the queen is dead

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 5:13 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pm Okay, but what all of this is for you [not political] doesn't make what it is for others ["my way or the highway" political] go away.
I don't think it makes other people's views go away.
That's my point. You insist that your views about the queen are not political but they are so fanatically pro or anti the monarchy that anything anyone says about it is deemed political.
I haven't denied that. I simply asserted that they are not political for me. You keep talking about them. But YOU labeled my reaction as poltiical. You keep giving them responsibility for your labeling my reactions much earlier in this thread as political.

You are not taking responsibility. You are blaming others and using pejorative terms for them, since they will say anything anyone says is deemed political. So, it seems negative when they do this.

But YOU did it. You were talking to me. I don't think the relevant reactions of mine were political. YOu seem to think they are fanatical. But for some reason their fanaticism means you will carry their message to me. So, you are either going along with fanatics. Or you are fanatical.

You didn't say, for example. I don't think your earlier post Iwannaplato was political, but others will.

Fine, totatly agreement. But no, you labeled it political.

Yes, there are fanatics. I can't make them go away. However that does not mean I just have to parrot their judgments.

But for some reason you seem to think you must and perhaps even that I must.

And you constantly attribute ridiculous claims to me.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by iambiguous »

in regard to anyone's life and death, how exactly will a moral realist react?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pm*Depends on who died, doesn't it? If my 16 year passes, I'll be devastated, but his death won't, nor should it, move you. My kid is a stranger to you. It would be nice if you felt sumthin' but it ain't required. (and: moral realism = moral objectivism...just sayin').
Exactly! That's my point. It depends on who dies and how each of us as individuals think and feel about his or her death. You will be devasted by your son's death, but there might be someone who, for whatever personal reasons, might celebrate it. And if you watch enough Dateline and 48 Hours episodes, you know that, over and over again, family members are bumping off other family members left and right.

But in regard to someone like Queen Elizabeth, someone that millions know of, individual opinions can vary dramatically. Here I argue that such conflicting reactions are rooted existentially in dasein rather than in anything that philosophers can provide us in the way of the optimal, most rational, reaction.
And how exactly are the convictions of the moral realist any less rooted existentially in dasein?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmCuz dasein ain't real.
Right. Our moral and political value judgements have absolutely nothing to do with our childhood indoctrination, our uniquely personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmYou believe everything a person is comes thru indoctrination. You're wrong. If you, for example, were nuthin' but the sum of indoctrination, then how can you be fractured?
Note where I ever argued that. Instead, I note that, as we become older we can encounter any number of personal experiences that dramatically alter our childhood indoctrination. That's why some will take this indoctrination to the grave with them and some will not. Especially in our modern world whereby, unlike in older, more technological primitive village communities, everyone does not have their place and everyone doesn't stay in it from the cradle to the grave.

As for me, I encompass my own moral trajectory in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
Take for example Donald Trump. Suppose tomorrow he drops dead of a heart attack. Or he's assassinated. How might a moral realist react to that?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmDepends on the moral realist, doesn't it? Some won't give a damn, some will be pleased, some will grieve, some will shrug then fish around for another hand grenade. It ain't dasein: it's just perspective and investment.
Right. And, once again, this "perspective" has absolutely nothing to do with the manner in which I encompass the meaning of dasein in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

On the other hand, if a community passes legislation that prohibits citizens from owning guns and firearms of any kind, do you argue that "some won't give a damn, some will be pleased, some will grieve, some will shrug" as though they are all just a matter of "perspective". And whatever investment is?

Ah, so this is a moral realist's position as opposed to a moral objectivist? In other words, given this...

"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."

...what he asserts to be true is simply to be understood by all rational human beings as necessarily/inherently in sync with the "objective feature of an unwanted pregnancy".
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmWhat I assert is: At least from the end of the 12th week, what a woman carries is a person. And killin' a person, except in self-defense/defense of another, is a no-no. If you disagree: you're wrong, a moron, and my enemy.
Note to others:

You tell me then if there is any difference between henry's "moral realist" and my "moral objectivist".

He can't/won't even admit to himself there is no difference.

Let alone to explore in depth my own arguments regarding dasein. He is utterly invested in what I call the "psychology of objectivism":

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], henry was taught or came into contact with [through his upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life regarding guns.

