|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 20:18:06 GMT -5
You're not looking at the whole quote. Kant said "desire to possess and ALSO TO RULE." When you go shopping, are you driven by a "desire to rule?" To rule is to have control over something. Ownership of property means having total control control over that property. There is a reason land owners are called land lords. They are free to rule over the land they own. That's not the definition in the Oxford Dictionary: "rule verb 1. exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people): "Latin America today is ruled by elected politicians" synonyms: govern, preside over, control, have control of, be in control of, ... more Powered by Oxford Dictionaries" search.yahoo.com/search?p=rule+definition&fr=yfp-t&fp=1&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8"Rule" specifically refers to power over people as well as things. Proving what, exactly? The 2 quotes are both by Kant and neither contradicts the other. In one quote, Kant calls war "indispensable." In the other, he gives thanks for "the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule." Where is the contradiction? None that I can see. LOL! I don't have to. That's your argument. Since Kant never disavowed either argument, they both stand. Unless of course you find contrary evidence. Nope. I never claimed to know everything about Kant. And I don't have to. All I know is that he made these two statements, about war being "indispensable" and that he gives thanks to nature for "the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule." Until you come up with evidence to the contrary, it seems that Kant liked war and tought that it was a positive thing. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 22:13:36 GMT -5
All I know is that he made these two statements, about war being "indispensable" and that he gives thanks to nature for "the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule." Yes, I can see that this is the extent of your "knowledge". You still haven't given any evidence for that, but it's clear that this point that there is no way to break you out of your delusion. After all, Hicks agrees with you, and unlike me - a triple-Nazi truth destroyer - he is a Randian correct-believer who therefore perceives reality objectively and accurately.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 23:57:15 GMT -5
All I know is that he made these two statements, about war being "indispensable" and that he gives thanks to nature for "the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule." Yes, I can see that this is the extent of your "knowledge". I don't need to know everything about Kant to see that he praised war as being good for society. All you have to do to prove me wrong is come up with some Kant quotes where he said that he made a mistake an he was taking those 2 quotes back. Can you do that? If not, those quotes still stand. Sure I did. I gave those two quotes! So far you haven't given any Kant quotes in refutation. But you haven't established that it is a "delusion." All you are doing here is making a Dogmatic Assertion with NO Supporting Evidence. Nope. I never called you a "triple-Nazi truth destroyer." In fact, I didn't call you any names at all I dealt with your arguments, not you. And, other than using the quotes from Hicks, I never said that he was a "Randian correct believer." Hicks' article consisted mostly of direct quotes (with references). It was Kant and Mussolini who did most of the talking. Anyone at all, true-believer or not, could have posted those quotes and the conclusion drawn would be exactly the same. Both Kant and Mussolini thought war was good for society and they both liked it. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 16:26:17 GMT -5
Nope. I never called you a "triple-Nazi truth destroyer." No, you only called me a hypocrite, and implied that my beliefs are fascist. Yes, you've gotten smarter with your insults in recent years. These days you're content merely insinuating that I'm a child rapist with no morals. LOL. Sure, that must be the reason why you keep posting ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. He is a Randian and therefore perceives reality objectively, just like you do. Do you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 20, 2019 17:23:20 GMT -5
Nope. I never called you a "triple-Nazi truth destroyer." No, you only called me a hypocrite, and implied that my beliefs are fascist. Yes, you've gotten smarter with your insults in recent years. These days you're content merely insinuating that I'm a child rapist with no morals. LOL. Sure, that must be the reason why you keep posting ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. He is a Randian and therefore perceives reality objectively, just like you do. Do you disagree?
Apparently you have run out of good arguments yet again.
Your post here is an obvious attempt to change the subject by engaging in personal attacks.
