Iambiguous, here you go!

This is a rough sketch of what I’m prepared to defend… my replies will be the great sketch

4 Proofs for ambiguous:

Why existence exists
Freewill - it exists
Politics - liberal direct democracy
Abortion - pro choice

First: two definitions

1.) definition: what we use to describe self evident delineations
2.) proof: When it’s shown impossible for a self evident delineation to exist if it’s false

Why existence exists:

The lack of existence existing is a lack of itself: everything we see is the exact opposite of “isn’t”

absolute non existence is: isn’t

by definition, not there nor could ever be there.

We are the opposite of that, by definition: not there.

Thus, existence has no choice but to exist.

that’s why existence exists.

Why freewill exists

Freewills’ existence is defined by the limit of absolute will and absolute lack of will.

This limit is put in place by this string of sentences as true by definition:

For a being to know very reason why it knows every thing that it knows, there are two limits:

All of those reasons are external to it (absolute determinism)

All of those reasons are internal (absolute creationism)

Using the proof that otherness is existence, we can show that the first proof renders the being incapable of perceiving a self when it process acting agents outside of itself at 100%. Likewise, if such a being is 100% creative, there is nothing outside of this being with which such being can perceive itself as existing relative to other. Existence is other, thus such a being cannot exist, because in both instances, it’s not other in any possible way.

What this proves is the compatabalist argument, that every being has a measure of freewill and restriction.

We perceive this proof constantly… in order for me to freely smoke cigarettes, i am restricted to having lungs, a cigarette, a lighter, and a way to light the cigarette with the lighter (amongst at least 10 other necessary restrictions ) For everything that comes of will, there are necessary restrictions. The will is not 100% percent free, nor, because of the lack of 100% determinism (the state where all causes are external), it necessarily has a freewill to some degree.

Politics: The solution is liberal democracy

Liberal simply is a self preserving ideology, instead of a self destructive one. By this, I mean that people who don’t accept our differences and respect them are anti liberal… they are conservative.

This all sounds counter intuitive, but conservatives are primarily defined not by fiscal aspects, but rather social aspects. A true conservative adopts through social conservatism, the stoning of people who have sex wrong, because thats what people in the past did. So they are called, social conservatives. In another very long proof, that’s not in the breadth of this, I can prove that people only stone the people who did the correct actions.

It’s all counter-intuitive because these terms have been rendered meaningless by the puppet masters of society. Technically, the conservatives should be ravenously protecting the environment. Since they are not, the award goes to the liberals, who are trying to pass their memes to infinity… so a liberal says to themselves, in a survival mode: I can’t be a liberal if there is no environment, so to be myself, and pass this meme on, I must protect the environment.

Conservatives don’t operate from self preservation, even though thats how they’re defined in the dictionary.

By definition, conservatives don’t accept anything new that can help the species though in terms of revolution of ideas. Since this is vital to our survival and enjoyment of life, the liberal wins, and the liberal is also protective of liberalism continuing, which guards them against destructions that would prevent this. They are conservatives, but better.

Democracy, if you look it up, literally means that something comes to a vote and the majority wins.
Theres so much disinformation, that this is misleadingly called “direct democracy” now. An educated populace has the right to have the largest vote win, such that it eradicates the corruption of power, which history has shown time and again, benefits only a handful of people at the expense of everyone else.

Abortion: pro choice

Unlike the above proof on democracy, which isn’t proven as rigorously (but is true), this is actually another limit proof, the pro choice proof.

There are beings born here who nobody wants here, including themselves, we incarcerate, or even execute these people. So we know that not every birth will produce even a marginally desired participant of our world. However, we do know, that by definition, if a being is desired by everyone, including itself, such a being would be impossible to abort or kill, by definition of the ideal. The problem people present about abortion, that we’d kill a “jesus” for example, is by definition, false. So we don’t have to worry about that. Being that the only other possibility on the limit (remember, this is a limit proof) is a being that nobody wants here, abortion, is not evil.

removed

Please, nobody else respond further to this thread:

Iambiguous, respond to this only as a debate in the debate forum, if you do, This thread will be moved there.

Aren’t you forgetting something?

You have accused me of posting contentless “drivel” here. Your words.

So, why on earth would you want me to contribute yet more of it on this or any other thread?

No, only when, in an exchange with someone like KT, you offer numerous examples of that which you construe actual content to be does it make sense to continue any exchange between the two of us.

Or, yet again, if you are willing to take the chance, you can first respond substantively to the points I raised here:

But only when taking the exchange out into the world relating to a particular context in which human interactions come into conflict.

You choose the context. You choose the behaviors.

OK, so let’s respond to all of this:

People say that the leading cause of death is birth, so if you want to prevent the horror of death, you stop giving birth. Well. The leading cause of life is also birth. In the same sense, you can state that the leading cause of consent violation is birth, but it is also the only possible way a being can formulate consent in the first place.

I have stated on many occasions that consent is the defining characteristic that gives people self empowerment in life, they can easily state, all of us “This violates my consent” Life is not good in this instance. If it is determined that life MUST always violate consent, we can determine life to be inherently evil.

Thats an objective morality to that regard, it’s self evidently true to everyone whether or not life is violating their consent. Consent is determined by a response of the environment to who they are or what their behavior is. If they don’t like it, their consent is being violated.

As far as the proof of why existence exists instead of not existing at all, I gave that. Then you avoided it, but made it a consent argument. Consent can only be determined by beings that are already here, rather than not here, just as birth is not just the leading cause of death, but also the leading cause of life. Your non-consent for everyone argument is false in the same sense that birth is the leading cause of death. Its false.