2] Over time, he became convinced that this perspective on guns expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to him as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, he begins to bump into others who feel the same way about guns; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world of guns as they do.

4] he begins to share this philosophy of guns with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of his life. It becomes, in other words, intertwined in his personal relationships with others...it begins to bind him and them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, he starts to feel increasingly compelled not only to share his Truth about guns with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] It then reaches the point where he is no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes his own about guns as merely a difference of opinion; he sees it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on his intellectual integrity....on his very Self.

Only the anti-gun fanatics are going through the same or a similar experience. What counts for them is not what they believe about guns but that what they do believe about them really does reflect the only rational manner in which to think about them.
He is about as hardcore a moral objectivist as they come here.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmYep. I'm an unrepentant moral realist...probably the worst one here.
In other words, only he gets to say where to connect the dots between morality and reality.
He even has his very own private and personal God
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmOh, He's yours too. Don't worry: He's either not around or He's indifferent or He's watchin', voyeur-like, or He passed away. You won't have to take a knee.
Unbelievable! He's just another Immanuel Can asserting things about God's existence as though in merely asserting it, that makes it true.

Only the beauty of henry's God is that He doesn't want to be found. Unlike IC's God. If you don't find Him, you're toast.
a God who created him to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".
Trust him of this...
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pm He created us all as free wills, to do as we each choose (and to bear the consequences of those choices). We are reasoning creatures, but not rational, no. We're moral creatures but we can choose to lie, cheat, steal, slave, rape, and murder (mind them consequences). As for nature: itself just clockwork, orderly...that didn't come about without direction.
Don't believe it? Well, that means "you're wrong, a moron, and his enemy".
On the other hand, ask him to note examples of where he was once wrong in the past about issues like this. He has, in fact, admitted to me that, indeed, in the past, he was wrong about the "big stuff".
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pm I was wrong to be an atheist and nihilist. How's that for big stuff?
Ah, Mr. Wiggle makes his appearance!!
Only he won't cite any examples of this. It's "personal".
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pm Just did.
And so much more to the point: He really means it!!! He is absolutely, objectively right about every single one of his arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian value judgments...but, yeah, he was wrong about those two things.
And, in having been wrong in the past, he is admitting that he may well be wrong about important issues in the present.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pm Yep. I could be wrong about what is the most important thing about any man, that bein' he's free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, You up for provin' me wrong on that? Have at it.
Whoa...

Wait a minute. Is he admitting that he could be wrong about the things that are most important to him...or not?

Of course not. He's telling us that unless someone completely shares his own arguments that automatically means that their arguments are wrong.

Only he lacks the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit that even to himself.

On the other hand, he did not take on his Mr. Snippet persona here. I'll give him that.



Note to IC:

Follow his lead here.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: the queen is dead

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

'Privileged' is such a nasty, loaded, self-serving political term these days that smacks of sour grapes, jealousy and self hatred (or bog standard virtue-signalling). A child is 'privileged' if they have loving, supportive parents. A person is 'privileged' if they have good health--mental and physical. I don't think Charles was 'privileged' at all in his childhood. All children really want is their mother, and what he got was a cold fish who shook hands with him when reuniting after a months long separation. No wonder he always looks so miserable. That kind of hurt doesn't just go away--it's there for life.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

I argue that such conflicting reactions are rooted existentially in dasein rather than in anything that philosophers can provide us in the way of the optimal, most rational, reaction.
You can argue for dasein all you like: it's still crap. We're not simply the product of aggregated experience.

*
Our moral and political value judgements have absolutely nothing to do with our childhood indoctrination, our uniquely personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.
I didn't say childhood, experience, relationships, time & place had no influence or effect. I said we're not simply products of those things. We, as individuals, have experiences thru out life in whatever our individual here & now happens to be. Those experiences can shape us, but they don't comprise us.

*
as we become older we can encounter any number of personal experiences that dramatically alter our childhood indoctrination. That's why some will take this indoctrination to the grave with them and some will not. Especially in our modern world whereby, unlike in older, more technological primitive village communities, everyone does not have their place and everyone doesn't stay in it from the cradle to the grave.
It ain't indoctrination. It's just experiences, some good, some bad.

*
once again, this "perspective" has absolutely nothing to do with the manner in which I encompass the meaning of dasein in the OP of this thread:
It really doesn't cuz your version of dasein is manure.

