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.
So let’s look at how iambiguous’ consent is being violated against his own terms:
He has a fragmented self (sense of i)
He doesn’t have every answer to moral problems
Now me, not being arrogant, says that iambiguous cannot defeat this argument.
What does iambiguous do? He runs away as fast as he can and barely mutters this phrase as he’s running… “why should I debate you if you think you’ve proven that you already won?”
To this I say, I have given many proofs through contradiction for this, all you have to do is prove they aren’t proofs through contradiction.
But! Iambiguous still runs from me.
I’m sorry MagsJ, but after months of this avoiding me, even in a formal debate in the debate forum, and continuing on this board: iambiguous is by the book, a definition of a troll beyond reproach. By “beyond reproach”, he’s not using a sock puppet to make a deeper philosophic point, he’s simply a troll, nothing more.
Iambiguous knows this. That’s part of what makes him a troll, he KNOWS he’s a troll.
A troll intentionally trolls, but we have all been guilty at some point of unintentionally trolling, and it is a poster’s choice to take on a debate or not, so please bear this in mind.
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
Are you scared? To debate someone that you already know has lost?
To prove everything you do in all the other forums (philosophy) is once and for all NOT trolling?
Should all be very easy for you after all
You always ask for proofs, to not debate me proves that you are lying, to not debate me proves you are not self conscious about your posts (which isn’t a compliment)
Again, utterly oblivious to the points that I actually make.
And as though responding to them only counts if we take them to the “debate forum”.
Look, I gave him a chance to actually respond substantively to these points before. He keeps wiggling out of it.
Others can take him seriously if they wish. For me, it’s just entertainment. Something to do to pass the time before the part about oblivion. Which, by the way, I don’t give my consent to at all.
No, you’re projecting onto me about wiggling out of it… once it’s in the debate forums it’s cement, you can’t keep letting threads die, refuse to respond to the ones that are there and keep trolling as always
I’d be watchful though, for Dasein, Das-Ein, is extremely reducible, into the very depths of the cave , where there is only a transcendental solution, worth a try, as how a subjectively based(a-priori) and an objectively based (a-posterior) proof can somehow minimally allign to formative opinion.
I’ll give you the freewill idea as I understand it.
Unless a person is made aware of deterministic systems, they can be manipulated as having no freewill.
The moment they are made aware of those deterministic systems, they now have freewill.
A being made aware of all deterministic systems (which are finite - and I can prove that) has absolute freewill.
In saying this, just like peacegirl is arguing in other threads, we have no choice but to move to greater satisfaction … but that’s not really saying much as well.
For all beings to have freewill, there are limitations.
I say as an anology, in order for me to have the freewill of smoking with my hands while walking, I must have a cigarette, something that lights it, and decent mobility.