Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 1:07 pm

Henry, you place too much trust in people who gain from conning you.

No, I don't and if you think I do then you haven't read or understood anything I've posted, in-forum, over and over, for years.

Personal freedom and liberty has to (be) worked at

Yeah, I do that every damn day.

there are influencers who want your vote.

With the exception of '16 & '20 (wherein I looked to hire my ORANGE hand grenade to wreck shit) I don't vote. And, really, me as the influenced? You don't know me at all.

You will have heard the phrase "wolf in sheeps' clothing" ?

Yeah, I've been accused of bein' that.

I am not accusing you of being the wolf. I am accusing the people who con you of being the wolf disguised as people who are on your side.
I did not say you try to influence others. I'd say you rather people have their own ideas and get on with their lives without influencing you. That's admirable. However you have been influenced by parents, teachers, peers, and whatever media got your attention through the years. Even if you had been a feral child who was reared by wolves you would have been influenced by the wolves especially the one that fed you and licked you clean.

B,

I am not accusing you of being the wolf.

No, you accused me of bein' a sheep who place(s) too much trust in people.

You're wrong.

I am accusing the people who con you of being the wolf disguised as people who are on your side.

Who's conned me, B?

you have been influenced by parents, teachers, peers, and whatever media got your attention through the years. Even if you had been a feral child who was reared by wolves you would have been influenced by the wolves especially the one that fed you and licked you clean.

Everyone has been influenced in that way, but that's not what you were talkin' about earlier. It's real clear from your post up-thread you think I've been conned becuz I'm too trusting.

As I say: No, and if you think I have and am then you haven't read or understood anything I've posted, in-forum, over and over, for years.

But, hey, mebbe I'm wrong...mebbe you know sumthin' about me I don't...so, educate me: who's conned me and how?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:15 pm "Then it only becomes a matter of him acquiring the necessary power in any given community to enforce his own authoritarian "my way or the highway" dogmas."

Yup. Deistic minarchists start out as hard right-libertarians but always end up becoming fascists, the quintessential political objectivists if there ever were any.

Here of course I always come back to Ayn Rand.

As with many Libertarians, the Randroid Objectivists always place this emphasis on both Reason and the Individual. But if the individual dared to reject the Reasons of Ayn Rand herself, they were excommunicated and then booted out of her "collective".

What makes Henry's "my way or the highway" "individualism" particularly bizarre to me is that, unlike Rand, he actually brings it all back to a God, the God, his God. A Deist God who imparted in him the capacity to grasp that buying and selling bazookas and tanks is Rational and Natural but doesn't seem to allow that other Deists might be convinced that it's not Rational or Natural at all.

Or, in any event, Henry doesn't seem to allow for it.

Clearly, if the "psychology of objectivism" -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- is applicable to anyone here, it is Henry.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:35 am Well, when the tank is rolling down the road to flatten your house and/or your body, as the owner of that body*, you would find a bazooka to be a handy and necessary tool to defend your life during your last stand. What you do is hide in the bushes, then when the tank rolls by you aim at the treads, whistle Dixie pull the trigger and hope it works.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:50 pmThat's not the point.

The point is what happens in any particular community when some people "own" themselves and conclude it is moral [and ought to be legal] to buy and sell tanks and bazookas, while others in "owning" themselves, conclude it is immoral [and thus ought to be illegal] to buy and sell tanks and bazookas.

Yes, obviously, if, in Henry's ideal community, his neighbor is permitted to buy a tank it would be reasonable for him to buy a bazooka if that neighbor comes after him with the tank. But is this the sort of community his Deist God subscribes to in imploring mere mortals to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature"? Are there Desists out there opposed to the buying selling of tanks and bazookas?

Can No God philosophers using the tools at their disposal come up with the most rational and virtuous Humanist argument that would resolve this political conflict?

Let's hear it.

I've explained the distinction I make here between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world regarding such things as buying and selling bazookas. And it it is nothing at all like Henry's assessment above and elsewhere.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:35 amThe neighbors would form an alliance to monitor and deter escalation that rises to the point of implementation, that could adversely affect their own personal interests.

