For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Yeah, it's a mess. There's not a lot of things man won't corrupt. The bigger and more centralized the power, the bigger the corruption, it seems. As messed up as these nation-sized organizations are, just imagine a global one.
Note to others:henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 pmSez the guy doin' the (bad) Satyr imitation.You picked that up from Satyr, right?
I call him Mr. Chickenshit. Why? Because when I go there I am confronted with this:Mr. Chickshit wrote:Like how I dealt with the moron on ILP, iamretarded, suing his own methods against her.
Logic will not work, Reasoning will have no effect.
These are self-circumcised, self-lobotomized minds living in their private universe.
Come on, henry, either the Deist God exists or He doesn't.
Oh, so that's how it should work. What you believe is true rather than what you are actually able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are, in turn, obligated to believe is true.
Either you can demonstrate that He does in fact exist or it all revolves solely around what you believe about Him "in your head"...In a more or less blind leap of faith.
Okay, note for us how you demonstrate this to yourself then.
Either your Deist God is omniscient and omnipotent or He isn't.
Nope, you can't go wrong if it always comes down merely to what you believe is true. Like you believing that others are "morons" if they don't believe the same. That way you don't have to delve into the arguments I make in the OPs here...
Either it matters to Him which behaviors you choose on this side of the grave or it doesn't.
Now it's not even what you believe but what it seems to you.
Either you will be judged by Him when you shuffle off your mortal coil down here or you won't.
Seem, seem, seem...henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 pm It doesn't seem to me there's an afterlife or any Judgement levied by Him placin' me in some specific afterlife.
In other words, in the end, what matters more, what you say about Him or what is actually -- demonstrably -- true?
Okay, fair enough. But what I believe is that what you believe is predicated more on the manner in which I construe identity in the is/ought world as the existential embodiment of dasein rather than in what can actually be pinned down objectively.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 pm I believe what I say about Him is true; I can't demonstrate, to your satisfaction, that what I say about Him is true.
That's just great, henry. Your God creates us. He creates a planet on which we can interact. Savagely if we wish. A planet that is often little more than a ghastly horror show. But why should any mere mortals actually care about that? Shit happens. Let's think of the Deist God as we would that.
Again, fair enough. But it's great only until circumstantially it isn't. And if Putin nukes the Ukrainians prompting Biden to nuke him in turn, how great will it then be for millions upon millions of men women and children on both sides of the pond? And, again, even among Deists themselves, given a free will world, I suspect that "following the dictates of reason and nature" they will be all up and down the moral and political spectrum. Just like the rest of us. Which would seem to indicate that there is no one size fits all rationality and virtue in regard to Ukraine or abortion or guns.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 pm It is great. We're free wills, points of creative & causal power. We're free men with natural rights. This is a good deal.
You see ghastly horror show; I see challenge.
Deism, however, is said to be based on reason.
What then? How is your own philosophy of life not construed by you to be reasonable?
Yet Deists, just like the rest of us, "follow the dictates of reason and nature" all up and down the moral and political spectrum.
What are you suggesting then...that if you were able to gather up all the Deists around you, they would all subscribe to the same moral narratives and political agendas?
Or, perhaps, there is one and only one truly rational path to take in regard to the war in Ukraine and abortion and guns?
Again, you seem to acknowledge that others are permitted to pick a political policy that is best for them but not for you. Only if they do they become "morons". Freedom and rights only as you define the moral and political parameters regarding Ukraine, abortion and guns.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 pm Morally...
Ukraine: free man, slaver, or slave. Pick which is best for you and live with the consequences.
Abortion: recognize & respect persons or murder them. Pick which is best for you and live with the consequences.
Guns: recognize & respect a man's natural, unalienable right to his property or rob him. Pick which is best for you and live with the consequences.
Yours?
Note to others:
And, if others don't share it, does that make them "morons", or "simply wrong"?
How is this not being a meat mind in regard to the opinions of others? He'll insist that you have as much free will as he does [in a free will world] but if you will a policy at odds with his own you are a slave to the "simply wrong" propaganda of others.
Indeed, no assessment of The State from any of these perspectives...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
...qualify as even being worthy of discussion.
And, of course, those who are the equivalent of you in regard to all of these hyndreds of objectivists fonts, will make the same point about you. Only some might not go so far as to call you a "moron". Or are they "simply wrong" about that too?
...you are a finite being who was born at a particular time historically, in a particular place culturally and then accumulated a particular set of personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge.
