the queen is dead

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:51 pmThat's 3 questions. Becuz man is a free will and not a meat machine, and that's not undetermined, that's self-determined. Man is a composite being, meat and spirit irrevocably intermixed, neither worth a damn without the other. God.
Sure, I gathered as much. But my question had more dimension. If man evolved from a monkey-like creature, at what point did *God* infuse 'spirit' into the meat-machine?

It has seemed to me that many animals (dogs, cats, horses, etc.) have, in fact, 'higher intelligence'. I cannot say they make moral choices like we do. But they seem proto-choices. Early forms of the same sort of choices we make and which are indeed moral.

This short talk by Noam Chomsky (in reference to a famous debate he had, years ago, with Michel Foucault) might interest you. Chomsky does argue (here at least) from the position of the 'biological machine' and not (as he seems to in other places) from the position of recognition of 'the ghost in the machine' (the soul in the meat, as it were).

I had no idea you were from S. Louisiana. Do you eat opossums and such? Every once in a while an opossum (a chucha) gets into our house and steals tomatoes and other fruit. While I do not contemplate eating it I am curious: are they any good in a prepared dish? Do they actually make possum pie in your neck of the woods?

Do your women-folk actually do this?!? 😁
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 »

If man evolved from a monkey-like creature, at what point did *God* infuse 'spirit' into the meat-machine?
Hell if I know.

*
It has seemed to me that many animals (dogs, cats, horses, etc.) have, in fact, 'higher intelligence'.
I've had the same experience. I've owned a few dogs and cats that seemed to be more than just bio-automatons.

*
Do you eat opossums and such?
No.

*
Every once in a while an opossum (a chucha) gets into our house and steals tomatoes and other fruit.
I'm an occasional insomniac: sometimes, at 2 or 3 in the morning, I'll step outside, have a smoke, and watch the possums. There's a family that's been foragin' on the property: a big, fat adult and two or three lil ones, all snufflin' around on the lawn. Demon rats, I call 'em.

*
While I do not contemplate eating it I am curious: are they any good in a prepared dish?
Hell if I know.

*
Do they actually make possum pie in your neck of the woods?
Not that I'm aware of.

*
Do your women-folk actually do this?!?
Mebbe...I personally don't know anyone who fishes without a pole.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:27 pm
Causal determinism means that every every event is a necessary event and could mot be otherwise than it was.
Yes, exactly. If I'm causally determined, just a meat machine, then anything, everything, I think, say, or do cannot be other than what it is. I literally have no choice.

Think about what that means.
You do so choose and cannot avoid choosing until the moment of your death. Like other intelligent animals you use your experience to choose what course of action you will take. Machines ,whatever materials they are made of, do not have memories and cannot choose based on previous experiences.

Smart machines, computers and suchlike, have memories but lack feelings so they are lacking in one of the components that help us to make intelligent choices.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by iambiguous »

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: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm If you're sayin' our yesterdays influence, sometimes in subtle or powerful ways, our todays: okay.
No, I'm curious as to how you differentiate the way your own yesterdays shaped your views on the queen, guns and abortions, but didn't come to comprise it. Then I'm noting that those who lived very different lives from yours could easily have been shaped [if not comprised] to embrace conflicting political prejudices.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm But, if you're sayin' our yesterdays determine our todays: nope.
Not saying that at all. I'm thinking more along the lines of identities forged existentially. As explored in these two films: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... e#p2476698

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... y#p2366489

Not that I'd ever expect hardcore objectivists of your ilk to actually grasp the implications of all this for your own identity. After all, the whole point of being an objectivist for your kind is to have the comfort and consolation that comes from being able to neatly divide up the world between "one of us" [the good guys] and one of them [the bad guys].
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"?
Mr. Wiggle wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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).
That's not what I am talking about at all. But it is what I would expect from you.
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?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm Nope. They taught me things, some which I've kept close, others I've tossed.
My point though is as a young child your parents did in fact indoctrinate you on the ways of their world. About countless things. Only as you grew older and had experiences apart from them did you start to "toss" some of their beliefs and existentially acquire moral and political prejudices all your own.
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.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm Teaching is not synonymous with indoctrination.
Okay, in regard to your own son, how, with respect to queens and guns and abortions, do you go about making this distinction to him? Did you sit him down and say, "Son, these are the things I believe. On the other hand, you may well have experiences that take you in just the opposite direction. And that's fine with me."
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".
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm As I say: you want me to comment on what you've posted there, then bring it here.

