just to clear things up...

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

just to clear things up...

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:01 am

Ecmandu created the thread "Iambiguous runs scared".

Apparently, I'm afraid to debate him.

Then came this post:

Ecmandu wrote:

Iambiguous,

You have a way of ALWAYS avoiding content.


To which KT posted this:

!


Which I took to be a confirmation of Ecmandu's point.

That then prompted me to post this:

Let's try this...

You and ecmandu commence an exchange here in which you focus the discussion on this:

My argument for objective morality that all rational and virtuous beings can agree upon is that no being want their consent to be violated without it being in their own terms.

[From the OP]

You debate and discuss the relationship between pragmatism, consent violations and objective morality -- as it is applicable to that which you both construe to be actual "content".

Then after I get the hang of it, I'll join in.


Then from KT:

You stated that Ecmandu was afraid to debate you. I don't think he is. I don't know why you are bringing me into this. The easiest way to test if he won't do it is to agree. Let's test your theory. YOu've already made more posts, I think, here in this thread, than he suggested the debate entail. Right now you are acting more like the one who is afraid. You might not be. You might be lazy. It might be something else. You'll forgive me but your attitude towards him makes it hard for me to buy you won't debate him because you don't want to be cruel.


So, what's the point of this thread? Well, when I tried to respond to KT, I discovered that MagsJ shifted the discussion to the Chamber of Debate board.

And, now, I am unable to contribute.

So, allow me to respond to KTs points here:

You stated that Ecmandu was afraid to debate you.


Let him note this please.

In fact, it is quite the contrary. He keeps insisting that I am one afraid to debate him.

Whereas I refuse to debate him because, based on the points he raises with me, I have no respect for his intelligence.

Though [of course] that is simply my own personal opinion. I rarely read anything else that he posts here.

I don't know why you are bringing me into this.


KT seemed to concur with him above regarding my lack of content. Or, instead, with this -- "!" -- was he conveying just the opposite? That Ecmandu is the one who refuses to take his intellectual contraptions [and flat out assertions] down to earth?

The easiest way to test if he won't do it is to agree. Let's test your theory. YOu've already made more posts, I think, here in this thread, than he suggested the debate entail. Right now you are acting more like the one who is afraid.


Above, Ecmandu makes his usual ridiculous charges. To which I responded in depth:

This from the guy that wants me to debate him!

He just makes things like this up to suit his own bizarre understanding of reality. Or, rather, an understanding reality that I deem to be bizarre.

Consider:

Of those nearly 30,000 posts, a huge chunk of them are contained in my film, music and quotes threads. And hardly any of them revolve around his three claims above.

As for the claims themselves...

Prove why existence exists

I merely note that on some level we do in fact seem to exist. And that our understanding of this is surely intertwined in an understanding of existence itself. Who or what consented to that?

Prove one side of the abortion argument

No, my aim is to note that both sides lay claim to having proven that their own political prejudices reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which to consent to one frame of mind rather than another. But that neither side seems willing to consider that their own particular rendition of consent is embedded existentially in the points I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Prove which political party is correct

Again, my aim instead is to suggest that particular individuals give their consent to particular political parties based largely on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

And that "for all practical purposes" the objectivists among us assert that their own value judgments embody the most rational consent. And that this is instead more a psychological defense mechanism embedded in one or another rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296


He completely ignores those substantive points and instead accuses me of refusing to be more substantial.

You'll forgive me but your attitude towards him makes it hard for me to buy you won't debate him because you don't want to be cruel.


Then the part he left out: :wink:

In other words, the wink is meant to convey that, in large part, it is all just tongue in cheek on my part.

Still, why doesn't KT and Ecmandu take up my challenge and debate the main focus of Ecmandu's OP.

Show me -- show everyone -- what real philosophical content consist of.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30189
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: just to clear things up...

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:15 am

Umm ... anyone can post in that thread that you just stated that you can't post in !

I just did!

viewtopic.php?f=31&p=2727312#p2727312
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: just to clear things up...

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:24 am

Ecmandu wrote:Umm ... anyone can post in that thread that you just stated that you can't post in !

I just did!

viewtopic.php?f=31&p=2727312#p2727312


Oh shit iambiguous!!

I take that back, MagsJ didn't put that in the discussion forum!!

Fuck!!

I never would have started a formal debate like that!!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: just to clear things up...

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:51 am

Dear Threadmates other than Iamb. This is primarily for your viewing. Iamb never concedes things and it is a black hole to pursue his acknolwedgement of his errors or illogic or contradictions.

iambiguous wrote:So, allow me to respond to KTs points here:

You stated that Ecmandu was afraid to debate you.


Let him note this please.

In fact, it is quite the contrary. He keeps insisting that I am one afraid to debate him.

Whereas I refuse to debate him because, based on the points he raises with me, I have no respect for his intelligence.
This may be the case...but is beside the point.

The main statement I was referring to was....

