Perhaps someone should, (could?) rise above the onus of defensiveness and say a hidden variable here, : Perhaps this topic may not appear as
debatable?
Fine points and change format and all that besides? Is there not a way to shortcut debate, in order to stifle the battle cry to get on board a sinking ship? Because of enthusiasm, I am feeling desperate grabs to salvage egos too big to destroy, too much having been vested, this whole thing about getting out, of a hole that has existed since Plato through Nietzsche. appears more formidable on closer look.
Anyhow, cam we put this into a vote, turn this topic into Ya’s and Nay’s?
And call it settled ? That could suffice to everyone’s satisfaction ?
That’s definitely occurred to me, I’m glad you mentioned it Karpel.
Yes, ibiguous is begging to be a robot who only takes commands on everything.
Part of the reason I assumed iambiguous was uccisore is that iambiguous has this quirk, but he also repeatedly states “in a no god world, morality can’t exist”. As a sock puppet, this is the way a hyper theist would present themselves, trying to use reverse psychology to make us admit that god must exist.
I always say, what people want of others is what they’d be if they were God.
Meaning, if people think they should bow, they would expect others to bow if they were god.
If they ask for every little thing they do to be obeyed commandments, that’s how they’d be if they were god.
Disgusting stuff.
An example of morality that’s a commandment: there is the phrase “all good things come to those who wait”
Well, if we all waited, we’d piss and shit ourselves, because we waited to go to the bathroom.
I guy like iambiguous, would state: well I said it was good by definition, so you’re wrong for not waiting.
This is how iambiguous and theists approach debate, they prove what is proven to be counter factual and leave it there.
An example of iambiguous doing this in the present debate, is that I offer proofs for politics and morality that are objective in nature, and then he says that I don’t respond to his arguments that morality and politics are objective when I offer proofs that morality in general ARE objective!
See what’s happening here? Both are bending over backwards to make me the issue. It’s all about the manner in which they have pinned my own intentions and motivations to the mat.
Again: Ecmandu accused me of posting sans content. KT seemed to agree.
Now, Ecmandu claims to be an advocate of objective morality. KT argues that from his point of view there does not appear to be a one size fits all moral and political narrative.
Let them then discuss this such that they are able to note a distinction between an exchange brimming with content and the stuff that I post.
Meanwhile, I’m the first to admit that the content I do post in regard to human interactions out in the is/ought world are no less existential contraptions.
Iambiguous,
Here’s the deal. You used the last of your arguments in that post: “the existential contraption”
But! (And I said this to peacegirl as well)
You’re entire existential contraption is predicated upon there always being a counter argument for every argument.
That’s just not true.
The universe is not yin yang, it is not balanced at all.
There is not a counter proof for every proof.
You keep complaining that every proof has a counter proof and that this is why your “I” is fractured, but you avoid my proofs.
It’s childish, and weird.
Again, it’s all about shifting the challenge to me. I am first and foremost obligated to respond to all of these accusations being hurled at me.
And the irony is that I will be the first to admit that any attempt on my part to grapple with that which motivates my intentions here can only be but another [profoundly problematic] existential contraption rooted in all of the thousands upon thousands of variables that came together over the course of my life going back to the day that I was born. So many of which I had little or no control over. And so many of which I can scarcely understand beyond my ever and always constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed sense of self.
Now, this “brimming-with-content” exchange between you and KT will happen or it won’t.
Stop wiggling and start exchanging substantive assessments of objective morality with him.
Why should some who you claim doesn’t disagree with me, ever be involved in a debate with me?
It’s not an ad hom to state that you are avoiding content debates about what you always post is “impossible”. It’s self evident, as you have just shown again.
Wiggle, wiggle wiggle.
KT doesn’t disagree with you that my posts are contentless. In fact his reaction to that is this: “!”
He does disagree with you regarding the existence of objective morality however.
A debate here allows you to set him straight about that and show me what an exchange brimming with content entails.
Karpel tunnel is not the one who goes into almost every thread claiming he’s desperately in an existential hole because proofs are impossible morally or politically — that’s 100% on you.
