henry quirk wrote:
Let's review...
You wanted to know if new information & experiences could change my mind.
I said 'yes with the proviso information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. So, not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. Also, that new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just becuz he or his wares are new' and 'I'll assess it, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns'.
My words, your interpretation: they don't match.
Again, all you are doing, in my view, is wiggling out of noting whether or not in the past, based on your own criteria above, you have ever changed your mind regarding an important issue like guns. Are you at least able to acknowledge that such information may well be out there waiting for you? Or, as the objectivist that I suspect you are, is there less than a snowball's chance in hell of you ever changing your mind about your clearly dogmatic "my way or the highway" assumptions about them.
In my view, just another wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of actually addressing my point.henry quirk wrote:Yes...with the proviso: information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. Not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. That new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just becuz he or his wares are new. I'll assess it, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns.
Basically, you are saying that "only if the new information and knowledge is already wholly in sync with my own objectivist assessment of life, liberty and property" does it count. Meanwhile, you can't relate to us a single instance where in regard to the issue of guns, new information and knowledge did radically change your mind. Whereas over and over and over again in regard to many important issues, new information and knowledge garnered from new experiences and relationships resulted in me changing my mind.
This is as far as you will go here with guns:
(Have) you have ever changed your mind regarding an important issue like guns?
That is an example of you changing your mind about guns?!!! You were exposed to them as a kid so you were around those who were no doubt behind the NRA interpretation of the Second Amendment. The part that revolves around "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" rather than "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."?henry quirk wrote: I've answered this. Here, I'll do it again...
Guns: as a kid, I was exposed to them, taught how to use them (revolvers, rifles, and shotguns). I was taught a firearm is a tool. I was, however, neutral toward them. I could take 'em or leave 'em. I was never forced to use them; I was never denied access. As an young adult living alone in New Orleans I found it prudent to arm myself. Now, at 60, I have no reason to doubt their utility.
Then your circumstances changed later in life and you became more committed to guns. The dasein part.
No, henry, I'm talking about new information and knowledge embedded in new sets of circumstances that prompted you to go from one end of the political spectrum to the other end. You were neutral about guns as a kid but "things changed" and you embraced a more pro-gun commitment. Then, say, things changed again and you went over to the other side. That sort "mind changing" example. Like me once being a staunch conservative Christian, then "things changed" and I became a staunch left-wing atheist then "things changed" again and I abandoned moral objectivism altogether...left or right, God or No God.
Okay, but with God and religion, it's all about existential leaps of faith. No one is able to actually demonstrate that God either does or does not exist.henry quirk wrote: God: was an atheist, am now a deist (I've explained, very recently, why).
And then the part where subjectively/subjunctively a certain sequence of uniquely personal experiences had to unfold existentially in your life prompting you change your mind. The part I root in dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome. The part you now root in your God-given intuitive capacity to "just know" it ultimately revolves around Deism.
Okay, this is more in line with what I am talking about.henry quirk wrote: Abortion: I favored the option for women with few restrictions; now, I incline to see it highly restricted (I've explained, very recently, why).
But, once again, given a particular trajectory of uniquely personal experiences, you moved further to the right. But had your life unfolded [for any number of reasons] in another direction you might have once favored more restrictions and then favored less restrictions today. And who is to say [in a free will world] that given newer experiences precipitating new information and knowledge still you might change your mind in a far more dramatic manner.
Also, I'm still puzzled as to how you are unable to accept that given my point here...
Look, henry, if you can actually convince yourself that no matter the historical era and culture you were born into, no matter your childhood indoctrination or the uniquely personal experiences and relationships you had over the years, no matter that you happened to read, hear and view these things rather than those things, you'd still think about abortion, guns and transgender men and women as you do today, I won't attempt further to suggest just how ludicrous that is.