Copy & paste.
Note to others:

Can you believe this?!!!

Rather than elongating threads like this with the text from my signature threads at ILP I provide links:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

All he has to do is to click on them!!!
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.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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!
Again, simply unbelievable. As though dozens and dozens of others all up and down the ideological spectrum [left to right] aren't telling us the same thing. Only their "natural rights" will always trump his. It's not what these arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian objectivists believe but that they believe all the rest of us are obligated to believe the same. The psychology of objectivism.

Thus...
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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.
Of course:
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm ...fuck 'em...they're evil morons.
Exactly what the "libtards" are saying about henry and his own "one of them" ilk. The entirely predictable knee jerk
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."
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm They're the same thing, Mr Google.
Well, of course they are, Mr. Fulminating Fanatic Objectivist.
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.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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.
Ah, back to his "general description intellectual contraptions" in which the whole truth here revolves tautologically around the definitions he gives to the words. Others are quite simply wrong if they don't define them in precisely the same way. And then in precisely the same way bring those definitions out into the world of actual human interactions.

And what were your childhood experiences in regard to guns and property rights?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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.
On the other hand, there are kids in cultures and in families around the globe who are taught that property is theft. That socialism is the best of all possible worlds. That We ever and always transcends I. Ah, but they are not being taught, they really are being brainwashed aren't they?
What you call "moral fact" others call "personal opinions".
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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 this is what you will "teach" your son? And if he has personal experiences which lead him to believe that "life and liberty" revolve instead around living in a world where guns and bazookas and tanks and claymore mines and RPGs and chemical ordinance are not deemed to be legitimate personal property?
And given how many construe the history of gun violence in the United States, to insist that gun control is not a moral issue is nothing short of laughable.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm The moral issue is unjust killin' (murder), not the tool used to do it.
Right, though, here again, we can always count on you to differentiate just from unjust gun violence. And haven't those like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold justified their own gun violence by claiming that they were bullied in school?

And you can bet your ass that those neighbors from the Fear Thy Neighbors docs felt justified when they pulled the trigger.

Or the Unabombers of the world.
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.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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.
In other words, only your own personal opinion about guns being aligned with "natural rights" counts in the community. If laws are passed through the democratic process that you don't agree with, it's Ruby Ridge.

And even here only you get to assert what that was really all about.

It's always 'fuck this!" and "fuck that!" inside your head. In there everything is always black and white.
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".
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.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm I'm not too interested in explorin' it, but if you wanna tell me what you think about self, I'll listen.
Go here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Then explain to me how in regard to guns it in no way describes you. Unless of course you're sticking with your own private and personal assumption that the deist God abandoned you only after He "taught" you how to grasp the one and only True Meaning of Natural Rights.
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?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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.
I bring it up as often as you are adamant that only how you understand the one True Meaning of Natural Rights is in sync with the buying and the selling of bazookas...all the way up to Ruby Ridge for those who might come after any bazookas that you might one day own.

"Blow those motherfuckers away, right God?!!"
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.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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.
Over and over and over and over and over again: your "free man" here. Your "inalienable rights". Only as with IC and Heaven and Hell, you need a God around to connect it all back to.

Thus...
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?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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.
Okay, again, what evidence? Why don't you ask IC if you can borrow his videos. All you'll have to do is promise to accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior.