Of course: your favorite "general description intellectual contraption" which revolves solely around everyone agreeing with how you define the meaning of those words...even though men and women living in historical and cultural and experiential contexts considerably different from yours will naturally come to very, very different conclusions regarding what those words mean.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 pm No matter where or when I am, I am always...
A free will. A free man with a natural, inalienable right to my, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.
Nope. As I say: I can't, to your satisfaction, demonstrate He exists. I've tried. You'll have none of it.What you believe is true rather than what you are actually able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are, in turn, obligated to believe is true.
You mean demonstrate to you. Nope. Been there, done that.Okay, note for us how you demonstrate this to yourself then.
If a person doesn't recognize that he is free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property; if a person doesn't recognize the other other guy is free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, then, yeah, he's a moron.you believing that others are "morons" if they don't believe the same.
You get that what's reasonable is not solely founded in reason, yeah?How is your own philosophy of life not construed by you to be reasonable?
Nope. I'm sayin' your lil second hand info about deism is for shit.What are you suggesting then...that if you were able to gather up all the Deists around you, they would all subscribe to the same moral narratives and political agendas?
There is no deist community. Natural rights don't come from deism (you don't have to be a deist).Either your own rendition of being rational and virtuous regarding Ukraine, abortion and guns prevails in any Deist community or the renditions of others do?
Er, sound suspiciously like let's vote on it! No, natural rights aren't up for democratic review. A man is free or he isn't. He has a right to his life, liberty, and property or he doesn't. I know you disagree: you've said already if your community banned firearms, you'd turn over your revolver. You're a moron.So, how would this be decided when what seems reasonable to you about these issues doesn't seem reasonable to others?
What I've said is: free men can do with themselves as they choose. They don't, however, get to with others as they choose without the other's express consent. That is, for example, if you choose to disarm yourself -- becuz the majority sez you must -- that's your choice. You're a moron. It's a bad choice. But it's yours to make.Again, you seem to acknowledge that others are permitted to pick a political policy that is best for them but not for you. Only if they do they become "morons". Freedom and rights only as you define the moral and political parameters regarding Ukraine, abortion and guns.
Unlike you: I don't care. If you, for example, think I'm a moron, so what? Who are you, or any one in-forum (or any one in the world), that I should care what you think or feel about me? As long as you let me be: assess me as low as you like.And, of course, those who are the equivalent of you in regard to all of these hyndreds of objectivists fonts, will make the same point about you. Only some might not go so far as to call you a "moron". Or are they "simply wrong" about that too?
Nope. Just a description of what is.general description intellectual contraption
No, they can't.They can't all be the One True Path
That is pretty much my thought at this point. Maybe Putin will content himself with Ukraine. I live about 30 miles from Orlando, Florida. I doubt it's a primary target but I wouldn't want to live in the world of shit that would follow a nuclear exchange even if I were to survive. We all lose if that happens.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 4:48 pm From the Washington Post
'Russia’s annexation puts world ‘two or three steps away’ from nuclear war
LONDON — President Vladimir Putin’s declaration of the annexation of four regions in eastern and southern Ukraine signals the onset of a new and highly dangerous phase in the seven-month old war, one that Western officials and analysts fear could escalate to the use of nuclear weapons for the first time in 77 years.
Putin has previously threatened to resort to nuclear weapons if Russia’s goals in Ukraine continue to be thwarted. The annexation brings the use of a nuclear weapon a step closer by giving Putin a potential justification on the grounds that “the territorial integrity of our country is threatened,” as he put it in his speech last week.
He renewed the threat on Friday with an ominous comment that the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki created a “precedent” for the use of nuclear weapons, echoing references he has made in the past to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as setting a precedent for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
U.S. and Western officials say they still think it unlikely that Putin will carry out his threats. Most probably, they say, he is hoping to deter the West from providing ever more sophisticated military assistance to Ukraine while the mobilization of an additional 300,000 troops allows Russia to reverse or at least halt its military setbacks on the battlefield.
But the threats appear only to have strengthened Western resolve to continue sending weapons to Ukraine and the Ukrainian military is continuing to advance into Russian-occupied territory.
Now, my own particular existential bias in regard to the Ukraine war is still the same. I don't believe in an afterlife. And, in the event of a nuclear war, living about 30 miles from Washington D.C., I stand a good chance of being vaporized. So, from my frame of mind, let Putin seize Ukraine. In fact let him seize all of those new nations that came into being only as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union. in other words, this assumes that he is not another Hitler, hell bent on gobbling up the entire globe and sending me to a death camp if I don't think exactly like he does.