*
if a community passes legislation that prohibits citizens from owning guns and firearms of any kind, do you argue that "some won't give a damn, some will be pleased, some will grieve, some will shrug" as though they are all just a matter of "perspective". And whatever investment is?
Oh, any piece of legislation violatin' property rights will please some wrong-headed morons and piss off others. But unlike one's subjective response to a death (which isn't a moral issue), violatin' property rights is quite objective (it is a moral issue). Dress it up as you like, it's still theft and borders on slavery.

In context: investment refers to what one might feel toward the person who died. My kid: love. The Queen: meh.

*
You tell me then if there is any difference between henry's "moral realist" and my "moral objectivist".
There's not...
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmmoral realism = moral objectivism
*
1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], henry was taught or came into contact with [through his upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life regarding guns.
Nope. I came to own a gun late in life after I decided a Louisville Slugger wasn't enough to defend myself with. Before that I'd had next to no experience with firearms.

*
2] Over time, he became convinced that this perspective on guns expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to him as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
Nope. Me, owning a gun is a personal choice. My life, liberty, and property, now there is where we hit on moral fact. Owning a gun is not a moral issue. It's no different than owning a hammer. What is a moral issue is my property (gun, hammer, car, etc.) bein' my property.

*
3] Eventually, he begins to bump into others who feel the same way about guns; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world of guns as they do.
Nope. I have no gun buddies, have sought no gun buddies, and belong to no gun organizations.

*
4] he begins to share this philosophy of guns with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of his life. It becomes, in other words, intertwined in his personal relationships with others...it begins to bind him and them emotionally and psychologically.
Nope. Most of family doesn't know I own a gun. And, as I say, I have no gun buddies.

*
5] As yet more time passes, he starts to feel increasingly compelled not only to share his Truth about guns with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
Nope. I'm compelled by self interest to speak for a free man's natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. As aside: you bring up guns and bazookas way more than I do.

*
6] It then reaches the point where he is no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes his own about guns as merely a difference of opinion; he sees it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on his intellectual integrity....on his very Self.
Nope. None of my arguments are about guns. I argue that a free man has an inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. You're right about one thing: I cannot, and have never been able to, drum up an argument against my bein' a free man with an inalienable right to my, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. And -- surprise, surprise -- neither has anyone else, in or out of the forum. Care to give it a shot?

*
only he gets to say where to connect the dots between morality and reality.
Oh, everyone gets a say (the say)...in their own lives.

*
Unbelievable!
Believe it.

*
He's just another Immanuel Can asserting things about God's existence as though in merely asserting it, that makes it true.
Thank you! I assert what fits the evidence. Nuthin' more or less.

*
Only the beauty of henry's God is that He doesn't want to be found. Unlike IC's God. If you don't find Him, you're toast.
Apparently not. Not exactly, no. Even a heathen like me knows you're mischaracterizin'.

*
Don't believe it? Well, that means "you're wrong, a moron, and his enemy".
Yep.

*
Ah, Mr. Wiggle makes his appearance!!
What wiggle? I've been wrong on big stuff. I ought to get a 🌟 for honesty.

*
He is absolutely, objectively right about every single one of his arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian value judgments...
Nope. What I'm absolutely right about is each of us is free and each of us has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

*
but, yeah, he was wrong about those two things.
Yep. I wasted a whole buncha time believin' there was no Creator and Life was a rudderless affair.

C'mon: gimme a 🌟...you know you wanna.

*
Is he admitting that he could be wrong about the things that are most important to (us all [FIFY])...or not?
Yep. Let's read together...
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmI could be wrong about what is the most important thing about any man, that bein' he's free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, You up for provin' me wrong on that? Have at it.
Seems pretty clear: I've given you, or anyone, the means to destroy me. Prove I'm not free. Prove I have no right to my life, liberty, and property. C'mon, biggy, you can do it!

*
He's telling us that unless someone completely shares his own arguments that automatically means that their arguments are wrong.
That's true, but I said that out right, up-thread...
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmIf you don't agree that a man is free and has an inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property then you're wrong, a moron, and my enemy.
I didn't bury it, like code, in...
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmI could be wrong about what is the most important thing about any man, that bein' he's free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, You up for provin' me wrong on that? Have at it.
*
Only he lacks the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit that even to himself.
Wrong again.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

Henry Quirk wrote:
You can argue for dasein all you like: it's still crap. We're not simply the product of aggregated experience.