Clearly you have no good counter-arguments to the fact that direct quotes from Mussolini and Kant show that both of them thought that war was beneficial for society.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2019 2:47:56 GMT -5
Apparently you have run out of good arguments yet again. Your post here is an obvious attempt to change the subject by engaging in personal attacks. Clearly you have no good counter-arguments to the fact that direct quotes from Mussolini and Kant show that both of them thought that war was beneficial for society. Bob
Yes, saying that you called my a hypocrite, which you factually did, is clearly a personal attack. You are the victim here, Bob. I am unjustly attacking you with slurs, insults, and veiled insinuations that you are a pedophile with no morals. You haven't answered my question, by the way:
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 21, 2019 11:33:27 GMT -5
Apparently you have run out of good arguments yet again. Your post here is an obvious attempt to change the subject by engaging in personal attacks. Clearly you have no good counter-arguments to the fact that direct quotes from Mussolini and Kant show that both of them thought that war was beneficial for society. Bob Yes, saying that you called my a hypocrite, which you factually did, is clearly a personal attack. LOL! You are still trying to change the subject. Did both Mussolini and Kant like war and think that is was good for society/ Do you have a good answer? Apparently not. So you are desperately trying to change the subject by bringing up totally different issues from other threads that were posted weeks ago. What does this have to do with the topic of Mussolini's and Kant's views on war? Nothing. Once again yoou are trying to change the subject because you have run out of arguments. What does this have to do with Hicks' text? All Hicks did was to quote directly from Kant and Mussolini to show that their views about war being good for society were similar. Hicks' post stands by itself and it does not mater what his overall philosophy is. Or mine for that matter. Once again you are trying to change the subject from the issue under discussion to the personal opinions of the poster. And that is both an Ad Hominem and a Red Herring. If you have nothing further to add an the subject of the similarity of the views of Mussolini and Kant, just say so. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2019 14:34:53 GMT -5
Hicks' post stands by itself Exactly! He perceives objective reality and therefore is self-evidently correct in his claims, He does not need to elaborate on his thesis, show his work, or even construct an argument. Any Randian will perceive objective reality correctly and therefore intuitively know objectively what he is saying.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 21, 2019 18:40:23 GMT -5
Hicks' post stands by itself Exactly! He perceives objective reality and therefore is self-evidently correct in his claims, He does not need to elaborate on his thesis, show his work, or even construct an argument. Any Randian will perceive objective reality correctly and therefore intuitively know objectively what he is saying.
Nope. First of all, I never made any of those claims for anything that Hicks wrote. As far as I know, neither did he.
The only one who made those claims about Hicks is you.
On top of that, when someone says "Look at these two different quotes from two different people. They seem to agree with each other", well that is the argument. All one has to do is look at the quotes and see if the arguments do in fact agree.
They do. So what other argument is necessary? None.
So unless you can demonstrate on the basis of the quotes provided that Mussolini and Kant really had widely divergent views, you have no case.
You may have a difficult time doing that however because the quotes are clear. Both Kant and Mussolini thought that war was a good thing for society.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 15:47:59 GMT -5
Everyone can see that I'm right, therefore I don't need to post evidence.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 22, 2019 17:46:48 GMT -5
Everyone can see that I'm right, therefore I don't need to post evidence. Yeah. Right.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 17:55:32 GMT -5
My interpretation of the quotes appears correct to me personally, so what other argument is necessary? None.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 22, 2019 19:19:42 GMT -5
My interpretation of the quotes appears correct to me personally, so what other argument is necessary? None.
I was sort of hoping that you would have an interpretation that other people would find convincing as well. Apparently you don't. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 6:26:22 GMT -5
Of course, there are very few true humans. Most people are suicidal animals who are trying to destroy truth.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 23, 2019 10:55:30 GMT -5
Of course, there are very few true humans. Most people are suicidal animals who are trying to destroy truth.
Red Herring. Do you have anything further to say on the original topic?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 2:33:38 GMT -5
I cannot say anything since I am a suicidal animal, not a true human being like you or Hicks. You have to ask a true human correct-believer who can objectively perceive reality.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 24, 2019 10:44:36 GMT -5
I cannot say anything since I am a suicidal animal, not a true human being like you or Hicks. You have to ask a true human correct-believer who can objectively perceive reality.
