Read the above post:
Also, iambiguous, I wanted to add:
Do it in formal debates.
I have no idea why you wouldn’t want to debate me on this… from your perspective it would be an unprecedented miracle if I won.
That’s making history iambiguous!
We can work out the details with carleas
Anyone else?
So, are you confessing to being a shameless troll of ILP here ?
I guarantee you, in debates, my debates won’t disappoint - think about it - unprecedented miracle if you lose - shaming me if I lose.
What do you have to lose?
Time man. It’s a matter of perspective Ec. You have to attribute value more justly if you want to see justly. If that makes sense. We can’t tell you how to live or be because then you attribute us to an extreme which is not true. We can only state what reality is or isn’t based on our viewing of it.
That’s the whole point of my consent argument.
Everyone can check reality on a self evident FOR THEM, falsification at any time.
So here’s the rub. Abusers of people hate self evident, self empowering falsifications of abuse.
Arguments through non contradiction also apply to all of us, it is the higher power of all existence.
The problem is, with you and iambiguous, people want the power instead of logic having the power.
Power is only power if understood.
Let’s assume that’s true.
Power is only understood in one of two ways…
Consent violation
Or the eradication of consent violation.
The only one people want is the latter, at least after enough life experience
Right.
Logic has absolute power since it connects alpha and omega, because logic, presymbolic always adds to effects of it, ideally its most significant and least noticeable proximate effect.
Put a little differently .
Right again.
Well everyone wants it but how are we supposed to eradicate consent when we give it by the very choice of choosing to live?
Some people live to fight the good fight of eradicating consent violation, even though they don’t currently consent.
Others only live because society has not provided desirable methods of suicide for them.
Living does not imply consent.
Well I am fighting for the fight on the side of trying to remain balanced and educated, the side of avoidance of causing harm unless absolutely necessary to preserve ones life, everyone to me has an objective value the same as me. I just try to help people see that they are bigger and stronger than the pain of reality and to use it for their own strength, to rise up instead of collapsing from the weight. Sometimes I’m not, sometimes I can be an asshole and so sometimes I stay away from people due to both being misunderstood and also from not wanting to violate their own consent (waking them up to reality) even though I try to educate/promote understanding, the student must seek the master instead of the master seeking the student.
How doesn’t living imply consent if you choose to live and understand that the world is both bad and good if one makes it such?
How hard is it to understand that individuals and society can force people to live against their will by withholding desirable methods for suicide from them?
Also, a person cannot consent to this entire reality, but works to assemble the ingredients they want for a reality that they do consent to, without consenting to ANY of the bad here?
well society is tyrannical by the force it asserts. That’s how it is Ec but we may change that. That isn’t objective reality holding it away from us though it is the ignorance of people and their non acceptance of new or better ideas, fears.
Well can it be bad if you learn or truly understand something new from it, if you gain power?
Individuals can be pretty cool, society is a beast though. That’s another reason I think direct democracy is the best system for us.
Direct democracy meaning a computerized open source voting system across the globe, without political representatives and money? I feel voting should have certain requirements based off of education, if one doesn’t put in effort to understand the issues and the intricacies I don’t think they should have the power to determine solutions for them, do you think that is fair?
Artimas,
I’m usually pretty good at always qualifying that stance.
Democracy doesn’t work without an educated electorate. Monkeys typing on a keyboard couldn’t even make that work.
No, people need to be taught what nefarious disinformation is.
I agree people need to be educated on how to think not what to think.
The what follows from the how.
So, if someone can prove what from how, it saves time that thats what they should think.
Not everyone has time to do proofs through contradiction, but if they see one, and if the person states the conclusion in their proof, it is a what to think. That’s not a horrible thing
Yes but there are few who possess such abilities to manifest a morally just ‘what to think’ and a lot who do are not in positions of societal power. I am not sure it is so simple as to. Is it not true that a what to think could become a knowing without an understanding to an external individual? If the power of a what to think is not earned through an understanding of that same what to think it could lead to more unnecessary bad.
Do you think so as well or no?