*
True, you are partly the product of your particular biology inherited from your parents and other ancestors, and you are also partly the product of what you have learned in your particular time and place where you have done the learning you have done. You are not aggregated experience, you are unique.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

B,
you are unique
Damn straight.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:31 pm B,
you are unique
Damn straight.
The universe would not be the universe without you. You are a necessary being.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:19 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:31 pm B,
you are unique
Damn straight.
The universe would not be the universe without you. You are a necessary being.
You're butterin' me up...whaddya want?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:43 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:19 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:31 pm B,



Damn straight.
The universe would not be the universe without you. You are a necessary being.
You're butterin' me up...whaddya want?
Everybody is necessary. Nothing happens that does not necessarily happen.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmDepends on who died, doesn't it? If my 16 year passes, I'll be devastated, but his death won't, nor should it, move you. My kid is a stranger to you. It would be nice if you felt sumthin' but it ain't required. (and: moral realism = moral objectivism...just sayin').
Exactly! That's my point. It depends on who dies and how each of us as individuals think and feel about his or her death. You will be devasted by your son's death, but there might be someone who, for whatever personal reasons, might celebrate it. And if you watch enough Dateline and 48 Hours episodes, you know that, over and over again, family members are bumping off other family members left and right.

But in regard to someone like Queen Elizabeth, someone that millions know of, individual opinions can vary dramatically. Here I argue that such conflicting reactions are rooted existentially in dasein rather than in anything that philosophers can provide us in the way of the optimal, most rational, reaction.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:51 amYou can argue for dasein all you like: it's still crap. We're not simply the product of aggregated experience.
Who is arguing that? I'm just noting what is common sense. That the manner in which we are indoctrinated as children and the manner in which we accumulate uniquely personal experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge are going to have an important impact on how we come to view the world morally and politically. And that over time historically and across the globe culturally, there have been any number of different and conflicting moral narratives and political agendas.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmI didn't say childhood, experience, relationships, time & place had no influence or effect. I said we're not simply products of those things. We, as individuals, have experiences thru out life in whatever our individual here & now happens to be. Those experiences can shape us, but they don't comprise us.
Okay, with respect to your convictions regarding guns, what experiences and relationships shaped you...but did not comprise you? How do you make that distinction "for all practical purposes"?
as we become older we can encounter any number of personal experiences that dramatically alter our childhood indoctrination. That's why some will take this indoctrination to the grave with them and some will not. Especially in our modern world whereby, unlike in older, more technological primitive village communities, everyone does not have their place and everyone doesn't stay in it from the cradle to the grave.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmIt ain't indoctrination. It's just experiences, some good, some bad.
So, when you were a child your parents sat you down at around 5 or 6 years of age and told you to figure out for yourself which behaviors were good or bad. You were on your own morally and politically right from the start. Something like that?

Though, sure, the word indoctrination can seem inappropriate in that most parents are merely passing on to the children what their parents passed on to them. It's usually done out of love and concern for their child's well being. But that doesn't make it any less an inculcation.
once again, this "perspective" has absolutely nothing to do with the manner in which I encompass the meaning of dasein in the OP of this thread:
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmIt really doesn't cuz your version of dasein is manure.
Here all I can do is to note the arguments I make in my linked threads above and ask you to explain why, given an issue like gun control, abortion or the queen, they are not applicable to you. You'll either go there in depth or continue to just insist my narrative is "manure".
if a community passes legislation that prohibits citizens from owning guns and firearms of any kind, do you argue that "some won't give a damn, some will be pleased, some will grieve, some will shrug" as though they are all just a matter of "perspective". And whatever investment is?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmOh, any piece of legislation violatin' property rights will please some wrong-headed morons and piss off others. But unlike one's subjective response to a death (which isn't a moral issue), violatin' property rights is quite objective (it is a moral issue). Dress it up as you like, it's still theft and borders on slavery.
Again, you focused on differences in opinions being just matters of perspective but, in my opinion, being the arrogant and autocratic and authoritarian objectivist that you are, all legislation must revolve solely around your own arrogant and autocratic and authoritarian strictures regarding property rights. Perspective then gives way to nothing short of a doctrinaire ideology that only the morons don't subscribe to.

