Just how many "ist" labels do you need in philosophy?

[Iwannaplato]

What's the problem with having many -ists?
People get to assert their philosophical positions, and then these positions get labeled as isms and something the proponents are -ists.
Should we have a limit?
Sorry, that might be an interesting philosophical position, but we've already got too many -ists. You have to wait for one to die out.
We don't have to use any of them. You are free to never use any of those terms.
They do allow for some short cuts. You can fairly rapidly identify a postion and communicate about it.
An article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of PHilosophy can have a title Empiricism vs. Rationalism and immediately philosophy students and other interested parties can have a good idea whether this fits their interest, need for understanding.
They don't have to google - article on philosophical position where the person thinks most or all knowledge comes via experience versus the philosophical position that argues that we can directly intuition stuff about the nature of the world.
It saves typing, likely leads to more relevent options.
Same idea in conversations.
It can be a great first step in a conversation where two people triangulate to understand each other's ideas.
Ah, you're a dualist. How do you deal with the interaction problem between substances?

Like any field complicated 'things' and processes get labels.

But perhaps you mean, why are there so many damn philosophical positiosn that people identify with?

Well, causes existence is complicated - oh, oh, that's a position - and people come up with a bunch of hypotheses about it. Or perhaps it's better to say there are many aspects to reality.

[Age]

What's the problem with having many -ists?
People get to assert their philosophical positions, and then these positions get labeled as isms and something the proponents are -ists.
Should we have a limit?
Sorry, that might be an interesting philosophical position, but we've already got too many -ists. You have to wait for one to die out.
We don't have to use any of them. You are free to never use any of those terms.
They do allow for some short cuts. You can fairly rapidly identify a postion and communicate about it.
An article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of PHilosophy can have a title Empiricism vs. Rationalism and immediately philosophy students and other interested parties can have a good idea whether this fits their interest, need for understanding.
They don't have to google - article on philosophical position where the person thinks most or all knowledge comes via experience versus the philosophical position that argues that we can directly intuition stuff about the nature of the world.

But why do you adult human beings have opposing beliefs, especially when both of them above here are not even True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct?

It saves typing, likely leads to more relevent options.
Same idea in conversations.
It can be a great first step in a conversation where two people triangulate to understand each other's ideas.
Ah, you're a dualist. How do you deal with the interaction problem between substances?

LOL "you are a dualist". If one assumes or believes this, or even assumes or believes that this is even possible, from the outset, then 'the rest' is doomed to failure.

Like any field complicated 'things' and processes get labels.

LOL The only reason there is absolutely any, perceived, 'complication' here is because you adult human beings have caused and create 'complication' through using words that will always be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Every word, name, or 'label' ending with an 'ist' here in this thread is an absolutely impossibility to be actually True, Right, Accurate, or Correct. Thus, this is why 'complication', and confusion, existed among the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written.

They would argue and fight over things that could not even be a possibility, let alone an actuality, although those spoke and wrote as though impossible things actually did exist.

But perhaps you mean, why are there so many damn philosophical positiosn that people identify with?

Well, causes existence is complicated - oh, oh, that's a position - and people come up with a bunch of hypotheses about it. Or perhaps it's better to say there are many aspects to reality.

There is only One Reality. Which, by the way, is extremely simple and easy to comprehend, understand, and know. That is; once one learns, and understands, how to find, and 'see', the actual Truth of things, in Life, and of and about Life, Itself.

[Age]

GPT originally had some without "ist" - I insisted - pun - woteva - that it redo the list with *."ist" ONLY


1. Metaphysical Positions

⠀⠀⠀⠀ Idealist: Believes that reality is fundamentally mental or immaterial.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Materialist: Argues that only physical matter exists and everything can be explained by interactions of matter.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Dualist: Holds that there are two fundamental kinds of substance or reality, often mind and body.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Monist: Believes that all things can be reduced to one kind of substance or principle.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Realist: Asserts that objects exist independently of our perception of them.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Nominalist: Argues that universals or abstract concepts do not have an existence independent of the objects they describe.

2. Epistemological Positions

⠀⠀⠀⠀ Empiricist: Believes that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Rationalist: Holds that reason and intellect are the primary sources of knowledge, often independent of sensory experience.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Skepticist: Doubts the possibility of certain or absolute knowledge (though “Skeptic” is more common, “Skepticist” can be used in some contexts).
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Constructivist: Suggests that knowledge is constructed by cognitive processes and social contexts.

