I’ll explain my whole argument in three stages:
1.) one thing every sentient being has in common is that nobody wants their consent violated
2.) every sentient being when pressed, is having their consent violated in some way, which we all have in common as well
3.) from this, we can conclude that the most radical thing a sentient being can do is throw a giant “fuck this shit!” To the entire cosmos and make the cosmos a better place!
Your entire argument is false because the foundation of it is flawed
Existence is neither moral or immoral - Existence is actually amoral
Only human minds think in terms of morality / immorality
And so it is a human concept and no one or no thing elses
You therefore cannot take an exclusively human concept and apply it to all of Existence
Before human beings existed the concept of morality / immorality did not exist anywhere
And so consent violation with regard to immorality can therefore only logically apply to human beings and no one or no thing else in Existence
Unless there are other beings in the Universe who understand the concepts of morality / immorality those concepts will die with our extinction
You will not accept this because consent violation is your thing but my arguments against it as you define it are logically valid and yours by default are invalid
Existence is not amoral to sentient beings.
If I step on a nail accidentally, I can, with no logical contradiction, state that existence violated my consent.
You are guilty of anthropomorphising here which is what you accused me of rather ironically
You have absolutely zero idea what animal minds think about consent violation - none at all
What sentient beings think is irrelevant as my point was that Existence itself is amoral
Anything you or anyone else thinks about Existence is simply subjective interpretation
But I was stating an objective fact - it is neither moral or immoral - it merely exists as the name implies
It is human minds who think their projection is synonymous with actual truth when it is simply an opinion
“Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible”
Julien Beillard argues that it makes no sense to say that morality is relatively true.
From Philosophy Now magazine.
What this suggests to me is the manner in which [historically, culturely] morality often becomes entangled in the murky mudlle embedded at the juncture of things thought to be reasonable by some in one particular context and unreasonable by others in another.
Thus for the Aztecs back then who did not have access to the scientific knowledge we have to explain the forces of nature, why not suppose that the gods need to be appeased by human sacrifices?
While, in the modern world, it does seem unreasonable to pursue this sort of behavior.
But it is still construed to be reasonable by any number of religious and secular denominations to impose particular rewards and punishments for behaviors that other religious and nonreligious folks deem to be quite irrational.
So, morality ever and always was, is and will revolve around one’s capacity to demonstrate – God or No God – what actually is a rational human behavior.
If you dropped an ant in a glass of water, it is self evident by its struggle, that you are violating its consent.
You’re the one projecting anthropomorphism here, you are insistent that it must be two ways. I am trying to explain that it only need be one way
No dude.
You don’t seem to understand that I proved through proof through contradiction through proof through self evident definition that ethics is objective:
I’ll explain my whole argument in three stages:
1.) one thing every sentient being has in common is that nobody wants their consent violated
2.) every sentient being when pressed, is having their consent violated in some way, which we all have in common as well
3.) from this we can objectively define existence as bad
4.) from this, we can conclude that the most radical thing a sentient being can do is throw a giant “fuck this shit!” To the entire cosmos and make the cosmos a better place!
No dude, I’m through with you here. The only place I [or, for that matter, anyone] can take you seriously is in/on the rant thread. There you will [by rote I now suspect] continue to ignore the arguments being made by insisting that everyone else is ignoring the arguments that you are making.
Only [there] in huffing and puffing mode.
We’re all fools then, right?
You have not once addressed a single point I’ve made.
I went out of my way to address your need for context:
I stated:
Existence is the context
The proof through contradiction is the self evident appraisal we all have of being able to evaluate our personal consent.
I’m talking to you, you’re not talking to me.
Stop doing that!
My time is valuable.
I actually pay attention to you, show some decency and respect
Read the above post^^^
Are you going to pull a uccisore iambiguous??
Intentionally flame a non rant thread so that it HAS to be moved to rant, so he can’t be publicly humiliated ?? Uccisore was a sociopath, I suspect that you are one as well.
I’ll be interested to see how you handle this
it’s happening again, E. some crazy synchronicity shit. check this out dude. okay remember how i used to pick on you for listening to air supply? well, right after i posted my last one in this thread this morning, i went outside to crank ludwig van up and go to work (had a side job today). the very moment i turned the radio on… guess what song began. ‘i’m all out of love’ by air supply. i mean the second i pressed ‘on’.
but here’s the thing. air supply is never played, even when they’re doing the great 80s hour. in fact, i haven’t heard that song in ten years at least. no man. this was a message from the spirits. through manipulating quantum superposition they suspended the linear causal chain of events that led up to that moment and made that song play instead of something else.
i don’t know what to make of it, though. are they telling me that you’re all out of love? wtf am i supposed to do? i think you need me, bro. i don’t know what for yet, but we’re gonna figure this shit out together.
Music is a nasty tormentor. It heals us, yet it is not only sexual signaling from men (ornate behavior) the lyrics almost always 100% contradict themselves.
This is iambiguous’s ‘conflicting goods’
I struggle with music deeply in this world.
You’re asking me something a bit over my head.
Not the synchronicity stuff, but how to morally relate to music as a whole.
I think you do give consent to see opinions you disagree with and dislike and it’s part of your motivation to come here. IOW it might hypothetically have been, the first time you read one of his posts, a consent violation, but it wasn’t. So, it’s not a test.