...you are unable to grasp how ridiculous moral objectivism is.
bazookas and grenades and all the rest
Or, to paraphrase Shane, "A bazooka is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A bazooka is as good or as bad as the man using it."henry quirk wrote:Like firearms, I was neutral on military-grade weapons (never a fan of the military, though). Like firearms, I see them as tools. I can see no legit reason why agents of The State ought to have them and citizens should not (if you have a reason why citizens should not, offer it). Of course, I believe any person, citizen or not, is innocent till proven guilty.
And "in your head" if private citizens were permitted to own grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces, RPGs, IEDs, claymore mines, chemical and biological weapons and dirty bombs, all of the points I raised above about this are moot and we should just take our chances that in owning them they are all innocent until proven guilty. As for those like the mass murderers on the list above...they did do harm to others. Just not using bazookas.
henry quirk wrote:There are folks in-forum who say a baby is not a person till it's born and takes its first breath. Others say personhood is only a legal/social status, one that must be bestowed. Neither position is 'reasonable'. Both include possibilities their proponents refuse to consider. Let's you and I consider those possibilities and those embedded in your (and Mary's) position below (insofar as you, or she, have one).
That's my point, henry. Different people say different things. Some bring their answers back to God. Others to philosophy/ethics/deontology. Others to science. Thus, many, many conflicting assessments of what is reasonable/"reasonable". I bring my own answer back to dasein. Existentially. This "here and now" seems reasonable to me. And so, being fractured and fragmented also seems reasonable to me. And all I can do is to probe the arguments of those like you who are not drawn and quartered regarding conflicting goods.
Sigh...henry quirk wrote:And my point is a great many of those positions are not reasonable (not consistent or coherent). I offered to examine three (or four) such positions. You seem unwilling. Perhaps such an examination might threaten your stasis?
Back again to "taking into account my own God-given intuitive capacity to rationally grasp what life, liberty and property encompass philosophically and otherwise" I and not any of these...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
...guys am the only one fully qualified to distinguish between reasonable, consistent and coherent positions and unreasonable, inconsistent and incoherent positions.
henry quirk wrote:It's morally permissible to end a pregnancy that demonstrably threatens the woman's life. It's morally permissible to end a pregnancy a woman did not, in word or action, consent to. Abortion for any other reason is murder (an unjust, immoral, killing).
See, there you go again. Going back to your God-given intuitive capacity to embrace a rational assessment of abortion as a moral issue this is what you believe "in your head". And in believing it "in your head" that makes it true. You offer no other substantive evidence able to obligate others to think as you do. Surely, you are intelligent enough to grasp the circular logic that you have wound yourself up in
And that's here and now. There and then down the road after coming upon new information and knowledge that meets your own criteria above...might you then change your mind? Yes, theoretically but no for all practical purposes?
Note to others:henry quirk wrote: I've offered a logical argument as a hard materialist would, and I've offered my own as a moral realist/natural rights libertarian. Both are consistent and coherent (reasonable) while yours -- it's A-OK to kill a baby becuz gender equality demands it -- is not consistent or coherent (it's not reasonable). In fact: your position is absolutely bugfuck Crazy.
Please attempt to explain how this pertains to the point I'm making above. How is his point in regard to abortion "consistent and coherent" other than because only his own understanding of life, liberty and property are acceptable?
As for his position regarding my position: "it's A-OK to kill a baby becuz gender equality demands it"?!!!
Talk about "bugfuck Crazy"!!!!
First of all, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to be arguing above that up to 12 weeks, it could be reasonably argued that abortion is okay because the unborn are still in a "clump of cells" phase and not yet a bona fide human person. In any event above you noted that you once "favored the option for women [to abort] with few restrictions"henry quirk wrote: Let's compare positions, you and me. Let's see how my 'a baby is person so it's morally wrong to kill it unjustly' stacks up against your 'it doesn't matter what the baby is, a woman cannot be equal until she can off the baby with impunity' stance.
And, again I am not arguing that a woman can't be politically equal to a man in a world where only women can be forced to give birth. Instead, I am only noting that "here and now" rooted existentially in dasein, "I" believe that this can be construed as a reasonable frame of mind. But at the same time "here and now" "I" believe the argument that human life begins at the point of conception is also a reasonable frame of mind.
