fascism in America?

[Gary Childress]

Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, why has an extant God not done a much, much better job at directing mere mortals to the One True Path?

I don't know that there is one "true path". Maybe people can take somewhat different paths and still be ok in the eyes of God. Why does there need to be one true path? Or what is meant by "one true path"? Is it meant that we all behave the same way, and do the same things in order to please God? So if someone is a carpenter and someone else is a computer programmer, does that mean at least one of them must be on the wrong path because they aren't doing the exact same thing as each other? Maybe the spiritual life is similar--paths can vary to whatever degree.

[Iwannaplato]

Like it can't be both.

Not to a consistant moral nihilist, but yes, to a moral realist.

But my point is that whether it is construed by someone to be one or the other or a combination of both, it reflects a personal opinion derived existentially from dasein. Unless, of course, someone here, using the tools of philosophy, can provide us with an actual demonstrable argument enabling us to determine when, objectively, someone is being absolutely shameless.

Yes, I understand your official position is non-objectivist.

Which is an odd thing for a nihilist to make.

I can see, jeez I hate when he does that. Or even, I hate him.
I can see, it's pointless for me to talk to someone like you or him.
I can see, I prefer people who_______________________

But moral accusations do not fit well with nihilism

Same thing.

???? No, those are not claims that someone is being morally evil/bad/wrong. They are expressions of emotional reactions to things, preferences for some things, preferences against others. And one can of course reason about consequences and that consequence 1 is one you don't like, point out fallacies in the other person's arguments, point out epistemological problems in the roots of their objectivist positions and so on. IOW some of these things you do, and others you can use to replace moral accusations. No loss, and the gain of no hypocrisy, and even the gain of not speading objectivism which you dislike.

Here you are with your own entirely existential, rooted subjectively in dasein "take" on nihilism. On moral nihilism. Assuming that I'm making a moral accusation against IC, when I have made it abundantly clear that my own reaction to him is but a moral, political and spiritual prejudice derived entirely from the life I've lived.

You just supported my claim that it was a moral accusation. Read that sentence.

Again: Unless you or others here can pin down once and for all [philosophically or otherwise] whether IC is, in fact, objectively, being absolutely shameless in his exchanges with me.

Whatever he is doing has nothing to do with what I am pointing out you are doing.

"I" think he is. And I've noted why I think that. But since I don't exclude myself from my own point of view, I am certainly not suggesting that others here ought to think the same.

So why use objectivist speak? There are alternatives. You lose nothing and gain clarity and consistancy with your own position?

IC is the moral, political and spiritual objectivist here. He's the one arguing that in regard to individual reactions to Caesar, Hitler aand Trump re Judgment Day there are those who are True Christians and those who are not.

Go ahead, you ask him.

Again. You seem confused. I am not taking sides with IC. I've disagreed with him earlier and generally stopped communicating with him. I am responding to objective moral speak by a moral nihilist. I had a similar discussion with Peter Holmes.

No, from my own subjective point of view "here and now", it's not. I am not arguing that IC is bad because IC is being absolutely shameless.

Yes, it's not an argument it's a statement that is a moral accusation.

Imagine someone saying women are absolutely shameless and fulminating fanatics also.
Then later they say. Oh, I don't think I was being objective. I'm a feminist. That's just because of my Dasein I say that. I know it isn't objective.
We'd think those statements were very odd. And in a way, utterly beside the point.

Yes, exactly! Why? Because from the objectivist frame of mind on both sides of the feminist fence -- morally and politically -- gender roles are understood in very different ways. Why? Well, is it because, using the tools of philosophy, we can pin down the "wisest", most objective reaction to feminism? Or, instead, are attitudes about gender roles rooted more in particular historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts that have evolved and changed over the centuries resulting in any number of conflicting conclusions.

I understand moral nihilism.

Isn't that ever and always the bottom line for him?

OK, it seems like if I criticize you, IC's behavior is relevant. It's not. I am not defending him and obviously I am not defending objectivism. Obviously I am doing the opposite.

But you keep bringing up IC as if this justifies your behavior or as if I must side with you and anything that seems like am not is rebutted by his problems.

This is like talking to an objectivist.

Why do I say this?

