That’s all fine and well, but every single one of you know exactly what I mean.
So, I put it forth, if you have better suggestions, be my guest. I’ll consider it again as well.
Yes, and that’s the problem.
if:
P = people want
x = the thing they want
then:
∀P(∃P(¬x))
if y = ∃P(¬x) for simplification,
then ∀P(y), which just shows the qualification in terms of x to be redundant, and you get “everyone wants what they want” in terms of y.
The problem of tautologies is that you’re not actually saying anything. We know what you mean, and tautologies are meaningless.
Sillouette, you don’t have me in a corner at all, I’m just trying to work a more subtle argument about what that might mean for people.
All I need to say, is that nobody wants their consent violated. And I can say that people simply use that room for a whole variety of experiences that others don’t.
I’m not in a box here, I’m attempting through transparency, to make a subtler argument.
Mr reasonable was right. Most women during sex, love to have their face forcibly pushed into a pillow while they’re being strangled (by suprize)!
All I have to argue is that they are evil for being that way in the first place, and that nobody likes their consent to be violated, or that the planet is being destroyed when anyone sends a powerful “no means yes” signal to the cosmos. I don’t have to lose this debate. I’m trying to make a subtler point.
Damn, you guys are right, I’m not sure I can make that argument non tautologically. The stakes are too high:
I have to revert back to the non circular, non tautological, true by definition: nobody wants their consent to be violated.
I tried though. Oh well.
“No being wants their consent violated unless it is on their own terms”.
“Most people actually do want some degree of consent violation, however, in stating this, everyone wants it on their own terms”.
“Nobody wants their consent to be violated”.
Want <=> consent (as before).
i) Nobody wants what they don’t want.
ii) Nobody consents to their consent being violated.
if:
P = people want/consent to
x = the thing they want/consent to
then:
¬P(P(¬x))
Pretty sure it simplifies through ¬P(¬P(x)) or P(¬P(¬x)) to P(x)
Again: tautology.
??? What didn’t you understand about the post above ???
I said that you guys are right!!!
Read it
Isn’t consent like the number one way the government controls everything?
There has to be chaos and order regardless, value… does not matter to reality but only to ourselves. Sure no one likes having their consent violated but sometimes it is necessary, is it not? Is that not how knowledge works? Through bowing to achieve an understanding? This is nothing new, merely observable… what is new is the expression of it.
And it is not about winning, it’s about achieving an understanding.
Ok I thought you also said:
So I thought I’d clarify the “the non circular, non tautological, true by definition: nobody wants their consent to be violated.” as circular as well, that you said you were reverting back to.
Glad I could help though, it’s really tough to come up with something that’s necessarily true without it being reducible to tautology - in fact I think necessarily true statements necessarily do reduce to tautology (including the statement I just made).
This falls firmly in line with my theory that only relative falsity can have meaning, so hopefully this theory is flawed too or else it’s a contradiction. In fact I think I just figured out its flaw: it is a contradiction in the same way as “the liars paradox”.
If my theory is true, then it too needs to be relatively false, and if it’s relatively false then it cannot be true.
Perhaps this is the origin of the Yin Yang conception of truth, and the aesthetic of beauty in imperfection, and awe in “wise” sayings that indicate truth in apparent contradiction.
Consent in politics is like an Orwellian term.
You are given a set of conditions that you must accept, but you must also submit that you consent to them.
The violation of this consent is thereby to an extent expected, and the interesting part is that this is commonly overlooked.
In all “healthy” systems of control there is an official set of rules to be enforced. But only outright or repetitious violation of these rules and a refusal to consent is punished - satisfying the psychosocial need for scapegoats. The expectation and tolerance of limited violation of these rules is put down to human imperfection and absolved through guilt and apology.
So yes, it’s about achieving an understanding.
My proof to iambiguous is that if we can prove that mutually exclusive consents or conflicting goods cannot possibly be resolved, then we can objectively define reality itself as inherently evil for all time.
I know everyone thus far agrees with me that “nobody wants theirconsent violated” is non circular, non tautological and true by definition.
Sorry silluoutte, I didn’t read you carefully enough, my bad.
