The Democrat Party Hates America

[FlashDangerpants]

So I say:

I'm not backing any form of ontological realism...

And you ask:

Idealism: which form of Idealism are you backing.

I am not backing any form of idealism.
I think it is time to leave you to your blissful ignorance with the other nut jobs on this forum who are incapable of understanding rudimentary philosophy.

Allowing IC to direct any conversation is a self-inflicted tactical error. Take his first mistake, or his most important, and just give it back to him over and over and over again in copy-paste format. That's the only tactic I've found that ever makes him consider addressing one of his errors. It doesn't work, he's a psychopath so nothing works, but sometimes it almost works. You get a glimmer that perhaps there is a light on in there somewhere after all.

All of this came down to him aggressively refusing to understand the concept of mutually exclusive explanatory frameworks with equal claim to empirical adequacy earlier in the conversation, with the assistance of Belinda to run her usual religious confusion interference game. To avoid getting back into that stew he had to conflate colloquial cultural idealism with the Berkeleyan immaterialism, which seems to be where your patience wore out.

[mickthinks]

But it seems he thinks that's what he's been doing. He is, after all, on a philosophy site, and I don't suspect he's just dropped his compass and ended up here by accident.

The reasons someone first comes to a site and the reasons one takes issue at some later date with a contribution to the site from someone else can be different.

You do see that, Manny? Please tell me you see that!

What you're pointing out is that none of that has to do with reason.

Yes, that can be true: but on a philosophy site, it's a bug not a feature.

None of what, Manny? What manner of blithering blather is that?

What I pointed out there was simply this: your reasoning was faulty. I asked if you could see the gaping hole in it, and apparently you can. So the only question left hanging between us is, do you care whether your reasoning has a gaping hole in it?

You don’t care, do you Manny?

That’s why you don’t belong here.

[Immanuel Can]

The reasons someone first comes to a site and the reasons one takes issue at some later date with a contribution to the site from someone else can be different.

You do see that, Manny? Please tell me you see that!

What you're pointing out is that none of that has to do with reason.

Yes, that can be true: but on a philosophy site, it's a bug not a feature.

None of what, Manny? What manner of blithering blather is that?

Reason. Logic. The faculty of using one's mind in a disciplined, sequential and factual way. One has to use that, instead of whatever "reasons" one invents. Anybody not familiar with the difference between "having one's own reasons" and "using systematic reasoning" shouldn' t be on a philosophy site.

[Belinda]

What you're pointing out is that none of that has to do with reason.

Yes, that can be true: but on a philosophy site, it's a bug not a feature.

None of what, Manny? What manner of blithering blather is that?

Reason. Logic. The faculty of using one's mind in a disciplined, sequential and factual way. One has to use that, instead of whatever "reasons" one invents. Anybody not familiar with the difference between "having one's own reasons" and "using systematic reasoning" shouldn' t be on a philosophy site.

For sure Immanuel has his own reasons. However the method Immanuel uses to support his reasons is sometimes unreason and sometimes dishonesty, which is why I normally have him on 'ignore' .

[Immanuel Can]

None of what, Manny? What manner of blithering blather is that?

Reason. Logic. The faculty of using one's mind in a disciplined, sequential and factual way. One has to use that, instead of whatever "reasons" one invents. Anybody not familiar with the difference between "having one's own reasons" and "using systematic reasoning" shouldn' t be on a philosophy site.

For sure Immanuel has his own reasons.

Reasons are not reason. "Reason" when used with the phrase "his own" simply means "motivations:" and motivations can be justified and reasonable, or totally unjustified or unreasonable. But "reason," (singular) is that faculty that is obligatory to all persons who are arguing or behaving in a genuinely rational and justifiable way.

So my "reasons" (plural) are irrelevant -- as are Will's, yours, and everybody else's. Only what reason, that universal faculty of justification, dictates to either of us is philosophically relevant.

[Impenitent]

when reason doesn't work, drop a big 'ol bomb on their ass...

-Imp

[Will Bouwman]

Allowing IC to direct any conversation is a self-inflicted tactical error.

Well yeah, I'm not a great tactician, but I didn't really care where he went; there was no way he could lay a glove on philosophical principles everyone who knows what they are talking about understands perfectly well.

All of this came down to him aggressively refusing to understand the concept of mutually exclusive explanatory frameworks with equal claim to empirical adequacy earlier in the conversation, with the assistance of Belinda to run her usual religious confusion interference game. To avoid getting back into that stew he had to conflate colloquial cultural idealism with the Berkeleyan immaterialism, which seems to be where your patience wore out.

Nah, I just came to the conclusion that anyone following with any residual interest, either understands the concepts involved or is as hopeless as Mr Can.

[FlashDangerpants]

Allowing IC to direct any conversation is a self-inflicted tactical error.

Well yeah, I'm not a great tactician, but I didn't really care where he went; there was no way he could lay a glove on philosophical principles everyone who knows what they are talking about understands perfectly well.

