Top Ten List

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous, stop trolling the kids and debate this adult

Okay, I'll play along.

How do you react to this...

How might Rawls's "method" be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don't pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, "distributive justice" is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

...in the context of abortion or any other conflicting good that is of interest to you?

Only, again, forget Rawls's methods and conclusions. How about your own?

[Ecmandu]

If the female doesn't have consent, why should the fetus?

The female being an adult relative to the fetus, has executive powers, such as: we live in a shitty world and you being wholly ignorant of this, I'm making the executive parental position to release you from it.
Parents violate the consent of their children constantly, to either raise it as a better child or not.

Every abortion is a non consensual pregnancy.

There are no consensual pregnancy abortions, except when the father kills the fetus by punching the women's stomach, but only to the father.

You see, the problem you have with me is that consent is more down to earth than any argument you've ever posted.

All a being has to do is reflect, "is this violating my consent?"

So when I tell you that consent is true for all beings, that every being can determine when it's being violated. You blow a fuse.

I stated outright to you, that if conflicting goods have no resolution, then we can objectively state that existence is evil.

But you can't take a stance because you're a troll.

Consent is that have all/be all of morality.

You hate that because it gives each individual self empowerment ... your entire philosophy is about denying people self empowerment while you do whatever the fuck you want.

[Ecmandu]

If the female doesn't have consent, why should the fetus?

The female being an adult relative to the fetus, has executive powers, such as: we live in a shitty world and you being wholly ignorant of this, I'm making the executive parental position to release you from it.
Parents violate the consent of their children constantly, to either raise it as a better child or not.

Every abortion is a non consensual pregnancy.

There are no consensual pregnancy abortions, except when the father kills the fetus by punching the women's stomach, but only to the father.

You see, the problem you have with me is that consent is more down to earth than any argument you've ever posted.

All a being has to do is reflect, "is this violating my consent?"

So when I tell you that consent is true for all beings, that every being can determine when it's being violated. You blow a fuse.

I stated outright to you, that if conflicting goods have no resolution, then we can objectively state that existence is evil.

But you can't take a stance because you're a troll.

Consent is that have all/be all of morality.

You hate that because it gives each individual self empowerment ... your entire philosophy is about denying people self empowerment while you do whatever the fuck you want.

Iambiguous, I'm going to dig into you, because you fully deserve it.

First thing about your psychology is that you're trying to dominate people by convincing them that they're evil if they think that they exist. Now, of course, you KNOW that you exist. But you hate the self empowerment of anyone except you. You're a narcissist and a psychopath.

Next: you absolutely loathe the concept of consent, not only because it empowers people, but also because it does so objectively, which is a higher level of self empowerment that you loathe.

Here's iambiguous: "what, you don't consent to that! That means not only that you think you exist, but that you have a standard, I hate you!!!"

Iambiguous, you are a psychopath, not even remotely a deep thinker or truth seeker

[Pedro I Rengel]

No, it was you making the claim that I was making the claim that Nietzsche was an objectivist.

There are those who insist that one's value judgments [and thus behaviors] ought to be in sync with God, or Marx, or Freud, or Hitler, or Mao, or Kant, or Nietzsche or Rorty.

I was making the claim that you were making the claim that Nietzsche is used by objectivists. If you will recall. I asked who. You said no one.

No? Did I miss something?

[barbarianhorde]

2yrguu.jpg (55.69 KiB) Viewed 9880 times

[Ecmandu]

2yrguu.jpg

Yeah well, I don't know why iambiguous isn't banned yet.

All he does in every post is ad hom anyone who thinks that they exist.

And if they make an argument (such as my argument on abortion (which isn't a proof)) or they make a proof (such as my consent argument), he just accuses them of being morons for thinking that they exist.

This man has no polite or rational discourse in him.

That's bannable is my take on it.

[Ecmandu]

2yrguu.jpg

Yeah well, I don't know why iambiguous isn't banned yet.

All he does in every post is ad hom anyone who thinks that they exist.

And if they make an argument (such as my argument on abortion (which isn't a proof)) or they make a proof (such as my consent argument), he just accuses them of being morons for thinking that they exist.

This man has no polite or rational discourse in him.

That's bannable is my take on it.

I'll just add to this. Clearly iambiguous hates that everyone else on these boards believe that they exist, except him, who, even though not existing, is somehow superior to us all.

