Iambiguous runs scared

[Ecmandu]

My argument for objective morality that all rational and virtuous beings can agree upon is that no being want their consent to be violated without it being in their own terms.

So let's look at how iambiguous' consent is being violated against his own terms:

He has a fragmented self (sense of i)

He doesn't have every answer to moral problems

Now me, not being arrogant, says that iambiguous cannot defeat this argument.

What does iambiguous do? He runs away as fast as he can and barely mutters this phrase as he's running... "why should I debate you if you think you've proven that you already won?"

To this I say, I have given many proofs through contradiction for this, all you have to do is prove they aren't proofs through contradiction.

But! Iambiguous still runs from me.

I'm sorry MagsJ, but after months of this avoiding me, even in a formal debate in the debate forum, and continuing on this board: iambiguous is by the book, a definition of a troll beyond reproach. By "beyond reproach", he's not using a sock puppet to make a deeper philosophic point, he's simply a troll, nothing more.

Iambiguous knows this. That's part of what makes him a troll, he KNOWS he's a troll.

[MagsJ]

I'm sorry MagsJ, but after months of this avoiding me, even in a formal debate in the debate forum, and continuing on this board: iambiguous is by the book, a definition of a troll beyond reproach. By "beyond reproach", he's not using a sock puppet to make a deeper philosophic point, he's simply a troll, nothing more.

Iambiguous knows this. That's part of what makes him a troll, he KNOWS he's a troll.

A troll intentionally trolls, but we have all been guilty at some point of unintentionally trolling, and it is a poster's choice to take on a debate or not, so please bear this in mind.

[iambiguous]

My argument for objective morality that all rational and virtuous beings can agree upon is that no being want their consent to be violated without it being in their own terms.

So let's look at how iambiguous' consent is being violated against his own terms:

He has a fragmented self (sense of i)

He doesn't have every answer to moral problems

Now me, not being arrogant, says that iambiguous cannot defeat this argument.

What does iambiguous do? He runs away as fast as he can and barely mutters this phrase as he's running... "why should I debate you if you think you've proven that you already won?"

To this I say, I have given many proofs through contradiction for this, all you have to do is prove they aren't proofs through contradiction.

But! Iambiguous still runs from me.

I'm sorry MagsJ, but after months of this avoiding me, even in a formal debate in the debate forum, and continuing on this board: iambiguous is by the book, a definition of a troll beyond reproach. By "beyond reproach", he's not using a sock puppet to make a deeper philosophic point, he's simply a troll, nothing more.

Iambiguous knows this. That's part of what makes him a troll, he KNOWS he's a troll.

How on earth did I miss this one!

[Ecmandu]

I'm sorry MagsJ, but after months of this avoiding me, even in a formal debate in the debate forum, and continuing on this board: iambiguous is by the book, a definition of a troll beyond reproach. By "beyond reproach", he's not using a sock puppet to make a deeper philosophic point, he's simply a troll, nothing more.

Iambiguous knows this. That's part of what makes him a troll, he KNOWS he's a troll.

A troll intentionally trolls, but we have all been guilty at some point of unintentionally trolling, and it is a poster's choice to take on a debate or not, so please bear this in mind.

Let's put this in context MagsJ ...

Iambiguous has almost 30,000 (are you kidding me)

30,000! Posts!

In every post he asks the same thing:

Prove why existence exists
Prove one side of the abortion argument
Prove which political party is correct.

So I tell iambiguous ... I can prove all three of them, debate me on it.

Every time that I put the screws to iambiguous, he does a page full of lols and dancing bananas ...

30,000 posts!

And he doesn't want to debate his own topic!!

The shit he trolls with ...

It is beyond a lack of decorum ...

He is literally, at this point, not simply a troll, but a super troll.

[iambiguous]

30,000! Posts!

In every post he asks the same thing:

Prove why existence exists
Prove one side of the abortion argument
Prove which political party is correct.

This from the guy that wants me to debate him!

He just makes things like this up to suit his own bizarre understanding of reality. Or, rather, an understanding reality that I deem to be bizarre.

Consider:

Of those nearly 30,000 posts, a huge chunk of them are contained in my film, music and quotes threads. And hardly any of them revolve around his three claims above.

As for the claims themselves...

Prove why existence exists

I merely note that on some level we do in fact seem to exist. And that our understanding of this is surely intertwined in an understanding of existence itself. Who or what consented to that?

Prove one side of the abortion argument

No, my aim is to note that both sides lay claim to having proven that their own political prejudices reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which to consent to one frame of mind rather than another. But that neither side seems willing to consider that their own particular rendition of consent is embedded existentially in the points I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Prove which political party is correct

Again, my aim instead is to suggest that particular individuals give their consent to particular political parties based largely on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

And that "for all practical purposes" the objectivists among us assert that their own value judgments embody the most rational consent. And that this is instead more a psychological defense mechanism embedded in one or another rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

[Ecmandu]

30,000! Posts!

In every post he asks the same thing:

Prove why existence exists
Prove one side of the abortion argument
Prove which political party is correct.

This from the guy that wants me to debate him!

He just makes things like this up to suit his own bizarre understanding of reality. Or, rather, an understanding reality that I deem to be bizarre.

Consider:

Of those nearly 30,000 posts, a huge chunk of them are contained in my film, music and quotes threads. And hardly any of them revolve around his three claims above.

As for the claims themselves...

Prove why existence exists

I merely note that on some level we do in fact seem to exist. And that our understanding of this is surely intertwined in an understanding of existence itself. Who or what consented to that?

Prove one side of the abortion argument

No, my aim is to note that both sides lay claim to having proven that their own political prejudices reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which to consent to one frame of mind rather than another. But that neither side seems willing to consider that their own particular rendition of consent is embedded existentially in the points I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Prove which political party is correct

Again, my aim instead is to suggest that particular individuals give their consent to particular political parties based largely on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

And that "for all practical purposes" the objectivists among us assert that their own value judgments embody the most rational consent. And that this is instead more a psychological defense mechanism embedded in one or another rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Debate me then. In the debate forums.

Cut and paste this stuff if you need to.

My rules are this.

6 rounds.

Open vote for the board as a whole

Carleas as moderator.

Are you scared? To debate someone that you already know has lost?

To prove everything you do in all the other forums (philosophy) is once and for all NOT trolling?

Should all be very easy for you after all

You always ask for proofs, to not debate me proves that you are lying, to not debate me proves you are not self conscious about your posts (which isn't a compliment)

[iambiguous]

Debate me then. In the debate forums.

Cut and paste this stuff if you need to.

My rules are this.

6 rounds.

Open vote for the board as a whole

Carleas as moderator.

Are you scared? To debate someone that you already know has lost?

To prove everything you do in all the other forums is once and for all NOT trolling?

Should all be very easy for you after all

Again, utterly oblivious to the points that I actually make.

And as though responding to them only counts if we take them to the "debate forum".

Look, I gave him a chance to actually respond substantively to these points before. He keeps wiggling out of it.

Others can take him seriously if they wish. For me, it's just entertainment. Something to do to pass the time before the part about oblivion. Which, by the way, I don't give my consent to at all.

Let's see if that makes a difference.

[Ecmandu]

Debate me then. In the debate forums.

Cut and paste this stuff if you need to.

My rules are this.

6 rounds.

Open vote for the board as a whole

Carleas as moderator.

Are you scared? To debate someone that you already know has lost?

To prove everything you do in all the other forums is once and for all NOT trolling?

Should all be very easy for you after all

Again, utterly oblivious to the points that I actually make.

And as though responding to them only counts if we take them to the "debate forum".

Look, I gave him a chance to actually respond substantively to these points before. He keeps wiggling out of it.

Others can take him seriously if they wish. For me, it's just entertainment. Something to do to pass the time before the part about oblivion. Which, by the way, I don't give my consent to at all.

Let's see if that makes a difference.

No, you're projecting onto me about wiggling out of it... once it's in the debate forums it's cement, you can't keep letting threads die, refuse to respond to the ones that are there and keep trolling as always

[iambiguous]

No, you're projecting onto me about wiggling out of it... once it's in the debate forums it's cement, you can't keep letting threads die, refuse to respond to the ones that are there and keep trolling as always

My best guess: It's beyond his control.

Either because of how his brain is wired or because we really do live in a wholly determined universe.

Letting us both off the hook.

Again, he'll either respond to the points I make here or cling to the hope that I don't actually take this to the "chamber of debate" forum.

But: could I ever be that cruel?!

[Ecmandu]

No, you're projecting onto me about wiggling out of it... once it's in the debate forums it's cement, you can't keep letting threads die, refuse to respond to the ones that are there and keep trolling as always

My best guess: It's beyond his control.

Either because of how his brain is wired or because we really do live in a wholly determined universe.

Letting us both off the hook.

Again, he'll either respond to the points I make here or cling to the hope that I don't actually take this to the "chamber of debate" forum.

But: could I ever be that cruel?!

Iambiguous, you don't respond to ANYONE in normal threads. Reality check.

I'm not a fool anymore about you.

Debate forums are cement. You can't wiggle out of it.

Neither can I

[Karpel Tunnel]

No, you're projecting onto me about wiggling out of it... once it's in the debate forums it's cement, you can't keep letting threads die, refuse to respond to the ones that are there and keep trolling as always

My best guess: It's beyond his control.

Either because of how his brain is wired or because we really do live in a wholly determined universe.

Letting us both off the hook.

Again, he'll either respond to the points I make here or cling to the hope that I don't actually take this to the "chamber of debate" forum.

But: could I ever be that cruel?!

nice, a new cockier iambiguous. It's be cruel for you to debate him since you'd kick his ass so bad. STrutting. Cool.

I think you are misreading him, though. I am pretty sure he wants to actually debate you.

Sorry if I am taking the pre-fight banter literally.

[Ecmandu]

No, you're projecting onto me about wiggling out of it... once it's in the debate forums it's cement, you can't keep letting threads die, refuse to respond to the ones that are there and keep trolling as always

My best guess: It's beyond his control.

Either because of how his brain is wired or because we really do live in a wholly determined universe.

Letting us both off the hook.

Again, he'll either respond to the points I make here or cling to the hope that I don't actually take this to the "chamber of debate" forum.

But: could I ever be that cruel?!

nice, a new cockier iambiguous. It's be cruel for you to debate him since you'd kick his ass so bad. STrutting. Cool.

I think you are misreading him, though. I am pretty sure he wants to actually debate you.

Sorry if I am taking the pre-fight banter literally.

I like the confidence in iambiguous, but if those three links are all he has, I'm not worried...

I'm still to young to prove freewill all the way though, but even as a stretch, I could probably pull that one off as well.

[Meno_]

...

[Meno_]

I'm still to young to prove freewill all the way though, but even as a stretch, I could probably pull that one off as well.
Top Report this post

[Karpel Tunnel]

Meno, what do these last two posts mean?
Have you reported his post?
What does quoting yourself in the second post mean?

[Meno_]

I'm still to young to prove freewill all the way though, but even as a stretch, I could probably pull that one off as well.
Top Report this post

Anyway the problem with a debate is such that:



I'd be watchful though, for Dasein, Das-Ein, is extremely reducible, into the very depths of the cave , where there is only a transcendental solution, worth a try, as how a subjectively based(a-priori) and an objectively based (a-posterior) proof can somehow minimally allign to formative opinion.

[Meno_]

Meno, what do these last two posts mean?
Have you reported his post?
What does quoting yourself in the second post mean?

Nothing, just tinkering with quotes.

[Ecmandu]

I'll give you the freewill idea as I understand it.

Unless a person is made aware of deterministic systems, they can be manipulated as having no freewill.

The moment they are made aware of those deterministic systems, they now have freewill.

A being made aware of all deterministic systems (which are finite - and I can prove that) has absolute freewill.

In saying this, just like peacegirl is arguing in other threads, we have no choice but to move to greater satisfaction ... but that's not really saying much as well.

For all beings to have freewill, there are limitations.

I say as an anology, in order for me to have the freewill of smoking with my hands while walking, I must have a cigarette, something that lights it, and decent mobility.

With freewill always comes restrictions .

[Meno_]

I'll give you the freewill idea as I understand it.

Unless a person is made aware of deterministic systems, they can be manipulated as having no freewill.

The moment they are made aware of those deterministic systems, they now have freewill.

A being made aware of all deterministic systems (which are finite - and I can prove that) has absolute freewill.

In saying this, just like peacegirl is arguing in other threads, we have no choice but to move to greater satisfaction ... but that's not really saying much as well.

For all beings to have freewill, there are limitations.

I say as an anology, in order for me to have the freewill of smoking with my hands while walking, I must have a cigarette, something that lights it, and decent mobility.

With freewill always comes restrictions .

I partially agree, except that even aware people can be manipulated, in deprogramming and with the use of drastic methods of painful conditioning.

[Ecmandu]

I'll give you the freewill idea as I understand it.

Unless a person is made aware of deterministic systems, they can be manipulated as having no freewill.

The moment they are made aware of those deterministic systems, they now have freewill.

A being made aware of all deterministic systems (which are finite - and I can prove that) has absolute freewill.

In saying this, just like peacegirl is arguing in other threads, we have no choice but to move to greater satisfaction ... but that's not really saying much as well.

For all beings to have freewill, there are limitations.

I say as an anology, in order for me to have the freewill of smoking with my hands while walking, I must have a cigarette, something that lights it, and decent mobility.

With freewill always comes restrictions .

I partially agree, except that even aware people can be manipulated, in deprogramming and with the use of drastic methods of painful conditioning.

Ahh ... partially true. People will say anything to get out of torture (so who's manipulating who here), but once it stops, they just revert.

[Artimas]

If no free will then why be conscious at all. One can choose to smoke a cigarette, free will doesn’t imply without work or extra effort, it implies a freedom of available options through thought of which may be manifested through a point of understanding.

You know, we could be just like the other animals, subconscious/unconscious and merely instinctive without any choice or understanding of choice and what it entails.

[Meno_]

I'll give you the freewill idea as I understand it.

Unless a person is made aware of deterministic systems, they can be manipulated as having no freewill.

The moment they are made aware of those deterministic systems, they now have freewill.

A being made aware of all deterministic systems (which are finite - and I can prove that) has absolute freewill.

In saying this, just like peacegirl is arguing in other threads, we have no choice but to move to greater satisfaction ... but that's not really saying much as well.

For all beings to have freewill, there are limitations.

I say as an anology, in order for me to have the freewill of smoking with my hands while walking, I must have a cigarette, something that lights it, and decent mobility.

With freewill always comes restrictions .

I partially agree, except that even aware people can be manipulated, in deprogramming and with the use of drastic methods of painful conditioning.

Ahh ... partially true. People will say anything to get out of torture (so who's manipulating who here), but once it stops, they just revert.

Excepting mind washing techniques techniques so perfected , as to retain the consciousness and even to be able to differ that from unconsciousness , yet unable to be free to act freely.

Mind washing does not equate necessarily with loss of conscious memory.

[Ecmandu]

Meno,

Even assuming that, teaching someone proof structure can reset the operating system, it's like anti virus for the mind.

[iambiguous]

I like the confidence in iambiguous...

Confidence? How on earth can I feel confident given that my entire argument here is predicated on the assumption that my entire argument here is just another existential contraption? Like, for example, yours.

I'm just curious as to how seriously you take yourself given that any number of the points you raise seem to have originated in the outer limits of twilight zone.

You know, in my own opinion.

It's strictly a cat and mouse thing here for me.

But, sure, there is still a part of me that wonders if the points I raised above are open to legitimate criticisms. After all, what have I really got to lose? And think of all I've got to gain if somehow [with the help of others] I do figure out a way to yank myself up out of this hole?

Or maybe even come to believe in some rendition of the afterlife on the other side of the grave.

As for this...

I'm still to[o] young to prove freewill all the way th[r]ough, but even as a stretch, I could probably pull that one off as well.

In my view, no one in their right mind would seriously consider debating someone who says things like this. Besides, I'm nowhere near close to being in my own right mind.


Here and now in particular.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I like the confidence in iambiguous...

Confidence? How on earth can I feel confident given that my entire argument here is predicated on the assumption that my entire argument here is just another existential contraption?

The how may be a mystery, but we were responding to writing like this....

Again, he'll either respond to the points I make here or cling to the hope that I don't actually take this to the "chamber of debate" forum.

But: could I ever be that cruel?!

And then this is also very confident....

I'm just curious as to how seriously you take yourself given that any number of the points you raise seem to have originated in the outer limits of twilight zone.