Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:42 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 10:38 pm
To note what?
You would benefit from a persuasive writing course. You need some structure.
One can look at someone's behavior from the model that errors aren't working for the person.
One can also look at someone's behavior to see if the errors lead to results that fit with the person's goals.
This can be at the politician level or at the relatively powerless individual level.
Irritating people and critiquing without make a clear point can trigger responses, a bit like
click bait.
Try this model: goals: to bait clicks, frustrate discussion partners and when people get frustrated with the behavior declare victory.
See if that model fits the behavior as well or better than a more charitable one.
Note to others:
What on Earth do
you suppose this mean?!!
Though, as with Flannel Stooge...
Again, assuming free will, I challenge -- dare -- him to note both an issue and a set of circumstances that we can examine. Then as the exchange unfolds he can decisively note for others how his assessment above is applicable to my writing.
Uh, click bait? Is he referring to all of the clicks I get in regard to these...
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34285
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34247
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=34306
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34319
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34271
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35199
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=39982
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=34260
...threads here? Those foolish enough to take the bait and -- click -- choosing of their own volition to read my posts?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:42 amIn any case....
Iambiguous says....
Now, if you want posts that truly don't mean anything, note the ones we get From Satyr over at ILP in reaction to the stuff I post there.
in relation to...
Lorikeet/Satyr wrote:Whoever believes this Karen can be "healed"....or reasoned with.....is suffering from Abrahamism they haven't, yet, fully reconverted from.
A perfectly clear statement. It's not an incorrectly-used cliche. A bit creative treating the Abrahamic religions as diseases, and clearly expresses his opinion that Iambiguous is a dead-end discussion partner.
Simply unbelievable!!!
This guy loathes me so much, he is actually willing to champion a near-Nazi like Satyr over at ILP.
Again, this is what I posted over at ILP that iwannaplato seems to argue warrants Satyr's response:
ME:
Moral Nihilism and its Implications
Marc Krellenstein
Northeastern University
Consider, for example, arguments over abortion that set the absolute sanctity of any form of unique human life against the absolute right of control over one’s own body, or debates in “trolley” problems over diverting a runaway trolley to kill one person in order to save the five in its path.
Again, in my view, the key point here is not that such absolutes are embraced by those on both sides of the morality wars, but that the main goal of the objectivists is the belief that such absolutes do in fact exist. And that this is the case because, well, those on both sides already claim to embody them.
The point is that in believing this it enables both liberals and conservatives to sustain the comfort and that consolation that comes with being able to divide the world up between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys].
Also, it allows those on both sides to insist that their value judgments here are not just "political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein" but instead reflect [philosophically or otherwise] the most rational manner in which to understand the issue.
The variation in moral beliefs across and within cultures also argues against the possibility that there exist absolute moral obligations that all people recognize. No attempt to rationalize these differences has succeeded.
Please. As the objectivists among us [from both sides] make crystal clear, if they believe that there are in fact absolute moral truths that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace, then that need be as far as they go. Then it simply comes down to how much political power they have in any particular community or nation. For example, the Catholics on the United States Supreme Court. Now, in America, laws can be passed criminalizing behaviors that were once permitted.
It could be argued that the belief that there are no absolute foundations is itself an absolute belief. But, rather than being absolute, it is an observation that no rational argument has established absolute values. It leaves open the possibility that evidence may yet be offered that proves otherwise.
Yes, if someone argues that there are no absolute moral truths in regard to abortion how is that not just as indefensible? On the other hand, it is the obligation of those who claim that there are to demonstrate this. And, from my frame of mind, that involves demonstrating that, in fact, the arguments made by the other side are not reasonable.
So, given the pro/con arguments regarding the legality of abortion --
https://abortion.procon.org/ -- anyone here care to try?
HIM:
Lorikeet/Satyr wrote:Whoever believes this Karen can be "healed"....or reasoned with.....is suffering from Abrahamism they haven't, yet, fully reconverted from.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:42 amSomething that discussion partners, including moderators, having been saying for over a decade and not in small numbers. And charitable reads (Abrahamic effect) of his behavior and intentions, despite the evidence, will lead to satisfying his goals.
Anyone who thinks Satyr is incorrect, is welcome to spend time in reasoned dialogue with Iambiguous. See how that goes.
Again, all I can do is to speculate as to why moreno/karpel tunnel/iwannaplato responds to me as he does. And I suspect that it revolves around the fact that increasingly he is beginning to grasp that the more time he spends actually reading my posts the greater likelihood that he too will end up "fractured and fragmented".
That, in my view, is why he doesn't "click" on me as he once used to. Bit by bit I was chipping away at his own "serious philosophy" pedantry in the is/ought world. So, up in the didactic clouds he stays with all of the other scholastic philosophers here.
Wel, unless, of course, I'm wrong.