A challenge to Æon

Lorikeet · December 1, 2022, 2:35pm

Happy Holidays, biatch!!!

I’m your present…your future…but not your past.

Ichthus77 · December 1, 2022, 3:02pm

My behind so big it’s the only thing that fits in the past.

Hakuna matata!

Lorikeet · December 1, 2022, 3:51pm

That’s it, biatch…remain within what ILP is, despite its title and claim that it is interested in philosophy
You, and the embers are interested in gossip, comfort, hedonism, self-expression,…low level banter.

Since high level banter is rare, I return for the slop.

Ok…who dis invisible speaker, girlfriend?
Joker?
Why he not talks to me directly?

Ichthus77 · December 1, 2022, 3:56pm

“If s/he’s leaving like a scaredy meow meow, let him leave.”

name withheld

iambiguous · December 1, 2022, 6:54pm

Lorikeet:

Can she provide evidence of Satyr’s, hypothetical, authoritarian dogmas?
He denies absolutes, and so his position is based on uncertainties, and probabilities.

Methinks it is a case of…

Nieatzsche:

We often contradict an opinion for no other reason than that we do not like the tone in which it is expressed.

She disapproves of Satyr’s style and how it makes her feel.
She feels unappreciated.
She cannot offer an alternative to anything he says, so she attacks his ‘demeanour’ his character, his intolerance of idiocy.

I give you the anti-philosopher, presenting herself as a “philosopher.”
A lying prostitute that must conceal her true motives because once exposed they will reveal her quality of spirit.
Her signature reveals her motives and her psyche.
She’s only wants to undermine - character assassinate, ad hom - until capitulation is achieved and the individual loses all trust in himself or is forced to admit that he knows not the absolute,- since it is forever absent - and so he must be as ignorant as her.
When she is confronted with reciprocating ad hom she reverts to her infantile games - huffing and puffing, patronizing, the same spiel, until frustration forces the challenger to turn away in disgust - she interprets this - spin doctor’s it - as her “victory”.
It’s a feminine game…women often drive males insane and then when they turn and run away frustrated by the absence of reasoning, she claims that it was her “feminine strength” that drove them away.
They were “intimidated” by her feminine power.
She cannot find a ‘true man’ to deal with her ‘feminine power’.
That’s iamalyingcunt.

No, seriously.

Lorikeet · December 1, 2022, 7:09pm

A woman to thew end.

Challenge me, cunt.
I’m here.

Show the “note to others” what you are truly about.

No, seriously.
One month - Tic-Toc…Tic-Toc…then you can return to be a hypocritical, stupid, lying cunt.

Huffing & puffing to cum.

iambiguous · December 1, 2022, 7:19pm

Pick one:

1]
No, seriously.

2] absolutely shameless!

3] and thus the expression “he is his own worst enemy” is reborn.

4] ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!

Lorikeet · December 1, 2022, 7:23pm

More…give the others more.
I luvs it, you stupid despicable, lying cunt.

Tell me, cunt, is your physical handicap affecting you mentally, or were you always obtuse, self-serving, and a lying cunt?
Want to know my …subjective opinion, moron?

iambiguous · December 1, 2022, 7:35pm

Again, that staggering gap between the manner in which he wants others to see him as a “serious philosopher” and what, over and over and over again, those like me manage to reduce him down to: a spitting, sputtering buffoon.

Come on, if it’s not “absolutely shameless”, it will certainly do for now.

Lorikeet · December 1, 2022, 7:40pm

“Serious philosopher” for this cunt, means anti-philosopher.
If you are not an anti-philosopher, you aint nothing.

Cunt…what is your philosophy, since you claim to be a philosopher.
What exactly, is your position?

iambiguous · December 1, 2022, 9:15pm

No, really, really, really seriously.

iambiguous · December 1, 2022, 9:25pm

Yo, Æon!

Bump.

Lorikeet · December 1, 2022, 9:35pm

Ha, ha…what a sad, pathetic cunt you are.
A lying hypocrite.

I am here, cunt…challenge me with your “philosophy.”
The “philosophy” of not.

All you are, sad cunt, is a hypocritical douche-bag, huffing and puffing and then accusing others of what yo are guilty of.

What is your philosophy, cunt?
Consent, to end strife?

What is authoritarian about my positions?

