Philosophy Now Forum

*Quietly eating popcorn in the corner at this whole shitshow of a thread*

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:26 am
He's has his little bevy of religiofuck acolytes who seem to hang on his every word. Religiofucks always stick together.

Yup. Drinking the Kool-Aid Wham Bam thank you man Boozle. Like The Koolaid and the gang, like birds of a feather.

Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away
If you can use some exotic bam booze al
There's a bar in far away mental prison
Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:34 am *Quietly eating popcorn in the corner at this whole shitshow of a thread*

Why would anyone in their right mind gatecrash a shitshow.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:36 am

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:34 am *Quietly eating popcorn in the corner at this whole shitshow of a thread*

Why would anyone in their right mind gatecrash a shitshow.

Lol. I haven’t made any enemies yet (I think)

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:40 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:36 am

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:34 am *Quietly eating popcorn in the corner at this whole shitshow of a thread*

Why would anyone in their right mind gatecrash a shitshow.

Lol. I haven’t made any enemies yet (I think)

Neither have I.

Always speak the truth, always speak exactly what's on your mind, don't ever lie, never lie...that way, you'll find out soon enough who is your frenemy.

Who wants to be my frenemy?

My skills include:
—astrophysics!
—string cheese enthusiasm
—Mario Kart skills?
—cute sometimes?

Drawbacks may include, but are not limited to:
—pedantry
—Mario Kart skills?
—bees?
—don’t ask about the bees
—is actually 3 raccoons in a trench coat and they will fight you

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 4:46 am Yeah, it is. But your whole conversational style isn't worth my time.

Too bad: you're capable of intelligence, at times. Just not now, I guess.

I have some time to dance for my popcorn.

As a style of relating to a fellow human being, the conversational style sounds like Shrieking Banshee Style (SBS), which I’ve heard can be contagious when not chronic. There's evidence that it has been transmitted, and that it gets confused with truth.

On an assumption, the CDC recommends mental masking to protect others from the virus that causes SBS, which unfortunately for those afflicted, is as choiceless as tourettes. Transmission of the virus is vague seeing as how it's a mental affliction, but masking at least looks like an effective shield. Although the virus that causes SBS has yet to be seen by human eyes, science says that by its effects it shall be known, which sounds vaguely biblical.

Methods of mental masking are to be announced by Dr. Fauci, who originally declared that masks are not necessary to protect others from the mental virus. He later confessed that he told this little white lie to keep the medical personnel supplied. Some of these same folks, with their bills and obligations and scientific training to assess risk, were later discharged for not accepting injections that weren't even derived from the unseen virus.

Fauci has hinted at a powerful new vaccine that will contain SBS, and that it may be connected to the bile duct.

(For those afflicted with SBS, satire sounds like irony.)

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:04 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 4:46 am Yeah, it is. But your whole conversational style isn't worth my time.

Too bad: you're capable of intelligence, at times. Just not now, I guess.

I have some time to dance for my popcorn.

As a style of relating to a fellow human being, the conversational style sounds like Shrieking Banshee Style (SBS), which I’ve heard can be contagious when not chronic. There's evidence that it has been transmitted, and that it gets confused with truth.

On an assumption, the CDC recommends mental masking to protect others from the virus that causes SBS, which unfortunately for those afflicted, is as choiceless as tourettes. Transmission of the virus is vague seeing as how it's a mental affliction, but masking at least looks like an effective shield. Although the virus that causes SBS has yet to be seen by human eyes, science says that by its effects it shall be known, which sounds vaguely biblical.

Methods of mental masking are to be announced by Dr. Fauci, who originally declared that masks are not necessary to protect others from the mental virus. He later confessed that he told this little white lie to keep the medical personnel supplied. Some of these same folks, with their bills and obligations and scientific training to assess risk, were later discharged for not accepting injections that weren't even derived from the unseen virus.

Fauci has hinted at a powerful new vaccine that will contain SBS, and that it may be connected to the bile duct.

(For those afflicted with SBS, satire sounds like irony.)

Spoken like a true grade A-Hole.

This mighty monu mental judge mental speech deserves a triple grade A for it's effort in relieving the constipation, I mean contemplation.

Academy Award for grade A - Arse Holery Arsery.



A fine masterpiece of truth, from some Ahole that not only has the good grace to turn the other cheek, but likes to go that extra mile going where no butt hole has gone before to take that one elusive step beyond by spreading both his cheeks so wide that theres just shit flying all over the place. It's even gotten to the point where it's hard to tell the difference between the shit that goes in at one end, and the shit that comes out the other end, because it's all the same shit.