It’s not tautological because it reads as:
“Everybody wants”, “the opposite of nobody wants”
So, do you still agree with me?
That it’s non circular / non tautological - and definitional. ?!?
Actually, I already see your next move!
Everybody wants what everybody wants, tautological right?
Well, think about truth tables, they provide different meanings with the regress:
It’s true that it’s true
It’s false that it’s true
It’s true that it’s false
It’s false that it’s false.
Basically what I’m stating is that it’s true that true is not false.
For example: it’s false because of x,y,z means that it’s true that it’s false if x,y,z are valid, sound and definitional.
However… with regress, it’s false that x,y,z is false, means it’s true.
Regress changes the meaning and context
A better way to express this would be : most people dont have an absolute concept of consent and so equally they dont have an absolute concept of consent violation
But I would question your actual premise and say that in specific circumstances the notion of consent / consent violation is one that is very clearly understood indeed
However the problem is that you are trying to apply a general principle for multiple scenarios where the outcome will not always be the same for the same person
So for example : in scenario A they dont want their consent violated / in scenario B they do want it violated / in scenario C they dont know if they want it violated
This is where your argument fails because not all consent violating scenarios are going to be treated the same
They will be individually assessed based on the risk factor involved and whether or not it is a risk to be taken
But isn’t value other than existence ascribed by only consciousness.
If consent relies on value then how would it relate to becoming conscious if the only value is existence itself even if not observable to the subconscious.
Isn’t violation of consent sometimes not evil, what if the purpose is education?
I don’t think reality is evil or good, it just is.
Well what about women or men who want to be subconsciously raped but don’t know they do until it happens and then they later liked the idea? Or maybe they liked the idea beforehand and it never happened until then. Isn’t that a violation of consent but not being deemed “evil” by the victim?
I think here again we are mixing logical certainty with logical apprpximation, hoping for consistency.
Of, the certainty wished for presumes that there is within that certainty a con- scious element, different from am unconscious one, as there my be situations where existence could be said to be circular within that difference, ( implying a necessary state of mind to create that difference , and thus becoming dependent on that existential mode of apprehension On the other hand, when we are within the contradiction,without which difference . there is no understood difference, ( between modes of apprehension -as in an unconscious mode): then there can not possibly be said to be a tautology , because a tautology implies such relation.
Subconscious apprehension is not a sensible mode of realising difference between contradiction and tautology.
At least at least as it applies here, it seems to me.
Artimas, surreptitious,
You are certainly tracking with themes of these concepts, but you both missed the overarching point that I’m making to iambiguous with his very unique request:
If someone’s consent is violated at any moment, we can declare existence inherently evil for that moment.
If we can determine that mutually exclusive consents, conflicting goods are impossible to reconcile, we can prove existence inherently evil, always.
I would say it’s inherently painful rather than evil because evil is based on our conscious system of illusory value/desire, it’s subjective but pain is objective, doesn’t matter if it’s liked or not.
I do agree that goods do conflict in individual interests, that’s the illusion of it. That’s what shows that value is an illusion. I may have described this in my new thread impossibility of a possibility, why?
But seeking fear and a violation of consent is how we grow, we must be humble to understand, which technically may be version of consenting to knowing, it is still pain regardless though. So if you deem pain evil or good it appears as such, value is illusory to us as individuals, it creates bias which we should try to avoid at all costs.
I would give your post as a speech to a population that I wanted to torture and exterminate.
Next.
Evil is too strong a word to use for consent violation and anyway sometimes it is perfectly justifiable such as trying to save someones life for example
Also existence is simply the natural order of the Universe so it cannot be evil because that would imply all life is evil simply by virtue of it being alive
Ok well, reality is torture. That’s a fact. You can grow or shrivel and die, that’s the choice you get objectively.
dark evolves to have light, Chaos to have order, etc…
It’s the problem of evil put forth by everyone that argues against god. I don’t believe in god, but I think that there are alternatives to reality, that if not manifest, prove that reality is inherently evil.
You’re the equivalent of a Christian apologist here…
Children getting buttraped and catching aids in Uganda is totally cool with you.
Check your fucking head.