Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:51 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:09 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 1:43 pm No, you fucking little asshole. That was an opening assertion of my belief. Are you senile?

Try starting again, actually read what I wrote. Note that I opened with saying I did not believe things that you then attributed to me and then actually interact with what I write. Or is it too scary to actually interact with what people write so you need to hallucinate things?

Note to others:

Click.

Make of this what you will.

Didn't read the exchange but you asked me to make of it what I will, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that most likely you were a little ass hole who did precisely what he said.

Click.

It's funny. After refusing to following links to my posts here and refusing to respond to my example in ILP, he asked me to copy and paste in a new post. At the beginning of that post I specifically denied believing brain cells are undetermined, that people raping are determined while those respönoding are not and so on.

With no support in the copy pasted posts and after I specifically deny that I believe these things, he attributes these beliefs to me. Then he did some mindreading that explained why I have these beliefs.

There's almost a genius to his stupidity (or trolling).

There's almost a genius to his stupidity (or trolling).

Iambiguous is jerking people around for shits and giggles?

Iambiguous is demonstrating that there is no way to make any progress with philosophy?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:51 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:09 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 1:43 pm No, you fucking little asshole. That was an opening assertion of my belief. Are you senile?

Try starting again, actually read what I wrote. Note that I opened with saying I did not believe things that you then attributed to me and then actually interact with what I write. Or is it too scary to actually interact with what people write so you need to hallucinate things?

Note to others:

Click.

Make of this what you will.

Avoid, avoid, avoid. You ask people for what I said. I present you with links to here and ILP. You can't follow links for some reason and keep asking me to copy paste. So, I do this. They you 'accuse' me of copy pasting.
I start the post explaining a number of things I do not believe. Yet, you for some reason tell me I believe these things.
You tell me you have responded before, but you did not interact with what I wrote or you would know that I don't believe brains are autonomous or that rape is determined but reactions to rape are not.
You may be sincere in thinking that I must believe these things I have not said, but you don't quote where I said them. You don't show how what I wrote entailed them.
In two forums I did as requested by you. You refused to respond in one, because it wasn't the abortion issue, while saying elsewhere you would discuss other issues that addressed the reponsibility being compatible with determinism.

And here you decide yet again not to interact with what I wrote, yet again.
I don't know if you are a coward or a troll or both.

Mother Nature to iwannaplato:

I'll work on him, okay?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:51 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:09 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 1:43 pm No, you fucking little asshole. That was an opening assertion of my belief. Are you senile?

Try starting again, actually read what I wrote. Note that I opened with saying I did not believe things that you then attributed to me and then actually interact with what I write. Or is it too scary to actually interact with what people write so you need to hallucinate things?

Note to others:

Click.

Make of this what you will.

Didn't read the exchange but you asked me to make of it what I will, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that most likely you were a little ass hole who did precisely what he said.

Click.

Actually, iwannaplato's position seems to be this: that you really are obligated to read what he posts. And he knows if someone has because they agree with him.

Call it, among other things, the Satyr Syndrome.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:30 pm

Actually, iwannaplato's position seems to be this: that you really are obligated to read what he posts. And he knows if someone has because they agree with him. [/quote]Never said that. I got annoyed because you attributed beliefs to me I opened the post by specifically denying I believe those things. And then further never say them in the post. You don't bother to show where I say them or how they are entailed. You refuse to following links, refuse to respond in ILP. Then when I copy paste you accuse me of copy pasting and....attribute beliefs to me I do not have.

That annoys me. And here you are doing it again. Now you are telling me what I think you are obligated to do. And you've accused me of this before. I ask you to support your interpretation of an article and you accuse me of saying you have to agree with me. I ask you to explain and justify your position and that means you are obligated to agree with me.

If you attribute beliefs to me I do nto have and have specifically denied having and I ask you to read my post, that means you have to agree. No, it means disagree or agree with what I actually write, not with what you make up.

Or show me where I said you would agree if you read my post.

But you won't. You like making assertions without backing them up. Something you dislike in others.

Call it, among other things, the Satyr Syndrome.

I believe dear boy, you are projecting.

It is utterly impossible that you made up shit about what I said and meant. You don't even need to justify your accusation.

