Lol.
Well yes, to be beyond his shenanigans requires perhaps that one has conquered the bird of intellectual vanity.
Straw men are used to avoid having to engage in conflict, if that answers your question.
[size=85]They are often preemptively fabricated to distract from problematic experience but often enough spontaneous misapprehension of the case at hand.[/size]
Right now the Sun is on the last degree of Scorpio. I don’t know what you are asking.
The problem is Im not as good at weaving straw men.
Well, Im taking up way too much space with my implicit insults to everyone but myself.
Im just as vainglorious an idiot as this bastard. No doubt about that.
Is conflicting goods like when the canned tomato has beef with the light bulbs?
One thing people don’t consider is that maybe iambiguous deserves being lost. Maybe it’s good, a good sign. Maybe the world he wants, a world with laws that perfectly dictate how all human interactions should go, would be a horrible fucking world.
No rather like atoms trying to occupy the same space causing pressure.
Why is the world will to power?
Because it kicked all the other worlds arse
If I hear a “Universal Truth”, I think Coca Cola or Hulk Hogan.
Something which simply is and has its image about it which clearly points to itself, and which people can have around them without being deranged from their own elements, but which provides a placeholder for their continuous responsiveness.
A truth has to have a narrative.
Universal facts are scientific facts, they need nothing to pertain to, to exist.
A truth pertains.
A narcissist wouldn’t be able to see that a fact is not a truth.
Iambiguous will NEVER debate me on the concept of consent being the superset of his subset argument because he knows he’ll lose, and if he loses that debate, he’ll lose his purpose for posting as he has since joining the boards.
Iambiguous already knows himself that he lost that debate, he just doesn’t want to make it public, so that he can keep posting the same drivel that philosophy hasn’t solved anything.
Yes. There are objective moral truths: No being wants their consent violated.
He avoids me like the plague, and now his reason is not because of my arguments, he’s the hero who’s taking pity on my mentally ill soul.
But how do you construe that?
In a world of conflicting goods?
You know, as a note?
To others?
WHAT IF MY GOLD CHAIN DOES NOT MATCH MY PRINTER?
What is BEHIND the universal truth?
WHO came up with social justice?
Really, literally, who?
What is justice? What is it?
Qui gets paid?
What are conflicting goods but an invitation to consent-violation?
the demiurg?
truths are spoken. A universal truth is something which is universally spoken.
So universal truth means consensus truth?
Then are there any universal truths? We have solipsists, schizophrenics, contrary people, other cultures, animists…
Since no one in this thread has actually mentioned it, can I note that no one here knows what “universal truth” means? Or is it just that everyone still on this board is in on the game of creating chaos and hopelessness by never revealing such things?