Your two other arguments make a very strong assertion that proof structure doesn’t exist for objective morality or politics, even though people can have multiple perspectives (and some or all of them can be proven incorrect!)

So this is actually a way of trying to work around you quoting and debating my proofs. Like I stated before, avoiding responding to salient CONTENT

It’s not what people say or believe or claim to know about things of this sort that count. It’s that which they are in fact able to demonstrate that all other rational human beings are obligated to say, believe and know in turn.

Yes, our births and our deaths are built right into the evolution of life on Earth. No one gives their consent to being born though some may well give their consent to dying.

Here, however, how on earth would you go about demonstrating that in fact all rational people are obligated to say, believe and know this in turn — other than by insisting that they must accept the argument in and of itself.

The part about life being “evil” in other words. It is merely constured by him to be evil because he has concluded that evil by definition revolves around the fact that no one gives their consist to being born.

On the other hand, there may well be an extant God that has another explanation. And there is always that gap between what one deems to be evil and all that would need to be understood and explained about existence itself in order to pin that down beyond all doubt.

He even “deduces” free will into existence on another thread. He demonstrates nothing there other than that if others accept the meaning and the definition that he gives to the words in the argument itself then tautologically it must of necessity be true.

Same with this:

This is classic “definitional logic”. The only “self” that it really matters in regards to it all being true is his own.

Meanwhile, with respect to all the moral and political consents that any individual comes to embody, how are they not embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein? Or the consent we give to the music we listen to or the food we eat or the sexual behaviors we pursue — how are they not largely existential contraptions rooted subjectively in the lives that we live?

He “gave” that? And then demonstrated it…how? That we exist seems demonstrable enough. But where does he demonstrate why something [and then this something] exists rather than nothing at all?

If not in another around and around and around we go argument?

Then this intellectual contraption:

Note to others:

What “on earth” do you suppose he is saying here by way of responding to my two additional arguments above?

Let’s focus in on a particular context in which different political parties ascribe conflicting moral narratives to an issue like abortion.

Congratulations iambiguous! You just accepted the 6 round debate. I didn’t think you had it in you. The tourettes and all!

Though I expect the moderators would be wise to let all 6 rounds transpire at this point, to actually move it to the CHAMBER OF DEBATE!

Do those three words scare you?

SO! beginning of round 3!

Iambiguous stated:

It’s not what people say or believe or claim to know about things of this sort that count. It’s that which they are in fact able to demonstrate that all other rational human beings are obligated to say, believe and know in turn.

Yes, our births and our deaths are built right into the evolution of life on Earth. No one gives their consent to being born though some may well give their consent to dying.

Ecmandu is responding with:

Interesting that you still haven’t quoted a single one of my 4, actually 5 proofs to debate on their own terms, that is by definition, unresponsive. The 5th proof is that morality is objective because of the concept of consent.

But you did peripherally respond to that with a short sentence about consent. Your second sentence in that quote. I’d state, yes that is true, but there are also tons of people who are so glad that they were born, that it subsequently violates their consent that they could never have been born. Like I stated before, birth is not just the leading cause of death, it is also the leading cause of life; likewise, birth is not just a consent violation, but also the leading cause of consent. The question I ask you here: Do you really think an infant has consent at that stage of development with which they are aborted in a humane way?

Iambiguous wrote:

The part about life being “evil” in other words. It is merely constured by him to be evil because he has concluded that evil by definition revolves around the fact that no one gives their consist to being born.

Ecmandu responds:

That’s not my argument at all. It’s a straw man argument from iambiguous .

My exact argument is that if people can prove that it’s impossible for consent to not be violated, that they can define life as inherently evil. People need to live a while to even have a consent and begin to even ponder this problem.

Iambiguous wrote:

Meanwhile, with respect to all the moral and political consents that any individual comes to embody, how are they not embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein? Or the consent we give to the music we listen to or the food we eat or the sexual behaviors we pursue — how are they not largely existential contraptions rooted subjectively in the lives that we live?

Ecmandu responds:

Because, proofs are not beholden to how you were raised in your specific cultural context, and by definition, proofs are not subject to anti proofs, as that’s how they are defined. We do not live in a yin/yang cosmos. I already gave the definition of definition and the definition of proof in my first post, debate those if you dare.

Iambiguous posts:

He “gave” that? And then demonstrated it…how? That we exist seems demonstrable enough. But where does he demonstrate why something [and then this something] exists rather than nothing at all?

Ecmandu responds:

Yes, I did give that in my first post. You chose not to quote it, as you have all of my proofs, you refuse to debate proofs. Im smart enough to prove why uniqueness exists, and I’m smart enough to prove why existence exists instead of nothing (which satisfied your initial request), I am NOT smart enough to prove why one particular thing exists instead of not existing. I may be someday, but not yet. Your exact problems has been satisfied though, why existence exists instead of not existing.

Iambiguous posts: Note to others:

What “on earth” do you suppose he is saying here by way of responding to my two additional arguments above?

Let’s focus in on a particular context in which different political parties ascribe conflicting moral narratives to an issue like abortion.

Ecmandu replies:

I already did that by proving abortion is not evil in and of itself, which then leaves it to the discretion of the mother to determine whether she can raise the child as she sees fit. If she doesn’t believe that she can do this, and she doesn’t trust others besides herself (which is perfectly reasonable - people are really fucked up) then she has the right to abort the fetus.