Well, it’s two things:

1) You are attached to using objectivist moral speak, when there are perfectly effective ways of communicating without using objectivist speech. When I point this out, twice, you do not address that issue, you just assure me that you really are a nihilist, non-objectivist. And explain to me again how your preferences are caused by dasein or experience. Well, sure. But that doesn't mean that you have to go around using objectivist speech, especially after years, I assume, moving away from objectivism and then now when it is suggested you can do without such language use. And especially online, where one has to type it in. No, the only response I get is that your positions on things are caused by dasein. Sure. And you can still have those positions, but speak about them like a person who does not believe in objectivist values. But you prefer to exchange moral accusations with IC, for example. I can see no reason to take you seriously on the issue of what you believe about morals, when you cling to moral accusations. I explained in the previous post ways to not do this and argue for positions you want and against positions you don't like.
2) Your Us them mentality of the specific kind found in online discussions (that is with a typical objectivist fallacy in it). So, not just seeing the world in us/them terms, which is very objectivist or moral realist. But also assuming that any criticism aimed at what you are doing can be rebutted by attacking the them. This is typical moral realist fallacy. It's also a logical fallacy. But right here my focus is on the moral realism. It's not about reasoning, it's about teams, us vs. them, so you can rebut by pointing fingers at the real bad guys. Well, no you can't. It works in a room full of democrats and republicans because both sides assume this fallacy (and assume they are the only possible teams).

I've had this experience before with you where I find your responses odd and also what you accuse others of you are clearly doing yourself: for example, intellectual contraptions.

So, I'll back off. But I don't like to close off to people and some of what you say is interesting. But it feels like backing off time again and it seems you are not interested in even considering the point I am making. You didn't really address it. You asserted what you were but made no real comment on the language issue. What you say at one time doesn't negative what you do or say at another time.

I have brought up this exact acting like an objectivist issue in reaction to other moral anti-realists here and had good dialogue around it. I know this is possible. But I'll drop it. You don't strike me as a non-objectivist or you wouldn't hang on to these objectivist patterns. I mean, I am not saying you are lying. I assmume you're honest about being a moral nihilist. But there is something unresolved here.

You wanna call people bad guys. But if others do it is wrong. And you mount arguments (seek objective criteria) to show they are the bad guys. Yeah, you're not a theist. But you don't have to be a theist - as I am sure you know - to be an objectivist.

So, this is a dead impasse.

Maybe I'll pop in in a month or so on another topic.

[FlashDangerpants]

Apparently it's not a conspiracy theory because they said in their book that they will make it impossible for you to own stuff (so CONSPIRACY FACT!!!). If you ask for the actual quote, he can't quite furnish you with that though.

Here ya go, silly.

It's called "Eight Predictions for the World in 2030," and they pulled it when they realized it was too much, and they didn't want to be held to account for it. So it's harder to find now. But yes, they said it. Somebody always saves such stuff.

And here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKwENH-m4oU

There it is, in the WEF's own pro-mo materials.

It's also in an article on their own Facebook site.

Cheers.

Lol. You previously said there was no interpretation or reading between the lines necessary. Now all you got is that?
How did you manage to get from that shit to universal socialism with .... end to private ownership, redistribution, and no private property...you literally get to "own nothing," ... without a bunch of reading between the lines?

Just live with being what you are Mannie, you are a conspiracy theorist. There's no conversion therapy that will take that one away from you.

[iambiguous]

Once again, I respond at length to the points you raised above. And you, as with IC, "snip" out but one single line of it.

Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, why has an extant God not done a much, much better job at directing mere mortals to the One True Path?

I don't know that there is one "true path".

You may not know this, but there are any number of those around the globe, who, regarding one or another religious denomination, will insist that in fact their path is the One True Path. So, if you want access to immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave, you had best adhere to their own Scripture on this side of it.

In fact, how is that not religion in a nutshell historically?

Here of course IC will tell you it is his own "private and personal" understanding of the Christian God.

How about you? What private and personal God did you take a leap of faith to? Or, as with IC, is it not just a leap of faith. Do you insist instead that your God does exist. That you are able to demonstrate that He exists in Heaven as another would demonstrate that the Popes exist in the Vatican.

Or, in regard to this thread, that Trump is a fascist more or less along the lines of Hitler. That his reelection will bring fascism to America.

