quote=“iambiguous”]
Yo, meno! You’re up!! 
[/quote]
Actually I’m down right now, but really, the real thing is based on a simple logical assumption. I go both ways metaphorically speaking and admittedly one does at some level make sense. It’s like time merging with space; they effect each other in that instant that can not be apprehended. As soon as it approaches that instant: it dissipates.
The ideal moment can never last ; but that doesn’t mean it diesen’t ‘exist’.
But then I’m quite known by now to come into discussions in the tail end, with a lot of invariable assumptions in the middle . So just happened to glean my name so I decided to jump in.
Before you guys start to tear it apart from either end, there is the unsolved question surrounding various forms of revelation which we may cover up for fear of over-exposure.
Denial is the other embarrassing extreme.
As an example, the context that is represented within a certain modicum of space-time changes both the thing within that particular mode of representation, while the thing represented changes along with it.
The example with abortion has become paradigm here.
So let’s see.
The issue of what a baby is at various stages of it’s development start , really even before the moment of conception. The sperm is constituted by a preconceived quality that is able to enter the equally conforming ovum, that is they have biochemical adaptive effects which contain a built in latency to develop higher functional states of re-cognition.
That is , cognition starts at a very early state of development on the level of zygote, as is the embryo contains pre-formative stages of the various phylo-genetic species at certain levels of development.
So the big issue with a contextually bounded development in regard to the fetus is, to determine the state of the development within the context of an instant where the embryo can be still designated as a very early type of species.
The argument for avoiding certain kinds of meat , consumes those, for those who rely on dog meat for their subsistence, can point to within their contextual predicament of being in a role of ’ man’s best friend’ as a reason not to put them on their menu.
Now cannibalism may be mitigated as well, for similar reasons in differing contexts, based on the idea of levels of cognitive development, in other words the consumed must be in worse shape, lower on the developmental stage, etc.
There are cases where these decisions had to be made regarding survival issues of deciding who consumes whom.
The case of a shipwreck , where the old and debilitated, the sick and the dying, were consumed in various stages of succeeding courses, stands out in history books.
In regard to embryos, the contextual variability is similarly designated by accountability of how the universal right to life is contrasted with it’s stage of development, corresponding to it’s level of awareness of it’s self as an existential.
That it is aware at a certain point that it is inside something , and wants to get out, there is little doubt, and this can be exemplified by certain research .
This is the context within which a pre-birth can be understood in relative context with it’s environment.
I meant to imply, rather, a precontext, or , a pretext by which such dilemmas can narrow down the difference between ethical and moral justifications.
Regarding such justufications have to presume a similar meta-logicak presumption, otherwise the either/ or choice between contextual and logical connections will be severed, as is the baby’s source with it’s own existential awareness of his/her source ; by being cut off the awareness of supply through necessary embylical consumption.
The trauma must be greater than that of death.
So context is both presumptively and cognitively variable with continuous stages of development.
And contextual variation appears reductive, as a context within another context of broader generalization describes continuity as reified static states as breaking up the continuity of the unpetceived states. Intra users, the baby has the inside view that probably can not perceive the distinctive features of descriptive elements which research tries to accomplish , in order to avoid descriptive problems with discontinuity.
Gib wrote:
“ Which draft is this now? Fifth? Sixth?”
Me: That’s about right. You’d be surprised what crawls out of the woodwork. The last being I was dealing with has their consent violated unless everyone has their consent violated. But I figured out how to get to this being too.
Sorry having broken the sequence of the argument thought to add something incidental through the middle Ec.
Don’t worry about it meno. Derails have been some of my favorite parts of ILP. Even, and especially, my own threads.
Let me put it to you this way. We never stop learning until the day we die, and we never die …
Which means… we never stop learning.
LoL
Gib.
I have to admit the irony was not lost on me.
You’re an opposite of iambiguous.
Gib spelled backwards is Big.
Indeed, that’s what I keep waiting for here:
Then astonish us all the more by integrating the truckers protest in Canada into this new plan.
Finally, explaining how all of this comes back to consent violation.
Now, I can understand someone not giving another consent to do something…but they do it anyway. A clear-cut violation of their rights to many. But if you do give another consent to do it, where does the violation part come in?
Note to others:
You tell me what the fuck his point here has to do with mine above.
Again, it’s not how his values play out, but how he did not come to embody those values existentially, subjectively given the manner in which I encompass my own value judgments in the OP here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
It’s just more “wiggle, wiggle, wiggle” from my frame of mind.
And then the part he left out:
Alright.
That’s where you have to think outside the box that you’re stuck in. That’s where I come in.
I call them mutually exclusive consents.
You call them conflicting goods.
You have to reimagine all of existence to solve that problem.
You can’t solve it in the current plan. On this: you are 100% correct. You just can’t think outside the box.