And of course those on the other end of the ideological spectrum boast of the same powers. Only it's in confiscating all guns.
You tell me then if there is any difference between henry's "moral realist" and my "moral objectivist".
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pm There's not...moral realism = moral objectivism
Ah, I see...your own "private and personal" understanding of moral realism. Not this one:

"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."

That one connects the dots between morality and one's capacity to link it to objective features of the world. Yours, on the other hand, merely assumes that the manner in which you understand things like queens and guns and abortions and property is the equivalent of the objective world. That anyone who does not concur with you is quite simply wrong.
1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], henry was taught or came into contact with [through his upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life regarding guns.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmNope. I came to own a gun late in life after I decided a Louisville Slugger wasn't enough to defend myself with. Before that I'd had next to no experience with firearms.
Okay, how late in life? And what were your childhood experiences in regard to guns and property rights?
2] Over time, he became convinced that this perspective on guns expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to him as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmNope. Me, owning a gun is a personal choice. My life, liberty, and property, now there is where we hit on moral fact. Owning a gun is not a moral issue. It's no different than owning a hammer. What is a moral issue is my property (gun, hammer, car, etc.) bein' my property.
What you call "moral fact" others call "personal opinions". And given how many construe the history of gun violence in the Uited States, to insist that gun control is not a moral issue is nothing short of laughable.

Now, sure, if you lived entirely separate from all other human beings, you can believe whatever you wish about your guns. But once you choose to interact with others in a community, you are not the only one who gets to say what is good or bad in regard to guns. That's the part where democracy and the rule of law comes into play. The part where you basically say "fuck that" and are prepared to go full-blown Ruby Ridge on anyone who dares not to subscribe entirely to your own arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian dictums. Dictums that come not from the existential parameters of the life you lived but from your God-given capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".
3] Eventually, he begins to bump into others who feel the same way about guns; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world of guns as they do.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmNope. I have no gun buddies, have sought no gun buddies, and belong to no gun organizations.
Congratulations. You are clearly the exception given my own experiences with objectivists. Most of them take one or another One True Path along the lines of the Ayn Randroids. On the other hand, I'm sure you've bumped into any number of fellow travelers...online?
4] he begins to share this philosophy of guns with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of his life. It becomes, in other words, intertwined in his personal relationships with others...it begins to bind him and them emotionally and psychologically.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmNope. Most of family doesn't know I own a gun. And, as I say, I have no gun buddies.
Then, once again, you are far removed from most of the arrogant, autocratic and authoritarians objectivists I have come across over the years. And, in fact, given my 20 odd years as a radical political activist, I was once one of them myself. And I've known hundreds of them...liberal and conservative. Left and right.
5] As yet more time passes, he starts to feel increasingly compelled not only to share his Truth about guns with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmNope. I'm compelled by self interest to speak for a free man's natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. As aside: you bring up guns and bazookas way more than I do.
Okay, but your understanding of the "self" here is clearly different from mine. And when you are ready to explore that with me, we'll see what unfolds.

And, to the best of my recollection, I wasn't the first to broach the buying and the selling of bazookas. I merely bring it up in order to note just how far you are willing to go in defending your own right to bear arms. Nothing is not permitted, right?
6] It then reaches the point where he is no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes his own about guns as merely a difference of opinion; he sees it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on his intellectual integrity....on his very Self.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmNope. None of my arguments are about guns. I argue that a free man has an inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. You're right about one thing: I cannot, and have never been able to, drum up an argument against my bein' a free man with an inalienable right to my, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. And -- surprise, surprise -- neither has anyone else, in or out of the forum. Care to give it a shot?
No, you argue that in any particular community that you are a member of, only you get to encompass what being free entails in regard to such things as owning guns or having an abortion or property rights.

Your God provided you with the capacity to grasp these things objectively and your childhood indoctrination and personal experiences while shaping your value judgments, pales next to your God-given capacity to "think up" the most rational and natural truths about, well, everything, right?