3. Ethical Positions

⠀⠀⠀⠀ Utilitarianist: Advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness or utility.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Deontologist: Believes in adhering to moral rules or duties regardless of the consequences.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Virtue Ethicist: Focuses on the character and virtues of the moral agent rather than on specific actions.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Relativist: Argues that moral principles are not universal but are relative to cultural, individual, or situational contexts.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Moral Realist: Believes in objective moral truths that exist independently of human opinions.

4. Political Philosophy Positions

⠀⠀⠀Liberalist: Advocates for individual freedoms and equality under the law.
⠀⠀⠀Conservatist: Supports traditional institutions and practices, often emphasizing stability and order.
⠀⠀⠀Socialist: Promotes social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.
⠀⠀⠀Libertarianist: Emphasizes individual liberty and minimal government intervention in personal and economic matters.
⠀⠀⠀Anarchist: Advocates for the abolition of all forms of hierarchical authority, including the state.

5. Existential and Phenomenological Positions

⠀⠀⠀Existentialist: Focuses on individual freedom, choice, and the search for meaning in a seemingly indifferent universe.
⠀⠀⠀Phenomenologist: Studies the structures of experience and consciousness from a first-person perspective.
⠀⠀⠀Absurdist: Holds that life is inherently meaningless but that individuals can find personal meaning despite this.

6. Logical Positions

⠀⠀⠀Formalist: Focuses on formal systems of logic and mathematics.
⠀⠀⠀Intuitionist: Believes that mathematical truths are not independent of our knowledge and should be based on constructive methods.
⠀⠀⠀Pragmatist: Evaluates theories and beliefs based on their practical applications and usefulness.

7. Other Positions

⠀⠀⠀Postmodernist: Challenges grand narratives and ideologies, often emphasizing relativism and the deconstruction of traditional concepts.
⠀⠀⠀Structuralist: Analyzes human culture and society through underlying structures and systems.
⠀⠀⠀Critical Theorist: Critiques society and culture, emphasizing the role of power structures and social injustices.Idealist: Believes that reality is fundamentally mental or immaterial.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Materialist: Argues that only physical matter exists and everything can be explained by interactions of matter.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Dualist: Holds that there are two fundamental kinds of substance or reality, often mind and body.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Monist: Believes that all things can be reduced to one kind of substance or principle.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Realist: Asserts that objects exist independently of our perception of them.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Nominalist: Argues that universals or abstract concepts do not have an existence independent of the objects they describe.

2. Epistemological Positions

⠀⠀⠀⠀ Empiricist: Believes that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Rationalist: Holds that reason and intellect are the primary sources of knowledge, often independent of sensory experience.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Skepticist: Doubts the possibility of certain or absolute knowledge (though “Skeptic” is more common, “Skepticist” can be used in some ⠀⠀⠀⠀contexts).
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Constructivist: Suggests that knowledge is constructed by cognitive processes and social contexts.

3. Ethical Positions

⠀⠀⠀⠀ Utilitarianist: Advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness or utility.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Deontologist: Believes in adhering to moral rules or duties regardless of the consequences.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Virtue Ethicist: Focuses on the character and virtues of the moral agent rather than on specific actions.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Relativist: Argues that moral principles are not universal but are relative to cultural, individual, or situational contexts.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ Moral Realist: Believes in objective moral truths that exist independently of human opinions.

4. Political Philosophy Positions

⠀⠀⠀Liberalist: Advocates for individual freedoms and equality under the law.
⠀⠀⠀Conservatist: Supports traditional institutions and practices, often emphasizing stability and order.
⠀⠀⠀Socialist: Promotes social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.
⠀⠀⠀Libertarianist: Emphasizes individual liberty and minimal government intervention in personal and economic matters.
⠀⠀⠀Anarchist: Advocates for the abolition of all forms of hierarchical authority, including the state.

5. Existential and Phenomenological Positions

⠀⠀⠀Existentialist: Focuses on individual freedom, choice, and the search for meaning in a seemingly indifferent universe.
⠀⠀⠀Phenomenologist: Studies the structures of experience and consciousness from a first-person perspective.
⠀⠀⠀Absurdist: Holds that life is inherently meaningless but that individuals can find personal meaning despite this.