There are two solutions to this problem:
1.) A super-being who marionettes philosophic zombies in a universe for each individual to that individuals desire forever. (This creates no sacrifice for the being doing it - I added that part because people don’t seem to give a shit about how the super-being feels when they demand their wishes granted)
2.) Hyperdimensional mirror realities that reflect everything to a persons desire.
There are two ways to solve this problem that give everyone everything they want forever at the expense or sacrifice of no being.
Two words:
1] Alan
2] Sokal
Explain that to him, Meno.
Now, let’s get back to this:
Iambiguous wrote:
“…if you can demonstrate to me that you do indeed “know how to send everyone to hell” and, further, describe what in great detail it means for others to “sign off on a new plan for all beings”, I’ll reconsider my own assumptions here.
Then astonish us all the more by integrating the truckers protest in Canada into this new plan.”
Ecmandu replies:
We’re already in hell you piece of shit.
One thing I learned about hell: never say it can’t get worse, because it can.
When you know everything I know. You don’t write a reply to the message I just sent you the way you just did.
I know who Alan Sokal is…
What you don’t know is that I downloaded all my knowledge to the devil as an insurance plan.
Iamunambigous:
I could ( explain it ), but right now I’m too busy observing the other side of the equation.
Ergo , in good faith.
Let’s add something for all of you to ponder…
Everyone is in hell.
The devil is the ruler of hell.
The devil rules everything.
The question you should all be asking yourselves, is what can possibly make the devil care?
Okay, explain the difference between, say, the Christian Hell, and your own. Why a lower-case hell?
Christians seem woefully unprepared to demonstrate the existence of the Hell. How about you and this, what, generic hell?
Do you look around you, not like what you see, and just call that hell?
And, if your life depended on it, how would you demonstrate that I am a “piece of shit”?
Again, I hate to interrupt, but I could something relevant here, which could come in handy :
To clear up generic to specific hells, and to enable the distinctive qualities suffered in each one , the idea of 7 heavens may reflect such in hells as well.
Hope that helps
In fact the Buddhic conception is :
“Seven are upper worlds, Bhuloka (the Earth), Bhuvarloka, Svarloka, Maharloka, Janarloka, Tapoloka and Satyaloka, and seven are lower worlds, Atala, Vitala, Sutala, Talatala, Mahatala, Rasatala and Patala.” I wasn’t far off.
Hell, just like Heaven is like a thumbprint.
There are no two alike. Everyone’s is unique.
The problem you have is that I’m a hyper empath …
Which means that if anyone suffers; I suffer too.
My hell is anyone being in hell.
…Aside from the fact that I’ve been to extremely abnormal and harsh hell realms above and beyond that problem itself.
I call you a piece of shit, because you’re arrogant.
Be that as it may, it might not be a completely wortheless enterprise to try to determine and explicitly set out what are the things that make a person rational. What is required for rationality to exist.
I think you’re on to something there, Ec.
Oh damn, the video got taken down. In fact, a whole shit ton of them got taken down as of today. I saw something very similar when Biden got elected into office. A whole shit ton of right wing, Trump supporting youtube video were all of a sudden no more.
But I did find this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLLij99q9xU[/youtube]
^ It’s a pretty emotional speech and is a IRL example of someone who has, as you say, a political prejudice and is speaking directly from a IRL context that is happening right now.
Now, I don’t know if this is what you were WTFing about. We could try this again now that I found a video that hasn’t been taken down (and I assume it will still be up when you read this).
If you were WTFing about this:
…or this:
Then WTF, man? This is right up your alley. It’s what you fetishize about day and night, and I’m serving it to you on a silver platter. Let’s discuss what your interests revolve around. The Freedom Convoy (what’s left of it) is the context. And I, a Canadian who’s trying to do what he can to further the cause, am your subject. I’m in the thick of it, man. Who better to engage with?
Of course, we can switch between contexts: the Canadian convoy (which is all but squashed now, but perhaps not yet dead) and the up coming American convoy (March 1st, baby!). I won’t be nearly as involved in the latter as I was (or could have been) in the former but I’m still trying to be active in battling herr Trudeau’s new regime. IOW, I won’t be able to give IRL examples of what I’m doing in the American convoy context even though the American convoy context is real here and now. But I can tell you what I’m doing in a IRL post-Canadian convoy context even though the original context of this thread was supposed to be just the Canadian convoy which is no longer IRL.
Wadyagonnado?
Who, me or the guy in the video? Is this what you want? A discussion about the subject’s (me or the guy in the video) history? How I/he grew up and acquired the political prejudice I have or he has today?
Good idea. I’ll let you head that one. I would suggest the use of logic but I recall some disagreement between you and I about what logic is. Do with that what you will.
Logic still begs the question.
My question would be what attributes does a person require to have the capacity and disposition for reason.