In the above post it looks like Iamb said what I said.
But the core message of this post is correct.
In any case: I have made it clear I will not debate. If Iamb wants to use that as an excuse, there is not much we can do about it, nor do I care to. I can’t make him take responsibility for his own choices. If he wants to claim he can’t because I don’t debate, this contraption will likely be his excuse for not debating. Though it seems like in another thread you think he is debating you now. Good for him, then, for dropping this excuse.
No, iambiguous did not state this. And I actually know the guy pretty well.
KT has [seemingly] become obsessed with “exposing” me here at ILP. He “gets” me in a way that is far beyond even my own capacity to grasp. Alas, we are after very different things in our exchanges. And we are now [officially] moving on to others.
As for you, this is still all just basically entertainment. You do understand that, right? Yeah, occasionally you will make points that strike me as almost interesting. But you are never far removed from falling over the edge — hurtling bald-faced assertions at me about things you insist are true because you believe that they are true “in your head”; or shit that is simply unintelligible to me. Even intellectual gibberish.
So, until you are willing to intertwine your assertions into particular contexts that involve actual conflicting goods, I’ve got to assume that you are just one more of James S. Saint’s “definitional logic” fanatics.
From my point of view, you live in a world of words. Words that often make no sense to me at all.
But, sure, that might be more a reflection of my own inability to grasp just how ingenious your points are.
You know, going back to a complete understanding of existence itself. And in a world where even this exchange itself is only a reflection of what can only ever unfold – necessarily – in a wholly determined universe.
So, let’s flip a coin and [at least] pin that down once and for all.
Iambiguous, Apologies for the misquote and misattribution there.
So here’s the deal, Karpel is rightfully going after you because you act as though there is political and moral good and bad, but you present yourself as a moral nihilist …
Your motive for this, you want to dominate people in any way that you want, with no accountability for yourself.
Like you, peacegirl is doing the same thing in her thread, and, like you, she won’t admit it.
It’s your defense mechanism in this big, bad, scary world of ours.
This sentence has two main ideas: 1) that my issue is with his hypocrisy (that he does in fact have a moral stance) and 2) that he takes no accountability for the effects of his behavior. The second I can clearly agree has been my issue. I don’t want to close off this changing, or him changing, so I will refer to that in the past tense. I think point 1 may have been true, but it is not something I am clear on. It has been the behavior and then his reactions to when his behavior is pointed out as problematic that has made me focus on him to the extent I did. First just because it was annoying, but also because I found the pattern of his denials fascinating. After spending a lot of time trying to present his behavior in a variety of ways and seeing not even a real attempt to even grapple with this, I have lost most interest. So, I am resetting it with him. If it comes up again in discussions here that I think he is pulling that kind of stuff, I will point it out, label it, but not invest energy, since he is not responding directly nor am I getting any better idea what his real goals are here or with himself or interpersonally. I did see him recently start bragging - about making people leave here or get scared (one at least someone who is no longer here to dispute his mind reading) and also make predictions about my internal mental states and future behavior. That was new, and perhaps supports you idea that he is motivated by wanting to dominate. But it’s not enough new information to make engaging with him in a complex way matter.
