Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:20 pm
I mocked your hypocrisy so that means you win

Amazing world view you have, one of a kind.

Click.

Be honest.

If you were a moderator here, would I or would I not be issued warnings or flat out banned?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:06 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:50 pm How is any of that shit relevant here at all? Why is it important to make those points in the context of this conversation, at all? It's completely out of place.

I understand your frustration. However, as someone who is reading this conversation, I think it's important to consider the broader implications of the discussion. While it may not be directly relevant to the specific points being made in this thread, the issue of how beliefs can be used to justify oppression and violence is a topic that is relevant to many conversations and debates.

That being said, I can see how this may not be the best place to have this particular conversation. If you and Iambiguous would like to continue discussing this issue further, perhaps it would be more appropriate to do so through private messages or in a separate thread. That way, other readers on this forum can engage with the topic at hand without getting bogged down in our disagreement.

Click.

BigMike, just out of curiosity, how would an exchange like this be differentiated from an exchange between two libertarians? Given your own understanding of determinism.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:30 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:59 pm Because I believe that objectivists [God or No God] can be dangerous. And have been down through the ages.

That makes you an objectivist. You're a danger. Please sort your shit out first. After you have ceased being a danger, by ridding yourself of all beliefs, then please come back and tell me again how I'm dangerous because of some innocuous thoughts I have.

Absolutely shameless





Nature to Flannel Jesus:

I have to agree. Though, sure, you're still off the hook.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:38 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:20 pm
I mocked your hypocrisy so that means you win

Amazing world view you have, one of a kind.

Click.

Be honest.

If you were a moderator here, would I or would I not be issued warnings or flat out banned?

You're annoying, in my opinion, but not remotely bannable or moderatable. There are people who annoy me more, and have more justifiable reasons to moderate them, on the server that I am a moderator on, and I have no desire to silence them either.

The way you categorize people as "objectivists", and the way you turn that into fear, is another complete confusion of yours. It's a fear of entirely your own invention with no tethering to reality, no tethering anything I've actually said, whatsoever. You've invented the idea that I'd ban you for disagreeing with me, and started comparing me to Nazis based on your own invented fear.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:48 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:30 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:59 pm Because I believe that objectivists [God or No God] can be dangerous. And have been down through the ages.

That makes you an objectivist. You're a danger. Please sort your shit out first. After you have ceased being a danger, by ridding yourself of all beliefs, then please come back and tell me again how I'm dangerous because of some innocuous thoughts I have.

Absolutely shameless





Nature to Flannel Jesus:

I have to agree. Though, sure, you're still off the hook.

You still haven't addressed the hypocrisy here, in how you use the word objectivist and what you think that implies about people. Are you going to address it or keep deflecting?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:00 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:48 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:30 pm
That makes you an objectivist. You're a danger. Please sort your shit out first. After you have ceased being a danger, by ridding yourself of all beliefs, then please come back and tell me again how I'm dangerous because of some innocuous thoughts I have.

Absolutely shameless





Nature to Flannel Jesus:

I have to agree. Though, sure, you're still off the hook.

You still haven't addressed the hypocrisy here, in how you use the word objectivist and what you think that implies about people. Are you going to address it or keep deflecting?

Again:

Just for the record, I challenge anyone to note where I have argued that having any belief at all makes you Hitler or the Taliban. That even believing 2 + 2 = 4 makes you a Nazi.

Instead, I have noted that historically, those I construe to be "my way or the highway" objectivists have gained power in particular communities [God or No God] and demanded of others that they "toe the line".

Or else. And here all the way up from reeducation camps and the gulags to the gas chambers.

Also, that in regard to moral nihilists as some construe the Vladimir Putins and the Xi Jinpings and the "show me the money" global capitalists of the world to be, they can also demand total allegiance to the powers that be.

This thread, on the other hand, focuses more on the quandary that revolves around a human brain some argue is wholly in sync with the laws of matter, being able to argue [and then demonstrate] that any belief at all is not a compelled belief.

And, again, assuming we do have some measure of free will, note specific examples of my hypocrisy. I'm always the first to acknowledge that in regard to my own value judgments in the is/ought world and in regard to the Big Questions, my own speculations here are ever and always rooted existentially, subjectively, subjunctively in dasein. Not to mention "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule". The odds that my opinions here reflect the whole truth about any of these things is staggeringly remote given the even more staggering immensity of "all there is".


Really, this all sounds like a personal problem to me.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:14 pm
And, again, assuming we do have some measure of free will, note specific examples of my hypocrisy.

Gladly.