And this addresses the points I raise above...how?

The neighbors alliance is either partial to owning bazookas or it is not. Owning bazookas is either Rational and Natural or it is not.

Again, where is the argument [philosophical or otherwise] that establishes which political prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein is not really a political prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein at all but the actual objective truth.

God or No God.

Like this guy: https://youtu.be/KlKRjY6Juic

Of course, he would never use the tank for evil purposes.

And, on the contrary, in a community dedicated to one or another political rendition of "democracy and the rule of law", others would have a say in it.

In Henry's world though, right makes might. Having acquired the necessary Reason from his Deist God, he knows which behaviors are Natural and which are Unnatural.

Then it only becomes a matter of him acquiring the necessary power in any given community to enforce his own authoritarian "my way or the highway" dogmas.

Imagine if he were in power here...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 1:11 amGonna be cool to see whose stones are large enough to deliver the message, you can't have that!

Note to others:

You tell me what his point has to do with mine.

You tell me what his point has to do with mine.

The point...

in a community dedicated to one or another political rendition of "democracy and the rule of law", others would not have a say in it

I got my bazooka, and until I deprive someone of life, liberty, or property with that bazooka, none of you get a say in my ownin' it.

Glad I could clear that up for ya.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:44 pm

You tell me what his point has to do with mine.

The point...

in a community dedicated to one or another political rendition of "democracy and the rule of law", others would not have a say in it

I got my bazooka, and until I deprive someone of life, liberty, or property with that bazooka, none of you get a say in my ownin' it.

Glad I could clear that up for ya.

HOw about a nuke? a bioweapon? Where's your line?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 4:37 pm B,

I am not accusing you of being the wolf.

No, you accused me of bein' a sheep who place(s) too much trust in people.

You're wrong.

I am accusing the people who con you of being the wolf disguised as people who are on your side.

Who's conned me, B?

you have been influenced by parents, teachers, peers, and whatever media got your attention through the years. Even if you had been a feral child who was reared by wolves you would have been influenced by the wolves especially the one that fed you and licked you clean.

Everyone has been influenced in that way, but that's not what you were talkin' about earlier. It's real clear from your post up-thread you think I've been conned becuz I'm too trusting.

As I say: No, and if you think I have and am then you haven't read or understood anything I've posted, in-forum, over and over, for years.

But, hey, mebbe I'm wrong...mebbe you know sumthin' about me I don't...so, educate me: who's conned me and how?

It's part of Donald Trump's strategy to tell the people that he is freeing them from unnecessary government and also to tell the people they can safely leave the politics to him and he will get minimal government done.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:44 pm

You tell me what his point has to do with mine.

The point...

in a community dedicated to one or another political rendition of "democracy and the rule of law", others would not have a say in it

I got my bazooka, and until I deprive someone of life, liberty, or property with that bazooka, none of you get a say in my ownin' it.

Glad I could clear that up for ya.

What's demoralizing here for me is that this sort of "reasoning" is about what I would expect now from any number of posters over at ILP. But this is a forum derived from Philosophy Now magazine. So, I'd expect most members here either subscribe to it [as I do] or at least read it. So the depth of the intelligence on display in the posts would reflect that too.

So, what is Henry doing here?

Again, this is just my own personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein, but that doesn't make it any less flabbergasting that those like him are here. To me, he's just one more run-of-the-mill fulminating fanatic objectivist in regard to things like gun laws.

And now the abortion conflagration is about to take center stage. Plenty of Henrys on the Supreme Court who will argue that only their own moral and political prejudices regarding abortion ought to be the law of the land.

The thing about Roe v. Wade, is that it revolved precisely around "moderation, negotiation and compromise". It allowed for some abortions but not for others. It recognized just how complex the issue can be given the many, many conflicting sets of circumstances that individual women might find themselves in given an unwanted pregnancy.

But not for the moral objectivists. Either of the God or the No God persuasion. Abortion is wrong. It is immoral.

And, sure enough, no doubt, Henry's God has imparted to him the wisdom necessary to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" here as well.