If iambiguous is banned, by his own words, his moral integrity, he can't be offended by it, because he doesn't exist!

This is my call to ban him.

[Ecmandu]

Sorry about the chain posts..

So here's why iambiguous should be banned.

Iambiguous doesn't believe that there are any posts under his username, and he calls everyone stupid prices of shit who believe otherwise.

That's his entire schtick. The whole thing. That's all that iambiguous has contributed to this board with thousands of posts, and he'll never stop. Ever.

Ban this guy please.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Just for the Mundane Ironist thread, iambiguous must never be banned and must in fact be protected at all costs.

Fortunately, our shiek does not find him offensive.

And I don't feel bad about derailing this thread because I think it had already long been derailed. But it is such a good post that no derailing can diminish it. Philosophy is just philosophy man, you can't bring it down, like a rock.

[Ecmandu]

Just for the Mundane Ironist thread, iambiguous must never be banned and must in fact be protected at all costs.

Fortunately, our shiek does not find him offensive.

And I don't feel bad about derailing this thread because I think it had already long been derailed. But it is such a good post that no derailing can diminish it. Philosophy is just philosophy man, you can't bring it down, like a rock.

Iambiguous is not doing philosophy:

This is not philosophy:

"My posts don't exist, so anyone who replies to them is shallow compared to me."

When you hold all iambiguous posts in your head at once; they solve as that sentence above.

He does this in every thread.

He knows my consent proof forces his hand, that's why he never debates me on it.

And that's ignoring that iambiguous in every thread, states that his posts don't exist.

It's not even interesting in a liar paradox sort of way ...

I'm starting to think that he's a sock puppet for a moderator. Who can honestly get by with this?

The rest of us agree that our posts exist, we don't call people shallow twits for responding to them as if they do exist!

[Pedro I Rengel]

Nono, Faust. I meant the OP. The list. Dat's philsphy.

And iambiguous, well, he's a smart and creative and fun loving motherfucker. He is constantly outputting. He acts as a very special mirror, the mistake is to take him as a conversation of some sort. Or the success. Most people want to just win, but they never really want to fully commit into the iambiguous. Actually take him at his owwrd and beat him at his game. If you do this, well I don't want to ruin the experience, but the result iss philosophical as shit. Just, don't try to be clever. I got what I wanted, I just intervened in this one case because #1 he's a smart motherfucker, and smart motherfuckers are fun to address and but then I like his agenda on the whole so I stepped out but then #2 he slandered Nietzsche. I had to clear it up. And I did that.

But no dude. Like seriously. Go through some pages of Mundane Ironist. Blow your mind. Maybe his quips are small and annoying, but just imagine all the time and effort and sense of taste and will and just regular consistent dedication it takes to get that list together.

Anyway. "How do we bring this down to Earth." Only once you crash against the Iam enough times do you understand just how good of a fucking question that is. It's a very good fucking question. It's even better than he himself can do it honor for, and he himself knows it, so he employs athlete tactics. Does his best to honor it. So theree is SOME level of dishonesty. But the question is good enough that it easily sustains it. It's like a budist thing: iambiguous is not the problem. But, you know. who has the time for that, I guess. But he's a fucking treasure, iambiguous lives matter.

[Pedro I Rengel]

On a serious level, what is iambiguous's agenda? To point out the consequences of political ideas. Not "even if" they are well meaning, all political ideas are well meaning. What does your idea, which by virtue of being political is meant to be forced on others, actually mean in a setting not only outside of your own mental laboratory of ideas, but out there in a world with a track record that we can all see, all recognize, judy and her fucking abortion and fucking bill or whatever. not starting from whatever bullshit premises you have. This ain't game design. Starting from the place where it eventually would have to be enforced. Down here, you know, off the sky hooks.

What the fuck does your idea of right and wrong have to do with judy and bill and the fucking abortion? People kill people over this, and do even other far worse things. What if Judy lives in North Sudan.

But seriously. Maybe if Obama had asked this question of his own lunatic fucking ideas, millions would not have had to die and millions more gone into poverty or slavery or exile.

What the fuck. Does your idea mean. Down here on earth.

How would you solve the Judy Bill problem? They are not hypothetical beings. They are real ass people that exist in the thousands. Just how good is your idea? I dunno, run it through the iam.

