New thread - Iambiguous, here are your PROOFS

[Ecmandu]

(I edited and added to this post for anyone who read the last edit already)

Anyways, yes, since iambiguous doesn't have an "I", it's impossible
for his posts to exist. He then calls everyone but him shallow when
they reply to his posts. This is a dominance move in the sense that
Iambiguous knows he exists, but if he can disable everyone else's self
determination, then he can hypothetically do whatever he wants thats
morally repugnant without any accountability.

Considering, according to iambiguous, the line "bring it down to
earth" was never uttered by him, we'll toss that aside and show you an
actual philosophical accomplishment, mine:

"No being wants their consent violated unless it is on their own terms
- Jason Teague"

The reason Iambiguous doesn't like this proof, is because it is not
only the most down to earth state of being that possibly exists, but
because everyone and anyone can immediately falsify it.

He's shown repeatedly that he doesn't want a proof answer to his
"question" (remember, he doesn't exist)

So, here's the objective answer to abortion, Iambiguous has been
really intent in getting it:

Per the consent violation proof, where all someone has to do is ask
"is this violating my consent?", if they say "yes", then they can
declare reality is presently, inherently evil. If they conclude that
conflicting goods, or as I say, mutually exclusive consents, are
unresolvable, then they can conclude that reality is ALWAYS inherently
evil.

Now, for the abortion proof:

Some people who are born, not only violate the consent of the mother,
but of the entire human population, including themselves. So the
"pro-lifer" ( which are truly few and far between (and are not against
abortion) (the reason "pro-lifers" get so fervent is because they are
doing more anti-life stuff than others, they're using projective anger
- you know the phrase "thou doth protest too much"?")) anyways, the
"pro-lifer" will argue, "but what if someone everyone wants to be here
is aborted"?

There's a proof for this: they can't be aborted by the definition of
the ideal, a person who can possibly be aborted by the mother or
outside forces cannot meet the criteria of someone everyone wants
here.

This is a definitional proof.

Someone might say, "what about the ideal of someone that nobody wants
to be here" in terms of the ideal, that's counterdefinitional, nobody
wants it, thus there is no definitional or consent ideal.

There, that's your proof for abortion Iambiguous.

Let's move to proof for politics:

Liberal democracy is the only form of government which doesn't contradict itself:

A democracy is defined as a government in which the ballots cast all matter towards the final result, and that when any initiative is offered, the majority of votes wins the initiative.

In order to have a functioning democracy however, the electorate needs to be educated outside of insidious misinformation.

This gives people self empowerment.

I'm not actually writing the whole proof here, but please feel free to ask questions. It's based upon my consent proof.

what is liberal then (the liberal of liberal democracy)

Liberal is the state where everyone is encouraged to do what they want, which means that constraining anyones "do what they want" is anti-liberal. The liberal stance on containing or interfering in anyones do what they want is to put people in prison.

Theres your down to earth abortion proof, and your down to earth political proof.

Balls in your court now iambiguous.

I regret my last thread calling ambiguous out because it wasn't thorough. I'm content with this thread, and I think the issue is serious enough to warrant its own thread.

Again, Iambiguous is not even a decent thinker.

[iambiguous]

Anyways, yes, since iambiguous doesn't have an "I", it's impossible
for his posts to exist. He then calls everyone but him shallow when
they reply to his posts. This is a dominance move in the sense that
Iambiguous knows he exists, but if he can disable everyone else's self
determination, then he can hypothetically do whatever he wants thats
morally repugnant without any accountability.

Let's start with this. Then depending on how long he can go before huffing and puffing about iambiguous the troll who should be banned from ILP, we can explore additional points.

Over and over and over again, I make the distinction between that part of a "self" that interacts with others in the either/or world, and that part which often comes into conflict with others in the is/ought world.

This distinction:

a man amidst mankind...

That is the paradox, right? I am an individual....a man; yet, in turn, I am but one of 6,500,000,000 7,530,000,000 (2017) additional men and women that constitutes what is commonly called "mankind". So, in what sense can I, as an individual, grasp my identity as separate and distinct from mankind? How do I make intelligent distinctions between my personal, psychological "self" [the me "I" know intimately from day to day], my persona [the me "I" project -- often as a chameleon -- in conflicting interactions with others], and my historical and ethnological self as a white male who happened adventiously to be born and raised to view reality from the perpective of a 20th century United States citizen?

Now, assuming that my own sense of self is not just a character for some entity in a sim world, or for another in a dream world etc., I make the assumption that there are things about my self which are true objectively. My height, my weight, my health, my place of residence, the things that I do, my posts here.

As for this part...

He then calls everyone but him shallow when
they reply to his posts. This is a dominance move in the sense that
Iambiguous knows he exists, but if he can disable everyone else's self
determination, then he can hypothetically do whatever he wants thats
morally repugnant without any accountability.