If you really cared, you would debate the content of proofs rather than repeatedly letting us all know how horrible it is to live in your moral
And political “proofless” land of iambiguous.
Here you are, the only one pleading!!
And yet you avoid.
LOL. You brought up something absurd that had to do with me. I pointed this out.
You’re not a victim. As you said to me, you can simply stop reading my posts if they bother you.
I hate debates. Sort of like I no longer enjoy chess, at all. It won’t happen. Decide if you want to debate him or not. Like an adult.
Call it something else then. A discussion. An exchange of opinions.
He’s an objective morality advocate. You’re not. But you both seem convinced that my own posts here are without much content.
Discuss morality with him. With respect to a specific context in which value judgments come into conflict.
Afterwards you can point out to all of us why your exchange was brimming with the sort of content that my own posts seem to be lacking.
Or, as with Ecmandu, you can continue to wiggle out of it and simply stand by the accusation you make about me.
Until then, it’s between you two.
Nope, not interested.
I think your posts repeat the same content they have had for years and this includes as if this repetition is a reponse to other posts, when it is not.
Wiggle out of it? I could not possibly have been more clear about this obligation you are trying to give me. See here’s a difference between you and me. I gave my honest answer about debates. I hate them. Like chess they make me tense and very competitive in a way I dislike. There is even a fear of losing them in that tenseness, it is part of that competitiveness. In my 20 years of online discussion participation, I haven’t gone into a debate thread after the first few times. It was unpleasant and it feels like it would be again. I feel no attraction to it and I don’t have to posture in relation to Ecmandu or any other potential debate partner to make that decision. You blame others. You can’t debate Ecmandu because he is X or Y. YOu can’t debate until you understand what we mean. I have to debate Ecmandu before you do. You take no responsibility and you make up stuff. And I love the trap you set. First you do not want to debate because you don’t want to be cruel and/or because he is not smart or is a kid. Now you need to see how it’s done. You make it seem like somehow we are obligated to debate each other so that you can debate. But you already made it clear you wouldn’t.
It’s actually harder to make shit up than to be honest and I am not sure you know that. It seems not. Keep wriggling or whatever all this bs is if it somehow helps you. I cannot imagine how, however.
[/quote]
LOL. Love that ‘it’.
What a bizzare world of causation you live in. My choices and yours are not interlaced. We could both decide to debate, both decide not to. But you’ve now hinged your participating to my participating, and that my child, that’s wriggling.
And I don’t think you should debate him. I think you were wrong in your assessment he was secretely hoping you wouldn’t debate him. And I think you were lying about your motives. Suddenly you think I should debate him. Not much of a nihilist interpersonally, just in the abstract.
I still don’t know if you are a troll or clueless about yourself or some kind of combination. It’s fascinating. Psychology and all that.
Iambiguous-
Same old stuff. I am going to cut off the lines we have gotten into since I keep meeting the same patterns. So, reset from zero. We will meet again in new spots and from here on out I will use the shorthand set out below. Should you actually respond and appear to have read what I wrote, I will then respond normally. Otherwise… shorthand
SAOAR: Shifting away onus and responsibility.
NIST: Narcissistic Illogical Shift of Topic. Treating something as a failed solution to your core problems and/or bringing up your core topic as if it is a response when it is a change of topic.
RR: Redundant Request. That is requests for things already done which led nowhere.
SCMR: Self-congratulatory mind reading claims
Okay, that settles it then. We move on to others.
Iambiguous stated:
What a bizzare world of causation you live in. My choices and yours are not interlaced. We could both decide to debate, both decide not to. But you’ve now hinged your participating to my participating, and that my child, that’s wriggling.
Ecmandu responds:
So which is it iambiguous?
You and Karpel are not interlaced, or you are so interlaced that you are in a hole !!!
What else came out of you?
Karpel wouldn’t participate unless you did?
Karpel participates as Karpel wants and has never laid a condition on it, you on the other hand are on record as stating that you wouldn’t participate unless Karpel did.
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.