Thus being "fractured and fragmented".
Well, because, obviously, you are making it all about me here, henry. And in a bigfuck Crazy manner if I do say so myself.henry quirk in Stooge mode wrote: Let's pull both positions out of isolation and see what each says about people as people. Let's examine the ramifications of both.
I promise you: your stance will be revealed as the barren, insane thing it is.
Consider yourself challenged (I'm not holdin' my breath that you'll take up that challenge...you'll default to [in whiny voice] 'Henry, I'm fraaactured! I have no staaance!' and 'Why are you making this all about meeeeee?!').
henry quirk wrote:Mary had sex of her own volition with John. They consented to the probable consequence. She reneged. She enabled the murder of her kid. So, let's take a head count: Mary wanted Junior murdered, John consented to the murder, you were too spineless to object to the murder, a doctor and at least one nurse committed the murder...that's four of you, right offa the top of my head. So, yes, it's a tragedy, just not as you think it is.
Note to others:
Classic quirk!!
He fiercely asserts these things as though anyone who does not construe Mary and John and the abortion and me in precisely the same manner as he does above is perforce, necessarily, axiomatically wrong!!!
He takes us inside his "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" mind here so that we can note how "worked up" he is getting. He spews out his declamatory "guilty as charged" verdict as though to dare someone to suggest it isn't the God's honest truth. His God anyway.
All you are showing me here, henry, is how, once again, I've got you all "worked up" about me. You're practically in hardcore declamatory Satyr mode. And, again, I suspect that revolves around the fact that like him you are intelligent enough to grasp what is at stake for you if I do manage to deconstruct your Real Me Self and convince you that "I" in the is/ought world is basically rooted existentially in dasein. If I do come closer to putting more and more philosophical cracks in your objectivist rants.henry quirk wrote: You 'are' wrong, all of you. Your positions are not reasonable, I've told you why. I'll show you again if you take up my challenge.
Did I actually post that or is this you imagining what I would post?henry quirk wrote: Let's review...
You said: "In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions."
Also, given particular contexts.
This is so far removed from how I construe my own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective motivations and intentions it would be a complete waste of my time to note what I have been posting over and again in our exchanges for months now.henry quirk wrote: You believe this...
"And that is so because we do not interact socially, politically or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances. That's the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads."
...somehow proves your first statement (as though different perspectives are equal, as though all views as equal [becuz no one can be proven superior to another]). If you believe this, then: why do you own a revolver? Presumably to defend yourself. But, if all perspectives are equal, if 'moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions' then why is your desire to self-defend superior to a potential assailant's desire to harm your or rob you? To own that revolver makes you a hypocrite.
Though, sure, you certainly entitled to note the same thing about me.
My point is not so much to defend my assessment and conclusions but to note how assessments and conclusions of this sort [mine, yours, others] are rooted more in dasein than in deontology or ideology or religion or "my way or the highway" assessments of nature. It's the psychology of objectivism that most intrigues me.
Instead, it's straight back up into the general description intellectual/"logical"/didactic clouds you go:
No particular context this time because for you every context is applicable because every context is accessed and then assessed based solely on how you define the meaning of the words life, liberty and property.henry quirk wrote: Anyway...
I asked: So: the (a)morality that dictates man (any man, every man) is meat, and it's A-OK to kill him, slave him, rape him, that, to you, is equivalent to, or interchangeable with, the morality that sez a man is a person with a natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property(?) The first, as it is, without interpretation, sanctions a man, any man, every man, being used as a commodity. The second, as it stands, without interpretation, denies such sanction. And, to you, these radically different views of, and approaches to, man, they're interchangeable(?) Both are valid(?) You'd have a hard time pickin' one over the other(?)
In other words, how is this...
...not the case with you?henry quirk wrote: Your response: "Everything he notes "up there" is entirely predicated on the assumption that only his own God-given intuitive assessment of "life liberty and property" counts in any discussion he has with any of us here."
Then back up you go...
