Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:07 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:02 pm Poor empty, pointless Walker. I almost pity it.

Pity is the price you pay, not me, sweet pea.

I said 'almost'. I don't pity you. I loathe you and your ilk.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:06 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:58 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:48 pm You sound like an angry elf.

(One of those south pole elves.)

What's wrong with anger? Humans have emotions. Sociopaths such as yourself can only imagine what normal emotion feels like. Does that make you terribly envious?

The energy of anger is fine.
The emotion of anger confuses you, for it is an habitual attachment that warps perception of appropriateness, as evidenced by your postings.

When you curse it is to damn me.
When I curse it is to mirror you.

The knack is to separate emotion from energy.
This has advantages for life, beginning with peace of mind. (POM POM)

Now say thank you, for clearing up your misunderstanding about anger.

Go on, use your sweet talk if you must.

Cowardly and empty as ever. What a creep.

Well, thank goodness that's cleared up.

Getting back to the topic of woke ...

*

Woke women folk say that they want to be peers with the men.

But when men jump into the pool, we know who is going to win the race.

Doesn't matter what pronoun Who goes by.

And that just doesn't fit the woke narrative.

However, the open sea is another story. Buoyant women tend to be the long distance, English Channel swimmers. Speaking of that, I recently heard that a man fell off a cruise ship and bobbed for fifteen hours before a helicopter found him alive, but quite cold. He must have been buoyant, too. Maybe he identified as a buoyant woman.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:19 pm Cowardly and empty as ever. What a creep.

Women can get angry because they're all mouth.

Men learn to control anger, or they go to the big house.

The words of women are effortlessly put into perspective when one knows the ways of women and girly men.

Women say they want to be peers with men, but really, they just want to be humoured.

(They do tend to be better at spelling)

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:01 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:39 pm Just recently on another thread, when I provided him with a thought-out response, he abandoned the exchange, claiming that it was a "waste of time" to continue the discussion.

Yes, there was thought in that post. However, as one example, you decided not to address at all my pointing out that you attributed assertions to me I had not made. And while the post had thought, it wasn't directing responses to what I wrote. A common practice of yours is to talk about what a post is not doing that you would like it to do. Even if it is on point in response to you or the thread or someone else. That's wasting my time as far as I am concerned. Throwing thoughts at me does not a response make. Making up things I haven't said and responding to those, does not a response make. If you weren't interested in IC and the ideas you raised in that post and what was happening there, then don't bring it up. But don't pretend my post should have presented a context related to something else. You brought up something. I responded to that.

Again, what particular post pertaining to what particular issue pertaining to what particular context? Details please.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:01 pmYour positions on your being fractured and conflicting views of morality and a number of other issues are well thought out. But that doesn't mean that repeating them is a response to my or other people's posts. It is some kind of reaction, but that's about it. Thus time wasting.

But: Over and over and over and over again, I make it abundantly that my own main interest in philosophy [aside from the Big Questions] revolves around this: "How ought one to live [behave] morally in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency chance and change?"

Then I note that my own reaction to both revolve around the points I raise in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

The first thread in particular because it focuses in on a particular issue [abortion] and on a particular life [mine].

I then ask others to read the OPs and, in regard to a particular "conflicting good" given a particular context, to explore with me our respective moral philosophies. On this thread, pertaining to our respective assessments of the "woke" controversy.

I suspect Iwannaplato is karpel tunnel/moreno from ILP. And, if so, I would infuriate the hell out of him there too.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:01 pmNot sure what you're on about here, but I guess I wouldn't be surprised if you have infuriated a number of people.

I infuriate, irritate, perturb, disgruntle, etc., the moral and political objectivists among us because many have invested years in constructing a font -- God or No God -- that allows them to anchor their Self to one or another One True Path...allowing them further to sustain a comforting and consoling sense of Reality enabling them [one way or another] to neatly divide up the world between "one of us" [the smart, good guys] and "one of them" [the dumb, evil guys]

Again, just ask the ones here. They're all into "being awake", into being "politically correct". All we need is the issue.

It's the part about becoming "fractured and fragmented" just like me that they are most resistant to.

Anyway, if he chooses to, he can note a particular moral issue given a particular context and we can discuss our own respective takes on "woke".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:01 pmI responded to a post, which I quoted, about IC. You did not respond to the points I raised, which I believe was part of the problem on other threads with your responses: that you don't respond to points raised. There have been other issues.