6. Logical Positions

⠀⠀⠀Formalist: Focuses on formal systems of logic and mathematics.
⠀⠀⠀Intuitionist: Believes that mathematical truths are not independent of our knowledge and should be based on constructive methods.
⠀⠀⠀Pragmatist: Evaluates theories and beliefs based on their practical applications and usefulness.

7. Other Positions

⠀⠀⠀Postmodernist: Challenges grand narratives and ideologies, often emphasizing relativism and the deconstruction of traditional concepts.
⠀⠀⠀Structuralist: Analyzes human culture and society through underlying structures and systems.
⠀⠀⠀Critical Theorist: Critiques society and culture, emphasizing the role of power structures and social injustices.

Every time any one tries to put, or place, 'one' into any of the above 'labeled' 'ists' here, then what they are doing is placing, and putting, human beings/s into 'the label' 'separatist'. And, the more one believes that 'they' or 'another' is any 'ist', then the more of an 'extreme separatist' they are actually misbehaving like.

Again, what 'we' can clearly see above here is just how much, in the days when this was being written, adult human beings would keep on 'trying to' separate "themselves" into 'things', which were not True, with just made up 'False labels'. And, the funniest part of all of this was watching them 'trying their hardest' to fight each other over False 'ism's and False things like these so-called 'ists', and 'isms'.

[attofishpi]

I seem to remember Jacobi (racist)

..what is your obsession with labelling people RACIST? ..does it virtue signal something for you?

NOBODY on this entire forum I have come across cares 1 iota about someone's skin colour or other.. so it's clear that you (one of the great virtue signalling LEFT of politics) ...are the ones PERPETUATING this myth that we (society in general) are somehow racist.

FLASH -> provide a reasonable counter argument (with supporting evidence) to your obsession of PERPETUATING this notion of RACISM..


I assure you, the average Brit, USAdian, Australian etc.. could not give a flying fuck about the hue of someone's skin.

BUT the LEFT insist continually that RACE is an issue, whereas the rest of us NORMAL people just get along with our lives. (HOW IRONIC)

Yeah? It's easy to get Jacobi to agree that PlopDoodooPants is evil, yet strangely impossible to get him to confirm that Hitler was. So you can just ask him to agree that Hitler was evil, the jews didn't cause the holocaust, and that the holocaust was actually the wrong thing to do. And then tell me how many excuses he made for not confirming those very simple things.

He's also a race-separatist who thinks that blacks and whites shouldn't mingle because they shouldn't want to mingle because they should be brought up to not want to mingle with each other. And he's a white replacement theorist.

Now you tell me that all that stuff is cool and I promise I will be very nice about it.

But you have no measurable ethical 'yardstick' to have the right to suggest Hitler is evil. According to you, both your opinions and Jacobi's (though I doubt your version of his accounts on the matter) are equally valid in relation to ethics, neither of you have any way of comparing a measurement value as to the ethics of Hitler.

[FlashDangerpants]

..what is your obsession with labelling people RACIST? ..does it virtue signal something for you?

NOBODY on this entire forum I have come across cares 1 iota about someone's skin colour or other.. so it's clear that you (one of the great virtue signalling LEFT of politics) ...are the ones PERPETUATING this myth that we (society in general) are somehow racist.

FLASH -> provide a reasonable counter argument (with supporting evidence) to your obsession of PERPETUATING this notion of RACISM..


I assure you, the average Brit, USAdian, Australian etc.. could not give a flying fuck about the hue of someone's skin.

BUT the LEFT insist continually that RACE is an issue, whereas the rest of us NORMAL people just get along with our lives. (HOW IRONIC)

Yeah? It's easy to get Jacobi to agree that PlopDoodooPants is evil, yet strangely impossible to get him to confirm that Hitler was. So you can just ask him to agree that Hitler was evil, the jews didn't cause the holocaust, and that the holocaust was actually the wrong thing to do. And then tell me how many excuses he made for not confirming those very simple things.

He's also a race-separatist who thinks that blacks and whites shouldn't mingle because they shouldn't want to mingle because they should be brought up to not want to mingle with each other. And he's a white replacement theorist.

Now you tell me that all that stuff is cool and I promise I will be very nice about it.