MagsJ · December 1, 2022, 10:24pm

You have been gagging for an audience with Satyr for years, and when given one you balk and back away.

A game, you like to play?

Urwrongx1000 · December 2, 2022, 7:43am

~~lol~~~lol~~, yelling out for a life raft?

HumAnIze · December 2, 2022, 1:10pm

iambiguous:

Yo, Magnus!

Here is the latest edition from The Master regarding “What is Philosophy”"

Satyr:

#1 will make all dismissive excuses if what is presented to him - as a challenge to his defensive method - does not offer a complete, final, solution to his private issues, and since this is impossible, he will use this as a justification to remain indifferent, calling it rational skepticism, remaining true to the method he adopted to cope with a world that confuses and frightens him.

#2 will never express any opinion if he cannot refer it to a celebrity idol, usually the one he has adopted as his mentor and ideal - a mask he wears to conceal himself, and mute himself, speaking only in the voice of another.
Never exposing himself to challengers, or critique, his mentor becomes the “chosen” proxy through which he engages the world.
When challenged he feels safe because it is his proxy who is being challenged, while his ego remains safe - unseen, unheard, unnoticed.
He finds pride in remaining misunderstood and mistaken for the mask he wears.
Preferring prose and allegories, his convictions are sometimes presented through esoteric jargon, allowing only his proxy to speak clearly, and speaking with his own voice, in relation to that his idol has said

Let me guess: you couldn’t have said it better yourself?

Me?

I’m sticking with this:

What on earth does any of this have to do with our day to day social, political and economic interactions out in a particular world understood in a particular way in regard to a context where we are likely to encounter conflicting goods?

Magnus Anderson:

iambiguous:

Resolved: Magnus is simply incapable – genetically? – of coming down out of the intellectual clouds.

It’s very convenient to call anything you don’t like “intellectual clouds” and to never ever consider the possibility that you are . . . quite simply wrong. “How preposterous! Over and over and over and over again I say that I might as well be wrong!” Sure but it’s a well known fact that actions speak louder than words. What one believes about oneself is not necessarily true. So you can be frustrated all you want with the fact that despite your tireless repetitions of who you think you are noone is convinced. I mean, I am sure Ecmandu feels the same way. He too keeps saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that he’s the greatest person that has ever walked on planet Earth. And yet, noone believes it. Very strange, isn’t it? How can someone repeatedly say “I am this and that” and never ever get anyone to accept is as absolute truth? You make lots of claims, and yet, you never back them up; you never even discuss them. Instead, all you do is insist on what has proven to be pointless repetitive conversations that never ever lead anywhere, refusing to explain what is it that you’re actually looking for, while taking every chance you can to accuse anyone who doesn’t want to go there of being afraid of some sort of deeply troubling truth; some stupid, intellectually obtuse, shit that says more about you than the world around you. “Wah wah wah, he’s making it all about me instead of having the same exact pointless never-ending conversation I am currently having with Gib! Wah wah wah!”

Now, if you ever decide to be something other than a stubborn ass, I am here ready to have a conversation with you. I have asked you a question and I am still waiting for what would qualify as an acceptable response. All I’ve got so far is “Wah wah wah, I’m not gonna go down that road, that’s a dumb road and I’m not gonna even bother to explain why, it just is, Biggy knows the best, even though he might be wrong, and you’re one of those absolutely shameless Will Durant’s epistemologists who live inside their heads and who have no real interest in the world around them and who are potentially dangerous because what if they become kings one day and decide to force their political prejudices on all of us!” Maybe I should bump this thread now and then the same way you do. Yo Biggy! Bump!

Okay, if you are ready to have a conversation with me, let’s make this less about me and more about the point I raise here:

More to the point [mine], I’m far more interested in how, in regard to abortion, you intertwine your question with your answer pertaining to the existential trajectory of your own life pertaining to abortion as a moral issue. What you ever and always evade, in my opinion, is taking your technical questions down out of the technical X-change clouds. How else am I going to determine if your answers are no less technical themselves?

Is it even possible to be more intellectually obtuse
Magnus Anderson:
It is possible. YOU are an example.
Okay, in regard to abortion, here is the argument I make pertaining to my own frame of mind:

I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion

As a result, the first thing many point out is that, regarding this issue, I am insisting women should be permitted legally to kill innocent human beings. And that doing so is in this particular context not immoral.