It's really simple. You ask a question. I make a polite respectful response. You respond as if it was a poor response to the OP or something. I point this out in a playful way and you huff and puff - this seems to be a sin in your book so, I'll frame it as that.

All about me of course.

So, we'll need a context. Let's start fresh with a new one. Of his choosing. Is there an objective manner in which all rational men and women can be "woke" to it? Given a particular set of circumstances.

Ever and always being intelligent and civil.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:12 pm ... I don't pity you. I loathe you ...

When I read that, I actually burst out laughing. I suspect this is wrong of me, for your loathing only causes you suffering, as it means nothing to me but consistency with your self-image as ... a loather. Yes, it's twue, glasshopper.

Whether it's wrong or right, I think the laughter is evidence that reintegration of energy into awareness has retooled perspective concerning what actually is appropriate when encountering particular brands of suffering projected outwards onto the visages of others, sometimes to be immediately dabbed with club soda. Plus, the full moon shines tonight.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:36 pm
Ever and always being intelligent and civil.

Too much of that makes Jack a dull boy, who never changes lanes without a signal.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:44 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:12 pm ... I don't pity you. I loathe you ...

When I read that, I actually burst out laughing. I suspect this is wrong of me, for your loathing only causes you suffering, as it means nothing to me but consistency with your self-image as ... a loather. Yes, it's twue, glasshopper.

Whether it's wrong or right, I think the laughter is evidence that reintegration of energy into awareness has retooled perspective concerning what actually is appropriate when encountering particular brands of suffering projected outwards onto the visages of others, sometimes to be immediately dabbed with club soda. Plus, the full moon shines tonight.

Of course you would laugh. You are a sociapathic narcissist. Any attention is welcome to you. Many people deserve and need to be loathed. I'm only doing my human duty.

Commentary: If you laugh at this, someone has a name for you.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:30 am Of course you would laugh. You are a sociapathic narcissist. Any attention is welcome to you. Many people deserve and need to be loathed. I'm only doing my human duty.

Question: What did the monster say to his creator?
Answer: I know I'm a monster, but I'm getting better.

Question: Did young Mary really write that story all by herself, at such a young age?
Answer: ...

(Note, did you observe the beauty of how this was not found with the other jokes?)

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:25 pm

Commentary: If you laugh at this, someone has a name for you.

So why do you feel so threatened by other people living their own lives their own way?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:44 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:36 pm And it turns every conversation with them into a make-believe. You know they know, they know they know, but they talk as if they don't know, and you talk as if you need to convince them.

But the truth is, you don't. They're not interested.

They're not interested.

That's sort of like, but not exactly like, why atheists pretend to need convincing that God exists.

Yes, like that.

Whaaat? Atheists pretend they don’t believe God exists? Is that what you’re saying?

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:57 pm Whaaat? Atheists pretend they don’t believe God exists? Is that what you’re saying?

Not quite.

What an Atheist is, is somebody who wants to disbelieve in God. Often desperately.

But their position is non-evidentiary and personal. It's non-evidentiary, because they can't even possibly manufacture the requisite evidence to prove God does not exist. It's private, because in the absence of such evidence, their belief is only their own. But they want their disbelief to have public implications: they want to say, "Your belief in God is a delusion," and they want you to feel that you have to agree with them...without sufficient evidence.

So what they do all know is this: that they have no sufficient reasons for declaring that God does not exist. And they all suspect, even when they will not admit it, that He does. So they are arguing in bad faith...they are pretending to a certainty they don't have (because they know they have insufficient evidence), and to a scope of implication that they cannot justify (i.e. that you should also disbelieve).

So they know they're charlatans. And yes, they are pretending. But not quite the way you assume.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:51 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:25 pm https://img.patriotpost.us/01GKA0BH8A09 ... dpr=1&q=75

Commentary: If you laugh at this, someone has a name for you.

So why do you feel so threatened by other people living their own lives their own way?

someome = Sculptor
name for you = threatened

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:15 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:51 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:25 pm https://img.patriotpost.us/01GKA0BH8A09 ... dpr=1&q=75

Commentary: If you laugh at this, someone has a name for you.

So why do you feel so threatened by other people living their own lives their own way?

someome = Sculptor
name for you = threatened

He's your friend. You both have the same end goal--to destroy 'the left'. You sould be [gratuitous graphic sexual image redacted[


[Edited by iMod]