But you have no measurable ethical 'yardstick' to have the right to suggest Hitler is evil. According to you, both your opinions and Jacobi's (though I doubt your version of his accounts on the matter) are equally valid in relation to ethics, neither of you have any way of comparing a measurement value as to the ethics of Hitler.

I don't respect you enough to care about any of that.

[attofishpi]

What's the problem with having many -ists?
People get to assert their philosophical positions, and then these positions get labeled as isms and something the proponents are -ists.
Should we have a limit?
Sorry, that might be an interesting philosophical position, but we've already got too many -ists. You have to wait for one to die out.
We don't have to use any of them. You are free to never use any of those terms.
They do allow for some short cuts. You can fairly rapidly identify a postion and communicate about it.
An article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of PHilosophy can have a title Empiricism vs. Rationalism and immediately philosophy students and other interested parties can have a good idea whether this fits their interest, need for understanding.
They don't have to google - article on philosophical position where the person thinks most or all knowledge comes via experience versus the philosophical position that argues that we can directly intuition stuff about the nature of the world.
It saves typing, likely leads to more relevent options.
Same idea in conversations.
It can be a great first step in a conversation where two people triangulate to understand each other's ideas.
Ah, you're a dualist. How do you deal with the interaction problem between substances?

Like any field complicated 'things' and processes get labels.

But perhaps you mean, why are there so many damn philosophical positiosn that people identify with?

Well, causes existence is complicated - oh, oh, that's a position - and people come up with a bunch of hypotheses about it. Or perhaps it's better to say there are many aspects to reality.

I understand what you are stating (to a degree). ..and yes it was more to the point of why there are so many 'ists' required within philosophy to account for people's positional philosophical opinion about reality and agree, it certainly must be because reality (existence) is so bloody complicated.

What I don't like about ism\ists is the fact that I can agree to an extent with a particular one of them, but very often there is some 'attribute' that I don't agree with within the 'ism'.

For example, I don't like stating I am pantheist because last time I checked - many years ago on WIKI, pantheism has no personable God - all reality can be God, but God can't get personable - contrary to my experience. So then I thought, ok look at panentheism - similar concept but God can be personable, knowable - however NOW I have to consider God as also being outside of the universe - so no, no good. I stick with pantheism, but with the caveat that it is personable.

You mention "empiricism" and "rationalism" suggesting they don't conflict (I think) and indeed someone such as me that hasn't studied philosophy may then think ok, I believe in empiricism..must indicate that personal experience and analysis of experience provides comprehension of reality - but then, that means I am being rational and surely rationalism means I can get my 'data' from experience empiricism and apply rational mind to it.

So, you did explain a little above...but if one is to say they are empiricist is that ruling out that they are rationalist virtue soley upon the fact that one is favoured over the other to consider the nature of reality? Is it the degree of leaning toward one or the other OR are they considered mutually exclusive of each other (daft question probably, must be at least the former?)

[Iwannaplato]

I understand what you are stating (to a degree). ..and yes it was more to the point of why there are so many 'ists' required within philosophy to account for people's positional philosophical opinion about reality and agree, it certainly must be because reality (existence) is so bloody complicated.

What I don't like about ism\ists is the fact that I can agree to an extent with a particular one of them, but very often there is some 'attribute' that I don't agree with within the 'ism'.

Me too.

For example, I don't like stating I am pantheist because last time I checked - many years ago on WIKI, pantheism has no personable God - all reality can be God, but God can't get personable - contrary to my experience. So then I thought, ok look at panentheism - similar concept but God can be personable, knowable - however NOW I have to consider God as also being outside of the universe - so no, no good. I stick with pantheism, but with the caveat that it is personable.

Then you might be a panentheist (sorry, throwing another -ist at you) which is more compatible than pantheism with a personal God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panenthei ... 20creature.

In any case, I understand, but there is plenty of room for people to mix and match and then also tweak. Or find themselves with a lot in common with some -ism, but needing then to explain there differences. Kant, for example, is both Rationalist and Empiricist. So, it's not like you have to find out your team, they just allow for some quicker classification. You are a pantheist with a personal God, perhaps. If you are talking to someone who has studied philosophy, you just cut to the main issues really fast. They may wonder how that works, but they will instantly be able to formulate that question.