Any belief whatsoever is apparently the criteria for deciding someone is an objectivist.

Objectivists are to be feared. Examples: Nazis, Taliban.

You have beliefs, that makes you an objectivist. Any time you've said anything that's an explicit or implicit belief means that by your own criteria you are an objectivist and people are right to fear you.

If you need specific examples of posts you've made with explicit or implicit beliefs, let me know. I assume they're obvious enough but I'm happy to help if not.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:19 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:14 pm
And, again, assuming we do have some measure of free will, note specific examples of my hypocrisy.

Gladly.

Any belief whatsoever is apparently the criteria for deciding someone is an objectivist.

Objectivists are to be feared. Examples: Nazis, Taliban.

You have beliefs, that makes you an objectivist. Any time you've said anything that's an explicit or implicit belief means that by your own criteria you are an objectivist and people are right to fear you.

If you need specific examples of posts you've made with explicit or implicit beliefs, let me know. I assume they're obvious enough but I'm happy to help if not.

Sigh...

Once again:

Just for the record, I challenge anyone to note where I have argued that having any belief at all makes you Hitler or the Taliban. That even believing 2 + 2 = 4 makes you a Nazi.

Instead, I have noted that historically, those I construe to be "my way or the highway" objectivists have gained power in particular communities [God or No God] and demanded of others that they "toe the line".

Or else. And here all the way up from reeducation camps and the gulags to the gas chambers.

Also, that in regard to moral nihilists as some construe the Vladimir Putins and the Xi Jinpings and the "show me the money" global capitalists of the world to be, they can also demand total allegiance to the powers that be.

This thread, on the other hand, focuses more on the quandary that revolves around a human brain some argue is wholly in sync with the laws of matter, being able to argue [and then demonstrate] that any belief at all is not a compelled belief.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:19 pmIf you need specific examples of posts you've made with explicit or implicit beliefs...

Yeah...click...let's go there.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:59 pm Because I believe that objectivists [God or No God] can be dangerous. And have been down through the ages.

There's a belief right there

It's ironic that the person most afraid of "objectivists" "forcing" their beliefs on him is also the one apparently least tolerant of differing beliefs...

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:50 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:59 pm Because I believe that objectivists [God or No God] can be dangerous. And have been down through the ages.

There's a belief right there

Dangerous, meaning bad, from a moral nihilist, no less. He can't seem to fathom that by having an us/them in relation to objectivists he is being an objectivist AND a moral realist, while bemoaning that they are moral realists.

If you point this out, he will say something like....

Shameless!!! or Unbelievable!!!

And then say that he has said a thousand times that he is fractured and fragmented and isn't sure about his opinions.

Which is lovely. Explain your metapostion, then you are free to do as you like.

Imagine if this was racism.

Someone who states they are not racist with regularity.

They they call people n----------rs. When the hypocrisy is pointed out, they say.....

Unbelievable!!!!! I have said so many times that I am anti-racist. It's just my opinion that they are n-------rs. I am not sure they are.

Whatever.

The black hole of repetition, hypocrisy and cluelessness.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:59 pm Because I believe that objectivists [God or No God] can be dangerous. And have been down through the ages. What, the Jews in Nazi Germany should have been advised to simply voice their disagreements with the Fuhrer?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 12:19 amI think it's odd that you assume you have to give them a general pejorative label and one that often has 'fulminating fanatical' or something close to that before it.

Do you see yourself as in a parallel situation as the Jews in relation to Nazis?

What have I said that entails this?

Given a free will world, no, my own situation is nothing like the Jews under the Nazis. I'm not Jewish. America is not governed by the Nazis [yet]. No death camps are on the horizon. But some do note that MAGA and the QAnon folks are toying with one or another rendition of fascism here in America. So, if I were a Jew and we did live in a free will world, yeah, I'd certainly be concerned.

What's most difficult to accept about a determined world of course is that the Nazis themselves are "off the hook". The Holocaust becomes just one more inherent manifestation of only possible reality.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pm I think it's odd that you assume you have to give them a general pejorative label and one that often has 'fulminating fanatical' or something close to that before it.

Same thing. Sure, for some of the moral objectivists here you might try reasoning with with them. But others in my view -- those who come to embrace this fame of mind -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- embody the "psychology of objectivism". You are almost always wasting your time deconstructing their "my way or the highway" value judgments. But it's still always no less a judgment call on my part rooted existentially in dasein.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pmOK, I think that's nuts. You're actually identifying with Jews under Nazis in reaction to the people you are labeling objectivists here.