Actually, you can't say anything because you have run out of good arguments and you are trying to disguise this fact by changing the subject.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 12:00:35 GMT -5
You are right, let's get back to the subject of people agreeing with one another.
For example, Ayn Rand agreed with Adolf Hitler that sometimes genocide is necessary and correct.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 24, 2019 13:07:30 GMT -5
You are right, let's get back to the subject of people agreeing with one another. For example, Ayn Rand agreed with Adolf Hitler that sometimes genocide is necessary and correct.
That was not the original subject. You are still trying to cover up the fact that you have nothing further to say on the clear similarity between the views of Kant and Mussolini on the benefits of war for society.
Since you have nothing further to say, the matter is closed.
If you want to compare Rand to Hitler, make another thread.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 18:14:23 GMT -5
Actually Bob, the Hicks article is nonsense bullshit, since it does not come from a mainstream source.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 4, 2019 20:14:22 GMT -5
Actually Bob, the Hicks article is nonsense bullshit, since it does not come from a mainstream source.
Nice try, but an academic study is not a news report.
In News Reporting, a major story is usually picked up quickly by the major media. That's not true in academia.
There is no "mainstream source" of philosophy", is there?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 11:34:37 GMT -5
Actually Bob, the Hicks article is nonsense bullshit, since it does not come from a mainstream source. Nice try, but an academic study is not a news report. Which is irrelevant since your source is no academic study, but the private blog of Stephen Hicks.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 5, 2019 13:28:45 GMT -5
Nice try, but an academic study is not a news report. Which is irrelevant since your source is no academic study, but the private blog of Stephen Hicks. And how exactly does that make his claims false? Apparently you seem to think that all claims that do not come from academic studies are "bullshit." But that includes all the claims that you have made here, doesn't it? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 23:57:43 GMT -5
Which is irrelevant since your source is no academic study, but the private blog of Stephen Hicks. And how exactly does that make his claims false? Apparently you seem to think that all claims that do not come from academic studies are "bullshit." But that includes all the claims that you have made here, doesn't it? Bob As usual, you provide no direct quote. And that is because you are inventing claims I never said. Perhaps you should take a look at some actual academic studies, maybe you'll learn a thing or two about proper sourcing.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 6, 2019 0:11:27 GMT -5
And how exactly does that make his claims false? Apparently you seem to think that all claims that do not come from academic studies are "bullshit." But that includes all the claims that you have made here, doesn't it? Bob As usual, you provide no direct quote. And that is because you are inventing claims I never said. Perhaps you should take a look at some actual academic studies, maybe you'll learn a thing or two about proper sourcing. Here's a quote that you wrote 2 posts ago: "Which is irrelevant since your source is no academic study, but the private blog of Stephen Hicks." The implication is that only papers published in peer-reviewed journals can be accurate. Where's your evidence for that? But Hicks gave sourced quotes from both Kant and Mussolini. Are you claiming those quotes are false? If so, where is your evidence? And to repeat, your personal claims are not from academic journals either. Therefore by your own standard, they are also "bullshit." Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 22:37:54 GMT -5
The implication is that only papers published in peer-reviewed journals can be accurate. Why do you believe that is the implication?
Do you simply assume that your opinion is objective truth, unless proven otherwise?
Because that is the only possible explanation I can think of why you would believe that a claim supported by no form of evidence, nor explicit text - a claim supported by nothing but your personal conviction, in fact - must be objectively true.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 7, 2019 21:14:16 GMT -5
The implication is that only papers published in peer-reviewed journals can be accurate. Why do you believe that is the implication? Because you clearly implied that Hicks' views were false because they had not been published in a peer reviewed journal. Red Herring and Ad Hominem. We are discussing Hicks' claims about Mussolini and Kant, not my personal opinions. Dogmatic Assertion Made Without Providing Any Supporting Evidence. We only have your personal word for it that evidence wasn't provided. You give no quotes from what I actually wrote to support your claim. That is because there are no quotes from my text that support your claim. Once again, you are making it all up. Bob
|
|