You mention "empiricism" and "rationalism" suggesting they don't conflict (I think)

There has been a long-standing disagreement between those two. But, yes, some people combine them. I actually think you have to have at least a dash of the one you think is not so good, but that's a long story.

and indeed someone such as me that hasn't studied philosophy may then think ok, I believe in empiricism..must indicate that personal experience and analysis of experience provides comprehension of reality - but then, that means I am being rational and surely rationalism means I can get my 'data' from experience empiricism and apply rational mind to it.

Rationalism is not a great label. It doesn't mean you are being rational and that empiricists are doing something else. It's more like, and this is vague and sloppy, you can figure stuff out in ways that do not require experience. You can work it out in your head despite not having empirical evidence.

So, you did explain a little above...but if one is to say they are empiricist is that ruling out that they are rationalist virtue soley upon the fact that one is favoured over the other to consider the nature of reality?

Some people are ruling out Rationalism in total when they identify that way, yes. But, they are certainly not saying reasoning isn't necessary.

Is it the degree of leaning toward one or the other OR are they considered mutually exclusive of each other (daft question probably, must be at least the former?)

No, they aren't considered mutually exclusive except by those that do that. I mean, it's philosophy and humans, so pretty much any position is out there. The main thing is that the existence of the terms does not mean that you fit one but not others. With rationalism and empiricism you are dealing with approaches to getting knowledge or positions on how this goes about. You can certainly think that both approaches can lead to knowledge. In fact I'd say many Rationalists, bit R, would say that one can learn from experience,....but they also think that you can learn by, for example, direct insight.

[attofishpi]

I understand what you are stating (to a degree). ..and yes it was more to the point of why there are so many 'ists' required within philosophy to account for people's positional philosophical opinion about reality and agree, it certainly must be because reality (existence) is so bloody complicated.

What I don't like about ism\ists is the fact that I can agree to an extent with a particular one of them, but very often there is some 'attribute' that I don't agree with within the 'ism'.

Me too.

For example, I don't like stating I am pantheist because last time I checked - many years ago on WIKI, pantheism has no personable God - all reality can be God, but God can't get personable - contrary to my experience. So then I thought, ok look at panentheism - similar concept but God can be personable, knowable - however NOW I have to consider God as also being outside of the universe - so no, no good. I stick with pantheism, but with the caveat that it is personable.

Then you might be a panentheist (sorry, throwing another -ist at you) which is more compatible than pantheism with a personal God.

Mate, I stated panentheism (the red bit).

Thanks for your entire reply though, just a bit busy atm.

[attofishpi]

Yeah? It's easy to get Jacobi to agree that PlopDoodooPants is evil, yet strangely impossible to get him to confirm that Hitler was. So you can just ask him to agree that Hitler was evil, the jews didn't cause the holocaust, and that the holocaust was actually the wrong thing to do. And then tell me how many excuses he made for not confirming those very simple things.

He's also a race-separatist who thinks that blacks and whites shouldn't mingle because they shouldn't want to mingle because they should be brought up to not want to mingle with each other. And he's a white replacement theorist.

Now you tell me that all that stuff is cool and I promise I will be very nice about it.

But you have no measurable ethical 'yardstick' to have the right to suggest Hitler is evil. According to you, both your opinions and Jacobi's (though I doubt your version of his accounts on the matter) are equally valid in relation to ethics, neither of you have any way of comparing a measurement value as to the ethics of Hitler.

I don't respect you enough to care about any of that.

You clearly don't respect intellect that challenges your preconceived philosophical ideas. I respect you, you don't respect me - one of us is the wiser but I'm certain you won't even bother considering Y.

[FlashDangerpants]

But you have no measurable ethical 'yardstick' to have the right to suggest Hitler is evil. According to you, both your opinions and Jacobi's (though I doubt your version of his accounts on the matter) are equally valid in relation to ethics, neither of you have any way of comparing a measurement value as to the ethics of Hitler.

I don't respect you enough to care about any of that.

You clearly don't respect intellect that challenges your preconceived philosophical ideas. I respect you, you don't respect me - one of us is the wiser but I'm certain you won't even bother considering Y.

The yardstick problem was yours, but you are such a drunken moron that you have forgotten that and keep trying to make it my problem. But try to remember that you are saddled with the issue of trying to explain how a moral judgment can be true or false without there being any objective value to take as a yardstick because that is YOUR VIEW NOT MINE YOU HOPELESS DRUNKEN PUDDLE OF PISS.

