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.