To which I respond:

“Yes, but…”

But:

Just because I construe the fetus to be an innocent human being does not necessarily [objectively] make it so. On the contrary, there are reasonable arguments proffered by those who see the fetus as truly human only at birth or at the point of “viability”.

And even if everyone agreed the fetus was an innocent human being from the point of conception, I would still not construe the killing of it as necessarily immoral. Why? Because out in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true “gender equality” if we forced women to give birth against their wishes.

Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights.

Consider:

William Barrett from Irrational Man:

For the choice in…human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even—or most of all—our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions. And that is so because we do not interact socially, politically or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances.

That’s the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads.

Note in particular the points I make here that to you are obtuse.

Now on to my second point…

Let’s try to figure out how the medical scientists always seem able to concur regarding human sexuality and pregnancy and abortion as biological components of the either/or world, while the philosophers/ethicists squabble endlessly over the morality of human sexuality…and what happens when a woman becomes pregnant and abortion is one of the options.
Magnus Anderson:
Yeah, you want everyone to agree . . . and in the absence of worldwide consensus, those who think they are right are, according to you, excessively confident in their beliefs. That's your theory based on who knows what. You're not gonna tell us because you yourself don't know what's behind it. You just hide behind "it's just my own prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein". There are any number of reasons why truth might be unpopular . . . I am not sure you even started enumerating them.
I’m sorry, but “Huh?”

Are you actually trying to convince us that in regard to the biological imperatives embedded in human sexuality leading [for some] to an unwanted pregnancy leading [for some] to an abortion as a medical procedure there is not a consensus among biologists, medical scientists and doctors here?

And that among philosophers, ethicists and political scientists there is in turn an equally strong consensus regarding the morality of abortion?

Please, don’t make me come to the conclusion that as with Ecmandu you too have a “condition”.

Note to Satyr:

What do you suppose the reason is for why Magnus stopped posting at KT? You’re practically joined at the brain when it comes to “serious philosophy”. He didn’t get banned did he?

…yikes.

Do you want brain cancer? Because that’s how you get brain cancer.

Lorikeet · December 2, 2022, 1:24pm

All she cares about is gossip.
In this case to undermine Satyr…using ad hominem insinuations, which she then defends against as “huffing and puffing”.
She’s a stupid cunt.
She does this all the time.
She flirted with Maia for months, and then failed to seduce her with his idiotic methods, using her blindness to undermine her resistance to her advances…then he accused Satyr of it.
Typical.
A lying disgusting cunt.

She pretends to be amoral and yet cannot justify why we ought to strive for a compromise. So, she uses the alternate method of undermining, until all trust is lost in all perspectives, so as to bring about her objective…her utopian solution to the world.
She’s the one who dreams of “changing the world”…but she will not admit it.
She learned how to reduce resistance to nihilism by undermining confidence - chipping away at the absence of certainty until she achieves her goal.

End of war; end of conflict; end disagrements…etenral peace.
Death.
What did Heraclitus say about agon - war?
I forget?
She craves death; anxiously waits for it, but is also fraid…and the internal conflict between eros and thanatos explodes as vindictive nihilism.
She must take the world down with her.
Nil is her god.
Whoever doesn’t adopt her method is a fascist…because any idiocy is truth, when truth is non-existent - or defined in ways that make it absurd and impossible.
Her method, as I’ve noted repeatedly, is linguistic subversion.
She got that from the genitally mutilated ones.

Words ought to remain subjective…no external indifferent ([size=80]objective[/size]) standard, no limit ought to be found…that’s “authoritarian,” you see?
All authority is intentional and conscious - so if not god then?..man.
She cultivates confusion so as to produce despair, and despair leads to degeneracy…Americanism.
Degeneracy leads to chaos - an indirect reference to the nil - absence of absolutes.

HumAnIze · December 2, 2022, 2:03pm

MagsJ · December 2, 2022, 3:14pm

_
Witnessing philosophers flirt, is akin to witnessing confused musings of their feelings… so appearing, to me, to be a non-seduction.

Lorikeet · December 2, 2022, 3:25pm

It’s when they pretend to be indifferent and mock using emoticons and lol…
I’ve seen it so many times it’s boring.