He may be...Biden won't be. He's already declared he's for regime change in Russia. That means his handlers are not going to let Putin off the hook. That means Putin killed by his rivals, if not by his enemies.
Yeah, but he has nukes. So before he dies...promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:42 pm "So Putin's being pushed into throwing everything at the enemy...since they've left him no way out. He has to win, or he dies."
if he dies, he dies
Of course, some will immediately pounce on perspectives such as this as despicably selfish.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:35 pmThat is pretty much my thought at this point. Maybe Putin will content himself with Ukraine. I live about 30 miles from Orlando, Florida. I doubt it's a primary target but I wouldn't want to live in the world of shit that would follow a nuclear exchange even if I were to survive. We all lose if that happens.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 4:48 pm From the Washington Post
'Russia’s annexation puts world ‘two or three steps away’ from nuclear war
LONDON — President Vladimir Putin’s declaration of the annexation of four regions in eastern and southern Ukraine signals the onset of a new and highly dangerous phase in the seven-month old war, one that Western officials and analysts fear could escalate to the use of nuclear weapons for the first time in 77 years.
Putin has previously threatened to resort to nuclear weapons if Russia’s goals in Ukraine continue to be thwarted. The annexation brings the use of a nuclear weapon a step closer by giving Putin a potential justification on the grounds that “the territorial integrity of our country is threatened,” as he put it in his speech last week.
He renewed the threat on Friday with an ominous comment that the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki created a “precedent” for the use of nuclear weapons, echoing references he has made in the past to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as setting a precedent for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
U.S. and Western officials say they still think it unlikely that Putin will carry out his threats. Most probably, they say, he is hoping to deter the West from providing ever more sophisticated military assistance to Ukraine while the mobilization of an additional 300,000 troops allows Russia to reverse or at least halt its military setbacks on the battlefield.
But the threats appear only to have strengthened Western resolve to continue sending weapons to Ukraine and the Ukrainian military is continuing to advance into Russian-occupied territory.
Now, my own particular existential bias in regard to the Ukraine war is still the same. I don't believe in an afterlife. And, in the event of a nuclear war, living about 30 miles from Washington D.C., I stand a good chance of being vaporized. So, from my frame of mind, let Putin seize Ukraine. In fact let him seize all of those new nations that came into being only as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union. in other words, this assumes that he is not another Hitler, hell bent on gobbling up the entire globe and sending me to a death camp if I don't think exactly like he does.
Putin's regime has done little more than try to antagonize the West in everything it does. That literally seems to be the guy's only purpose in life--flying bombers near Alaska in peacetime. Invading countries. And he kills his political opponents--so important is it for him to remain in power. His mission in life seems to be to antagonize us. Now, after all his antics, he feels "unsafe"? If we give in to his antics, do you think that'll appease the guy? I mean, I say let him annex parts of Ukraine and leave it at that if he'll be satisfied with it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 10:01 pmYeah, but he has nukes. So before he dies...promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:42 pm "So Putin's being pushed into throwing everything at the enemy...since they've left him no way out. He has to win, or he dies."
if he dies, he dies
It certainly didn't help to have the Bush family in the White House 3 times. The father was the director of the CIA once upon a time. If there's a single family that left the world a worse place when they left, it would probably be them.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:47 pmYeah, it's a mess. There's not a lot of things man won't corrupt. The bigger and more centralized the power, the bigger the corruption, it seems. As messed up as these nation-sized organizations are, just imagine a global one.
I wouldn't worry about it. I don't see anyone doing that.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 10:46 pmOf course, some will immediately pounce on perspectives such as this as despicably selfish.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:35 pmThat is pretty much my thought at this point. Maybe Putin will content himself with Ukraine. I live about 30 miles from Orlando, Florida. I doubt it's a primary target but I wouldn't want to live in the world of shit that would follow a nuclear exchange even if I were to survive. We all lose if that happens.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 4:48 pm From the Washington Post
'Russia’s annexation puts world ‘two or three steps away’ from nuclear war
LONDON — President Vladimir Putin’s declaration of the annexation of four regions in eastern and southern Ukraine signals the onset of a new and highly dangerous phase in the seven-month old war, one that Western officials and analysts fear could escalate to the use of nuclear weapons for the first time in 77 years.