On the other hand...

https://www.deism.com/post/should-abortion-be-legal

"Regarding controversial issues such as abortion, gun control, etc., Deists are free to make up their own minds based on their own God-given reason. There are Deists who are on both sides of these issues. The only way to resolve these issues is to have a free exchange of ideas with open minds from people on both sides of the issues. In that spirit this article on abortion is presented."

So, all Deists would have their own say here. I merely root what people have to say here as much in dasein as in philosophical wisdom.

But [Deist or not] I challenge you -- I dare you -- to argue [to Henry and his objectivist ilk] that 1] you "own" yourself and that 2] your "owned self" has advised you that abortion is both a rational and a natural behavior.

B,

It's part of Donald Trump's strategy to tell the people that he is freeing them from unnecessary government and also to tell the people they can safely leave the politics to him and he will get minimal government done.

Uh, where did I say I hired him to free me from unnecessary governance or any of that?

The thing about Roe v. Wade, is that it revolved precisely around "moderation, negotiation and compromise". It allowed for some abortions but not for others

If RvW is over-turned the process of moderation, negotiation and compromise will occur on the state level, with state legislatures, presumably informed by their citizenry, craftin' laws in keepin' with that citizenry.

Democracy and the rule of law, right?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 8:17 pmWhat's demoralizing here for me is that this sort of "reasoning" is about what I would expect now from any number of posters over at ILP. But this is a forum derived from Philosophy Now magazine. So, I'd expect most members here either subscribe to it [as I do] or at least read it. So the depth of the intelligence on display in the posts would reflect that too.

So, what is Henry doing here?

Again, this is just my own personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein, but that doesn't make it any less flabbergasting that those like him are here. To me, he's just one more run-of-the-mill fulminating fanatic objectivist in regard to things like gun laws.

And now the abortion conflagration is about to take center stage. Plenty of Henrys on the Supreme Court who will argue that only their own moral and political prejudices regarding abortion ought to be the law of the land.

The thing about Roe v. Wade, is that it revolved precisely around "moderation, negotiation and compromise". It allowed for some abortions but not for others. It recognized just how complex the issue can be given the many, many conflicting sets of circumstances that individual women might find themselves in given an unwanted pregnancy.

But not for the moral objectivists. Either of the God or the No God persuasion. Abortion is wrong. It is immoral.

And, sure enough, no doubt, Henry's God has imparted to him the wisdom necessary to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" here as well.

On the other hand...

https://www.deism.com/post/should-abortion-be-legal

"Regarding controversial issues such as abortion, gun control, etc., Deists are free to make up their own minds based on their own God-given reason. There are Deists who are on both sides of these issues. The only way to resolve these issues is to have a free exchange of ideas with open minds from people on both sides of the issues. In that spirit this article on abortion is presented."

So, all Deists would have their own say here. I merely root what people have to say here as much in dasein as in philosophical wisdom.

But [Deist or not] I challenge you -- I dare you -- to argue [to Henry and his objectivist ilk] that 1] you "own" yourself and that 2] your "owned self" has advised you that abortion is both a rational and a natural behavior.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 8:31 pmIf RvW is over-turned the process of moderation, negotiation and compromise will occur on the state level, with state legislatures, presumably informed by their citizenry, craftin' laws in keepin' with that citizenry.

Democracy and the rule of law, right?

On the other hand...

From MICHELLE GOLDBERG at the NYT:

'For now, women who live in blue states are safe, but that may not last. As The Washington Post reported on Monday, anti-abortion groups and their congressional allies are already planning for a nationwide abortion ban if and when Republicans retake power. All those who can get pregnant, whether or not they think they’ll ever want or need an abortion, would be affected. The 2016 election, which allowed Donald Trump to reshape the Supreme Court, was, among other things, a referendum on women’s equality. Women’s equality lost.'

For now, all eyes are on the Supremes. But if the predictions being made about the November elections are true, Republicans could soon own Congress. And if in 2024 Trump [or someone like him] is elected president?

No "moderation, negotiation and compromises" if the fulminating fanatic moral objectivists control all three branches of the government.

Just a nation ruled entirely as Henry wants it to be ruled. Wholly in accordance with his own God given Reasons about what is Natural behavior.

