the River and iambiguous contend...

Given this…

…I am hoping that Mo will in fact choose a well known context revolving around conflicting goods in which to sustain an exchange that will allow him [and others] to comment on the components of my moral philosophy, as I comment on the components of theirs.

And, in turn, allowing him to substantiate his accusations above by pointing to actual instances of my transgressions. Technical or otherwise.

But: Ever and always making reference to the set of circumstances being discussed.

challenged offer… is challenge accepted?


The challenge - is a category error.

Von River says something in a Rant thread about Iamb’s behavior.
Iamb posts here AS IF what Von Rivers wrote would somehow be resolved, even potentially, by Von River doing what Iamb is always asking people to do-

IOW someone saying something critical of Iamb

somehow through burden of proof(??) or logical connection(???) or social honor(???)

entails doing what Iamb is always trying to get people to do, even if they have done it before.

Someone does X and miraculously this entails meeting his usual demand.

Hey, I don’t like it when you just pile up your dishes for me to do them.
Oh, ok, well then, no personal attacks, I think if you say stuff like that it entails you give me a blow job.

And yes, I am making the pattern more extreme for educational purposes and fun.

Notice how moot his own behavior is in all this.

But it has no connnection. If you follow Iamb’s behavior in threads, especially those not his own, as a habit, you’ll see he acts as if there is some onus to satisfy his desires.

Separate issues.

Biggie, pretend to debate like you always do.

Sorry, no Kids allowed. :sunglasses:

And will Iambiguous be honest and let Peter know 1) he considers Peter an objectivist, though one he is no doubt sympathetic to and 2) Peter is confused about Iamb’s beliefs. There’s a nice wager or challenge.

Note to Mo:

Sure, go ahead, use the age-old “category error” excuse to avoid bringing your accusations down out of the ad hominem/psychobabble clouds. After all, any number of folks here will back you on it. And not just the objectivists and the Kids.


On any number of posts from his own thread – 529,235 views in the philosophy forum! – Peter and I have explored each other’s differences.

But here’s the thing: I have respect for his intelligence and I’d like to believe he has respect for mine. So, in turn, I would like to believe we would never allow those differences to devolve into the sort of muck that you slime me with.

Look, you have advised others here to ignore me. And, by all means, for those who despise me – or feel threatened by me? – I challenge you to do precisely that.

Starting now, Curly. Put me on ignore. Please. Go ahead, I dare you! :sunglasses:


I don’t feel much threatened by you. Contradictions always raise red flags in me though.

It was you who put me on ignore. Because of my “condition”. It makes it look like you took some vague high road.

Bringing this to the top for Mo…

Mo, is this going to happen or not :question: :question: :question:

This is not a matter by which monooq might take up his pen, it seems.

Monooq! That was Mo back in the good old days. =D>

Yup, back when Mo was a berkeleyean idealist. We’ve come a long way since then, haven’t we son.

I have a lasting fondness for Bishop Berkeley.

Anyways, iambusher, I am a bit busy these days.
And I have promises to keep.
And miles to go before I sleep.
And miles to go before I sleep.

A bit cryptic. Or is that the point?

And how many miles exactly? You know, if we’re talking about the same thing.

Anyway, to contend or not to contend is still the question on this thread.

:question: :question: :question:

K: having just discovered this later bit, I am going on the record to state, yes,
I have a great deal of respect for IAM… and in fact, I will also state that I think
he is the only “true” philosopher on this site… he has his questions, his problems
to solve and he is diligent in attempting to work out his philosophical problems…

there are many, many here who don’t have a clue that there is even such a thing
as a philosophical problem and that problem requires some sort of solution…

what is the question that drives you? what are you seeking to answer?
do you even have enough sense to at least ask questions about
what does existence mean to you? or do you just float along with life
like 99.9% of all people…those people never ask themselves the vital
questions of existence… “what am I do to?” “what values should I hold?”
“what should I hope for?” and what has turned into my question,
“what is the point of existence?” the why of being… we exists,
but why? “does life have meaning?” which is another way of saying,
“do I have meaning?” …

is my life meaning found in that old Kantian answer?
God, freedom and immortality…

I reject god and immortality, so all is left that’s left for me is freedom…

In the end all I have, all I have is questions… what is the point of existence,
mine, yours, ours…


A person who has no need to ask those questions may be wiser than any philosopher.

I agree. He is a “true” philosopher.
Interestingly, I have seen Iamb also not understand what putting something in quotes means. Or perhaps there’s more performance art in PK than I realize. Either way he put extra effort in to carefully not write that Iambiguous is a true philosopher.

Fact: Everyone is a “true” philosopher in his own way. Philosophy is indefinable.

"I think therefore I philosophe. "

One of those loaded nuanced ideas.