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.
Yeah, people don’t get everything that they want in life. That’s not immoral.
Did you learn nothing from Iambig’s constant talk about conflicting goods?
Seriously, how do conflicting goods get resolved in your objective ‘consent violation’ morality? (Aside from using hyperdimensional mirror realities)
I didn’t say anything about reporting you. But technically calling me evil, dishonorable and comparing me to a psychopath are grounds for reporting you.
After you are done naming it, people are still not going to get everything that they want.
One needs to learns to accept that fact and live with it. Calling existence ‘evil’ is counterproductive.
He can travel on that personal journey and stop acting like he is better than everyone. And he can stop calling people psychopaths and sociopaths.
This is the most diplomatic way I can put it to phyllo and iambiguous…
I’m inviting you to a different dimension than you’re currently in: you refused the invitation
Just don’t pretend that you came to the party when you didn’t.
At first, heightened intelligence is crushingly horrendous… but as time transpires with it, you’ll find that obstacles wither away, and you enter a state of bliss that is rare … maybe it doesn’t more than make up for the struggle, but it is wonderful.
All parties can be failing to hold good boundaries.
Are you respecting yourself and your own boundaries when you try to teach this stuff (to them, to various individuals)? Are there not people who should be infantalized? Or better put, since that sounds like you are making them, or the hypothetical people, infantile: are there not people who are infantile, and when one interacts with them as if they are not, you are not holding good boundaries?
And, of course, it need not be infantile persons. It could simply be people who will judge or attack or belittle you or whatever, but who are not, in general, infantile or defensive or in denial or whatever.
When does exposing yourself to the memes and judgments and aggression or engaging with false discussion become a boundary issue for you?
Between us I mean this as something to mull over. Not as an opportunity for you to state that all is well in the republic of your soul and that you got this.
The internet make confident statements and denial so potentially facile.
How are you going to make the cosmos a better place when everyone is continually having their consent violated
Do you not see that consent violation is a necessary condition for existence which is why it cannot be eliminated
Avoid it by all means but you cannot be rid of it entirely while you are still alive
The only way to eliminate it is through death and ultimately through extinction
I also avoid relationships regardless of whether they are yes - no or yes - yes relationships because I have precisely no interest in any of them
Mother Nature is working hard on trying to kill me on the physical plane of existence which is not only feasible but is actually going to happen
You may not have taken my post to mean you were infantile or an infant, but to be clear, that is NOT what I was suggesting.
Sure, though I was thinking more about ongoing interaction with people.
it seems like he has done more than that: mocked, insulted, pretend responded, and perhaps responded to some degree. But in context with my post to you, is it a good idea to interact with people who will do the former things? Is there a limit? If so, what is it? Can it be harmful to you to continue?
Iambiguous is ten times worse at this than me. The only reason it seems that I post on this so much is because I’m following iambiguous around, who posts at least ten times more than me on this topic. If I had the time, I’d do this for every thread he enters. I happen to have chose this one instead.