And, again, when you do bring your "world of words" down out of the abstract, theoretical clouds it's only to insist that only the manner in which you define the meaning of words like life, liberty and property are permitted.henry quirk wrote: Do you believe this to be an adequate response? If you'd said ' yes, I'd have, I'm having, a hard time picking between those two' (what I'd expect from a truly broken nihilistic shell of a man) or, if you'd said 'obviously, Henry, I'd prefer the philosophy that respects persons even though that's just my personal preference and not an endorsement of your fulminating objectivism' (what I'd get from most folks in-forum) then we could move forward. Instead, you go off on two people not in this supposed conversation and express your faux-incredulity...again.
henry quirk wrote: [/b]R v W was a bad court ruling. There was nuthin' democratic about it. Let's be truly democratic and let The People decide. Let's have a national vote on it. One man-one vote.[/b]
Well, according to Pew "61% of Americans say abortion should be legal
I noted it only to suggest that we react to polls existentially in turn. Re dasein. And what do the poll numbers really matter if theologically/philosophically/scientifically it cannot be established that abortion [at anytime during the pregnancy] either is objectively moral or immoral? Why don't you take a poll here to determine if being fractured and fragmented morally in a No God world is...logical?henry quirk wrote: And restricted to thereabouts the first trimester, as I recall.
So: what do you say to my idea of a national vote on the subject? Can't get more democratic than that (and you just love democracy, don't you).
The latest findings, from an October 3-20 poll, finds 57% prefer that such [gun] laws be more strict, 10% less strict and 32% the same as they have been. After rising sharply to 66% in June 2022, the percentage wanting stricter laws has fallen nine points.
Again, this is all irrelevant to me given the points I raise in signature threads above. People vote given the manner in which I construe value judgments as rooted existentially in dasein.henry quirk wrote: So: let's put it to a vote. Let The People decide.
henry quirk wrote: So: the persons responsible, by way of a consensual act, for one person (baby) being inside another (mother) are the consenting parties, the man (father) and the woman (mother). They created a person. They're responsible for him.
Again, they consented to practice safe sex. The contraceptive was defective and Mary got pregnant.
Of course only one of these responsible adults can get pregnant. And only one of these responsible adults might be forced by the governemnt to give birth. Which one do you suppose that was...John or Mary?henry quirk wrote: You understand no contraceptive is 100% guaranteed to work (science again). Is it wrong to assume responsible adults would be aware of this? Is it wrong to assume them agreeing to accept the consequences of their chosen actions? Mebbe it is.
Now, if I understand you, if Mary had shredded the "clump of cells" in her body [up to 12 weeks?] she wasn't killing an actual person.
Over and over and over again...henry quirk wrote: That's the hard materialist position I relayed up thread...the one you agreed with.
What I agree with is that those on both sides of the issue are able to make reasonable arguments for or against personhood. And that [once] as a hardcore Marxist feminist, I believed a woman should be permitted to abort the zygote, embryo or fetus at any time during the pregnancy. Then I encountered the arguments that John was making [and the arguments made in Woody Allen's Another Woman film] and recognized that they were reasonable as well. Then after reading William Barrett's Irrational Man and encountering his "rival good" argument I found my Real Me objectivist Self beginning to crumple.
...life, liberty and property are and can only be construed as you construe them...naturally.
In one ear and out the other. It's not the alternative interpretations of them that matters to me nearly as much as how individually out in a particular world historically, culturally and personally we come to acquire moral and political prejudices given the existential trajectory of our actual lived lives.henry quirk wrote: Please, offer up some reasonable alternate interpretations of life, liberty, and property...yours or someone else's.
The experiences, relationships and information and knowledge that encompass our lived lives. And all of the ways in which had [for hundreds and hundreds of reasons in a free will world] our lives might have unfolded differently triggering experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge that completely changed our value judgments. And recognizing that in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change we never really know what the future has in store for us.
That's why things like Gods and ideologies and deontological philosophical contraptions are invented and passed down from generation to generation: to sustain the psychology of objectivism that millions cling to in order to sustain the comfort and the consolation of being "one of us".