Urwrongx1000 and the objectivist mind

There are few here at ILP who can match urwrongx1000 when it comes to showing utter contempt for those who refuse to think exactly as he does.

So, let me ask him this:

“In regard to a really important political issue, have you ever been wrong about something?
Note some important issues where you had to admit that you were wrong and then changed your mind.”

I ask this because, as a particularly fierce objectivist, I’m curious as to how his mind has evolved over the years in regard to moral and political value judgments.

In other words, I have found that most objectivists like urwrongx1000 will never admit to being wrong about something really important. Why? Because once they admit that they were wrong about one important thing they are admitting that they might be wrong about other important things as well.

And, above all else, they have to convince themselves that even if they do have new experiences and new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, what they think now will never change. It can’t change because objectively it is true.

Thus, from my frame on mind, minds like his revolve far less around what they believe is true morally and politically and far more around having the psychologically comforting and consoling conviction of being “one of us”. Those who get it right.

A set of assumptions I explored on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296

Iambiguous,

I have refuted you so many times on this board that it’s actually absurd that you continue to post the same tripe day after day.

How did I refute you?

1.) just because someone gets a mathematical proof wrong, does not make every mathematical proof invalid. Moral solutions are like mathematical solutions, they come slowly, but when they are found, they are irrefutable.

2.) all of your problems are a subset of my problem. My problem as articulated is that consent violation is the only problem in existence. Why is your problem a subset of my problem? Because conflicting goods and a fragmented sense of self violate your consent.

Iambiguous, I’m the super-set and you’re the subset

Anyone else? :laughing:

just popping in to make it known that ecmandus post above violates my consent

My side isn’t the one censoring people, blacklisted, unpersoning, doxxing, etc.

My side IS the one that invites argument, conversation, disagreement, discussion, and debate.

Keep that in mind, objectively.

K: to be honest IAM, I think you are being way to generous in thinking that UR will even
be able to engage with you in this fashion…he is young and naive and frankly, not
very smart… what you are asking for is some sort of objectivity which is clearly
way, WAY beyond anything UR is capable of…

I freely admit that when I was young and I thought I knew everything and no one,
no one could possibly know more then I know… I couldn’t have spotted the truth
if it came up to me and bit me on the ass… I was as clueless as UR is now…

to be honest, not only don’t I think he is smart enough, more importantly I don’t
think he is BRAVE enough to conduct an honest evaluation of his beliefs…

that kind of courage is rare… as for me, I was brave enough to engage in such
an evaluation of values…

it is said of Zen, “before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters:
after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters
are no longer waters: after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains
and waters once again waters”

before my reevaluation, mountains were mountains and waters were waters
and during my reevaluation, nothing was strong or fixed, not even mountains
or waters…

and after my reevaluation, mountains once again became mountains
and waters became waters"

it wasn’t a short journey, it lasted years and once it started, I did regret
my journey, but once it starts, there is no coming back and I was forced
to complete my journey…I had the courage of a fool thinking that I wasn’t going
too be impacted by this reevaluation because I already knew it all anyway…

UR and others like him on ILP haven’t the courage to engage in a sort
of reevaluation of values required to become an adult or even wise…

I have no illusions as to the failures of UR and others like him because at
one time, that was me… but I had something that they lack… courage…
I am not afraid of anything… and I have the scars to prove it…physically,
emotionally, and psychologically…

I am a damaged human being…I have no illusions to anything else…
but that is the wisdom of old age… we no longer need the lies that
keep the young intact… I can be honest with myself when before,
I wasn’t able to be honest with myself… …

I have failed and I will fail in the future… but I am secure enough as a
human being to handle any kind of failure… because I know that failure
isn’t the end, it is the start… and from failure comes the knowledge,
the true knowledge of who you are and what is possible…

to be honest, I am a far bigger fan of failure then I am of success…
for one can learn something from failure that one cannot learn from
success…

the path of becoming human, truly human is the path of failing…

you must fail before you can become who you are and you must fail
before you can overcome… to know thyself and the other
Socratic maxim, the unexamined life isn’t worth living…
are both maxims that not only encourage failure but demand
failure…

UR and others like are afraid of failure and until you come to embrace failure…
you cannot succeed…

and that is why I have little faith in UR and others like him on this site…
they fear failure and thus they cannot ever, ever learn to succeed…

Kropotkin

Iam, it is nice to know that UR completely missed the point…
but as I said, he isn’t smart enough to see the point…
or has courage enough to engage with what you brought up…

let him be… he can never change or become anything other then what he
already is…he is a lost cause… he cannot be saved nor redeemed… he has no
more value then dirt on Mars has…

Kropotkin

There’s always one exception to the law of consent violation… you always have the right to speak against abuse. You are an abuser. You are like a rapist saying, “it violates my consent that I was tried and found guilty for being a rapist.”

