More fake news… and now lies.
It’s a metaphor. But actually the post that you banned for for a day for, stating “Ecmandu needs to evaluate his meaning for posting here, ban for 24 hours” was because of a post in the rant section. So you are fake news.
Actually, you know what?
I challenge iambiguous and said ex-moderator to a simultaneous debate.
Two turns for my every one turn. That seems fair.
The person thinks that I don’t know the metaphor is a metaphor… I’d call that attempting to think, or pre-empt, for me… which leaves the remainder of their post as questionable, on the aspects I mentioned.
You!! It’s very simple because it’s in your posting history. You most define yourself by your sexuality, not your psychology or philosophy.
I am the anti-you. I actually care about subjects. This has pissed you off.
Now, with all of your bluster … do you really think you can debate me? Do you think iambiguous (your knight in shining armor) can?
Put your money where your mouth is. I always do.
Conjecture is a boring angle for one to be expected to debate from, and also stagnating of mind… an abhorable ask… this, and any further interaction, is over.
I’m off to unsully my mind.
Yes of course. You know… this almost makes me long for the days of uccisore (who was an ass)… but he’d at least debate me. I’ve grown a lot since my debate with uccisore… I can beat him in that debate now (that assertions are arguments)… fuck that was like 6 years ago.
You and iambiguous bit off more than both of you could chew… so you both sprint away …
Very aristocratic of you two (which seems to be your only defense as you both run)
Conjecture is the key word of said moderator:
Lets understand what said moderator says is conjecture:
Nobody wants their consent violated. So obviously said moderator is sending a signal to existence that they only want their consent violated!!!, Just to stubbornly refute ecmandu!!
GO said moderator!!! What a way to make a splash in existence!!
Said moderator says that it’s only conjecture that men are more threatening to women than women are to men!! Wow! you mean women can actually rape men easier than men can rape women… Yeah, said moderator… way to stick up for the feminists, you’re a hero!! Of course women can do anything better than a man can!!
How about we debate these mere “conjectures”
The Twit has got it wrong again.
Proclaimed thinkers, not thinking, but wrongly conjecturing… ergo dull for me. Further posts to be ignored.
.
[/quote]
There are two things I know about you:
1.) Your IQ is higher than 85. That’s like 20 points above mental retardation…
[/quote]
That’s hearsay.
.
[/quote]
2.) You haven’t been following me for months
The reason I state number 2, is because, I’ve refuted this argument several times in my posting history, and I’ve done so recently:
The argument is this: “It violated all of our consents to be born”
[/quote]
Primordial sin…check.
Born into sin…check.
Another Messiah…check.
Come to save mankind from itself…check.
There are two things I know about you:
1.) Your IQ is higher than 85. That’s like 20 points above mental retardation…
[/quote]
That’s hearsay.
.
[/quote]
2.) You haven’t been following me for months
The reason I state number 2, is because, I’ve refuted this argument several times in my posting history, and I’ve done so recently:
The argument is this: “It violated all of our consents to be born”
[/quote]
Primordial sin…check.
Born into sin…check.
Another Messiah…check.
Come to save mankind from itself…check.
[/quote]
Ecmandu replied:
I’m going to put this to you very simply. I have no interest in saving anyone but myself. This is what comes up though, if you can’t figure out how to save everyone, you can’t save yourself. So I"m like “FUCK!” “I have to save all that shit too, for ME to be saved?” “FUCK!”
At least you tried to save mankind…then they crucified you, for the second time.
Note to Faust…
See what happens to a thread when the Kids run rampant? 
On the other hand, better them than me?
Well… I’m not coming back in a body anymore after this life. This world will miss my smile, my intellect, my handshakes… etc…
I’ve been here too many times now… when I die, I’ll actually really move on after this. Treasure it while you can.
Well, another thread hijacked by two of the usual suspects.
Back on track.
Truth. A word referring to perspective.
Any claim of an absolute truth can only refer to the perspective’s certainty.
Is there a ‘truth’. Only a dynamic one. To grasp it is to have it slip through your fingers. Like water. Like a flame.
Oh shit, I’m being infected by the atmosphere to prose and allegories.
Again, my objective is this:
You’ll either go there or you won’t. Though, sure, we may well be in dispute over what “there” means.
You either understand, or you don’t.
The objective establishes the standard by which an action a choice can be evaluated.
What is your objective, in regards to abortion or paedophilia, or consuming fasces as a solution to world poverty?
The objective determined good and bad.
I bet your objective is to reduce all to nil and then force all to negotiate and compromise to bring about the utopian future world of peace on earth.
Anything that diverts or challenges this goal is dismissed or negated.
No other anser will do. They’ve wasted their time taking you seriously for months. I will not make the same mistake.
Another clown in this circus.
I even know what you will respond.
Go ahead.
I specifically asked him to move all those comments to my thread. He refused.
You want to get back on topic?
Let’s get to the heart of the game here.
I state that consent violation is self evident. If your consent is being violated, then you can at that moment disprove every god or idol. That’s a powerful and true test.
To state this is like stating that a triangle has three sides.
What’s the game? “What if a very powerful ruler decided to state that a triangle has 4 sides and a square has 3 sides? That’s will to power”
All you are doing is changing the name, but NOT the eternal form. Nobody is powerful enough to change the eternal form!
Yes. Ethics is objective… why? everyone doesn’t want their consent violated. This makes this truth transcendent, eternal form style - objective for all possible beings.
I’m teaching you things you don’t want to hear, because it not only disproves all Gods, it disproves YOU as a god, objectively.
The thing that’s so beautiful about this eternal form, is that not even I (it’s discoverer) am able to be immune to this judgement. It’s an eternal form that applies to ALL beings. ANYONE can judge for themselves. That’s REAL POWER!!!
People who rely upon illusory power hate the eternal forms, because the eternal forms are a self evident democracy, not an illusion.
You folks are still attached to negative non-zero sum outcomes.
Like I stated before: If you actually ask a person what their best memories are, you’ll find a common thread: They are all negative non zero sum outcomes… they are sick!!! They are psychopathic!!! They are sick!!! Mental illness is just like having pancreatitis, except that since it is the mind itself, there is a stigma, not only by society, but by the individual “my MIND cannot be sick!” Well, yes, actually it is.
My point though is to assess the extent to which any particular individual’s objective is or is not largely an existential contraption. “I” here rooted in dasein rooted in the arguments I provide in my signature. Thus if we choose gun control [from above] as the focus of discussion, for some the objective is to expand the rights of citizens to manufacture, sell and use firearms. For others, however, it is to limit [or even eliminate] the same. Now, using the tools of philosophy, is it possible to construct an argument that either reconciles or resolves this conflict? Or, instead, are the components of my own argument more pertinent?
Given my own argument, there are no necessary standards able to be derived philosophically. Instead, the standards remain an existential contraption rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein. In other words, the actual lives [experiences] of some predispose them to embrace one rather than another political agenda [set of prejuduces] in regard to this issue.
But not before the existential trajectory of our lives largely determine the objectives embraced by any particular “I” out in any particular world understood in any particular way.
Then it comes down to differentiating that which one is able to demonsttrate is true for all rational men and women and that which largely remains, subjectively, a “personal opinion”.
Yet more “general description” bullshit in which, as with other “serious philosophers” and/or Kids and/or objectivists here, the exchange configures [from their end] into huffing and puffing, retorts and making me the issue.
Again, in regard to gun control or to any other issue in which, from your perspective, “idiocy” becomes the narrative of choice, let’s see how far we can take an exchange.