Instead we get this:
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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.
General description "spiritual" contraptions that go around and around tautologically in circles. Just words defining and defending more words still. Like these "proofs": https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more ... stence.htm

Of course the problem here is that arguing God into existence doesn't pin down which God it is. Let alone how to reconcile a God, the God, your God with this:
...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...
Let's run this by the folks in Perto Rico. Again:

'Hurricane Fiona’s arrival in Puerto Rico came almost exactly five years after Hurricane Maria struck, a devastating storm from which the island never fully recovered.

'On Sept. 20, 2017, Maria landed in Puerto Rico as a Category 4 storm, producing as much as 40 inches of rainfall. It caused the deaths of roughly 3,000 people, bringing devastation, property damage and the destruction of infrastructure in every corner of the island.'
NYT
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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.
Okay, note the hard evidence they provide such that all rational men and women would be obliged to agree that, say, the Deist God does in fact exist?

On the other hand, just out of curiosity, how many moral issues are there that you do have any doubts regarding?
Mr. Wiggle wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm I don't know. Throw out some examples and let's see how I do.
Ever and always evading this part. The part where you admit that, yes, you were wrong about "big stuff" moral and political conflicts in the past but, in my view, not really acknowledging that this can only mean that you may well be wrong about them now.

Note to others:

Let's all start holding out breaths waiting for this to happen here.
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?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm Sorry, can't give you videos of God on the toilet, no.
Sure, turn it all into one of your "clever' retorts.
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.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm You can refer to some of my posts (posted today) in the Christianity thread.
So can you.
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?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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.
Come henry, stop fooling yourself. Or, sure, provide us with a few examples of where in discussions with others they had managed to get you to admit that you were wrong about the "big stuff" issues.

I certainly have no problems with that. Over the years any number of men and women have managed to get me to admit...

"...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."

Your turn.
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.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm 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.
Huh? I don't want to argue definitions. I want those who define words like "free" and "natural" and "right" and "liberty" etc., to bring them down out of the general description intellectual/philosophical/spiritual clouds and defend them in regard to what I construe to be moral and political prejudices acquired existentially, subjectively given the lives we lived.

On this thread in regard to Queen Elizabeth's life and death. And, on other threads, other "big stuff" issues.
User avatar
MagsJ
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:23 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: the queen is dead

Post by MagsJ »

Queen Elizabeth Il's committal service concludes with God Save the King rendition.. https://youtu.be/egFE_llf1no

89C3FDA2-55AC-4185-8EDF-A6F5DEDC8A7B.jpeg
89C3FDA2-55AC-4185-8EDF-A6F5DEDC8A7B.jpeg (57.76 KiB) Viewed 903 times
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: the queen is dead

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Save him from what?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 7:25 pm Save him from what?
The vengeance of bears . . .
User avatar
MagsJ
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:23 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: the queen is dead

Post by MagsJ »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 7:25 pm Save him from what?
..an early death, from war? disease? assassination? Take your pick. 🤷‍♀️
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: the queen is dead

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

He has a permanent 'feel sorry for me' look on his face. Not really a good look for a king. Just saying.
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'm curious as to how you differentiate the way your own yesterdays shaped your views on the queen, guns and abortions, but didn't come to comprise it.
I answered that, didn't I? We've done this so many times -- the same shit over and over and over -- I forget.

I'm just gonna go with I answered that.

*
Then I'm noting that those who lived very different lives from yours could easily have been shaped [if not comprised] to embrace conflicting political prejudices.
Yep, you are sayin' our yesterdays determine our todays. Wrong. Do not drag your fat ass past GO: do not collect 200 bucks.

*
these two films:
Not watchin' 'em (unless they're porn...are they porn?).

*
Not that I'd ever expect hardcore objectivists of your ilk to actually grasp the implications of all this for your own identity.
You mean cuz my head is screwed on straight and I'm immune to your absurd bullshit? Yes, I agree.

*
After all, the whole point of being an objectivist for your kind is to have the comfort and consolation that comes from being able to neatly divide up the world between "one of us" [the good guys] and one of them [the bad guys].
Nope. It's cuz I'm right and you're a wrong-headed moron: that's as plain as the crooked nose on my lop-sided face. As plain as the sweat tricklin' down between your man paps.