Maybe people can take somewhat different paths and still be ok in the eyes of God. Why does there need to be one true path? Or what is meant by "one true path"? Is it meant that we all behave the same way, and do the same things in order to please God?

Ask them that! Ask IC and other Christians here, for example, if they believe that with the second coming of Christ, all those who are not True Christians will be "left behind".

Ask them what that means.

[iambiguous]

Like it can't be both.

Not to a consistant moral nihilist, but yes, to a moral realist.

Okay, in regard to the possibility of fascism in America, how would one differentiate a moral nihilist from a moral realist.

Now, as a moral nihilist, my reaction to fascism is derived subjectively from the political prejudices I came to embody existentially given the trajectory of the life I lived. In particular 20+ years as a left-wing political activist.

But I have no arguments -- demonstrable arguments -- able to convince others that fascism is inherently, necessarily irrational or immoral.

How about the moral realist?

"Moral realism is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world, some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately." wiki

The moral realist and fascism in America?

Thus...

But my point is that whether it is construed by someone to be one or the other or a combination of both, it reflects a personal opinion derived existentially from dasein. Unless, of course, someone here, using the tools of philosophy, can provide us with an actual demonstrable argument enabling us to determine when, objectively, someone is being absolutely shameless.

Yes, I understand your official position is non-objectivist.

Official? Nope, that sounds [to me] like something someone who embraces an authoritarian mentality would broach and defend. Even my own frame of mind -- moral nihilism -- is but an existential frame of mind ever and always subject to change given new experiences.

Which is an odd thing for a nihilist to make.

I can see, jeez I hate when he does that. Or even, I hate him.
I can see, it's pointless for me to talk to someone like you or him.
I can see, I prefer people who_______________________

But moral accusations do not fit well with nihilism

Same thing.

???? No, those are not claims that someone is being morally evil/bad/wrong. They are expressions of emotional reactions to things, preferences for some things, preferences against others. And one can of course reason about consequences and that consequence 1 is one you don't like, point out fallacies in the other person's arguments, point out epistemological problems in the roots of their objectivist positions and so on. IOW some of these things you do, and others you can use to replace moral accusations. No loss, and the gain of no hypocrisy, and even the gain of not speading objectivism which you dislike.

Again, from my frame of mind, this presupposes that, in regard to fascism, one can, in using the tools at our disposal here, arrive at a definitive list of fallacies or a definitive list of epistemological problems such that philosophically we can come to the optimal or the only rational assessment of fascism. As though how most think about fascism isn't also aligned with what they feel about it.

And I don't make "moral accusations" as the fulminating fanatic objectivists do. I don't believe that, in a No God world, objective morality is even possible.

I just recognize that this belief in and of itself is no less but a subjective personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein.

Here you are with your own entirely existential, rooted subjectively in dasein "take" on nihilism. On moral nihilism. Assuming that I'm making a moral accusation against IC, when I have made it abundantly clear that my own reaction to him is but a moral, political and spiritual prejudice derived entirely from the life I've lived.

You just supported my claim that it was a moral accusation. Read that sentence.

Note to others:

Please explain to me where I supported his claim above.

Again: Unless you or others here can pin down once and for all [philosophically or otherwise] whether IC is, in fact, objectively, being absolutely shameless in his exchanges with me.

Whatever he is doing has nothing to do with what I am pointing out you are doing.

Note to others:

Same thing. He [she?] seems convinced that he [she?] is making sense here but it's all completely over my head. Let's get to the bottom of this.

"I" think he is. And I've noted why I think that. But since I don't exclude myself from my own point of view, I am certainly not suggesting that others here ought to think the same.

So why use objectivist speak? There are alternatives. You lose nothing and gain clarity and consistancy with your own position?

Huh? It is the objectivists among us who, regarding things like fascism in America, insist that clarity and consistency revolve solely around reacting to it as they do. As someone "fractured and fragmented" regarding conflicting goods, there is no clarity and consistency for me. After all, how could there be when over and again I find my reactions to conflicting goods hopelessly drawn and quartered?

Thus...

IC is the moral, political and spiritual objectivist here. He's the one arguing that in regard to individual reactions to Caesar, Hitler and Trump re Judgment Day, there are those who are True Christians and those who are not.

