Again, since I “noted to others” that I would no longer respond to the fly on Maia’s dream thread, I’ll bring his “specks” here:
Now, either he will finally discuss why he is so obsessed with “getting” me or he won’t. After all, what on earth does motivate him to follow me around and around and deposit these “droppings”?
Now, I will not myself participate in any new exchanges with her. She prefers that I don’t and I fully respect that.
But where is Aventador – Pedro? – going here? Is he really interested in ancient matriarchal civilizations? Or, perhaps, something altogether different?
Notice that he is now using “iambiguous” in quoting me. No references to the chump who never went to Vietnam. So, is he finally admitting that he actually does not have any, say, “hard evidence” to dispute my claim? Could this at least be a start for him in coming back to reality?
On the other hand, how “unreal” can his claim about me and Dan be? What does his point even mean?!!
I’m sorry [for him] but this is getting closer and closer to a “condition”!
As pertains to this very handsome, non-ad-hominem thread, all I was really asking was for proof of the assertion this fine gentleman bases every argument he makes on.
The insults were just tit for tat. But I guess only ‘Never went to Vietnam’ here gets to insult people. On the other hand, that does make the playing field slightly more fair.
And, yeah, it’s obvious to everyone here that this fine gentleman never set foot in Vietnam.
Even his friends and supporters basically said that, even though he never went there (because it is obvious), it is more of a rhetorical device that they defend as legitimate.
Right. I am attempting to seriously explore the existential relationship between sense deprivation, identity and dasein on Maia’s thread and this Stooge comes barreling into it dropping his inane “specks” over and again.
As though if it was a serious thread that you were sustaining and someone did the same thing you would just shrug it off.
And, sure, maybe you would. But then, among other things, you’re not me.
Look, as I attempted to explain above, for reasons even “I” don’t fully understand, I think that, from time to time, you are out to make it all about me. To “get” me. Otherwise I would not designate you as a Stooge now and again. Only with Aventador there has never been a time when [with me] he was not a Stooge.
He gets what he deserves. You know, if “I” do say so myself. And since I believe it is not just a coincidence that my Stooges here are objectivists, I see their reactions to me very, very differently than you do.
That’s why Moreno/karpel tunnel always fascinated me. He is the first pragmatist Stooge I have ever come across.
Look, I could see your point here if I was not doing my best to sustain actual philosophical discussions here at ILP:
And over and over and over again, I make the pledge that if anyone here wishes to sustain a serious and civil discussion regarding the things of most interest to me philosophically, it won’t be me who first resorts to huffing and puffing.
K: and yet, I have said I believe he has gone to Vietnam because what he has said
corresponds to what I have heard from others who went to Vietnam, but more
importantly I don’t understand why this is such a sticking point for you?
Why is this such a big deal for you?
Personally I can’t see what is the difference is whither he went or not?
Because it only seems to matter to you…my guess is you are using this to
avoid answering the hard questions that IAM poses… you are avoiding taking
accountability or responsibility for the questions IAM has posed for you…
you won’t take any responsibility for your own existence…
you won’t explore what the modern condition is, which is fragmented
and fractured…but you aren’t the only coward here, you are
just another person who won’t undertake an honest exploration of what
means to be a modern human being… fragmented and fractured…
hide if you must, but don’t pretend to be anything other then a coward…
He actually imagines that I’d do anything to keep him from coming after me!!! As though I hadn’t longed turned this into mere entertainment. You know, while waiting for godot.
Unless, of course, he does have a “condition”. Or this is all just his own way of entertaining himself. For example, sustaining the delusion that he is making a mockery of me more than I am making a mockery of him.
As for my “beautiful golden butthole” now belonging to him, well, you tell me.
For me [not being you] here’s how it works: I spend 3 or 4 hours a day here. Most of it contributing posts that [at least to me] are in the general vicinity of philosophy. But, sure, if I encounter Stooges along the way, I do get satisfaction in entertaining himself by, to the best of my ability, humiliating them. But only when they come after me first. Had he contributed to the dream thread by noting his own [serious] opinion regarding the points raised by me and others, this thread would not even exist.
Now is this a “good” thing or a “bad” thing to do? Well, here, my “I” is clearly at odds with your own. Though, sure, go ahead, see if you can figure out why. And which one it ought to be. For me it’s all embedded problematically in dasein. Which means in some respects ineffably, inexplicably, unknowingly.
Again:
Sure. But, for me, the only way it makes sense to explore this is in a discussion that revolves around identity, conflicting goods and political economy. My main “thing” here. Then, given a particular context, as the “intelligent and civil” exchange unfolds you and others can more clearly make that distinction. Otherwise it often just devolves into psychobabble.
That’s for him to elaborate on. Given a particular context. To the best of current understanding he was disturbed that the manner in which I construed a “fractured and fragmented” “I” might be applicable to him as well. Even as a “pragmatist”. I still don’t get it.
You forget that I create those threads not just for those here but for a few virtual friends that I have stayed in touch with over the years. That’s a whole different set of exchanges.
Or are you going to suggest that philosophers are able to finally pin down objectively what all us either ought to or not ought to find fun?
1] a “condition”
2] a “tongue in cheek” joke
3] a sick obsession with machismo
Given one of them, he now seems intent on suggesting that I contacted Dan to go after him here because he is so effective in thumping me. I need to get him banned in order to retain what’s left of my self-respect.
Or, sure, let him explain it.
You have to remember just how may times [on Pedro’s Corner alone] I made a complete fool out of him.
You know, if I do say so myself.
What he should do is to talk phoneutria into coming back here and taking his place in “getting” me. Although, with her, it might really happen.
But at least it would feel like an actual challenge.
Right, like I hadn’t attempted to explain my own thoughts on continuing the thread. As though her frame of mind here is the only one that counts.
Besides, I was the one who reminded her that she could contact Carleas and get the thread locked. I would be disappointed if that happened but in no way would I argue that, if it was locked, it was the wrong thing to do. Sure, Carleas might find her reasons more persuasive than mine. Things like this are always going to be subjective.
In other words, from my frame of mind, Maia isn’t out to “get” me. She’s not accusing me of lying about something as important [to me] as the year I spent in Vietnam. An experience that changed everything in my life.
Lol, somewhat different than what you had described, isn’t it?
Sounds more like a dude who for some reason decided to make a move on a person that ostensibly is a young girl on the internet, got turned down, and took it badly.
I mean, if you insist, I can quote some of the stuff you wrote.
It’s fucking horrid.
(Dan~, I am using ‘fucking’ here as an adjective to a situation, not a direct insult at anybody)
I choose
4] dishes it out but can’t take it
What is it you like to say to people? You didn’t have the balls? Dan~, it’s only what he himself says to people. come on, Dan~.
Anyway, you couldn’t take it and went crying to Dan~.