RE: Proving What We Already "Know"
July 29, 2022 at 6:17 pm
(This post was last modified: July 29, 2022 at 6:25 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
No, Benny..... that's not the point...and the fact that you think it is, is the completely subjective basis for your many objections - not that there aren't other objectitions to any realist statement which do have legs. You just can't get to them, because you're wedded to something else. Also..a fact of a subject. How you're resorting to calling the most mundane and trivial use of terms magic - in the hopes that negative associations might do what you failed to accomplish logically.
Why? I think..if you want to understand the basis for proving this or that in any system..you can figure it out on your own. I think that in contradiction to the evidence of our conversations, btw. You don't actually seem like the kind of person who can get this shit right - but I still think you can for reasons I could not give a 500 page report on. So...all the time I've devoted over many threads to helping you understand this simple thing. Help me understand a simple thing. Why? Why do you persist in objections to x after any specific objection y is thoroughly deconstructed?
I might be a moral objectivist, but I'm an interpersonal subjectivist. I want to know why you're so compelled to fuck this up, as a fact of you, the subject in question. Why, for example, are you compelled to make the statement that harm and bad are limited to things people don't like, calling it horseshit, when you know that people do apprehend things that they do like..as bad? That's not even a moral question, it's a descriptive fact - and yet.....?
Why? I think..if you want to understand the basis for proving this or that in any system..you can figure it out on your own. I think that in contradiction to the evidence of our conversations, btw. You don't actually seem like the kind of person who can get this shit right - but I still think you can for reasons I could not give a 500 page report on. So...all the time I've devoted over many threads to helping you understand this simple thing. Help me understand a simple thing. Why? Why do you persist in objections to x after any specific objection y is thoroughly deconstructed?
I might be a moral objectivist, but I'm an interpersonal subjectivist. I want to know why you're so compelled to fuck this up, as a fact of you, the subject in question. Why, for example, are you compelled to make the statement that harm and bad are limited to things people don't like, calling it horseshit, when you know that people do apprehend things that they do like..as bad? That's not even a moral question, it's a descriptive fact - and yet.....?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