So, you choose to read posts that you disagree with and dislike. And you know what his posts are like or might be from early on and yet repeat.
I think not either. On the other hand, as I think I said elsewhere, he is being a consequentialist, and sees it as a lesser evil, and since he is not raping you, if even violating your consent, it is a small consent violation, even if it is one, with the goal of minimizing the acceptance of consent violation in general. Most moralities allow for lesser evil actions, even up to carrying out justified military conflict.
I get the position you are trying to put him in, but it seems kind of coquettish and not true that he violated your consent. I don’t think you actually experienced it that way. I think you enjoy a good scuffle.
I think you’re having a good time. I see you running back to the bar, where your alleged rapist is and you wanted to test him - that is, in your analogy, have another sexual act with him - again and again, and continued after allegedly being raped.
And you play to the gallery about his rapes of you.
I ain’t buying it as a test. I think you like a little rough trade. Not cause of your outfit, but because, shit, you keep seeing this guy. I see you around the town, having a good time, smiling, holding onto his arm, and running back to that bed with him.
Are you claiming battered women’s syndrome?
You just don’t meet the pschological criteria.
I think that his ‘consent violation’ morality is nonsense. But if he believes that it is correct, then he ought to be able to apply it when someone states that his consent is being violated.
And my consent is being violated given the way that he defines the term. (It’s not the way that I define it.)
I’m using his concepts, not mine.
I ignore him most of the time. I don’t read most of the threads on this site. But he came into this thread and suddenly he is in a cat fight with Iambig. Even if I had him on ‘foe’, I would still see him being quoted by other people.
Okay, if he is in a thread about morality in a philosophy forum and he is proposing an objective philosophy, then let’s see how it works.
Sounds like you are giving him too much credit.
I’ve gone from participating in almost every forum on this site, to reading 4 threads and posting in 2. I’m having less of a “good time”. I won’t go into the reasons but you can guess about some of them.
You’re not the only person in the world phyllo, it’s that simple.
Again, you speak false to power, I speak truth to power.
I have a moral obligation to spread the lesser of two evils.
You say that consent violation is good (false to power) I say that it’s bad (truth to power)
I’d be more evil if I was like you, rather than like me.
I dare say phyllo, your bluster is not fooling anyone, you’re victimhood is histrionic counter intelligence.
We need more intelligence in this world, not counter intelligence.
What about my consent being violated by you?
Didn’t expect that did you?? When you were attempting to undermine my logical consistency ?
So we’re violating each other’s consent, right?
My argument is simple, that existence even allows this to occur in the first place makes it objectively evil.
What should I do KT?
I don’t have him or anyone on ‘foe’ so this thing popped up on my screen. It has my name all over it and a load of false statements.
Yeah, I know that.
I never said that.
I think that ‘existence’ doesn’t violate consent and inanimate objects don’t violate consent. And the majority of times when people can be seen as violating consent, it’s not even a moral issue. (Like when when I want a new car for $10 and the dealer won’t sell it to me for less than $25000.)
Sure, there are moral situations of consent violation, but you don’t even deal with that in this discussion. You’re almost entirely focused on dumb shit.
I’m only a victim within the context of your bizarre morality.
Right. Iambig’s conflicting goods.
But you don’t deal with that at all.
Sigh. Existence isn’t alive. Existence doesn’t ‘know’ or ‘care’ or have the ‘capacity to act’ or ‘allow/not allow’.
Therefore existence can’t be ‘evil’ in any meaningful sense of the word.
What do you want to do?
If you don’t like reading his posts, stop. If you are truly afraid your reputation will be besmirched, report him or argue. Maybe a walk in nature would be the best option. I don’t know you well enough, but I feel oddly unworried about you reading or not reading his posts. I may be missing the gravity of the perpetration.
If I say, I didn’t want that, I’m saying that it violates my consent. AGAIN!! You are insisting on anthropomorphising consent, whereas, I am not; existence doesn’t need to be alive or sentient to “I didn’t want that” to people, also meaning, “existence violated my consent”, “existence is morally wrong”
You have refused to admit that your insistence that I leave ILP is as bad, you think it is good, thus you argued that consent violation is good. I think it’s bad that we BOTH don’t get what we want, you think it’s only bad if YOU don’t get what you want. Read your own posts! Now you’re talking about reporting me? Big time victimhood card here when all I’m doing is using clean, non ad hom logic.
I am doing something about it, I’m naming it, that’s the first step towards accomplishing something. You refuse to name it, you absolutely refuse to admit that existence is morally bad, objectively so. You’re also projecting on me, you’re the one not doing anything about it, same with iambiguous - you both refuse to name it.
I also have very strict codes of behavior to avoid no means yes relationships. I am doing something about it phyllo.
I’m also working on hyperdimensional mirror realities on spiritual planes of existence, which is very feasible.
I know what Ecmandu is on about here, but here is not the place for him/you Ecmandu to resolve that conflict within… it is a personal journey, and a journey for one, that others cannot get a ticket for or even be privy to the route and final destination. There are no spectator tickets for such journeys… they simply do not exist.
It is something that cannot simply be wished away but worked through, but in the meantime, yes… your consent/boundaries will constantly feel like their being violated.
He is not imagining it, though it is borne in imagination, and then becomes a reality that only that person can work through to resolve what is happening.