What if I don’t see it as “stemming from” but I see three separate things being mutually productive of each other, as in irreducibly complex together? If one falls, they all fall. If you have one, you have all of them.
Then you would still be lying through your teeth by presenting them as a single thing.
Show me where I presented them as a single thing except in so far as you have to have both to even have one. I stated them separately and you told me only one of them was true. I then showed you how the one you said was true also has value-laden words. What are you going to do when I show you the third one?
You didn’t showed anything, you just pleaded that it was more impressive if presented as a single package than as two clearly separate clauses:
1, a truth claim, that every self is an other to another self
2, a command, from you ichtas personally, of what attitudes should be adopted in consequence.
This is what “value laden” means.
It means you are trying to forge a singularity out of two separate things. Blackmail is another word.
It requires stupidity and fogginess of mind. I suppose I should take it as an insult that you expected it in me but, on the other hand…
Should what you THINK/ARE in the world (that every self is an other to another self) and what you DO/ARE in the world and how you feel or VALUE/ARE in the world (of ends) match/acknowledge (align with, synch with) each other?
Gentle reminder:
You called this true:
“To fail to recognize that every self is an other to another self is a split from reality.”
This is the statement you called dishonorable & dishonest.
I’ll look at your pamphlet some other time.
Ah. So y’got nuthin. Thx for playing.
Yeah, fuck it, I fold.
Crying?
I guess I cry inside.
I’m laughing very hard inside.
Well then, it was not all for naught.
how dare you
How dare I what? You’re starting to loose it ichtas.
No, this place is deader than dead.
you could always reply to this:
.
The ‘aggy’ crowd are to blame for that… but they deny that they are and blame the Other when the Other defends themself/does unto them what they do unto others.
…and then they want to cry wolf and gang-up on the Other. 
Well there are three types of people that discuss philosophy:
1# The whole thing sounded super sophisticated for them and they studied philosophy and every course they did added sophistication to their language and ways of saying and believing what they always said and believed which, being essencially cogs, was obedience. These are the most brittle, as any actual argument or discussion offends he or she who thinks only of obedience as good.
2# Similar to above, but they were hurt, so they chose some obscure and belligerent sect to obey instead. They go in with the purposes of attack and prozelitising, they are pamphleteers and agitators. These are much more resilient, because they go in expecting war. They still, however, are cogs, and have never been known to debate an idea.
3# Fascinated with everything, they have a continuous orgasm at Greece, all their ideas are clear and crisp, and they don’t need your consent to discuss the actual points with you and debate them. If you are not like them (one of the above, for example), they will essencially be employing you as a mirror or as a computer, inputting data for analysis. These are ther least poisonous, but the most hated, and possibly the most heartless. They are the most hated because cogs don’t like anthing but obedience, or, at best, disobedience to one thing and obedience for another. They do not like to consider things like the merit of a point.
The third type is fairly rare, constantly feeling like Lot. But the God of the philosophers will make use of the sodomites and the ghomorrans, as he doesn’t have the overabundance of resources some other Gods have.