It seems like a PM might have been a good choice. I love that the thread has taken off without either of the people named in the OP participating. Was it the draw of 'let's fuck with you publically'? Was it naivete about how threads cannot be a two person conversation unless the two manage to bore everyone?

And I thought FDP confirmed in another thread and HQ presented this to Iambiguous. Though Iambiguous seems to have added on qualities that HQ must have beyond HQ's original claim.

Starts here...
viewtopic.php?p=587410#p587410
and continues from there.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:34 am FlashDangerpants, in your discussions with henry, please note all of the times that, in regard to the "big stuff" moral conflagrations like guns and abortions, he has conceded that he was wrong.

He has asked me to ask you about this.

Also, would you agree that if he admits that he was wrong about the "big stuff" in the past, he is basically acknowledging that he may well be wrong about the "big stuff" issues still today?

In other words, he once believed one thing about the issues you [hopefully] will note, but then a new experience or a new argument convinced him that he was wrong and he changed his mind. Meaning that yet another new experience and another new argument might result in him needing to admit that he is wrong again.

I'm not really sure what the back story is here, but I will say this. Most of the people on this forum are prone to losing sight of their strategic argument and liable to overcommit on some trivial tactical matter they could easily sacrifice. Henry is not especially likely to get himself into that situation, and is uniquely likely to get himself out again the sensible way - by walking back an overcommitment. The irony is that he's usually in league with Walker and Mannie who are two of the worst for this stuff and will both cling to a debilitating failed argument now matter how pathetic they have to get.

But I would question this talk of "big stuff". I remember Henry arguing that Trump's tariff policies were good, while also claiming to be of the Austrian school in economics to whom market interference via tariffs is abhorent. Some here would die on that hill trying to make mutually exclusive claims support each other. Henry reconciled the issue by aknoweldging the incongruity and amending his views. But I question how big that was, he was still in favour of tariffs he just understood them to be a temporary expediency not a good thing as such.

So I don't really know what your objective is here. Henry is probably the wrong target for a complaint that somebody is too inflexible to recognise any error, which is why ultimately he is somebody worth having a bit of a debate with. But I would be impressed if you can shake one of his actual main beliefs.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:36 am So I don't really know what your objective is here. Henry is probably the wrong target for a complaint that somebody is too inflexible to recognise any error, which is why ultimately he is somebody worth having a bit of a debate with. But I would be impressed if you can shake one of his actual main beliefs.

Well, the disagreement with Iambiguous started with Henry claiming that he could admit that he made errors, and cited you as someone who could confirm that, which you did. The OP of this thread expands the criteria (for what we don't know). Henry also said he might be wrong about anything he has asserted, but then asked to be convinced he was wrong on the issue of that thread.

Here you point out that it is unlikely he will have one of his main beliefs shaken here. But how many times does someone on an internet forum get their core beliefs shaken? It seems to me that life experiences are generally invovled in that kind of change. Seeds may be set by philosophical discussions, and I did read of one women in another forum a long time ago who said she had her theism changed by online discussion. I am not arguing it makes nor difference, nor that there aren't individual instances, but I consider it unlikely.

I doubt it happened to Iambiguous either. He has said he has changed his core beliefs over the years - he seems to be an older guy like I am. But I would bet experiences and long periods of his own mulling, encountering people and institutions in real life, paying attention to contemporary events, crises, pain, ineffectiveness of certain beliefs and so on were central factors in the changes.

It seems to me if HQ manages to admit errors and admits he might be wrong about even core beliefs, but doesn't think so, he passes conversation partner criteria.

Of course, anyone can demand he passes stricter ones. But the OP makes it seem like he promised something was true that he did not. Or perhaps I missed a post and I'm wrong.

If you want to talk Henry out of his pro-gun stance then you need the assistance of one far greater than I. I know not who this one is, but rumour has it that some great master persuaded Age to stop demanding "clarifying questions". Seek out this one, he or she may hold the power you require.











I've got absolutely no idea who it was by the way. It'll be so fucking funny if it was Mannie who talked Ken out of that thing. I really deserve that slice of comeuppance.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:09 pm If you want to talk Henry out of his pro-gun stance then you need the assistance of one far greater than I. I know not who this one is, but rumour has it that some great master persuaded Age to stop demanding "clarifying questions". Seek out this one, he or she may hold the power you require.
I've got absolutely no idea who it was by the way. It'll be so fucking funny if it was Mannie who talked Ken out of that thing. I really deserve that slice of comeuppance.