[Pedro I Rengel]

In a sense, what iambiguous seeks to destroy, from where I stand, is universality. Universality is bullshit. But that's the point, Nietzsche himself broke universality. Everybody i've seen address that side of Nietzsche but Faust, the Satyrs and the Heideggers and others, have then decided that lack of universality is itself the universality, and then usually try to mechanize it. It's foolish, Faust never falls into that trap. But then, he doesn't either take Nietzsche at the top of Nietzsche's stakes, the will to power. He points out the trail leading up to it, the very human trail. Human, all too human. But what I think keeps him from those stakes is one truth that is uncomfortable to those who would like to see philosophy as a discipline that can be taken up. The sheer density of Nietzsche. the grotesque amount of volume in terms of philosophy. He points out some of the most beautiful and tries to make a trail from there, but the truth is you must be able to digest ALL of Nietzsche's writing (published writing, you nazi fuckfaces). Or at least all of the inmense amount of dimensions his writing covers. And each dimension hurts more than the last, you pay with blood for each understanding. He even saw Faust coming in that sense, what we want most is to not see others suffer what we have suffered. There is no picking and choosing.

Is that even relevant? I think not. I think it because every time I read something Faust writes, my mind is blown. It is blown in the same fashion as when I read good philosophy, which is very rare and very special. You realize there exist heights that are usually hidden from view.

But iambiguous fights the good fight against universality. And the political nature of this is what Faust cannot escape. To try to tell me that there is such a thing as a sane politics, a sane form of government. That is the Englishman in him, one suspects. Government is insane fundamentally, and one must use it as one would a poison dart. It's not "fine." There is no "reasonable" form of government.

My sadness si that Faust even goes there, entretains politics, when he is clearly of the loftier side of Nietzsche. The jazz. Perhaps as if he is trying to hide the many dangerous consequences one can politically see following from Nietzsche. Liek trying to separate that danger from the loftyness. Again, that is very Englishmanny.

Government is evil. Insofar as he ever explicitly mentioned a state or a government, which he did, Nietzsche simply said that it was obvious to any sane man that the state eventually had to disappear (and state=government for anybody that didn't already know, holy fuck are you kidding?).

So. You know. Rock on iambiguous. I don't know why I wrote all this, crazy bastards like Ecmandu just inspire me. Tempt me. Whatever it is. One must simply hope that truth has its own weight and its own importance and it is worth saying nonetheless.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Yes, I think that is the thing that is lacking in Faust.

Arrogance.

Or, Hey Jude.

[barbarianhorde]

the microscopic fidgeting of your philosophic game....

It is understandable though that someone who thinks ambiguous is smart would call Nietzsches thousands of pages of notes "nazi".

Its a bit too ugly for me though, that condemnation of the most beautiful writing in history. I should probably leave this site to you and the other antiNietzscheans.

[Ecmandu]

Pedro,

Chain posting is a sign of mania activated by a trigger.

Anyways, yes, since iambiguous doesn't have an "I", it's impossible for his posts to exist. He then calls everyone but him shallow when they reply to his posts.

Considering, according to iambiguous, the line "bring it down to earth" was never uttered by him, well toss that aside and show you an actual philosophical accomplishment, mine:

"No being wants their consent violated unless it is on their own terms - ecmandu"

The reason Iambiguous doesn't like this proof, is because it is not only the most down to earth state of being that possibly exists, but because everyone and anyone can immediately falsify it.

He's shown repeatedly that he doesn't want a proof answer to his "question" (remember, he doesn't exist)

So, here's the objective answer to abortion, Iambiguous has been really intent in getting it:

Per the consent violation proof, where all someone has to do is ask "is this violating my consent?", if they say "yes", then they can declare reality is presently, inherently evil. If they conclude that conflicting goods, or as I say, mutually exclusive consents, are unresolvable, then they can conclude that reality is ALWAYS inherently evil.

Now, for the abortion proof:

Some people who are born, not only violate the consent of the mother, but of the entire human population, including themselves. So the "pro-lifer" ( which are truly few and far between (the reason "pro-lifers" get so fervent is because they are doing more anti-life stuff than others, they're using projective anger - you know the phrase "thou doth protest too much"?")) anyways, the "pro-lifer" will argue, "but what is someone everyone wants to be here is aborted"?

There's a proof for this: they can't be aborted by the definition of the ideal, a person who can possibly be aborted by the mother or outside forces cannot meet the criteria of someone everyone wants here.

This is a definitional proof.