You think you are so smart and clever mr. r; you are neither of those things.

Am I upset by you? Not really. But you are a troll, not a philosopher.

u gaslighting me now bruh

lamb is obsessed with Objectivity because it is what he lacks the most.

After being dominated by KTS and Satyr, he cannot shake it from his pierced mind: Objectivity. Isn’t it so powerful? Why is one thinker so tuned-into it, while others are not? Why is lamb so subjective that he wishes he had the authority of Objectivism. As-if you knew even the basics and basis of the difference? There are many reasons why some thinkers (like me) are more objective than you will ever be.

Why I am an “Objectivist”? You can call it luck. Good genes, perhaps.

Why do some people have authority and others not? Why are some people trustworthy and others not? Why can you confide in this person, but not that one?

Rhetorical questions, of course, I know you are desperate for the answers, lamb.

Okay, but there’s still this part:

That is what I created the thread to explore with you.

And to all others of your ilk reacted to by all those of my ilk.

First lesson of politics:

Never admit you’re wrong.

So, no, I have never been wrong, politically.

Well, that’s dodging the question, isn’t it?

Basically, in a cynical Machiavellian mode, you admit that, while you may well have been wrong politically, you would never actually admit it.

Now it’s only a matter of sustaining this knee-jerk authoritarian mentality all the way to the grave. Though I suspect that if anyone can accomplish this, it’s you.

Still, if a new experience, relationship or idea actually does sink down into that thick skull of yours and you acquire the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit it resulted in you changing your mind about anything really important to you please come back on board and note this for us.

Also, if you might be willing, would you provide me with a chronology of important events in your life that led you to being an authoritarian right-winger. Along with your experiences with philosophy.

Along the lines of what I attempted here:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

Just came across this from urwrong:

I’m curious as to why he posted it. What is noted here is precisely the arguments of those like me who see “democracy” in America as predicated on this: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … s#p2187045

This perspective is closer to Bernie Sanders than to Joe Biden, Barack Obama and/or Bill/Hillary Clinton. A lot closer

Does he share her point of view?

Are there parts of his own thinking that overlap with mine? Though I can only endorse her own frame of mind as I do my own: as an existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein becoming embodied in political prejudices.

On the other hand, this is also what some working class folks in Trumpworld thought Trump himself was in the White House for: to drain this “special interest” D.C. “swamp” that intertwines Wall Street, K Street and Capital Hill.

As though super crony capitalist Donald Trump would ever actually go there!

Only most of them were white so there was also blatant racism involved in their “conviction” to vote Trump back in.

Oooooooooooh. I knew that’d be the rationalisation :smiley:

This quote may now fully crystallise.

So we can expect no more of this:

So we have the overtly anti-science politician.

How has this been working for you, in your estimation?

If “politics and science do not mix”, as in your own words, what value does all this “argument, conversation, disagreement, discussion, and debate” have without objective adherence to evidence-based reason?

Some conversation, discussion and debate that’ll be.

Is the rule of politics “don’t alienate everyone except a minority of extremists who support your brand of extremism” too far down to bother reading far enough to get to?
Even your idol professed publically on many occasions to being more of a democrat than a republican. But you must marginalise your own politics so much from your “enemy” that you could not possibly hope to persuade even the middle-ground floating voters, never mind gain anything close to majority political approval?
Something tells me you didn’t read past “never admit you’re wrong”.

It’s working fine. As-if any of my scientific arguments have been even remotely refuted right now?

When the Liberal-Left-Communists started Censoring, DOXing, Unpersoning, MSM Blackout, then I went hard-right.

I will always oppose those who violate the First Amendment and Free Speech, especially all those consuming and supporting MSM.

:laughing: I’m glad you feel this way.

You go girl!

I’d ask “what scientific arguments?” But “Science doesn’t mix with politics”, in your words, so obviously you were joking. Humour is so hot right now in politics.

i think by “refuted” he means he admitted he was wrong so i mean there’s that

It’s not my fault that you don’t know the difference between regular arguments and those including science/math.

Go ahead and laugh at yourselves, that’s fine.