On the other hand, just out of curiosity, how many moral issues are there that you do have any doubts regarding?
He's just another Immanuel Can asserting things about God's existence as though in merely asserting it, that makes it true.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmThank you! I assert what fits the evidence. Nuthin' more or less.
Evidence? What accumulated evidence do you have that the Deist/deist God does in fact exist? Evidence, as I posed to IC, along the lines of proof that Catholic Popes reside in the Vatican. Do you have your own collection of videos?
Only the beauty of henry's God is that He doesn't want to be found. Unlike IC's God. If you don't find Him, you're toast.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmApparently not. Not exactly, no. Even a heathen like me knows you're mischaracterizin'.
How can anyone mischaracterize something that is has never been shown to actually exist? Instead, mischaracterizations here revolve around those who don't describe this God of yours as you do...in your head.

To witless...
Don't believe it? Well, that means "you're wrong, a moron, and his enemy".
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmYep.
That is your "proof".
Ah, Mr. Wiggle makes his appearance!!
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmWhat wiggle? I've been wrong on big stuff. I ought to get a 🌟 for honesty.
What "big stuff"? Stuff along the lines of guns or abortions or property rights.

Come on, henry, admit it. Once you do admit to being wrong about things of this sort, you are acknowledging that you may well be wrong about such things today.

Right?
He is absolutely, objectively right about every single one of his arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian value judgments...
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmNope. What I'm absolutely right about is each of us is free and each of us has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.
No, what you insist on being absolutely right about here is that how you define the meaning of each of the words above is the point of departure in any and all discussions with others.

As though "free" and "natural" and "right" and "liberty" etc., were things you could take out of your pocket, hold in your hand and point to. Rather than as words invented down through the ages to mean many, many different things to many, many different people.

Here is where you'll go...
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmLet's read together...
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmI could be wrong about what is the most important thing about any man, that bein' he's free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, You up for provin' me wrong on that? Have at it.
Note to others:

You tell me...

Is this how he comes off in his debates with others here regarding guns and abortions and property rights? Like someone willing to acknowledge that he is right only given his own set of assumptions, while others might be right instead given their own sets of assumptions?

Link me to any exchanges where he goes down this path.

Instead, he strings words together to form arguments that are true because how he understands the meaning of the words in the argument are the point of departure.

When has he ever actually demonstrated -- empirically, experientially, experimentally -- that what he believes about guns and abortions and property right is in fact the obligation of all rational and virtuous men and women to embrace in turn. Again, link me to that.

Thus...
He's telling us that unless someone completely shares his own arguments that automatically means that their arguments are wrong.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmThat's true, but I said that out right, up-thread...
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:19 pmIf you don't agree that a man is free and has an inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property then you're wrong, a moron, and my enemy.
Enough said? A world of words that define and defend yet more words still. And only his own understanding of what these words mean can ever count.

Here for example. Though I suspect everywhere he goes.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:05 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:43 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:19 pm

The universe would not be the universe without you. You are a necessary being.
You're butterin' me up...whaddya want?
Everybody is necessary. Nothing happens that does not necessarily happen.
Oh, just foistin' determinist tripe.

Hard pass, lady.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

Who is arguing that? I'm just noting what is common sense. That the manner in which we are indoctrinated as children and the manner in which we accumulate uniquely personal experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge are going to have an important impact on how we come to view the world morally and politically. And that over time historically and across the globe culturally, there have been any number of different and conflicting moral narratives and political agendas.
If you're sayin' our yesterdays influence, sometimes in subtle or powerful ways, our todays: okay.

But, if you're sayin' our yesterdays determine our todays: nope.

*
Okay, with respect to your convictions regarding guns, what experiences and relationships shaped you...but did not comprise you? How do you make that distinction "for all practical purposes"?
Like I said: I concluded a baseball bat wasn't enough to cover my ass in a clinch. I thought about it, considered my options, settled on a sweet Stoeger coach gun. I got instruction in the use and maintenance of it. I practice regularly (as well as hunt).

*
So, when you were a child your parents sat you down at around 5 or 6 years of age and told you to figure out for yourself which behaviors were good or bad. You were on your own morally and politically right from the start. Something like that?
Nope. They taught me things, some which I've kept close, others I've tossed.

*
Though, sure, the word indoctrination can seem inappropriate in that most parents are merely passing on to the children what their parents passed on to them. It's usually done out of love and concern for their child's well being. But that doesn't make it any less an inculcation.
Teaching is not synonymous with indoctrination.

*
Here all I can do is to note the arguments I make in my linked threads above and ask you to explain why, given an issue like gun control, abortion or the queen, they are not applicable to you. You'll either go there in depth or continue to just insist my narrative is "manure".
As I say: you want me to comment on what you've posted there, then bring it here.