Again, you say I am doing this. I say that my reaction at times to those like Big Mike and Flannel Jesus and phyllo flow in part from how nastily they react to me. But, as I have noted, I can exchange both civil posts or post dripping with declamatory polemics.

Anytime any of them wish to keep all the personal stuff out of it, let them note this. Either way it works for me.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 12:19 am My sense is that this is extreme polemics for a term you aim at Flannel Jesus and Phyllo for example. Yes, you don't say that they want to open gulags, but since someone gets called an objectivist for thinking you're wrong about something regarding determinism and free will and not being drawn and quartered, I think this is problematic.

No, from my vantage point, someone gets called an objectivist when they insist that anyone who does not share their own frame of mind regarding the morality of abortion or assumptions regarding free will, is wrong. Then the part revolving around polemics for those who get particularly agitated regarding my "fractured and fragmented"/dasein perspectives.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pmNo, you aim it at people who think other people are wrong about non-moral issues.

Click.

Note to others:

Make up ypur own mind regarding this.

Come on, when some here do consider my own fractured and fragmented frame of mind, a part of them might become concerned that it is also applicable to them. They have much to lose if my frame of mind begins to sink in, while I have much to gain if I can be convinced to embrace a frame of mind that dispenses with my current belief that...

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pm Sure, it might. I notice how you go from 'might' to just simply stating this. And you have bragged without qualification about such things. Might slides into interpersonal acts.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Note specific examples of this.

1] my life is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] I am hopelessly drawn and quartered in regard to value judgments
3] my death = oblivion

It is precisely because their own objectivist dogmas allow them to make these things go away that, in my view, they are particularly antagonistic towards me.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pm You wrote all the mind reading in response to me saying you were engaging in personal attacks in threads where you complain about personal attacks. Yes, you often do it generally about other posters - so naming those you disagree with, perhaps, as here with some mindreading thrown in. But thanks for giving more evidence of what I was pointing out.

Too vague. You'll need to note particular examples from the past of what you mean by this. Or, how about this: when I do this in the future point it out. Specific instances of it.

Note to BigMike, Flannel Jesus and phyllo: same this. Link me to particular examples of my having done this, doing it now or doing it again.

But: this is still no less an existential conjecture rooted subjectively in dasein. Though, sure, if you wish to believe it is much more than that...

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pm You're such a bitch [n*****, Nazi, terrorist, pedophile]...Hey, what's wrong. I called you that knowing it was rooted dasein. LOL.

First of all, that others become these things is rooted existentially in dasein from my own current frame of mind "here and now". And in a No God world all such behaviors can be rationalized for any number of personal reasons also rooted in dasein. And in a determined universe as I understand it, all of these people are "off the hook" in that they became these things solely because their brains compelled them to in the only possible reality.

Only tell that to the objectivists. LOL

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pmPeople disagree with each other. That doesn't necessarily put them in some 'my way or....' category. And it doesn't require proof. People come to the forum express their views and yes, may think you are wrong about an issue. That doesn't put them in some category unless that also puts you in one.

Yes, it's a judgment call. Subjective and subjunctive down to the bone at times. How I react to a particular post/poster may not be how others react. All we can do here is, to the best of our ability, grapple with closing the gap.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pm, explain to me how associating Flannel Jesus with gulags is a way to close the gap.

Note specifically where I associated him/her with gulags. I merely noted that historically some moral and political objectivists have gone so far as to embrace reeducation camps and gulags and genocide...not that anyone here is in that category.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 12:19 am Your way seems to include that people should be fractured and fragmented or they must prove there is a reason not to be. Your way or they are wrong. If they can't prove that determinism is the case, but they believe in it, then it's not your way. Likewise with free will. I'm openly unsure of which is the case and you are asking me to demonstrate why I am not fractured and fragmented.

Again, though, I flat out suggest that this is problematic and then some. With regard to something like the morality of abortion, you either believe that one side does provide us with the optimal or the only rational frame of mind or you recognize that both sides make reasonable points and that the "best of all possible worlds" seems to revolve around "moderation, negotiation and compromise".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pmNothing there about fractured and fragmented or the other internal states that you think people need to justfiy why they are not feeling them.

What does this have to do with "my way" of insisting that "people should be fractured and fragmented or they must prove there is a reason not to be. Your way or they are wrong."

I'm just curious to understand how, in a free will/No God world, others are not fractured and fragmented. How are the arguments I make in my linked threads above not applicable to them? Given a particular context like abortion.