*
That's not what I am talking about at all.
I don't think you know what you're talkin' about...ever.

*
But it is what I would expect from you.
Sanity, clarity? Yep, you got it.

*
My point though is as a young child your parents did in fact indoctrinate you on the ways of their world. About countless things. Only as you grew older and had experiences apart from them did you start to "toss" some of their beliefs and existentially acquire moral and political prejudices all your own.
Nope. They gave me an Electronium Thinking Hat.

*
Okay, in regard to your own son, how, with respect to queens and guns and abortions, do you go about making this distinction to him? Did you sit him down and say, "Son, these are the things I believe. On the other hand, you may well have experiences that take you in just the opposite direction. And that's fine with me."
I just passed on the Electronium Thinking Hat.

*
Note to others:
Pay attention, folks: he's makin' a point.

*
Can you believe this?!!!
You better.

*
Rather than elongating threads like this with the text from my signature threads at ILP I provide links:

All he has to do is to click on them!!!
And I won't.

*
Again, simply unbelievable.
Again: believe it.

*
As though dozens and dozens of others all up and down the ideological spectrum [left to right] aren't telling us the same thing. Only their "natural rights" will always trump his. It's not what these arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian objectivists believe but that they believe all the rest of us are obligated to believe the same. The psychology of objectivism.
Oh, the world overflows with morons, I know. More power to 'em. Go, morons, go! Be the best damn morons you can be! Just stay offa my lawn.

*
Thus...Of course: Exactly what the "libtards" are saying about henry and his own "one of them" ilk. The entirely predictable knee jerk
My knee doesn't. Jerk, I mean. Docs use them lil hammers and, nuthin'. My leg doesn't move. Sorta how I don't move no matter what you do.

*
Well, of course they are, Mr. Fulminating Fanatic Objectivist.
Yes indeed, Mr. Fulminating Fanatic Objectivist (you are one).

*
Ah, back to his "general description intellectual contraptions" in which the whole truth here revolves tautologically around the definitions he gives to the words. Others are quite simply wrong if they don't define them in precisely the same way. And then in precisely the same way bring those definitions out into the world of actual human interactions.
Nope. It's a statement of fact, about me, about you, about everyone: a free man has an inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. And anyone who disagrees is a wrong-headed, moronic enemy.

But, you know all this.

*
On the other hand, there are kids in cultures and in families around the globe who are taught that property is theft. That socialism is the best of all possible worlds. That We ever and always transcends I. Ah, but they are not being taught, they really are being brainwashed aren't they?
They're bein' taught wrong, yep. They're bein' condemned to fat-assery & pussification, or dick flashin'. Why are some parents stupid? As the product of two sterling examples: I'm sure you can tell me.

*
And this is what you will "teach" your son?
Absolutely. Grade-A Truth.

*
And if he has personal experiences which lead him to believe that "life and liberty" revolve instead around living in a world where guns and bazookas and tanks and claymore mines and RPGs and chemical ordinance are not deemed to be legitimate personal property?
Then he's a changeling, left by fairies.

*
Right, though, here again, we can always count on you to differentiate just from unjust gun violence.
Yep. I'm good like that.

*
And haven't those like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold justified their own gun violence by claiming that they were bullied in school?
If only they woulda had Electronium Thinking Hats.

*
And you can bet your ass that those neighbors from the Fear Thy Neighbors docs felt justified when they pulled the trigger.
As I say: cuz they do wrong, I'm supposed to be punished?

Fuck that.

*
Or the Unabombers of the world
More folks I ain't gettin' punished for.

*
In other words, only your own personal opinion about guns being aligned with "natural rights" counts in the community. If laws are passed through the democratic process that you don't agree with, it's Ruby Ridge.
We've been thru this already, yeah?

Anyway, when it comes to my property, I trump everyone else. Don't start nuthin' and there won't be nuthin'.