Copy & paste.

*
Again, you focused on differences in opinions being just matters of perspective but, in my opinion, being the arrogant and autocratic and authoritarian objectivist that you are, all legislation must revolve solely around your own arrogant and autocratic and authoritarian strictures regarding property rights. Perspective then gives way to nothing short of a doctrinaire ideology that only the morons don't subscribe to.
Yes, when I ascend to power as Global Master I will enforce the following...

You are free.

You have a natural, inalienable right to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.


...oh, the billions who will suffer under my iron-fisted enforcement of natural rights! Oh, the horrors of bein' expected to self-direct, self-rely, and be self-responsible! All those slavers and rapists and thieves and murderers and liars out of work and no welfare program to sustain them!

*

And speakin' of slavers and rapists and thieves and murderers and liars...
And of course those on the other end of the ideological spectrum boast of the same powers. Only it's in confiscating all guns.
...fuck 'em...they're evil morons.

*
Ah, I see...your own "private and personal" understanding of moral realism. Not this one:

"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."
They're the same thing, Mr Google.

*
That one connects the dots between morality and one's capacity to link it to objective features of the world. Yours, on the other hand, merely assumes that the manner in which you understand things like queens and guns and abortions and property is the equivalent of the objective world. That anyone who does not concur with you is quite simply wrong.
Nope. I say a free man, like you, has an inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. That's it, that's all.

*
Okay, how late in life?
Well, let's see: I'm 60 and I've owned my shotgun for about 30 years or so, so I guess I decided to arm myself around age 30.

*
And what were your childhood experiences in regard to guns and property rights?
I was a kid. Property was what you owned, guns were what you hunted with. My experiences were not anything memorable one way or another.

*
What you call "moral fact" others call "personal opinions".
As I say: anyone who doesn't agree I'm a free man with a natural, inalienable right to my life, and no other's, life, liberty, and property is wrong-headed, a moron, and my enemy.

*
And given how many construe the history of gun violence in the Uited States, to insist that gun control is not a moral issue is nothing short of laughable.
The moral issue is unjust killin' (murder), not the tool used to do it.

*
Now, sure, if you lived entirely separate from all other human beings, you can believe whatever you wish about your guns. But once you choose to interact with others in a community, you are not the only one who gets to say what is good or bad in regard to guns.
About my gun, my property? Unless I use it to violate another's life, liberty, and property, I'm the only one who has a say.

*
That's the part where democracy and the rule of law comes into play.
Fuck democracy. Two wolves and a lamb votin' on what to have for dinner. Rule of law? If it aligns with natural rights: 👍 If not: fuck that too.

*

The part where you basically say "fuck that" and are prepared to go full-blown Ruby Ridge on anyone who dares not to subscribe entirely to your own arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian dictums.

You really need to read about Ruby Ridge: it ain't what you think it is, and ultimately it didn't turn out as you think it did.

Anyway: you love the mob rule (as long it favors you, I reckon): fair enough. I, however, don't. Scoff the law, I say.

*
Dictums that come not from the existential parameters of the life you lived but from your God-given capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".
Nah, I followed my heart...my stony, anarchistic heart.

*
Congratulations. You are clearly the exception given my own experiences with objectivists. Most of them take one or another One True Path along the lines of the Ayn Randroids. On the other hand, I'm sure you've bumped into any number of fellow travelers...online?
Nope. This forum is the only one I haunt. You see any of my fellow travelers here? I know of no other natural rights libertarian deists on-line or off, and that's not cuz they aren't there: I haven't gone lookin'. Why? Cuz I have a life and most of it isn't on-line.

Fuck Rand: she ain't my goddess in polyester.

*
Then, once again, you are far removed from most of the arrogant, autocratic and authoritarians objectivists I have come across over the years. And, in fact, given my 20 odd years as a radical political activist, I was once one of them myself. And I've known hundreds of them...liberal and conservative. Left and right.
Then I deserve a 🌟. Don't kid yourself: you're as much the objectivist fulminator as anyone here.

*
Okay, but your understanding of the "self" here is clearly different from mine. And when you are ready to explore that with me, we'll see what unfolds.
I'm not too interested in explorin' it, but if you wanna tell me what you think about self, I'll listen.