As for free will, however, that to me seems to be a futile endeavor given what none of us grasp -- can ever grasp? -- regarding how non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became us. Sans God from my perspective. It's fascinating to think about and explore but as with the Flatlanders speculating about our third dimensional existence, how to actually would they or we pin it down?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pmNothing there about fractured and fragmented or the other internal states that you think people need to justfiy why they are not feeling them.

You bring this up again, but I still don't grasp what your point is. I am the one here who is fractured and fragmented. For all the reasons I note above. Now, sure, if someone believes in God or in some political ideology or embraces a deontological philosophical perspective, or takes a Satyrean view of Nature, they avoid that part. The part I try to understand.

Thus...

Me? I'm "fractured and fragmented"/"drawn and quartered" in regard to both.

You're not? Okay, given a particular context like Mary and Jane and abortion above, explain to me why you are not.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pmI don't need to justify why I am not feeling the internal state you feel.
You think other people bear the burden of demonstating they don't have the emotional reactions you have.

Again, that's your me. If others don't wish to explore that with me, fine. We all have different priorities here. And if some do, and they wish to keep the exchange civil, I won't be the first to start in on huffing and puffing.

How about this: starting now.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 12:19 am I don't need to justify my not having certain internal states. It's as if the onus is on others to demonstrate that your idea that we all actually should be drawn and quartered, fragmented adn fractured is false.

Come on, no one needs to justify anything to anyone here if, for their own personal reasons, they choose not to. But since a part of me very much does not want to be fractured and fragmented, all I can do is to hear out those who claim not to be themselves. And to note in turn that in being fractured and fragmented, the good news is that I am not anchored to one or another moral, political and/or spiritual dogma. That opens up many more options for me given that I don't have to ask myself the equivalent of "what would Jesus do?"

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pm No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that I do not bear any burden for justifying interal states. Of course, we are free to ignore requests for justification.

If I say, God exists, it is perfectly reasonable in a philosophy forum to think that the person asserting this bears a burden to justify it.

The fact that I am not feeling something is nothing like that.

If I told you you should feel fine or you shouldn't feel bad about it or whatever....

Then I bear a burden. Or to put it another way, there is some consensus that that is what we are doing. Supporting postions. Obviously no one can force anyone, but it makes sense given the context.

To justify my felt states implies I would know the causes for my lack of the same reaction you have to certain things.

I'd have to explain why I don't react like you do. It could have to do with all sorts of things including things I don't know about you. What if the difference has more to do with something that happened to you: guilt over past acts. Perhaps for whatever psychological/subcultural reasons you feel that you have to work everything out or certain things out, and resolve it permanently somehow, in ways I don't because my life was different. I don't know why we are different or why I don't have those particular psychological states in relation to abortion.

Okay, this just encompasses how complex human mental, emotional and psychological reactions to things around us can be. In particular how each of us as individuals may react to the same things in very different ways.

Here's the thing though from my end...

I do believe that in a No God world, human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless. I do believe that in a No God world morality is rooted existentially in dasein. IK do believe that in a No God world death = oblivion.

So, sure, at times, I can push others further than they thing I ought to. But look at what is at stake for for me?!!

I merely note that, in turn, some react to me as they do because look at what is at stake for them if my points start to sink into their heads. It works both ways.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 12:19 amOf course concrete examples are imporant, I think, to making clear what abstract ideas mean/entail/are justified by. But my point here was that you have, it seems to me, a loose say of epistemological criteria for when you decide you know the motivations of other people and can confidently call them names, but when it comes to something like determinism you want 'proof'.

Okay -- click -- in regard to Mary and Jane, how is this applicable? What epistemological criteria would you employ in discussing her unwanted pregnancy as a moral issue?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pm I mention that free will and determinism don't change my reactions around abortion. I wrote about how you seem to have one set of criteria - an argument that should convince all rational people - when it comes to determinism vs. free will or pro/con abortion issues, but every low criteria when it comes to mindreading other people. And you jumped to asking me about abortion. One concrete situation - you labeling people and claiming to know their internal (and unexpressed) motivations - got shifted to a different concrete situation - Mary's abortion.

Again, you lose me here. We've gone over and again how we see a free will and a determined world differently in terms of moral responsibility. We think differently about it. Autonomous and wholly determined actions and reactions are two very different worlds to me. No free will and moral responsibility is just another illusion to me. But what you allude to regarding me shifting in a free will world just doesn't sink in.

Thus...

I try to grasp what you are saying here about me but it just doesn't compute...epistemologically? It's not justification that I am after so much as explanation: "This is why I think that abortion is either moral or immoral." And then the objectivists among us who also add, "and so should you".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pm That wouldn't explain why I don't have your internal states.