Someone might say, "what about the ideal of someone that nobody wants to be here" in terms of the ideal, that's counterdefinitional, nobody wants it, thus there is no definitional or consent ideal.

There, that's your proof Iambiguous.

Again, Iambiguous is not even a decent thinker.

[iambiguous]

If the female doesn't have consent, why should the fetus?

The female being an adult relative to the fetus, has executive powers, such as: we live in a shitty world and you being wholly ignorant of this, I'm making the executive parental position to release you from it.

You speak of consent here as though it is not just another existential contraption in the is/ought world. Why do some consent to do some things that others would never consent to it? Why do many consent to certain rules of behaviors in one historical, cultural and experiential context that would seem outrageous to consent to in others?

Can philosophers pin down those rules of behavior that all rational and virtuous human berings are obligated to consent to...if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous?

And for those who argue that the unborn have a natural right to life, what of their consent to have that life shredded and then disposed of?

And, for any number of people, they consent to bring life into this world precisely because their own life is not shitty at all. Or because they consent to believe in a God able to provide Divine Justice for all those who do consent to have faith in Him.

Parents violate the consent of their children constantly, to either raise it as a better child or not.

Which particular parents in which particular context regarding which particular behaviors? Behaviors deemed by some to make the children better off while deemed by others to make them worse off.

How is the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political power here less reasonable than the components of your own moral and political narrative?

Every abortion is a non consensual pregnancy.

Well, the dead babies don't give their consent do they? On the other hand, how do we explain why some refuse to give their consent to the idea/belief that they are really human babies at all. Why do some consent instead to refer to them as "clumps of cells". Why do some consent to believe that human life starts at conception, while others consent to believe it starts with the beating heart, while others give their consent to those fetuses able to survive outside the womb? Or even those who give their consent to actual infanticide...for whatever personal reason they consent to believe in?

There are no consensual pregnancy abortions, except when the father kills the fetus by punching the women's stomach, but only to the father.

Note to others: What exactly is he arguing herer?

You see, the problem you have with me is that consent is more down to earth than any argument you've ever posted.

No, the problem I have with you is that I do not respect the depth of your intelligence. You make arguments like the ones above as, from my own frame of mind, my rendition of the typical objectivist would. You assert things to be true in a series of "general descriptions" of human interactions and you often heap scorn on those who refuse to toe your line.

But that is still no less an "existential contraption" of my own. I'm only expressing my honest reaction to you here and now given the manner in which "I" have become predisposed to react to arguments like yours.

General description arguments like this:

All a being has to do is reflect, "is this violating my consent?"

So when I tell you that consent is true for all beings, that every being can determine when it's being violated. You blow a fuse.

I stated outright to you, that if conflicting goods have no resolution, then we can objectively state that existence is evil.

Arguments that will then reconfigure into huffing and puffing:

But you can't take a stance because you're a troll.

Consent is that have all/be all of morality.

You hate that because it gives each individual self empowerment ... your entire philosophy is about denying people self empowerment while you do whatever the fuck you want.

Bottom line [my own, here and now]? I'm just unsure of the extent to which you may well not be all together in the head. Your points [at times] seem so bizarre [or extreme] to me that I begin to wonder if unbeknownst even to yourself you are just making this stuff up as you go along. Or are you just being ironic?

I'm simply not sure how to pin you down. You don't make much sense to me. To "me". And because of that I hardly ever take the time to read your posts.

But, again, that is just me. My own personal [spontaneous] reaction to you given the manner in which such reactions are understood by me to be just existential contraptions rooted in my own particular "I". I may well be completely wrong about you. But I can only consent to reacting to you as I actually do react to you from post to post.

[iambiguous]

No, it was you making the claim that I was making the claim that Nietzsche was an objectivist.

There are those who insist that one's value judgments [and thus behaviors] ought to be in sync with God, or Marx, or Freud, or Hitler, or Mao, or Kant, or Nietzsche or Rorty.

I was making the claim that you were making the claim that Nietzsche is used by objectivists. If you will recall. I asked who. You said no one.

No? Did I miss something?

Okay, let's agree to disagree about this. I'm more than willing to let others make up their own mind regarding which of our claims seem more reasonable.

Now, let's get back to this:

Note to others:

Ask yourself why the folks here who react to me as Pedro does never seem to have any interest in this part:

How might Rawls's "method" be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don't pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, "distributive justice" is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Why do you have no interest in taking the arguments out into the world of actual conflicting goods? Why would you not want to illustrate your text regarding the manner in which I root human value judgments existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political power?