I saw Harbal and I think Henry pushing him on that. I also mentioned the issue, but I certainly did no convincing. But, Harbal, I think it was, was being very patient with Age, while I just followed, not seeing Age's posts, but seeing Harbal's reactions and pointing out that if one person only asks questions and the other person keeps responding politely, that second person gains this vast burden of justification (for no good reason). And that a good response would be to mainly return questions. If that helped anyone, I want a credit. But I gotta be honest, I think any improvement there was a local phenomenon. Live and hope.

But it's a good issue you raise. There's changing a core belief and there's changing a core communication pattern. These are both very hard to change I think.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 4:07 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:45 am There is no 'moral 'conflagration' ' with abortion which is why only relgious fuckwits (who are hypocrites by definition) are against personal choice.

Nobody's against "personal choice." Red herring. Everybody's very much in favour of it.

You have the choice to sleep with somebody or not, to use contraception or not, and to put a child up for adoption or not. But you don't have a choice to create a human being and then murder her, because you're too lazy and irresponsible to make a better choice.

That, you never have.

Sigh...

The point of this thread is not to exchange moral convictions but to explore how we come to acquire them. I maintain that, like me and you, henry lived a particular life and, given his own personal experiences, he came to acquire one set of moral and political and spiritual prejudices regarding the "big stuff" rather than another.

And, thus, given new experiences, he might come to change his mind about the "big stuff" again.

To wit:

I once had to admit to myself that I was wrong about Christianity, then wrong about Unitarianism then wrong about Marxism then wrong about Leninism then wrong about Trotskyism then wrong about Democratic Socialism then wrong about the Social Democrats then wrong about objectivism altogether.

Why? Precisely because new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge prompted me to change my mind about some very big stuff.

Now, henry claims to have been wrong about the "big stuff" too.

Okay, what were the issues, why did he change his mind, and how can he possibly know that he won't change his mind again?

I think that henry is basically an objectivist. He formed his convictions existentially but now they have become a part of this "Real Me henry quirk in sync with the Right Thing to Do" mentality that, psychologically, comforts and consoles him by allowing him to believe that his own convictions really do reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which to understand himself out in the world with others.

Though, sure, this might revolve around me...around my inability to understand his point more clearly.

Henry claims that he does not subscribe to the "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine" school of thought. No, apparently, there is an objectively morality. It's just that he admits that he might be wrong about his own convictions now. Why? Because, even in regard to the "big stuff", he was wrong in the past. Only he also claims that this is but a "remote possibility".

That's the part I'm trying to grasp. The distance "in his head" between this and objectivism given an issue like guns.

Again, in my own opinion, it's not what he believes but that what he believes allows him to feel whole. He has a religious font providing him with a Soul. And through this Soul, he can anchor his Self in the is/ought world as though it were just another extension of the either/or world.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:36 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:34 am FlashDangerpants, in your discussions with henry, please note all of the times that, in regard to the "big stuff" moral conflagrations like guns and abortions, he has conceded that he was wrong.

He has asked me to ask you about this.

Also, would you agree that if he admits that he was wrong about the "big stuff" in the past, he is basically acknowledging that he may well be wrong about the "big stuff" issues still today?

In other words, he once believed one thing about the issues you [hopefully] will note, but then a new experience or a new argument convinced him that he was wrong and he changed his mind. Meaning that yet another new experience and another new argument might result in him needing to admit that he is wrong again.

I'm not really sure what the back story is here, but I will say this. Most of the people on this forum are prone to losing sight of their strategic argument and liable to overcommit on some trivial tactical matter they could easily sacrifice. Henry is not especially likely to get himself into that situation, and is uniquely likely to get himself out again the sensible way - by walking back an overcommitment. The irony is that he's usually in league with Walker and Mannie who are two of the worst for this stuff and will both cling to a debilitating failed argument now matter how pathetic they have to get.

But I would question this talk of "big stuff". I remember Henry arguing that Trump's tariff policies were good, while also claiming to be of the Austrian school in economics to whom market interference via tariffs is abhorent. Some here would die on that hill trying to make mutually exclusive claims support each other. Henry reconciled the issue by aknoweldging the incongruity and amending his views. But I question how big that was, he was still in favour of tariffs he just understood them to be a temporary expediency not a good thing as such.

So I don't really know what your objective is here. Henry is probably the wrong target for a complaint that somebody is too inflexible to recognise any error, which is why ultimately he is somebody worth having a bit of a debate with. But I would be impressed if you can shake one of his actual main beliefs.

Thanks for the input but, nope, that's not really what I was hoping for. I mean the really "big stuff" -- main beliefs -- like abortion or guns or the role of government or sexual preference or God and religion or conscription or "just wars".

I can only get that from him. But, instead, he sends me to you.

Go figure, right?