iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 10:18 pm
First of all -- click -- I rarely employ "shameless" in my posts.
You're used it over 100 times. But the rareness of you're employing is not relevant. You've had enough experience of doing it, to understand how non-libertarians can make moral judgments, Mr. Wiggle. You said:
then why do you level these accusations at me in the manner in which a libertarian might?
And so I asked you the same question. given that you make moral judgments, just like a libertarian would. IOW you should know via your own experience how this can happen.
If I yell at a hammer and someone (who yells at his TV when the reception is bad) asks me how I could yell at an object, I'll point out he yells as the TV. This is a much better way to explain how this could happen, then some long philosophical/psychological explanation.
And, then, also, hopefully, that person might wonder WHY they needed to ask the question in the first place.
And it's not trivial. It's right on topic. You seem to wonder how moral judgments can be made by determinists. But your own behavior and doing this yourself can provide clues, yet somehow it doesn't for you. Yes, you are not a determinist, but you are not a libertarian. And yet you manage to judge people here and also objectivists.
And if this somehow leads to you repeating that you view your own moral reactiosn as dasein-based, etc., we've heard it all before. But little friend, that's not really happening in relation to objectivists, see below. Nor to us when you use shameless.
Now retired, I would guess, withdrawn from most IRL interactions with others, your bursts of moral outrage have little consequence. But it should be easy to extrapolate how they might lead to consequences if you were engaged in work and politics, even everyday politics. So, you're incredulity about how these things could happen and why determinists still make moral judgments and even act on them, seems the result of inadequate introspection and self-observation.
I believe you have guns at home. Would you not be quite likely to use one if threatened by violent seeming intruder just as an objectivist libertarian would?
Where does your not understanding about how determinists making moral judgments and holding people responsible really come from?
I know, it's not personal with us, but presumably you treat yourself like a person, are aware you are a person. And there's so much you can find to help you understand right there.
It almost always pops into my head only when I believe that others here either become Mr. Snippet or Mr. Wiggle.
Same thing. It's odd that you don't understand that you are just demonstrating my point.
Just as I employ the word "Stooge" when I believe others shift the discussions from philosophy to me.
And same thing again.
But over and again I come around to noting that this is just a subjective judgment call on my part. A subjuntive reaction rooted existentially in dasein. I recognize that others here don't react as I do at all to particular posters. And I would never suggest that they ought to.
Every time you call someone shameless, you are doing precisely that. You're not saying 'I don't like that.' You are labelling someone negative morally. Just as an antiaborotionist calling a woman heading into a family planning clinic 'Shameless' is doing it.
Also, I have a predilection to opposite sides on an issue and aggressively pursue their own point of view.
I'm sorry you've been aggressively pursuing your negative view of objectivists for years. As I HAVE ALREADY SAID, but which you ignore. Yes, on many specific moral issues you are fractured and fragmented. But as far as your moral judgment of objecivists you are not. You have no prediliction for the other side also.
A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, poking and prodding, huffing and puffing, satire. But it's almost never meant to be personal. It's just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating. When the best minds are goaded, they are often driven in turn to make their points all the more forcefully. It's like both of you are down in the arena using words for swords. From my experience these are almost always the most interesting exchanges.
So, you're a polemicist when you huff and puff. It's fine when you do whatever you want in a dialogue, but if other people react to your 'polemics' they are stooges and shameless. And you then complain about their behavior and label it as morally negative.
But I agree, it's nothing personal. You act interpersonally, but you seem not aware, really, that you are interacting with people.
And you certainly view yourelf as a libertarian would above. Just to bring it back to the point I made earlier. You should understand how one who isn't a libertarian could communicate and act like one, given that you do this also.