I'd think you would be eager to expose the limitations of my own arguments with respect to an actual set of value judgments at odds in a context most here will be familiar with.

[iambiguous]

Just for the Mundane Ironist thread, iambiguous must never be banned and must in fact be protected at all costs.

Thanks.

But, with 726,053 views to date, my music thread seems to be of most interest to folks here. And though my film thread has garnered only a mere 280,612 views to date, it's the one that I am most proud of.

Oh, and I have my own reasons [embedded in dasein] for speculating on why ecmandu wants me to be banned from ILP. But they revolve considerably more around him than me.

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous, why don't you respond to my proof post on abortion rather than the post that I said wasn't a proof?

Context iambiguous: you don't entertain it unless is is "self" (you don't exist, remember?) serving.

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous, why don't you respond to my proof post on abortion rather than the post that I said wasn't a proof?

Context iambiguous: you don't entertain it unless is is "self" (you don't exist, remember?) serving.

Note to others:

Kindly explain to me what you think he means by this. That is, before he is successful in having me banned.

[Karpel Tunnel]

No, it was you making the claim that I was making the claim that Nietzsche was an objectivist.

This part is really funny, because you did make the claim that he was an objectivist....

"I would construe Nietzsche to be an objectivist only to the extent to which he had insisted that all rational men and women were obligated to share his own perspective regarding the 'will to power.'"

There are those who insist that one's value judgments [and thus behaviors] ought to be in sync with God, or Marx, or Freud, or Hitler, or Mao, or Kant, or Nietzsche or Rorty.

I was making the claim that you were making the claim that Nietzsche is used by objectivists. If you will recall. I asked who. You said no one.

No? Did I miss something?[/quote]

Okay, let's agree to disagree about this.

He asks for an example. You do not produce one. You then say let's agree to disagree. That's odd communication. If you have no example, then your claim was weak and you could acknowledge that. If you have examples to back up the claim then give them and you two can discuss them. IOW you haven't even shown why you disagree. You state your position. He asks for examples and you say let's agree to disagree. Bizzarre.

Ask yourself why the folks here who react to me as Pedro does never seem to have any interest in this part:

How might Rawls's "method" be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn?

Well right off the bat he was interested in your claims about Nietschze. Second, it seems to me he doesn't believe in objective morals, nor - unless I missed something - is he someone saying that if we use Rawls things get better.

So, this question seems, also, bizzarre to me. It's like Pedro represents some group - and I am not even sure he is a member of that group - so you don't really have to deal with his positions and his questions.

But for some reason it is relevent that he does not defend Faust's position or at least your rendition of it.

Why do you have no interest in taking the arguments out into the world of actual conflicting goods? Why would you not want to illustrate your text regarding the manner in which I root human value judgments existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political power?

I'd think you would be eager to expose the limitations of my own arguments with respect to an actual set of value judgments at odds in a context most here will be familiar with.

[/quote]

Well, he can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he made it radically clear he was interested in exposing the limitations of your ideas about Nietschze and what his ideas entail.

Then, in Faust's thread, not yours, you are judging him to be evading something, which is neither the topic of the thread, nor is it the topic he raised. He asked a number of reasonable questions of assertions you made.

This is adult discussion 101. You say: X is the case. People ask you how you know this, what are you basing this on.

You then criticize him for not showing how Rawls system does X or for not solving conflicting goods around abortion. And make not the slightest effort to justify your claims, the ones he asked about. You have repeatedly called people children here, and while only an adult could respond so ridiculously, you are not engaging in adult conversation.

Just because you want to know why you should listen to Rawls or have your abortion issue solved, does not mean that other people are failing when they focus on your claims.

This is, again, discussion 101.

[barbarianhorde]

Hey Marionettes
Don't you realize by now that the dude is misconstruing everything you say, mostly having not read it, in order to get you pissed off and posting, giving him energy and internet-credits?

Karpel, Ecmandu, you guys should have IQs north of 140, so why can't you see through these tactics?
Answer; the tactics are as old as language is. Why liars always have half the world. Its an easy trick to pull.

Same thing in his baby thread for mundane ironists. I looked at the quotes and his quips underneath them, it is perfectly obvious he doesn't take the time to reflect on the quotes, he just wants them there for the google search so he gets hits.