Go ahead, you ask him.

Again. You seem confused. I am not taking sides with IC. I've disagreed with him earlier and generally stopped communicating with him. I am responding to objective moral speak by a moral nihilist. I had a similar discussion with Peter Holmes.

The only way I am able to understand this is to presume that you are arguing that in regard to moral nihilism itself, I am an objectivist. But I'm not. I'm the first to admit that, given new experiences, I might abandon that in turn.

As I noted on another thread:

...I once had to admit to myself that I was wrong about Christianity, then wrong about Unitarianism then wrong about Marxism then wrong about Leninism then wrong about Trotskyism then wrong about Democratic Socialism then wrong about the Social Democrats then wrong about objectivism altogether.

So, you think that in regard to moral nihilism, I'm arguing that, no, I will never admit to being wrong about that?

No, from my own subjective point of view "here and now", it's not. I am not arguing that IC is bad because IC is being absolutely shameless.

Yes, it's not an argument it's a statement that is a moral accusation.

Back to that again. Oh, well. You'll either come around to my understanding of that or I will come around to yours.

Imagine someone saying women are absolutely shameless and fulminating fanatics also.
Then later they say. Oh, I don't think I was being objective. I'm a feminist. That's just because of my Dasein I say that. I know it isn't objective.
We'd think those statements were very odd. And in a way, utterly beside the point.

Yes, exactly! Why? Because from the objectivist frame of mind on both sides of the feminist fence -- morally and politically -- gender roles are understood in very different ways. Why? Well, is it because, using the tools of philosophy, we can pin down the "wisest", most objective reaction to feminism? Or, instead, are attitudes about gender roles rooted more in particular historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts that have evolved and changed over the centuries resulting in any number of conflicting conclusions.

I understand moral nihilism.

Fine. As long as you aren't insisting that how you understand it "here and now" is how all rational men and women are obligated to understand it in turn. And to the extent you may or may not grasp my own understanding of "here and now" itself.

Isn't that ever and always the bottom line for him?

OK, it seems like if I criticize you, IC's behavior is relevant. It's not. I am not defending him and obviously I am not defending objectivism. Obviously I am doing the opposite.

Look, from my frame of mind, those like IC and henry quirk here encompass what "I" construe to be the "my way or the highway", the "one of us" [the good guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys] mentality.

Both have a belief in God. If different Gods. Both embrace generally right-wing political values. Both seem [to me] fiercely convinced that how they construe conflicting value judgments is the default in any discussion.

You insist you are not like that. Okay, in regard to fascism in America what are your conclusions?

From your frame of mind exchanging posts with me is the equivalent of me exchanging posts with IC and henry.

Let's focus in on fascism in America and see if we can straighten this all out more.

Let's take this...

1] You are attached to using objectivist moral speak, when there are perfectly effective ways of communicating without using objectivist speech. When I point this out, twice, you do not address that issue, you just assure me that you really are a nihilist, non-objectivist. And explain to me again how your preferences are caused by dasein or experience. Well, sure. But that doesn't mean that you have to go around using objectivist speech, especially after years, I assume, moving away from objectivism and then now when it is suggested you can do without such language use. And especially online, where one has to type it in. No, the only response I get is that your positions on things are caused by dasein. Sure. And you can still have those positions, but speak about them like a person who does not believe in objectivist values. But you prefer to exchange moral accusations with IC, for example. I can see no reason to take you seriously on the issue of what you believe about morals, when you cling to moral accusations. I explained in the previous post ways to not do this and argue for positions you want and against positions you don't like.

2) Your Us them mentality of the specific kind found in online discussions (that is with a typical objectivist fallacy in it). So, not just seeing the world in us/them terms, which is very objectivist or moral realist. But also assuming that any criticism aimed at what you are doing can be rebutted by attacking the them. This is typical moral realist fallacy. It's also a logical fallacy. But right here my focus is on the moral realism. It's not about reasoning, it's about teams, us vs. them, so you can rebut by pointing fingers at the real bad guys. Well, no you can't. It works in a room full of democrats and republicans because both sides assume this fallacy (and assume they are the only possible teams).

...and, in regard to fascism in America [or any other issue like abortion or guns], see what happens.