Well, I would say that in a free will universe, you don't have them as a result of dasein. Or, in a determined universe, because our internal states [like our external states] are necessarily a manifestation of the only possible world.

Whereas my view is that it does not seem possible to have a wholly objective view either regarding the morality of abortion or the metaphysical parameters of the free will debate. Why? Because in regard to both, both sides can make reasonable arguments that the other side can't make go away. Then what? Well, for some, an existential leap to one set of assumptions or another. Or for others a fractured and fragmented Humpty Dumpty.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:03 pmI agree. And as far as either issue I can't explain why I don't feel feelings I don't feel. It would be as hard for me to explain why I don't like mint ice cream. It almost feels like a category error to expect people to explain why they don't feel what you feel aroudn these issues. I am sure some people will answer. I think there's like hubris involved, but possibly they used to feel torn apart and then didn't so they might have a notion about what changed in them.

Here, I attribute this part largely to the Benjamin Button Syndrome. There are simply an enormous number of existential variables that become intertwined in our day to day lives once we go out into the world and interact with others. Social, political and economic interactions that are largely beyond both our understanding and our control. And, for me, the hubris revolves around those who do simply dismiss all that is in fact beyond their understanding and control and still insist that their own value judgments and assessments of things like determinism really do reflect the optimal or the only rational frame of mind.

So, how does this all relate to free will and determinism.
If I find out for sure this is a deterministic universe, would I view the target of my recent complaints differently.
I can't really see it making a difference. I have, generally, recently, a negative reaction. I would now know for sure that this was all 'scripted' back in the Big Bang and further back if there is a further back. But my annoyance is the same. I already assume that causes internal and external are at least influencing decisions made by everyone.
If I find out for sure this is a free will universe, would I view the target of my recent complaints differently.
In some very abstract way. But what does this come down to? A person does something I find irritating. Instead of having, due to their nature and the world's nurture, been compelled by this to act a certain way, they chose to perhaps go against their own nature and background. This makes for a very strange world. Freedom can be found by going against one's own desires. Either the person allowed their background and desires to come up with a choice or they went against these or ignore these.

I don't even know what that means.

I feel like I'm left with a conundrum. Someone who is free is no longer the sum total of internal and external causes. So, does they're doing anything now, give me a sense of what they will do in the future? I suppose less so than a deterministic universe.

So, it a certain sense in a free will world I should be less guided by my history with someone, since their choices can have nothing to do with their pasts.

I believe I would be puzzled and the default would be to be wary of further communication, just as I would be in the deterministic universe.

I guess in a deterministic universe I might be more inclined to feel sorry for irritating people, which is often the case now despite my not being sure.

So, there we have the odd result: perhaps more sympathy in a deterministic universe, but more wariness. Because the past is a better determiner of the future behavior of the person. If the free will universe, less sympathy, but less wariness, since past behavior need be not the slightest indication of future behavior.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:50 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:59 pm Because I believe that objectivists [God or No God] can be dangerous. And have been down through the ages.

There's a belief right there

Again:

Just for the record, I challenge anyone to note where I have argued that having any belief at all makes you Hitler or the Taliban. That even believing 2 + 2 = 4 makes you a Nazi.

Instead, I have noted that historically, those I construe to be "my way or the highway" objectivists have gained power in particular communities [God or No God] and demanded of others that they "toe the line".

Or else. And here all the way up from reeducation camps and the gulags to the gas chambers.

Also, that in regard to moral nihilists as some construe the Vladimir Putins and the Xi Jinpings and the "show me the money" global capitalists of the world to be, they can also demand total allegiance to the powers that be.

This thread, on the other hand, focuses more on the quandary that revolves around a human brain some argue is wholly in sync with the laws of matter, being able to argue [and then demonstrate] that any belief at all is not a compelled belief.

So, does anyone here believe that historically there have never been any moral, political and spiritual objectivists who gained power in particular communities or nations and demanded of others that they "toe the line" or else?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:47 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:50 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:59 pm Because I believe that objectivists [God or No God] can be dangerous. And have been down through the ages.

There's a belief right there

Again:

Just for the record, I challenge anyone to note where I have argued that having any belief at all makes you Hitler or the Taliban. That even believing 2 + 2 = 4 makes you a Nazi.

I don't know why you keep quoting that. My quote doesn't say Hitler or the Taliban. My quote says objectivist.

You call people objectivists because they believe things. You believe things. You are an objectivist, by your own criteria, it's very simple.