Freewill exists

Silhouette,

Nice try, but all of these “anti illusion” theories of no identity as the solution rely on the infinite regress of objects, and since nobody can count an infinity, even god itself, this forces the proof of platonic forms, not only as a solution to this problem, but it also solves the infinite regress of existence never beginning, without contradiction (something from nothing), by showing that eternal templates (not infinitely regressive) explain how we can see objects out of infinity without actually having to process a full infinity (which would take forever)

I already demonstrated to you why this has to be the case. An infinity cannot be itself without existing, which, even though the infinity exists, forces the finite, which is why we have identity and part of why existence exists instead of not existing.

Ecmandu assumes that whatever he imagines must by default be true but he has yet to convince anyone else of this

You’re a subjectivist. You don’t believe that definition is the the description of self evident dilineations.

Are you the big badass man who doesn’t believe that you exist like silhouette??

By calling me a worthless price of shit (which yes, you are doing), you deny objectivism.

And so I think likewise of you. I do exist. Self evidently. That’s why you replied to my post.

Were there a competition for the most ridiculous non sequitur ever this would be a serious contender for that position
And it wasnt your post that I was replying to either so your eyseight is fading as well as your ability to reason logically
I knew I should have stayed away from this thread oh well never mind


And I am not a subjectivist either so even more fail for you there Eccy baby

It shows you have no intellectual capacity here.

You addressed the totality of me as a response to someone on ILP. That objectivists, especially, ecmandu, because you named me, are the biggest worthless prices of shit in all of existence, by the objective standard of EVERYONE who ever lived (yes, you used a universal in your reply to sihlloutte, and would be better if blowing his brains out.
Read your fucking post dude.

And read between the fucking lines.


And eyesight not eyseight [ I hate making spelling mistakes ] its all your fault Eccy

Ok you’re retreating back to your infinite regress argument from 6 months ago. We already buried this one through the concepts of continuity and relativity. You have to believe everything is a sequence of discrete and absolute snapshots for this nonsense of yours to make any sense whatsoever.

I think I’ve pretty much nailed it on the head that your realm of eternal templates is just a fantasy world where you ignore contrary evidence and only think in black and white. All hail the god of ignorance. His name is Ecmandu.

Nice to see surreptitious is aware of your affliction too.
But Jesus, dude, stop bringing this out of me - I don’t want to have to continually put you in your place like this. It feels like flogging a dead horse - still no response to my offer of tuition? You’d really benefit, and I offer it for free. It’s worth it just to put a stop to whatever this delusion is that you’re riding on.

Continuum theory is the same as infinite regress.

Analog is by far more problematic than snapshots. I’m arguing for snapshots being necessary because of analog

Calm down Eccy its just a difference of opinion stop ranting like a madman

I am a madman, madman.

No don’t touch him! Stand back and let him rage. This is the progress we’ve been waiting for. It’s that anger that might very well be the thing he needed to get laid. I say make that sonofabitch so infuriated that he shoves his keyboard off the desk, smashes his hyperdimensional mirror, puts his blue coat on, marches right down to the chili’s bar n grill and buys the first hottie he sees a beer in a magnificent spectacle of approach escalation. And when she says ‘yes’, by god she’ll mean YES.

we may have just made a breakthrough in ecman’s therapy. Whatever you do, DON’T CALM HIM DOWN!

You guys are both funny (hilariously so, not haha)

So here’s the deal.

I know for a fact that evolutionary runaway sexual selection has conditioned your minds to parrot what you need to parrot to get sex from women.

You’ll even go so far as to state that something as self evident as your own existence (and mine for sure) is just subjective.

Like I always say to you guys who think you’re these gritty postmodern badasses. If you took a mind like mine and gave it morals like yours, you’d rue the day you were ever born.

That goes for the whole lot of you!

And to think that someday nature might compel me to debate him!

I can’t believe you said I’m not a gritty postmodern badass. How could you say such a thing? I thought we were tight, man.

I’ll remember that.

Number one - I am celibate so have no need to get sex from women
Number two - my existence is self evident and therefore objective

You mentioned that before.

Well, I’m an incel because women only sexually consent to no means yes relationships.

And I’m trying to remain a shred of dignity on a planet that just doesn’t care anymore.

Sorry to confuse you with subjectivists.

So… here are my thoughts …

I don’t think I have much more to say on ILP…

Hyperdimensional mirror realities are the only solution to all problems.

So, I think I’ll just fade off and merge with the cosmos. (That’s not a suicide note!!).

Postmodernists bore me now.

Once I figured out that’s all women will fuck, I lost interest in the species.

I like reference.

Oh well.

I just realized…

I’ll complete my posting history here by talking about the ins and outs of hyperdimensional mirror realities.

I may be compelled to misunderstand you here more than you are compelled to misunderstand me but it is ecmandu that nature may or may not be compelling me to debate.

I’ll let peacegirl be compelled to decide. :wink:

I feel the point of wisdom is to understand that compelling and bypass it when such is possible, as something ‘compelling’ could appear as instinctual or a falling for such.

What say you or anyone?

I just got frustrated with silhouette here.

When silhouette argues that identity doesn’t exist in any way, but then uses identity to make his arguments, that’s pretty much it for me.

Silhouette, there isn’t a difference between contradiction and a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are inference contradictions, not explicit.

You hit upon the contradiction of your fallacy at the convergence point of the fallacy by stating you don’t exist. In this way, you are a direct contradiction (not implicit) of your fallacy.