Now have IWP spoon feeding you remedial education because you have spent over ten years on a philosophy forum and never even picked up what rationalism means. You are an alcoholic in denial, not a source of wisdom.

[Iwannaplato]

I understand what you are stating (to a degree). ..and yes it was more to the point of why there are so many 'ists' required within philosophy to account for people's positional philosophical opinion about reality and agree, it certainly must be because reality (existence) is so bloody complicated.

What I don't like about ism\ists is the fact that I can agree to an extent with a particular one of them, but very often there is some 'attribute' that I don't agree with within the 'ism'.

Me too.

For example, I don't like stating I am pantheist because last time I checked - many years ago on WIKI, pantheism has no personable God - all reality can be God, but God can't get personable - contrary to my experience. So then I thought, ok look at panentheism - similar concept but God can be personable, knowable - however NOW I have to consider God as also being outside of the universe - so no, no good. I stick with pantheism, but with the caveat that it is personable.

Then you might be a panentheist (sorry, throwing another -ist at you) which is more compatible than pantheism with a personal God.

Mate, I stated panentheism (the red bit).

You certainly did. I read poorly. Apologies. God isn't (at least not simply) outside the universe in panentheism. God is the universe and outside it in panentheism. This may not work either for you, but I thought I'd mention it. Me personally I have no problem with someone saying they are a pantheist (or panentheist) with a personal God. It obviously doesn't explain everything about your views on the issue and would lead to questions and perhaps someone would challenge your use of the word pantheism - but there's no getting away from being challenged.

[attofishpi]

Yeah? It's easy to get Jacobi to agree that PlopDoodooPants is evil, yet strangely impossible to get him to confirm that Hitler was. So you can just ask him to agree that Hitler was evil, the jews didn't cause the holocaust, and that the holocaust was actually the wrong thing to do. And then tell me how many excuses he made for not confirming those very simple things.

He's also a race-separatist who thinks that blacks and whites shouldn't mingle because they shouldn't want to mingle because they should be brought up to not want to mingle with each other. And he's a white replacement theorist.

Now you tell me that all that stuff is cool and I promise I will be very nice about it.

But you have no measurable ethical 'yardstick' to have the right to suggest Hitler is evil. According to you, both your opinions and Jacobi's (though I doubt your version of his accounts on the matter) are equally valid in relation to ethics, neither of you have any way of comparing a measurement value as to the ethics of Hitler.

I don't respect you enough to care about any of that.

I respect you, but your avoidance and clear lack of reasoning skills to debate me with any affect that can challenge me is clear...you just continue to make an arse of yourself.

..you insist that someone that drinks alcohol is somehow defunct in reasoning while at the same time lacking in ability to provide any rational refutation that the shortcomings of your comprehension of ethics RESULTS ...all I did re your statement about Jacobi and Hitler is PROVE THE POINT - THAT YOU DONT GET TO HAVE AN OPINION - IT IS VALUE AS ZERO.

[FlashDangerpants]

I would sort of expect you to be on Jacobi's side anyway tbh.

[attofishpi]

I would sort of expect you to be on Jacobi's side anyway tbh.

Duh. I'm not siding with anyone just pointing out you have absolutely NO way to provide an opinion that can be "VALUED" above his..by your very own poorly reasoned non yardstick of ETHICS...

Get it? Comprehendeath?

[FlashDangerpants]

I would sort of expect you to be on Jacobi's side anyway tbh.

Duh. I'm not siding with anyone just pointing out you have absolutely NO way to provide an opinion that can be "VALUED" above his..by your very own poorly reasoned non yardstick of ETHICS...

Get it? Comprehendeath?

If you hadn't lied about reading those three posts you would know something about why that isn't the problem for me that you think it is. A very basic intro I admit, but something.

But it took you 13 years to begin to wonder what rationalism is, and you don't actually know what it is today. So for you to get up to speed to understand my positions on the matter of moral philosophy will require several centuries at your current rate of progress. This makes it entirely pointless for me to explain or debate with you.

Anyway, he is racist, so that is an "ist" you can add to your list. Along with Henry the minarchist, Gary the onanist, Accelafine the miserablist, and attopishpie the always-pissed.