Again, he'll either respond to the points I make here or cling to the hope that I don't actually take this to the "chamber of debate" forum.
'Cling to the hope'!

In an earlier post in the same thread he refers to Ecmandu...
Look, I gave him a chance to actually respond substantively to these points before. He keeps wiggling out of it.
This was not referring to being in a debate, but implies that he is afraid to deal with Iamb's arguments in general.

In Ecmandu's response to this post he refers to this as Iamb projecting (I think it is obvious, his fears.) Iamb does not dispute this and says....

My best guess: It's beyond his control.

Either because of how his brain is wired or because we really do live in a wholly determined universe.

Letting us both off the hook. :lol:

Again, he'll either respond to the points I make here or cling to the hope that I don't actually take this to the "chamber of debate" forum.

But: could I ever be that cruel?!


The obvious implication of all this is that Ecmandu while presenting himself as wanting the debate is hoping it never happens and that he is afraid.

Notice also the implicit poor logic of Iambs. I did not say he is afraid, it is the opposite. He said I was afraid. As if both cannot be true.

I am sure Iamb will never admit that the above constitutes a claim that Ecmandu was afraid. I have never once seen him concede anything, despite having very clear evidence of things he has done or arguments he has made being weak or just plain illogical.

As he would say. I will leave it to others to decide if my saying he was claiming Ecmandu was afraid of the debate was a fair assertion.

As far as what he calls his real motivation, to avoid being cruel...

he mocks Ecmandu and says he in not very intelligent. He could simply avoid responding, but goes out of his way to insult him - not saying this is unfair, Ecmandu has done the same. But it would be cruel to engage in a more formal discussion - the debate.

If he'd said It would be a waste of his time. Fine. I can believe he might mean that. But his behavior, as often is the case, goes against his either his philosophy or other statements he made/actions he performed. IN this case the latter.

I think disingenous would be a much better name.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: just to clear things up...

Postby MagsJ » Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:01 am

Ecmandu wrote:I never would have started a formal debate like that!!

Moved to the Challenges forum, as yes.. it wasn't a formal debate.

The forum format there should be Challenges, then the Debate and Discussion sub-forums, for natural transgression purposes, but I digress.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17988
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: just to clear things up...

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:44 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Dear Threadmates other than Iamb. This is primarily for your viewing. Iamb never concedes things and it is a black hole to pursue his acknolwedgement of his errors or illogic or contradictions.

iambiguous wrote:So, allow me to respond to KTs points here:

You stated that Ecmandu was afraid to debate you.


Let him note this please.

In fact, it is quite the contrary. He keeps insisting that I am one afraid to debate him.

Whereas I refuse to debate him because, based on the points he raises with me, I have no respect for his intelligence.
This may be the case...but is beside the point.

The main statement I was referring to was....

Again, he'll either respond to the points I make here or cling to the hope that I don't actually take this to the "chamber of debate" forum.
'Cling to the hope'!

In an earlier post in the same thread he refers to Ecmandu...
Look, I gave him a chance to actually respond substantively to these points before. He keeps wiggling out of it.
This was not referring to being in a debate, but implies that he is afraid to deal with Iamb's arguments in general.

In Ecmandu's response to this post he refers to this as Iamb projecting (I think it is obvious, his fears.) Iamb does not dispute this and says....

My best guess: It's beyond his control.

Either because of how his brain is wired or because we really do live in a wholly determined universe.

Letting us both off the hook. :lol:

Again, he'll either respond to the points I make here or cling to the hope that I don't actually take this to the "chamber of debate" forum.

But: could I ever be that cruel?!


The obvious implication of all this is that Ecmandu while presenting himself as wanting the debate is hoping it never happens and that he is afraid.

Notice also the implicit poor logic of Iambs. I did not say he is afraid, it is the opposite. He said I was afraid. As if both cannot be true.

I am sure Iamb will never admit that the above constitutes a claim that Ecmandu was afraid. I have never once seen him concede anything, despite having very clear evidence of things he has done or arguments he has made being weak or just plain illogical.

As he would say. I will leave it to others to decide if my saying he was claiming Ecmandu was afraid of the debate was a fair assertion.

As far as what he calls his real motivation, to avoid being cruel...

he mocks Ecmandu and says he in not very intelligent. He could simply avoid responding, but goes out of his way to insult him - not saying this is unfair, Ecmandu has done the same. But it would be cruel to engage in a more formal discussion - the debate.

If he'd said It would be a waste of his time. Fine. I can believe he might mean that. But his behavior, as often is the case, goes against his either his philosophy or other statements he made/actions he performed. IN this case the latter.

I think disingenous would be a much better name.


Note to others:

Since I am not other than Iamb, I did not read his points.

Therefore, I will leave it to you to distill them down to that which you think most succinctly sums up his accusations above.

Well, assumming of course that they are accustation. For all I know he may well be lavishing effusive praise upon me. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30189
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: peacegirl