*
And even here only you get to assert what that was really all about.
Actually, the history books do: read one (or wikipedia).

*
It's always 'fuck this!" and "fuck that!" inside your head. In there everything is always black and white.
You forgot fuck you. And all them fucks are out in the open, for all to read and hear. There's some green in there too.

*
Go here:
No.

*
Then explain to me how in regard to guns it in no way describes you.
Can't till you bring it here.

*
Unless of course you're sticking with your own private and personal assumption that the deist God abandoned you only after He "taught" you how to grasp the one and only True Meaning of Natural Rights.
Er, I never actually met Him.

*
I bring it up as often as you are adamant that only how you understand the one True Meaning of Natural Rights is in sync with the buying and the selling of bazookas...all the way up to Ruby Ridge for those who might come after any bazookas that you might one day own.
Then you oughta be postin' nuthin' but bazooka, 24-7. You aren't. Why aren't you?

*
"Blow those motherfuckers away, right God?!!"
Man, imagine His bazooka.

*
Over and over and over and over and over again: your "free man" here. Your "inalienable rights".
It's my untreated Eleutheromania.

*
Only as with IC and Heaven and Hell, you need a God around to connect it all back to.
He is where the evidence takes me.

*
Okay, again, what evidence?
Look in the mirror.

*
Why don't you ask IC if you can borrow his videos.
Mannie, you got Crom videos? And you didn't tell me? Ratfink.

*
All you'll have to do is promise to accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior.
I won't do that.

*
General description "spiritual" contraptions that go around and around tautologically in circles. Just words defining and defending more words still
Horse, here's water, drink.

*
...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...
Eggs & omelets.

*
Hurricane Fiona’s arrival in Puerto Rico came almost exactly five years after Hurricane Maria struck, a devastating storm from which the island never fully recovered.
Move it or lose it.

*
Okay, note the hard evidence they provide such that all rational men and women would be obliged to agree that, say, the Deist God does in fact exist?
No one's obliged to agree, and I never said a thing about hard evidence.

*
Ever and always evading this part. The part where you admit that, yes, you were wrong about "big stuff" moral and political conflicts in the past but, in my view, not really acknowledging that this can only mean that you may well be wrong about them now.
Slowly: I...was...wrong...to...be...an...atheist. I...was...wrong...to...be...a...nihilist. I. Was. Wrong.

And: I might be wrong right now.

I can say it as many times as you need me to.

*
Sure, turn it all into one of your "clever' retorts.
I need a better straight man: you're lousy at this.

*
So can you.
But I won't.

*
Come henry, stop fooling yourself.
No, you.

*
provide us with a few examples of where in discussions with others they had managed to get you to admit that you were wrong about the "big stuff" issues.
Transcripts?

*
"...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."
I hear the Scientologists are recruitin'. Mebbe all you need is adjusting.

*
Your turn.
I was wrong about aheism, and nihilism, and pessimism, and cheese cake, and broccoli, and a certain young lady in my senior year.

*
I don't want to argue definitions.
Okeedoke.

*
I want those who define words like "free" and "natural" and "right" and "liberty" etc., to bring them down out of the general description intellectual/philosophical/spiritual clouds and defend them in regard to what I construe to be moral and political prejudices acquired existentially, subjectively given the lives we lived.
I've brought things pretty low already: look who I'm talkin' to.

*
On this thread in regard to Queen Elizabeth's life and death. And, on other threads, other "big stuff" issues.
The queen: don't care.

Big stuff: covered it, am coverin' it, will -- no doubt -- cover it again.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: the queen is dead

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Apparently one of the first things Charles did after his mother died was send notice of pending redundancies to both the queen's and his own staff, many of whom have worked for them for decades. You would think that someone as allegedly 'kind and caring' as the queen would have made sure that this didn't happen, and made provisions for staff. The British royals actually don't give a flying rat's arse about their staff and never have.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

I suspect it's best for a monarch to keep his feelings buttoned up by altering his facial expression as necessary, and by behaving as if he had no strong feelings except such feelings as are legitimated by God.

