour. Actually READ the following and check out the details.
There is no voter fraud.
There is ZERO evidence of voter Fraud.
Guillianni offered NO EVIDENCE to any of the courts. It was all just performance to get idiots like you to BELEIVE.
Trump was talking about voter fraud 4 years ago because he thought he would lose. It’s just a performance.
Four years ago he got 3 million fewer votes that Hilary Clinton, but won because of the pro-republican antiquated voting system of the Electoral College.
This time Trump got SIX MILLION fewer votes and that was enough to tip the balance, despite the electoral collage, for a DEMOCRATIC WIN.

There is no evidence and the Trump team had noting to offer the courts,. They did not even persueclaims of fraud because they had nothing to offer.
Out side the courts they banged on about fraud, but inside the courts they said nothing. Then they came out of the courts complaining they had not been heard.
FOR YOU TO BE HEARD you need to have something to say.

So do yourself a favour.
Stop being a complete arse and look into the details of what has happened over the last 8 or so weeks.

A Data Analyst reverse-engineered the voting machine algorithm.

The MSM refused to call victory for Trump when he clearly won on Election Night.

4am Ballot Dump in the middle of the night.

Post Masters back-dating ballots.

We have mountains of evidence, but you are a Communist Shill, promoting an Illegal election and its Illegal outcome.

Once again, he completely ignores the points that I am making about political prejudices of individuals being rooted in dasein, in conflicting goods and in political economy.

In fact, my point is that everything he says about the Bidens and China can in fact be true objectively.

For all I know, the Bidens are themselves moral nihilists – even sociopaths – who are concerned only with sustaining political policies that enrich themselves.

Instead, my argument is that, in a No God world, philosophers, political scientists, ethicists etc., seem unable to come up with an argument able to establish and to confirm that one particular policy in regard to China is that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace.

And that if you want to grasp the existential motivation behind his own frame of mind “here and now”, you need to grapple with it given the points I make on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

Now, let him – or any of the fulminating fanatic objectivists here – do that and get back to us.

But I suspect that is not likely to happen. And, given his/their posts here to date, how hard is it to guess why I have come to conclude that?