Im trying to help you guys see why his understanding doesn't progress, but its like you're addicted to his snort. In any case the answer is; because if he would understand and concede to this understanding, you would stop typing out impassioned replies to him.

Vampire!

He does a good job at it. I bet he has an IQ somewhat above a hundred.
Above a certain IQ vampires don't exist because smart people have better things to do than steal. They can like, make stuff. Like a capitalist

[Karpel Tunnel]

The funny thing is he will see this response as failing to solve conflicting goods, as if that was my aim.

Hey Marionettes
Don't you realize by now that the dude is misconstruing everything you say, mostly having not read it, in order to get you pissed off and posting, giving him energy and internet-credits?

What are internet credits?

Im trying to help you guys see why his understanding doesn't progress, but its like you're addicted to his snort. In any case the answer is; because if he would understand and concede to this understanding, you would stop typing out impassioned replies to him.

I appreciate the heads up, I do. I find him oddly fascinating. I could be wrong, but I don't think he is a conscious troll. IOW he is doing what you are saying, but I don't think he knows it. A few times I have managed to get him to look at one of his communicative acts. But then he moves away and denies and distracts. I am sure there is some kind of addiction involved on my part, also, but truly it is the most amazing thing. We are all like him somewhere in our cognitive make up. There is something we treat in this way. We think we are rational or reading or listening, but really we don't - because it would be challenging, or whatever. So to me he represents that portion of the human mind that will not look at itself, will not self-evaluate. And with amazing resilience. Utterly amazing how many approaches he manages to be clueless in the face of.

I don't expect him to ever make a major acknowledgement. I truly don't. Yet, I still find it interesting, perhaps to my detriment, to keep holding that mirror up.

However unimportant an individual case is in the scheme of things, that process of evasion and denial is important. since I deal with it daily in relation to others and in myself.

How does it hold itself up? How does it maintain, for so long, this utter cluelessness? Why can it not see itself despite a rather broad range of intelligent methods pointing out its blind spots.

And each time I find another thing he denies, will not look at, distracts in relation to, I see how deeply confused a person can be while stringing together seemingly intelligent sentences - that is sentences that in some other context might show some smarts.

This makes me less likely to fall for a .....

Vampire!

in real life. Because yes, someone who could be even very intelligent can tell you there is no chair in front of you even when you have your hands on it. This whittles away at the mystification these people use in general.

IOW when I point out, for example his idiocy in the way he responded to Pedro, I wasn't just telling him, but I was actually writing out the form and specifics of his idiocy there. Noting the tactics, the oddness, the actual form of his denial. That's useful. That he will finally say 'Oh, my God, you're right. I wasn't answering his questions and I did act as if he owed me an explanation of Rawls, when that expectation makes not the slightest bit of sense.' No, that's not going to happen. The process of untying the specific knots of his not responding, not accepting responsibility, that however is useful.

It also stands as a warning. There may be places where I act out in similar ways, despite my own evaluation that I am an adult communicating intelligently.

He does a good job at it. I bet he has an IQ somewhat above a hundred.
Above a certain IQ vampires don't exist because smart people have better things to do than steal. They can like, make stuff. Like a capitalist

I think there is revenge in there. I think a strong motive is revenge. To hit to objectivists. To embarrass them. To draw people down into his hole. To mock anyone who finds any meaning or pride or joy.

I suppose I can relate. The shiny happy people out there who are not grounded, I can feel an urge to remind them what reality is like.

But I think that is an underlying motive. IOW his supposed motive is to find how he ought to live. But I think underneath he wants everyone to focus on lifting him up, which brings them down, and that is the real goal.

I can't be sure of this, but there is disease here, with no interest in actually investing in healing. He'd rather be patient zero.

And it is so ego-dystonic for him to acknowledge that a part of him is cruel and vengeful, he will never notice this himself.

[barbarianhorde]

The funny thing is he will see this response as failing to solve conflicting goods, as if that was my aim.

Hey Marionettes
Don't you realize by now that the dude is misconstruing everything you say, mostly having not read it, in order to get you pissed off and posting, giving him energy and internet-credits?

What are internet credits?

Clicks, hits, likes - attention.

Im trying to help you guys see why his understanding doesn't progress, but its like you're addicted to his snort. In any case the answer is; because if he would understand and concede to this understanding, you would stop typing out impassioned replies to him.