Putin has previously threatened to resort to nuclear weapons if Russia’s goals in Ukraine continue to be thwarted. The annexation brings the use of a nuclear weapon a step closer by giving Putin a potential justification on the grounds that “the territorial integrity of our country is threatened,” as he put it in his speech last week.
He renewed the threat on Friday with an ominous comment that the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki created a “precedent” for the use of nuclear weapons, echoing references he has made in the past to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as setting a precedent for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
U.S. and Western officials say they still think it unlikely that Putin will carry out his threats. Most probably, they say, he is hoping to deter the West from providing ever more sophisticated military assistance to Ukraine while the mobilization of an additional 300,000 troops allows Russia to reverse or at least halt its military setbacks on the battlefield.
But the threats appear only to have strengthened Western resolve to continue sending weapons to Ukraine and the Ukrainian military is continuing to advance into Russian-occupied territory.
Now, my own particular existential bias in regard to the Ukraine war is still the same. I don't believe in an afterlife. And, in the event of a nuclear war, living about 30 miles from Washington D.C., I stand a good chance of being vaporized. So, from my frame of mind, let Putin seize Ukraine. In fact let him seize all of those new nations that came into being only as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union. in other words, this assumes that he is not another Hitler, hell bent on gobbling up the entire globe and sending me to a death camp if I don't think exactly like he does.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:15 pm This is a heavily snipped response: I see no need to comment on your lil wars elsewhere or your self-promotions or on your notes to others or to rehash what's been hashed, rehashed, and re-rehashed in other threads.
Nope. As I say: I can't, to your satisfaction, demonstrate He exists. I've tried. You'll have none of it.What you believe is true rather than what you are actually able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are, in turn, obligated to believe is true.
*
You mean demonstrate to you. Nope. Been there, done that.Okay, note for us how you demonstrate this to yourself then.
*
If a person doesn't recognize that he is free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property; if a person doesn't recognize the other other guy is free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, then, yeah, he's a moron.you believing that others are "morons" if they don't believe the same.
*
You get that what's reasonable is not solely founded in reason, yeah?How is your own philosophy of life not construed by you to be reasonable?
*
Nope. I'm sayin' your lil second hand info about deism is for shit.What are you suggesting then...that if you were able to gather up all the Deists around you, they would all subscribe to the same moral narratives and political agendas?
*
There is no deist community. Natural rights don't come from deism (you don't have to be a deist).Either your own rendition of being rational and virtuous regarding Ukraine, abortion and guns prevails in any Deist community or the renditions of others do?
*
Er, sound suspiciously like let's vote on it! No, natural rights aren't up for democratic review. A man is free or he isn't. He has a right to his life, liberty, and property or he doesn't. I know you disagree: you've said already if your community banned firearms, you'd turn over your revolver. You're a moron.So, how would this be decided when what seems reasonable to you about these issues doesn't seem reasonable to others?
*
What I've said is: free men can do with themselves as they choose. They don't, however, get to with others as they choose without the other's express consent. That is, for example, if you choose to disarm yourself -- becuz the majority sez you must -- that's your choice. You're a moron. It's a bad choice. But it's yours to make.Again, you seem to acknowledge that others are permitted to pick a political policy that is best for them but not for you. Only if they do they become "morons". Freedom and rights only as you define the moral and political parameters regarding Ukraine, abortion and guns.
*
Unlike you: I don't care. If you, for example, think I'm a moron, so what? Who are you, or any one in-forum (or any one in the world), that I should care what you think or feel about me? As long as you let me be: assess me as low as you like.And, of course, those who are the equivalent of you in regard to all of these hyndreds of objectivists fonts, will make the same point about you. Only some might not go so far as to call you a "moron". Or are they "simply wrong" about that too?
And: yes, again, If a person doesn't recognize that he is free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property; if a person doesn't recognize the other other guy is free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, then, yeah, he's a moron, he's wrong, and he is my enemy.
But: you know all this. I've said it, to you, multiple times, across multiple threads.
*
Nope. Just a description of what is.general description intellectual contraption
*
No, they can't.They can't all be the One True Path
See what I mean? He merely asserts -- insists! -- that things like this are true. He offers us absolutely no hard evidence -- empirical, experiential, experimental -- to back up these "thought up" dictums of his. He simply becomes the "authoritative source" by dint of his own definitional logic.
And then how he connects this to...God?
Now, to me, that's a meat-mind. A fulminating and fanatical objectivist. Only I'm the first to admit that "I" am entirely incapable of demonstrating that myself. It's just my own personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein.