Ecmandu created the thread “Iambiguous runs scared”.
Apparently, I’m afraid to debate him.
Then came this post:
To which KT posted this:
Which I took to be a confirmation of Ecmandu’s point.
That then prompted me to post this:
Then from KT:
So, what’s the point of this thread? Well, when I tried to respond to KT, I discovered that MagsJ shifted the discussion to the Chamber of Debate board.
And, now, I am unable to contribute.
So, allow me to respond to KTs points here:
Let him note this please.
In fact, it is quite the contrary. He keeps insisting that I am one afraid to debate him.
Whereas I refuse to debate him because, based on the points he raises with me, I have no respect for his intelligence.
Though [of course] that is simply my own personal opinion. I rarely read anything else that he posts here.
KT seemed to concur with him above regarding my lack of content. Or, instead, with this – “!” – was he conveying just the opposite? That Ecmandu is the one who refuses to take his intellectual contraptions [and flat out assertions] down to earth?
Above, Ecmandu makes his usual ridiculous charges. To which I responded in depth:
He completely ignores those substantive points and instead accuses me of refusing to be more substantial.
Then the part he left out:
In other words, the wink is meant to convey that, in large part, it is all just tongue in cheek on my part.
[b][i]Still, why doesn’t KT and Ecmandu take up my challenge and debate the main focus of Ecmandu’s OP.
Show me – show everyone – what real philosophical content consist of.[/i][/b]
Dear Threadmates other than Iamb. This is primarily for your viewing. Iamb never concedes things and it is a black hole to pursue his acknolwedgement of his errors or illogic or contradictions.
This may be the case…but is beside the point.
The main statement I was referring to was…
‘Cling to the hope’!
In an earlier post in the same thread he refers to Ecmandu…
This was not referring to being in a debate, but implies that he is afraid to deal with Iamb’s arguments in general.
In Ecmandu’s response to this post he refers to this as Iamb projecting (I think it is obvious, his fears.) Iamb does not dispute this and says…
The obvious implication of all this is that Ecmandu while presenting himself as wanting the debate is hoping it never happens and that he is afraid.
Notice also the implicit poor logic of Iambs. I did not say he is afraid, it is the opposite. He said I was afraid. As if both cannot be true.
I am sure Iamb will never admit that the above constitutes a claim that Ecmandu was afraid. I have never once seen him concede anything, despite having very clear evidence of things he has done or arguments he has made being weak or just plain illogical.
As he would say. I will leave it to others to decide if my saying he was claiming Ecmandu was afraid of the debate was a fair assertion.
As far as what he calls his real motivation, to avoid being cruel…
he mocks Ecmandu and says he in not very intelligent. He could simply avoid responding, but goes out of his way to insult him - not saying this is unfair, Ecmandu has done the same. But it would be cruel to engage in a more formal discussion - the debate.
If he’d said It would be a waste of his time. Fine. I can believe he might mean that. But his behavior, as often is the case, goes against his either his philosophy or other statements he made/actions he performed. IN this case the latter.