All of this came down to him aggressively refusing to understand the concept of mutually exclusive explanatory frameworks with equal claim to empirical adequacy earlier in the conversation, with the assistance of Belinda to run her usual religious confusion interference game. To avoid getting back into that stew he had to conflate colloquial cultural idealism with the Berkeleyan immaterialism, which seems to be where your patience wore out.

Nah, I just came to the conclusion that anyone following with any residual interest, either understands the concepts involved or is as hopeless as Mr Can.

You're not wrong. I have a severe case of hubristic optimism. I keep thinking that there's some way to argue something that could pierce the vanity shields that people like the Vagina Aquaduct, imabiguous, mister Can and so on construct around their egos, but I should probably accept that I can only fail. Even when I can work out a tactic that makes them once in a while concede some point they've massively overcommitted to, I see no means by which to make them learn anything from the experience.

It just annoys me that Can is going to make exactly the same mistakes again in future. Including the eliminativism one.

[mickthinks]

Nah, I just came to the conclusion that anyone following with any residual interest, either understands the concepts involved or is as hopeless as Mr Can.

I keep thinking that there's some way to argue something that could pierce the vanity shields that people like the Vagina Aquaduct, imabiguous, mister Can and so on construct around their egos, but I should probably accept that I can only fail.

I don't much care, either way.

… about truth, honesty, the law, human rights, other people’s freedom, making sense …

lol. We know, Manny; we know.

[mickthinks]

The reasons someone first comes to a site and the reasons one takes issue at some later date with a contribution to the site from someone else can be different.

You do see that, Manny? Please tell me you see that!

What you're pointing out is that none of that has to do with reason.

Yes, that can be true: but on a philosophy site, it's a bug not a feature.

None of what, Manny? What manner of blithering blather is that?

What I pointed out there was simply this: your reasoning was faulty. I asked if you could see the gaping hole in it, and apparently you can. So the only question left hanging between us is, do you care whether your reasoning has a gaping hole in it?

You don’t care, do you Manny?

That’s why you don’t belong here.

[Will Bouwman]

...I have a severe case of hubristic optimism. I keep thinking that there's some way to argue something that could pierce the vanity shields that people like the Vagina Aquaduct, imabiguous, mister Can and so on construct around their egos, but I should probably accept that I can only fail.

I think my affliction is morbid curiosity. Is it possible to teach someone who isn't obviously mad as a box of frogs, something they'd rather not believe? For certain questions, the answer is obviously no; as ya know, a big part of my shtick is that there are underdetermined hypotheses for every collection of facts. That Mr Can cannot accept that is itself subject to various hypotheses. No doubt part of his antipathy is down to it being me saying it. Your psychopathy hypothesis has more than a whiff of plausibility, I mean who else but someone lacking empathy needs to signal their mood with as many emojis as Mr Can? Vanity works too, but I think there might also be some existential terror. If Mr Can has to concede that there are hypotheses to challenge his brand of Christianity, he has to concede that he could be wrong and that at the end of his three score and ten, rather than fawning over his Supreme Being for eternity, he will just be dead. I kinda think that's why certain religious nuts hate atheists. The fear is atheists might be right and religious fanatics don't want reminding. Then of course it could be any combination of the above, or something completely different.

[Immanuel Can]

If Mr Can has to concede that there are hypotheses to challenge his brand of Christianity,...

I'd love to see you present one. It's what I'm here to find out.

Please...the floor is yours.

[FlashDangerpants]

...I have a severe case of hubristic optimism. I keep thinking that there's some way to argue something that could pierce the vanity shields that people like the Vagina Aquaduct, imabiguous, mister Can and so on construct around their egos, but I should probably accept that I can only fail.

I think my affliction is morbid curiosity. Is it possible to teach someone who isn't obviously mad as a box of frogs, something they'd rather not believe? For certain questions, the answer is obviously no; as ya know, a big part of my shtick is that there are underdetermined hypotheses for every collection of facts. That Mr Can cannot accept that is itself subject to various hypotheses. No doubt part of his antipathy is down to it being me saying it. Your psychopathy hypothesis has more than a whiff of plausibility, I mean who else but someone lacking empathy needs to signal their mood with as many emojis as Mr Can? Vanity works too, but I think there might also be some existential terror. If Mr Can has to concede that there are hypotheses to challenge his brand of Christianity, he has to concede that he could be wrong and that at the end of his three score and ten, rather than fawning over his Supreme Being for eternity, he will just be dead. I kinda think that's why certain religious nuts hate atheists. The fear is atheists might be right and religious fanatics don't want reminding. Then of course it could be any combination of the above, or something completely different.

I do have one other hypothesis for all that as it happens: It seems plausible that Can developed his Winston Smith ability to believe 2+2=5 out of political expedience form the same sort of source as Winston does... from his own Room 101. Probably that was a pray-away-the-gay camp sometime in the 70s and the husk of a man you see here is the tortured remnants of that once decent person. What he cannot bring himself to contemplate is not so much an empty afterlife, rather that there was another this-life available. One where he could have been happy and fulfilled rather than experiencing the irrational shame that overcomes him every time he walks out of a truck stop toilet today.

[Ansiktsburk]

To add to my above post, the current state of affairs in my home country do have definite similarities with what one reads about the US one. Of course, many of the issues of today are probably global.

