Von River says something in a Rant thread about Iamb’s behavior.
Iamb posts here AS IF what Von Rivers wrote would somehow be resolved, even potentially, by Von River doing what Iamb is always asking people to do-
IOW someone saying something critical of Iamb
somehow through burden of proof(??) or logical connection(???) or social honor(???)
entails doing what Iamb is always trying to get people to do, even if they have done it before.
Someone does X and miraculously this entails meeting his usual demand.
Hey, I don’t like it when you just pile up your dishes for me to do them.
Oh, ok, well then, no personal attacks, I think if you say stuff like that it entails you give me a blow job.
And yes, I am making the pattern more extreme for educational purposes and fun.
Notice how moot his own behavior is in all this.
But it has no connnection. If you follow Iamb’s behavior in threads, especially those not his own, as a habit, you’ll see he acts as if there is some onus to satisfy his desires.
And will Iambiguous be honest and let Peter know 1) he considers Peter an objectivist, though one he is no doubt sympathetic to and 2) Peter is confused about Iamb’s beliefs. There’s a nice wager or challenge.
Sure, go ahead, use the age-old “category error” excuse to avoid bringing your accusations down out of the ad hominem/psychobabble clouds. After all, any number of folks here will back you on it. And not just the objectivists and the Kids.
On any number of posts from his own thread – 529,235 views in the philosophy forum! – Peter and I have explored each other’s differences.
But here’s the thing: I have respect for his intelligence and I’d like to believe he has respect for mine. So, in turn, I would like to believe we would never allow those differences to devolve into the sort of muck that you slime me with.
Look, you have advised others here to ignore me. And, by all means, for those who despise me – or feel threatened by me? – I challenge you to do precisely that.
Starting now, Curly. Put me on ignore. Please. Go ahead, I dare you!
K: having just discovered this later bit, I am going on the record to state, yes,
I have a great deal of respect for IAM… and in fact, I will also state that I think
he is the only “true” philosopher on this site… he has his questions, his problems
to solve and he is diligent in attempting to work out his philosophical problems…
there are many, many here who don’t have a clue that there is even such a thing
as a philosophical problem and that problem requires some sort of solution…
what is the question that drives you? what are you seeking to answer?
do you even have enough sense to at least ask questions about
what does existence mean to you? or do you just float along with life
like 99.9% of all people…those people never ask themselves the vital
questions of existence… “what am I do to?” “what values should I hold?”
“what should I hope for?” and what has turned into my question,
“what is the point of existence?” the why of being… we exists,
but why? “does life have meaning?” which is another way of saying,
“do I have meaning?” …
is my life meaning found in that old Kantian answer?
God, freedom and immortality…
I reject god and immortality, so all is left that’s left for me is freedom…
In the end all I have, all I have is questions… what is the point of existence,
mine, yours, ours…
I agree. He is a “true” philosopher.
Interestingly, I have seen Iamb also not understand what putting something in quotes means. Or perhaps there’s more performance art in PK than I realize. Either way he put extra effort in to carefully not write that Iambiguous is a true philosopher.
But he didn’t seem to understand them. Not at all.
And since his defense of Iamb was based on the content of his posts and not his behavior, he like Iamb was not responding to posts made or the issues. Like Iamb he assumes that it is not possible to consider someone’s behavior unless you disagree with their beliefs.
He seems not to have noticed that given that he is an objectivist, Iamb considers him to be part of the problem in the world. The great bulk of Iamb’s posts are about objectivism and trying to get people to demonstrate the rationality of their morality/value positions. The greatest difference is obviously that unlike Iamb, PK is not a nihilist and is an objectivist.
Further since PK does not think he himself is a “true” philosopher, there is not real reason to think he would recognize one.
I pointed out in my original response to PK other problems with saying that he and Iamb merely have different language for the same beliefs. IN fact some of his ideas that he is writing as if they are the same as Iambs are clearly not. See the Golden Age thread for that.
And as I pointed out to Iamb, PK and Iamb share political values and in general Iamb’s behavior, what I have a problem with, are less likely to happen in the political threads but much more likely to happen in the philosophy and religion threads. So, he is partly blessed, but also partly inclined to ignore the negative behavior of members of his own team. Members of the other team often do the same thing. Iamb tends to use kid gloves when dealing with objectivists he shares values with.
As Iamb surely must have noticed, despite my advice, people showed no interest in ignoring him. Oh, well. One must sometimes point out a good solution even if one thinks it is unlikely to be taken up.
So, it’s back to pointing out his disruption of threads and faux responses.
Poor PK, he doesn’t notice that he is giving answers, including objectivist answers around moral issues, with great regularity.
