Right, like here too, given your own private and personal understanding of the deist God's Reality, only you grasp Rationally and Naturally how this distinction is made. Indeed, noting any God's Reality is going to be subsumed in one or another Scripture. Otherwise, why the capital letter Reality.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pmIn this conversation between us, I'm the only one who can.
Come on, Henry, we all know by now there's how you grasp this distinction correctly and how all the wrong, dumb, diseased folks here -- the "big fat liars" -- grasp it incorrectly. How is this any different from bazookas and abortion?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pmConsider, you -- supposedly -- can't even tell the difference, or pick the
good, between baby killin' and baby preservin'. By your own admission you're flummoxed by havin' to pick one or the other. If true (and I don't believe it is...your reaction to the possible nullification of R v W is tellin') then you're absolutely worthless as a measure of morality or truth or plain old
fact.
On the other hand, I don't assume those here who don't share my own point of view -- my explaining it not you -- are wrong, dumb and diseased. For fulminating fanatic objectivists of your ilk, however, nothing about anything "flummoxes" them. On the contrary, their self-righteous arrogance regarding all things moral and political is on display in post after post after post after post.
The only difference being whether they come from the left or the right end of the ideological spectrum. And what their font -- God or No God -- happens to be.
[Ayn Rand] insisted that philosophically there was in turn a Reality. And that all rational and virtuous individuals were obligated to be in sync with her Reality.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm I'm with her on the first: there is a reality, the Reality, but I don't share her conviction (if indeed it was her conviction) that
rational and virtuous folks are obligated to be in sync with her, or my, reality. It's not her, or my, reality to enforce. If you choose to defy Reality by, for example, eatin' Drano, that's
your business and
your consequence.
Well, no, no one forces others to think just like you do. On the other hand, your own dogmatic assertions regarding guns and abortion are in sync with Reality. So, if they do not think exactly like you do, they are out of sync with Reality. Something like that, right?
Of course, now you are entirely in sync with those on the other end of the political spectrum who insist that those who buy and sell bazookas and force women to give birth against their will are the wrong, dumb, diseased, big fat liars.
Then back to this:
"You're wrong!"
"No,
you're wrong!"
"You're dumb!"
"No,
you're dumb!"
"You're diseased!"
"No,
you're diseased!"
"You're a big fat liar!"
"No,
you're a big fat liar"!
you are content merely to call them diseased dummies
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm And morons, asswipes, pinheads, degenerates, idiots, deficients, nutjobs, loons, wrong-headed, and on and on.
Of course: The Satyr Syndrome!!
As a fellow Deist participating in God's Reality, she is permitted her own understanding of "owning" herself in regard to bazookas and tanks. But if her own political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein are not entirely in sync with your understanding? She's wrong!!
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm Nope, she's a free will, no one permits her to think as she likes...not even God. It's her head: she owns it, she's responsible for it.
Again, you grant her the right to "own" herself of her own free will. But if, in so doing, she thinks the opposite of you, then she is out of sync with Reality, and is wrong, dumb and diseased. Sort of like IC's Christian God granting us free will but if we don't accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior we'll burn in Hell. We're free but there's only one right answer.
But if her own political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein are not entirely in sync with your understanding? She's wrong!!
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm Nope, if her own assessments -- which ain't got nuthin' to do with a fictional
dasein -- bring her to conclude she has any say-so over the life, liberty, or property of another, when that other has done no wrong,
then she's wrong.
Again, back to the reality that out in the real world, in most communities, laws exist pertaining to guns and abortions. We don't get to just say and do whatever we please as long as we can convince ourselves that we do others no harm. That's my point. That moral objectivists of your ilk, once in power, will often view the world around them as divided up between "one of us" [those in sync with Reality: the good guys] and "one of them" [those not in sync with Reality: the bad guys].
The rest, as they say, is history.
You just steer clear of probing the part about dasein because you have way too much accumulated "comfort and consolation" at stake here.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm Nope, I steer clear cuz
dasein is manure, and a particularly low grade of it. I got no reason to give it any real consideration in any of my responses.
Indeed. The closer you get to abandoning your own arrogant, self-righteous moral and political dictums, the closer you come to recognizing how "owning" your "self" is the existential embodiment of dasein. Then all that accumulated "comfort and consolation" derived from your own smug "my way or the highway" mentality, can begin to crumble.
I suspect you already recognize this given the manner in which you seem compelled to come after me here: derisively.
what is not a possibility is that if others believe they "own" themselves just as you do and as such believe that owning buying and selling bazookas is irrational and unnatural while having an abortion is rational and natural then God or No God they are inherently, necessarily wrong?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm It's not possible to recognize the other guy has the same right to his life, liberty, and property as you do while declarin' it's forbidden he should own an item.
And yet in community after community after community, that is precisely what is being debated in regard to guns. Should the law of the land allow private citizens to own bazookas and tanks and IEDs and grenades and mines and rockets and chemical and biological weapons and dirty bombs?
Why? Precisely because people, in "owning" themselves, come to conflicting conclusions about guns. I merely suggest these differences are derived existentially from dasein rather than from a God or No God essential Reality whereby in following the dictates of Reason and Nature one can arrive at the optimal or the only reasonable conclusion. You can't even own up to the fact other Deists will embrace your arguments about "owning" themselves but then conclude the opposite of you in regard to issues like guns and abortions. The irony is that they are defending a Reality here as well. Only it's their Reality not yours.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm It's not possible to recognize the other guy has the same right to his life, liberty, and property as you do while declarin' the baby in your belly ought to be rubbed out.
And then of course those on the other end of the political spectrum, in "owning" themselves just like you do, argue that it's not possible for women to attain political equality with men in a world where women are forced to give birth against their will.
Indeed, the political platform of the Libertarian Party says that...
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
By all means, keep the government out of it. Just don't assume that "liberty" here is applicable only to the unborn and not to the pregnant women.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:08 pm In the first: you're a thief. In the second: you're a murdress. In both: you've declared the other guy is
less than you. You're a
monster (add that one to the list).
Yes, by all means, reduce complex issues like guns and abortion down to simplistic outbursts like this.
In fact, for some of us, this mentality pretty much encompasses the fulminating fanatic objectivists in a nutshell.