Lucky for him though it's not likely that he will become pregnant against his wishes.

But what if a woman he loves does. What if she has an abortion? Will he turn her in?

And if she has an abortion does that make her a premeditated murderer? Should she be sent to prison...to death row? What does Henry's God advise regarding what is Rational and Natural about capital punishment?

For now, women who live in blue states are safe, but that may not last. As The Washington Post reported on Monday, anti-abortion groups and their congressional allies are already planning for a nationwide abortion ban if and when Republicans retake power. All those who can get pregnant, whether or not they think they’ll ever want or need an abortion, would be affected. The 2016 election, which allowed Donald Trump to reshape the Supreme Court, was, among other things, a referendum on women’s equality. Women’s equality lost.'

For now, all eyes are on the Supremes. But if the predictions being made about the November elections are true, Republicans could soon own Congress. And if in 2024 Trump [or someone like him] is elected president?

No "moderation, negotiation and compromises" if the fulminating fanatic moral objectivists control all three branches of the government.

Ah, but that's the way that your democracy & rule of law works: everybody gets to try, thru direct vote or representative and by way of protest and debate, to move things in the direction they like. Sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don't. It's your preferred method, yeah? Why aren't you applaudin' the process workin' as it's supposed to?

if the predictions being made about the November elections are true, Republicans could soon own Congress. And if in 2024 Trump [or someone like him] is elected president?

No "moderation, negotiation and compromises" if the fulminating fanatic moral objectivists control all three branches of the government.

If majorities want this, they'll have this: isn't this how democracy & rule of law work?

Or, mebbe, you're only for democracy & rule of law when you come out on top?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 9:28 pm

For now, women who live in blue states are safe, but that may not last. As The Washington Post reported on Monday, anti-abortion groups and their congressional allies are already planning for a nationwide abortion ban if and when Republicans retake power. All those who can get pregnant, whether or not they think they’ll ever want or need an abortion, would be affected. The 2016 election, which allowed Donald Trump to reshape the Supreme Court, was, among other things, a referendum on women’s equality. Women’s equality lost.'

For now, all eyes are on the Supremes. But if the predictions being made about the November elections are true, Republicans could soon own Congress. And if in 2024 Trump [or someone like him] is elected president?

No "moderation, negotiation and compromises" if the fulminating fanatic moral objectivists control all three branches of the government.

Ah, but that's the way that your democracy & rule of law works: everybody gets to try, thru direct vote or representative and by way of protest and debate, to move things in the direction they like. Sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don't. It's your preferred method, yeah? Why aren't you applaudin' the process workin' as it's supposed to?

Let's just pretend that Henry isn't here at all. And, after all, when it comes to an actual substantive exchange, he isn't, right?

Democracy and the rule of law is construed by me to be the most compatible with moral nihilism. Why? Because "for all practical purposes" it eschews such things as God's Commandments or ideological purity or deontological assumptions or moral objectivism or "my way or the highway" assessments of "natural behaviors".

Instead, in regard to issues like owning guns and having an abortion, it tends to favor legislation that accommodates those on both sides -- many sides -- of the issues. Everyone gets something and nobody gets it all.

Whereas if, like Henry, you are driven to assume that only your own moral dogmas reflect what is truly Rational and Natural, there's no need for democracy at all. His "solutions" revolve around his own subjective assumptions regarding how he construes the philosopher-king melding with his Deist Creator.

Yes, to bazookas, no to abortion.

With me though everything becomes far more problematic. In being "fractured and fragmented", "I" recognize that those on both sides of the abortion conflagration make perfectly reasonable arguments.

After all, if you assume a human life begins at conception [as I do], why on earth would you be okay with shredding it before birth? And if you assume there is no way that women can be fully equal with men if they are required to give birth [as I do], why on earth would you be okay with outlawing abortions?

But that's just me, here and now.

I do believe that both sides are right, given the assumptions they make. But we can't live in a world where both sides are right when it comes down to actually legislation.

Instead, re Roe v. Wade and legislation like it, both sides get something but neither side that's everything.

That's where the ambiguity, and ambivalence and uncertainty come in for me.