You can pick the issue. Then when something I post strikes you as "odd", or I accuse you of doing something I do myself, you can point that out in regard to the issue at hand.

[Gary Childress]

Once again, I respond at length to the points you raised above. And you, as with IC, "snip" out but one single line of it.

Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, why has an extant God not done a much, much better job at directing mere mortals to the One True Path?

I don't know that there is one "true path".

You may not know this, but there are any number of those around the globe, who, regarding one or another religious denomination, will insist that in fact their path is the One True Path. So, if you want access to immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave, you had best adhere to their own Scripture on this side of it.

In fact, how is that not religion in a nutshell historically?

Here of course IC will tell you it is his own "private and personal" understanding of the Christian God.

How about you? What private and personal God did you take a leap of faith to? Or, as with IC, is it not just a leap of faith. Do you insist instead that your God does exist. That you are able to demonstrate that He exists in Heaven as another would demonstrate that the Popes exist in the Vatican.

Or, in regard to this thread, that Trump is a fascist more or less along the lines of Hitler. That his reelection will bring fascism to America.

Maybe people can take somewhat different paths and still be ok in the eyes of God. Why does there need to be one true path? Or what is meant by "one true path"? Is it meant that we all behave the same way, and do the same things in order to please God?

Ask them that! Ask IC and other Christians here, for example, if they believe that with the second coming of Christ, all those who are not True Christians will be "left behind".

Ask them what that means.

As I say, perhaps there is no one true path. There may be false paths, and more than one of them and there may be true paths, and more than one of them. If there is not one true path then that might explain why God hasn't done a "better job" of directing people. Perhaps he leaves it up to us to do our best if we so choose.

I can't speak for others. I don't know why some say that only one particular set of rituals is required to please God. I would think that most of us have a moral sensibility and that God perhaps leaves it up to us to navigate the world without strict guidance other than certain basic (and more or less instinctive) rules regarding things like murder or acts of malice toward others. Speaking for myself, I have chosen to follow the teachings of Christ. I think if everyone followed the teachings of Christ to the letter, then the world would be a much kinder, gentler place with less malice. Like most people I know, I struggle with following Christ, I have plenty of shortcomings and shortfalls. It's not an easy path to follow and maybe not for everyone, I don't know, but it seems to ring true to me. I don't know what happens to anyone when they die, or who will be "saved" and who won't. I'm not God so I'm not privy to that info. I leave it up to others to do what they think would please God.

[Dontaskme]

I don't know what happens to anyone when they die

You have never known death.

It's pointless to even bring the idea of something you know nothing about to your mind in the first place.

[Gary Childress]

I don't know what happens to anyone when they die

You have never known death.

It's pointless to even bring the idea of something you know nothing about to your mind in the first place.

Why?

[Dontaskme]

I don't know what happens to anyone when they die

You have never known death.

It's pointless to even bring the idea of something you know nothing about to your mind in the first place.

Why?

Because you cannot know what happens...so why concern yourself with knowing what happens.

[Gary Childress]

You have never known death.

It's pointless to even bring the idea of something you know nothing about to your mind in the first place.

Why?

Because you cannot know what happens...so why concern yourself with knowing what happens.

Because I do.

[Dontaskme]

Why?

Because you cannot know what happens...so why concern yourself with knowing what happens.

Because I do.

You said you do not know what happens to someone when they die.

[Gary Childress]

Because you cannot know what happens...so why concern yourself with knowing what happens.

Because I do.

You said you do not know what happens when someone dies.

"Because I do" was in answer to the second part of your question, "so why concern yourself with knowing what happens."

[Dontaskme]

Because I do.

You said you do not know what happens when someone dies.

"Because I do" was in answer to the second part of your question, "so why concern yourself with knowing what happens."

And all I said, is that it is pointless to concern yourself in some idea you can never know.

[Gary Childress]

You said you do not know what happens when someone dies.

"Because I do" was in answer to the second part of your question, "so why concern yourself with knowing what happens."

And all I said, is that it is pointless to concern yourself in some idea you can never know.

Why is it "pointless" to do so?

[Dontaskme]

"Because I do" was in answer to the second part of your question, "so why concern yourself with knowing what happens."

And all I said, is that it is pointless to concern yourself in some idea you can never know.

Why is it "pointless" to do so?

Is there is point in pointless?