By "God" I refer to an amalgam of established religion and popular majority mores and rituals.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: the queen is dead

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Camilla looked as if she has dementia. Charles' eyes are far close together. Andrew always looks shifty. Harry looked ferocious.
A massive and shameless confection of military worship but with really good music.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:32 am
iambiguous wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 3:07 am That's because out in the world of actual human interactions there's what we claim our motivations and intentions are and there is how others perceive and react to them instead.
And you perceived mine as political. I don't understand why my first post saying I didn't grieve her passing struck you as political. Sure, I can imagine others would/might take it that way. This is the real world of human reactions. You judged it as political. You seem to give others that responsibility. I keep pointing out that you made that judgment. I'll drop it from here since you can't seem to talk about this as an individual, but point to others as if you must agree with them.
Look, with the British monarchy being politically toothless...a ritualistic, ceremonial spectacle put on enabling some "in their heads" to link the present with the past...it's a pale imitation of an actual political conflict.

And, again, the irony here being that in regard to your own personal opinions about it, I construe them to be the embodiment of dasein...as fabricated subjectively out in a particular world understood in a particular way...as largely unfolding within the existential parameters of your individual life. Had your life been different for any number of reasons you might be here devastated by the queen's death.

The crucial point being that, this being a philosophy forum, there was not appear [to me] to be a way for philosophers, using the technical tools are their disposal, to assess how all rational -- wise -- men and women ought to react to it.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pmYou 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.
I'm sure it seemed negative to the Jews back in Nazi Germany. And when racists and sexists and homophobes and small government fanatics intent on chopping up the welfare state insist they are only expressing their own personal opinions about these issues, sure, we can leave it at that.

After all, they might not act on these opinions once in power, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:32 amthat's not a response to what I wrote. My post was about not grieving her death.
From my frame of mind, this all revolves around different distinctions that we make between "personal opinions" and "political convictions"...out in the real world where we may intend one thing rather than the other but others are often more than willing to insist it must be as they construe it.

With the queen's death your personal opinion might piss off a family member or a friend. But it isn't likely to go much further. With other issues, however, the consequences can be considerably more, well, consequential. And falling back on "it's just my own personal opinion" may or may not be all that puts an end to it. Again, imagine a Jew back in Nazi Germany insisting "it's just my own personal opinion that Hitler should be locked up". Or a MAGA fanatic encountering someone insisting, "it's just my own personal opinion that Trump should be locked up".

As for this...
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:32 am I have gone on and made political posts about the Queen in this thread and others, but my original post, which you grouped with all the others was not political to me and I am surprised it is to you. And I am surprised that this relates to what happened to jews in Nazi germany and that you cannot seem to actually write as an individual. Further, I cannot see what difference your lack of objectivism does. IOW you often seem to blame objectivists for their certainty and attitudes. Perhaps you are uncertain about your values, but in any debate I doubt this subtlety will make any different. You'll be on one team occasionally saying that you aren't sure, but all they and your team will notice is that you are on Team X and disparage team Y just like everyone else.
If you can't grasp the distinction that I make between being on different teams in regard to political prejudices, and seeing the opinions of those on both teams from the perspective of a "fractured and fragmented" identity rooted in how "I" have come to construe the acquisition of the "self" itself in the is/ought world given the OPs of these threads...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...then for now we will just have to agree to disagree. And, perhaps, choose an issue where a considerably larger percentage of the population are fiercely adamant regarding the "personal opinions" of those in opposition to their own. Issues like guns and abortions.

More along the lines of the exchanges on this thread between myself and henry quirk.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pmBut 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.
Note where I convinced you I thought your own views on the queen were fanatical. Note the "ridiculous claims". We just construe "personal opinions" differently here.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:32 am The 'they' in the sentence 'You seem to the they are fanatical' refers to other people who will see my post as political.
Note this from a post of mine above. It doesn't even make sense... "to the they"?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:32 am You see them as fanatical. They will see my post as political. They will see....they will see....they will see. But YOU labelled my post as poltical. You didn't need to do that, unless that is what YOU think. They dont' have to control your mind and judgment. Or do they?
Yes, in regard to the most fiercely fanatical pro-queen/pro monarchy objectivists among us, they will see your personal opinion above as politically incorrect. They might try to yank you over to their side. But if you don't budge, the "huffing and puffing" attacks can readily commence. You can quickly become one of henry's "morons".