How dare anyone disagree with Iambiguous.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:59 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:08 am Note to others:

Please advise how you see the man hitting someone with a hammer as different from him raping someone. Where does the autonomy come in, aside from mere mortals insisting that it's in there "somehow". It's just got to be or else the horror of living in a world where the brute facticity of material laws -- rapes, abortions, final solutions etc. -- is just too much to bear.

And again, he says that I say the man with the hammar has autonomy. I didn't say it was there. I didn't say it was there somehow. It's not part of my position.

That's true. But my man with the hammer above is basically a generic reflection of a mere mortal in a No God world doing something others would call dangerous. Same with the rapist.

Now, the part where Hammer Man has no autonomy and belts someone upside the head with the hammer. Why? Because he was never able not to.

Then the part where the compatibilists here are able to demonstrate beyond a philosophical argument why he is still morally responsible for doing so.

Over and again, I note that I'm the one here who may well be misunderstanding how this all unfolds.

The rest is just watered down Stooge Stuff.

In other words, if I do say so myself.

What would be "beyond a philosophical argument"?

God coming down and explaining everything.

What else could it be?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:08 am Note to others:

Please advise how you see the man hitting someone with a hammer as different from him raping someone. Where does the autonomy come in, aside from mere mortals insisting that it's in there "somehow". It's just got to be or else the horror of living in a world where the brute facticity of material laws -- rapes, abortions, final solutions etc. -- is just too much to bear.

And again, he says that I say the man with the hammar has autonomy. I didn't say it was there. I didn't say it was there somehow. It's not part of my position.

That's true.

Then why did you attribute a position to me I did not have.

But my man with the hammer above is basically a generic reflection of a mere mortal in a No God world doing something others would call dangerous. Same with the rapist.

OK.

Now, the part where Hammer Man has no autonomy and belts someone upside the head with the hammer. Why? Because he was never able not to.

Right. I agree, that was always going to happen.

Then the part where the compatibilists here are able to demonstrate beyond a philosophical argument why he is still morally responsible for doing so.

Why are you talking about compatibilists in some general way. I presented an argument for why I think that even if determinsm is the case we can still hold people responsible for their actions. I am not compatibilists. I am nto a group of people.

I know you don't agree, but I don't see anywhere where you interact with my ideas. Keep disagreeing with me, but at least have the tiny respect of actually responding to MY post, not some vague general assertion, without justifcation, of your position and how it differs from compatibilists in general. I have read you write the above dozens of times.

Over and again, I note that I'm the one here who may well be misunderstanding how this all unfolds.

Well, we might be able to find out if you interacted with my posts and didn't attribute beliefs to me you seem to now realize I don't have. We might not. But you simply repeating your position and making up stuff I am saying sure as shit won't work.

The rest is just watered down Stooge Stuff.

Actually, I think it's Stooge stuff attibuting beliefs to people who specifically deny having those beliefs in the very post you respond to and where nothing in my post asserts what you are saying I believe. I also think it's Stooge stuff to not admit this.

I think it's Stooge stuff to refuse to respond in ILP while complaining that everything is up in the clouds.

I think it's Stooge stuff to respond to a post with specifics you ignore while responding to some vague large group.

So, feel free to read my post please I BEG YOU, disagree with me. I assume you will disagree with me. But point out where in my post the arguments are confused. Justify your counterpostion that we should not hold someone reponsible if all acts are determined.

That seems to be your position. You keep asserting that. That we cannot hold someone responsible if they were always going to do X.

Justify that position, instead of asserting it over and over as if it is just obvious and your incredulity is evidence.

Please keep your position, but respond to mine, and heck justify yours.

If you agree with me I will be offended. I will only be happy if you keep your position, but then also justify it. I will only be happy if you disagree with my position, not someone else's

That's about as clear as I can make that.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:30 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:51 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:09 pm

Note to others:

Click.

Make of this what you will.

Didn't read the exchange but you asked me to make of it what I will, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that most likely you were a little ass hole who did precisely what he said.

Click.

Actually, iwannaplato's position seems to be this: that you really are obligated to read what he posts. And he knows if someone has because they agree with him.

Call it, among other things, the Satyr Syndrome.

Nope, I don't think that's it, I think you're being a goofy goober my little buddy.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 9:00 pm What would be "beyond a philosophical argument"?