I am curious to learn first-hand if the feel of things in Sweden is as dire as some commentators say. That is, the sense that the old Sweden is gone or going and a new sort of society, due to “excessive immigration” that have brought lots of social problems, is one of the core reasons for the strengthening of a reactionary Right.

It seems to me one cannot compare Swedish society to American society, and if there are similar issues it likely has to do with reactions against immigrant culture.

Or how do you see it? How is it really?

Sorry for late answer. I have not been on this forum for a while.

My view is only my view, that is from a guy born working/lower middle class in a sad suburb of Stockholm, through university study and marriage now living in a rather prosperous area in a university town where most are academics.

I see rather huge differences in my own life now compared to when I left University 1989 to work as a Civil Engineer. Those days quite many worked in factories. And engineer or a MD was employed and had stable jobs, good income. The healthcare and schooling was run by the public sector. My wife used to be a GP doctor.

Now, most things are much more unstable . Both me and my wife, both I dare say successful in our occupations have been forced to change work, and generally people have much more unstable work situation. Mostly due to things turning more neoliberal and a lot that was run by the Public Sector is privatized.

The neoliberals have had, Reagan/Thatcher style success in turning things neoliberal. This during “right” governments. At the same time progressive agendas have been pushed hard. Immigration has been massive, a huge Issue here in eg elections. and there are a huge increase in gang related crimes. Shootings and bombings. Living in a prosperous area I see absolutely nothing of this, crime has not increased where I live. The difference is noticeable though in younger generations, the hard rap like image has spread from the sad no-go suburbs to the “original swede” youth. But generally, I have had absolute no problems dealing with immigrants. But, a nationalist party that used to be like 2% in 2000 ish elections is now like 25%.

There were all kinds of progressive initiatives in the 10’s, Metoo, BLM sympathy, of course Greta environmental activism. This has died down a bit after Corona and Putin, but the support from the left for Palestine is massive. What one can see is that many public persons that used to be flower power left(that left was immensely powerful early 70’s) that has been a bit apologetic about their leftist youth are finding the red flags in a lets say progressive left way now.

So to summarize, yes, a lot of the old, stable Sweden where people trusted and depended on institutions is gone. Apart from things mentioned above, of course Internet/social media, competition from low salary countries and other globalization ingredients have affected us as everyone else.

But generally, my life is as good now as earlier. But I wonder what a working class man or woman with the roots in the 90% poor swedes 1900(my roots) that did not make my class travel upwards would say.

[Ansiktsburk]

To add to my above post, the current state of affairs in my home country do have definite similarities with what one reads about the US one. Of course, many of the issues of today are probably global.

I am curious to learn first-hand if the feel of things in Sweden is as dire as some commentators say. That is, the sense that the old Sweden is gone or going and a new sort of society, due to “excessive immigration” that have brought lots of social problems, is one of the core reasons for the strengthening of a reactionary Right.

It seems to me one cannot compare Swedish society to American society, and if there are similar issues it likely has to do with reactions against immigrant culture.

Or how do you see it? How is it really?

Sorry for late answer. I have not been on this forum for a while.

My view is only my view, that is from a guy born working/lower middle class in a sad suburb of Stockholm, through university study and marriage now living in a rather prosperous area in a university town where most are academics.

I see rather huge differences in my own life now compared to when I left University 1989 to work as a Civil Engineer. Those days quite many worked in factories. And engineer or a MD was employed and had stable jobs, good income. The healthcare and schooling was run by the public sector. My wife used to be a GP doctor.

Now, most things are much more unstable . Both me and my wife, both I dare say successful in our occupations have been forced to change work, and generally people have much more unstable work situation. Mostly due to things turning more neoliberal and a lot that was run by the Public Sector is privatized.

The neoliberals have had, Reagan/Thatcher style success in turning things neoliberal. This during “right” governments. At the same time progressive agendas have been pushed hard. Immigration has been massive, a huge Issue here in eg elections. and there are a huge increase in gang related crimes. Shootings and bombings. Living in a prosperous area I see absolutely nothing of this, crime has not increased where I live. The difference is noticeable though in younger generations, the hard rap like image has spread from the sad no-go suburbs to the “original swede” youth. But generally, I have had absolute no problems dealing with immigrants. But, a nationalist party that used to be like 2% in 2000 ish elections is now like 25%.

There were all kinds of progressive initiatives in the 10’s, Metoo, BLM sympathy, of course Greta environmental activism. This has died down a bit after Corona and Putin, but the support from the left for Palestine is massive. What one can see is that many public persons that used to be flower power left(that left was immensely powerful early 70’s) that has been a bit apologetic about their leftist youth are finding the red flags in a lets say progressive left way now.

So to summarize, yes, a lot of the old, stable Sweden where people trusted and depended on institutions is gone. Apart from things mentioned above, of course Internet/social media, competition from low salary countries and other globalization ingredients have affected us as everyone else.

But generally, my life is as good now as earlier. But I wonder what a working class man or woman with the roots in the 90% poor swedes 1900(my roots) that did not make my class travel upwards would say.

Again - this is only my 25c