And sure, "give up" if you must. Lot's of folks do with me. Though I suspect it has less to do with them not "getting me" and more to do with them, on some level, getting me all too well. Their own precious "Real Me" Self in sync with the "Right Thing To Do" might come into jeopardy. What if, in regard to their own rock-solid objectivist moral, political and spiritual value judgments, they start to "fracture and fragment" too?!
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:45 pm And, again, the irony here being that in regard to your own personal opinions about it, I construe them to be the embodiment of dasein...as fabricated subjectively out in a particular world understood in a particular way...as largely unfolding within the existential parameters of your individual life. Had your life been different for any number of reasons you might be here devastated by the queen's death.
Yeah, sure. Though this has little to do with what I wrote.
The crucial point being that, this being a philosophy forum, there was not appear [to me] to be a way for philosophers, using the technical tools are their disposal, to assess how all rational -- wise -- men and women ought to react to it.
SAme thing.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pmYou 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.
I'm sure it seemed negative to the Jews back in Nazi Germany. And when racists and sexists and homophobes and small government fanatics intent on chopping up the welfare state insist they are only expressing their own personal opinions about these issues, sure, we can leave it at that.

After all, they might not act on these opinions once in power, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:32 amthat's not a response to what I wrote. My post was about not grieving her death.
From my frame of mind, this all revolves around different distinctions that we make between "personal opinions" and "political convictions"...out in the real world where we may intend one thing rather than the other but others are often more than willing to insist it must be as they construe it.
Jesus, your responses are completely abstract and generalized. A specific person, you, labeling something another specific person, me, said as political. When asked repeatedly why you view it as poltical, you blame fanatics who will or might, though they didn't. Only you did. Above you even mention that different people will view it as personal or political depending. But not you. You manage to label some people as fanatics, though you know that others will not do that. You manage to use pejortative terms for convervative policies and attitudes, but tend not to do this for liberal ones.

But you can't manage to have your own, yes, mere, opinion, yes, based on dasein, about my saying I didn't grieve the queen. IOW you can weigh in with your personal opinion on all sorts of things, but not this.

Is it because I pointed out the issue? You can express your personal opinions, yes, based on dasein, when you decide or on impulse, but if someone else brings up the issue or seems critical you can't manage? Then, it's all about other people and you are a mere cipher for their potential fanatical interpretations.

This is a simple basic human interaction thing. Hey, you called thta political, do you really react that way? And I get, yes, again and again intellectual contraptions and it simply cannot be uttered on your part. Yes, I thought that was political. Your opinion struck me, Iambigiuous as poltical. Or....No, for me it isn't political, though I expect others will or may react that way. The latter would seemt to be the case since you keep saying it will be fanatics who will react to it as political.

Notice even there, you manage to have an opinion about them. That they are fanaticals. YOu manage to express an opinion with YOUR OWN PERSONAL REACTION right there.

But if asked to do this by someone else...oh, no. Then you can only react as the population of the entire planet and it is their fault, those fanatics, that it will be taken as political.

I don't know what this is, actually. It's my fault for engaging after saing I wouldn't. I mean, there is some strange pattern here on your part that keeps you from reacting when asked as a person, despite being perfectly capable of slipping your personal values all over the place about things you are not asked about. That's on you whatever defensiveness or avoidance or whatever it is.

But shame on me, as they say, for somehow thinking that if I reflect back what is happening perhaps 4 or 5 different ways, a change will happen. Dasein, sure, means we are potentially changing. But then people generally find their GROOVE, the record skips, from then on, the same way, each time.
Post Reply