God coming down and explaining everything.

What else could it be?

He could be a brain in a vat, or having a psychotic break or determinied to interpret something other than God as God. It's fine if he thinks there is always a possibility we are mistaken, even fundamentally. I think most of us acknowledge that possibility. But the continued acting as if some could say something that fits his criteria or scientists coming here could ACTUALLY be convincing - with no explanation for how, suddenly, his brain cells are autonomous if a scientist comes here, that all doesn't make sense.

What we do isn't enough, but it's as if something could be done. Well, not according to his criteria and arguments. They leave no room for being convinced by anything or anyone doing anything, and not even the experience of God would do it. He just doesn't seem to notice this.

larry wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:13 pm

There's almost a genius to his stupidity (or trolling).

Iambiguous is jerking people around for shits and giggles?

Iambiguous is demonstrating that there is no way to make any progress with philosophy?

Same thing in my view. Pertaining to meaning, morality, and metaphysics, those here able to grasp the existential consequences of being drawn and quartered come after me because, well, what if it happens to them?!

All I can really do, however, is extrapolate from over 20 years of posting in philosophy forums. As I noted on another thread, next to my own truly grim philosophy of life, Nietzsche's philosophy might well be deemed by some to be downright Pollyannish.

Also, to the best of my current knowledge, no one is actually required to read anything I post. And I don't read much of anything at all that phyllo and iwannaplato post unless I'm mentioned in the post.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 9:10 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 9:00 pm What would be "beyond a philosophical argument"?

God coming down and explaining everything.

What else could it be?

He could be a brain in a vat, or having a psychotic break or determinied to interpret something other than God as God. It's fine if he thinks there is always a possibility we are mistaken, even fundamentally. I think most of us acknowledge that possibility. But the continued acting as if some could say something that fits his criteria or scientists coming here could ACTUALLY be convincing - with no explanation for how, suddenly, his brain cells are autonomous if a scientist comes here, that all doesn't make sense.

What we do isn't enough, but it's as if something could be done. Well, not according to his criteria and arguments. They leave no room for being convinced by anything or anyone doing anything, and not even the experience of God would do it. He just doesn't seem to notice this.

Yeah, you're right, there is no room for being convinced by anything or anyone.

It is a common observation that people are held responsible even when there are circumstances beyond their control ... a mentally ill arsonist for example.

Yet, this does not seem to qualify as a "demonstration beyond a philosophical argument".

In fact, no observation seems to count as evidence.

Same thing in my view. Pertaining to meaning, morality, and metaphysics, those here able to grasp the existential consequences of being drawn and quartered come after me because, well, what if it happens to them?!

All I can really do, however, is extrapolate from over 20 years of posting in philosophy forums. As I noted on another thread, next to my own truly grim philosophy of life, Nietzsche's philosophy might well be deemed by some to be downright Pollyannish.

Also, to the best of my current knowledge, no one is actually required to read anything I post. And I don't read much of anything at all that phyllo and iwannaplato post unless I'm mentioned in the post.

One has to wonder what you are doing here when you ask for something, a poster (or several posters) makes an honest effort to answer and you are uninterested in discussing the answer beyond some dismissive comments.

What is this all about?

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 9:00 pm What would be "beyond a philosophical argument"?

God coming down and explaining everything.

What else could it be?

Let's run that by physicists and chemists and biologists and others who explore and assess relationships in the either/or world. Did God have to come down and explain things to them?

As for God, He generally explains things through one or another Scripture.

And for years now I've been attempting to get phyllo to connect the dots between God and religion, objective morality, and the part after he dies.

Nothing so far.

Unless, of course, I missed it.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 9:34 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2024 9:00 pm What would be "beyond a philosophical argument"?

God coming down and explaining everything.

What else could it be?

Let's run that by physicists and chemists and biologists and others who explore and assess relationships in the either/or world. Did God have to come down and explain things to them?

As for God, He generally explains things through one or another Scripture.

And for years now I've been attempting to get phyllo to connect the dots between God and religion, objective morality, and the part after he dies.

Nothing so far.

Unless, of course, I missed it.

I'm not here to discuss gods and religion.

Maybe if I was at ILoveTalkingAboutGodsAndReligion.com ...