*
And, to the best of my recollection, I wasn't the first to broach the buying and the selling of bazookas. I merely bring it up in order to note just how far you are willing to go in defending your own right to bear arms. Nothing is not permitted, right?
I didn't say you were first: I said you bring it up guns and bazookas way more than I do. And I'll defend my kid and my life, liberty, and property, no matter what, no holds barred.

*
No, you argue that in any particular community that you are a member of, only you get to encompass what being free entails in regard to such things as owning guns or having an abortion or property rights.
No, I argue that I, like anyone, am free man with an inalienable right to my, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. That's it, that's all.

*
Your God provided you with the capacity to grasp these things objectively and your childhood indoctrination and personal experiences while shaping your value judgments, pales next to your God-given capacity to "think up" the most rational and natural truths about, well, everything, right?
I surmise, based on the evidence, God exists, yeah. I know I, like anyone, am free man with an inalienable right to my, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

*
On the other hand, just out of curiosity, how many moral issues are there that you do have any doubts regarding?
I don't know. Throw out some examples and let's see how I do.

*
Evidence? What accumulated evidence do you have that the Deist/deist God does in fact exist?
We're all free wills with natural rights. This is self-evident, so much so even hard determinists can't stop themselves from arguing for determinism as though they are free wills, so much so even amoralists can't deny they have a right to their lives, liberties and properties.

From science: the work of guys like Wilder Penfield and John Eccles, along with almost every example of split brain and hemispherectomy, indicates mind and brain are not synonymous.

There's your primer.

*
Evidence, as I posed to IC, along the lines of proof that Catholic Popes reside in the Vatican. Do you have your own collection of videos?
Sorry, can't give you videos of God on the toilet, no.

*
How can anyone mischaracterize something that is has never been shown to actually exist? Instead, mischaracterizations here revolve around those who don't describe this God of yours as you do...in your head.
You can refer to some of my posts (posted today) in the Christianity thread.

*
What "big stuff"?
Are you blind. Review my posts above.

*
Once you do admit to being wrong about things of this sort, you are acknowledging that you may well be wrong about such things today.

Right?
Er, I've acknowledged I've been wrong yesterday, could be wrong today, might be wrong tomorrow. And I gave you a way to prove me wrong.

*
No, what you insist on being absolutely right about here is that how you define the meaning of each of the words above is the point of departure in any and all discussions with others.

As though "free" and "natural" and "right" and "liberty" etc., were things you could take out of your pocket, hold in your hand and point to. Rather than as words invented down through the ages to mean many, many different things to many, many different people.
In all our back & forths, all our tusslin', you never once brought up definitions.

I do believe you're reachin', and you're reachin' cuz your flailin'.

But, okay: you wanna argue definitions? We can. You brought it up, so you go first. Lay out the words and definitions that concern you and we'll see where you and me match up or don't.

Who knows? Mebbe you'll have your gotcha! moment.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 7:17 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:05 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:43 pm

You're butterin' me up...whaddya want?
Everybody is necessary. Nothing happens that does not necessarily happen.
Oh, just foistin' determinist tripe.

Hard pass, lady.
You need to forgive self and others before you can forge ahead with your life. Determinism enables forgiveness.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:49 amYou need to forgive self and others before you can forge ahead with your life. Determinism enables forgiveness.
❓
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:35 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:49 amYou need to forgive self and others before you can forge ahead with your life. Determinism enables forgiveness.
❓
Causal determinism means that every every event is a necessary event and could mot be otherwise than it was.

Men, naturally, don't know every event in the network of causes, but God does as He is omniscient.
That is why it has been said that to err is human and to forgive is divine.

Our human justice is what we make it and is not divine. Within our human justice systems as far as I know there is always some measure of blame for wrong- doing. Unfortunately we have to add a deterrent to social control as it seems some criminals would keep on committing crimes unless they were brought to justice and punished. We are, after all, not divine, however causal determinism implies that every crime is caused by the network of naturral events which is originated by God; nature is an aspect of God.

When the problem is forgiving ourselves or forgiving others it's usually recognised as important that we feel sorry for our wrongdoing.The Archbishop of Canterbury said people can't reasonably forgive unless the person who harmed them is sorry and has apologised. You can't forgive yourself unless you feel sorry for what you did or neglected to do. I understand that in a civilised court of law the judge will take into account whether or not the criminal feels genuine remorse .
Post Reply