I appreciate the heads up, I do. I find him oddly fascinating. I could be wrong, but I don't think he is a conscious troll. IOW he is doing what you are saying, but I don't think he knows it. A few times I have managed to get him to look at one of his communicative acts. But then he moves away and denies and distracts. I am sure there is some kind of addiction involved on my part, also, but truly it is the most amazing thing. We are all like him somewhere in our cognitive make up. There is something we treat in this way. We think we are rational or reading or listening, but really we don't - because it would be challenging, or whatever. So to me he represents that portion of the human mind that will not look at itself, will not self-evaluate. And with amazing resilience. Utterly amazing how many approaches he manages to be clueless in the face of.

This is why I began to look at whether or not he was actually reading posts before responding to them. I now am fairly sure he glances over them, looks for a few keywords, and then has a little "note to others" and simply begins to type up some quasi philosophical stuff he know will aggravate people that he pretends is a response to the post.

Sometimes no doubt he reads a whole post. But I don't think he has it in him to think about what he reads. He is too professional of a troll for this, he couldnt produce the sheer volume of trolling if he spent time on using his mind as a tool rather than as a toy.

I don't expect him to ever make a major acknowledgement. I truly don't. Yet, I still find it interesting, perhaps to my detriment, to keep holding that mirror up.

However unimportant an individual case is in the scheme of things, that process of evasion and denial is important. since I deal with it daily in relation to others and in myself.

How does it hold itself up? How does it maintain, for so long, this utter cluelessness? Why can it not see itself despite a rather broad range of intelligent methods pointing out its blind spots.

I really doubt that you will find a human answer. I think the answer is simply that he likes the attention and knows that if he would pronounce an honest thought, people would be less interested in him than when he pronounces the most bizarre stupidities masquerading as honest interpretations.

And each time I find another thing he denies, will not look at, distracts in relation to, I see how deeply confused a person can be while stringing together seemingly intelligent sentences - that is sentences that in some other context might show some smarts.

This makes me less likely to fall for a .....

Vampire!

in real life. Because yes, someone who could be even very intelligent can tell you there is no chair in front of you even when you have your hands on it. This whittles away at the mystification these people use in general.

Ok, its possible that in real life you have such behaviour as well. Though the internet is really its natural environment. It is a trick that comes with not seeing the persons face and not having to pay for what he says. A newspaper can't do this, because then you stop buying it. But a free product can do it.

Do you have an experience where dealing with this guy over here helped you understand a real life situation?

IOW when I point out, for example his idiocy in the way he responded to Pedro, I wasn't just telling him, but I was actually writing out the form and specifics of his idiocy there. Noting the tactics, the oddness, the actual form of his denial. That's useful. That he will finally say 'Oh, my God, you're right. I wasn't answering his questions and I did act as if he owed me an explanation of Rawls, when that expectation makes not the slightest bit of sense.' No, that's not going to happen. The process of untying the specific knots of his not responding, not accepting responsibility, that however is useful.

I guess up to a certain point it helps to sharpen some of ones own faculties. But that shouldnt take too long, Id say.

It also stands as a warning. There may be places where I act out in similar ways, despite my own evaluation that I am an adult communicating intelligently.

Hmmm. That could apply to any misdeed. Im not sure I accept this proposal.

He does a good job at it. I bet he has an IQ somewhat above a hundred.
Above a certain IQ vampires don't exist because smart people have better things to do than steal. They can like, make stuff. Like a capitalist

I think there is revenge in there. I think a strong motive is revenge. To hit to objectivists. To embarrass them. To draw people down into his hole. To mock anyone who finds any meaning or pride or joy.

I suppose I can relate. The shiny happy people out there who are not grounded, I can feel an urge to remind them what reality is like.

But I think that is an underlying motive. IOW his supposed motive is to find how he ought to live. But I think underneath he wants everyone to focus on lifting him up, which brings them down, and that is the real goal.

Im sure youve observed some truth there.
Add this to the nihilistic motive of internet-credits, basic attention, it fits.

I can't be sure of this, but there is disease here, with no interest in actually investing in healing. He'd rather be patient zero.

And it is so ego-dystonic for him to acknowledge that a part of him is cruel and vengeful, he will never notice this himself.

So I suppose it is also kind of a pity-party for him. But he is the one who holds the strings. Quite familiar sort of structure. He is like Tony Sopranos mom.