...let him cite examples of this from my posts. Or he can choose a particular context involving particular people consenting to behave in particular ways such that conflicts arise over value judgments.

I'll react to that and he can then point out actual examples of the accusations that he makes above.

Fair enough?

[Ecmandu]

Fair enough:

You call people who disagree that you don't exist, shallow in the sense that they are hiding behind an existential contraption, that someone with MORE DEPTH (you, according to you) doesn't shallowly hide behind.

You are not everyone, nor could you have been born as anyone else (the proof, intractable) is that you weren't. You are you, nobody else could have been you (this is the proof that otherness must exist for existence to exist, and that if anyone is exactly the same, they simply are that being)

So here again, we show iambiguous to be a shoddy philosopher.

I found it interesting that you only went after the implied ad Homs, instead of the proofs (the only thing you ever ask of any poster on ILP)

I find that VERY interesting

[iambiguous]

Fair enough:

You call people who disagree that you don't exist, shallow in the sense that they are hiding behind an existential contraption, that someone with MORE DEPTH (you, according to you) doesn't shallowly hide behind.

You are not everyone, nor could you have been born as anyone else (the proof, intractable) is that you weren't. You are you, nobody else could have been you (this is the proof that otherness must exist for existence to exist, and that if anyone is exactly the same, they simply are that being)

So here again, we show iambiguous to be a shoddy philosopher.

I found it interesting that you only went after the implied ad Homs, instead of the proofs (the only thing you ever ask of any poster on ILP)

I find that VERY interesting

Note to others:

See what I mean?

Try this:

1] read my post above -- my reaction to the first point he raises
2] explain to me how his reaction to that hasn't already shifted the exchange to him huffing and puffing about me.

Where is there even a scintilla of substance regarding the points that I make? Where is the actual context and behaviors in which to explore all of these the distinction I make between "a man" amidst "mankind"?

After all, what's the point of grappling with issues like abortion unless and until we first grapple with the issue of identity itself? Insofar as the relationship between "I" and "out in the world" is confronted by him in the manner in which I confront it on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Compare his arguments above with what [in my view] are the far more sophisticated ones that Faust was making on his thread. It's just that Faust is far less willing to actually explore things like this...

How might Rawls's "method" be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don't pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, "distributive justice" is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

...existentially, out in the world pertaining to a particular context. Whereas [in my view], ecmandu's "proofs" here are just a bunch of words stuck together in a argument, the truth of which is predicated entirely on the political assumptions he makes about abortion.

Consider:

Some people who are born, not only violate the consent of the mother,
but of the entire human population, including themselves. So the
"pro-lifer" ( which are truly few and far between (and are not against
abortion) (the reason "pro-lifers" get so fervent is because they are
doing more anti-life stuff than others, they're using projective anger
- you know the phrase "thou doth protest too much"?")) anyways, the
"pro-lifer" will argue, "but what if someone everyone wants to be here
is aborted"?

There's a proof for this: they can't be aborted by the definition of
the ideal, a person who can possibly be aborted by the mother or
outside forces cannot meet the criteria of someone everyone wants
here.

This is a definitional proof.

Exactly my point: a definitional proof embedded tautologically in the internal logic given to the meaning that he insists must be ascribed to words put in that order.

But that's just me reacting as "I" do. And I can't just react otherwise until it seems reasonable to.

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous, you lie through your teeth.

You not only state that you don't have a self because it's fragmented, you've never not, in any context, not put quotes around "I"

You are lying when you say it has context.

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous, you lie through your teeth.

You not only state that you don't have a self because it's fragmented, you've never not, in any context, not put quotes around "I"

You are lying when you say it has context.

Note to others:

So, what do you think...is this exchange over?

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous, you lie through your teeth.

You not only state that you don't have a self because it's fragmented, you've never not, in any context, not put quotes around "I"

You are lying when you say it has context.

Note to others:

So, what do you think...is this exchange over?

Why, don't you someday provide an argument and then do your dances.

You're terrified to debate me.

Every time I corner you, you make it sound like anyone but you is supporting you (note to others), I didn't debate ecmandu, but I trolled a bunch of bananas that proves I won.

[Ecmandu]

We discover definitions like we do mathematical proof, we don't invent them.

You're simply equivocating to "win" your debate, however, definitions are objective.

When I point and say, "look at that bird", you know what I mean, it's self evident, you consider yourself a deep thinker by then turning to me after you look at the bird, and state, "gobbligook" and that you don't know what I meant.

This is disingenuous, it is a lie.

Definition is self evident, just like consent is self evident.

[Ecmandu]

I obviously need to add to this:

Iambiguous asked me point blank where he ever said anyone who disagrees with him is shallow, I explained it, and then he made the next post saying "look, he made it about me"

Just after I had noticed that he only went after my implied ad hom arguments instead of the actual proofs.

He did quote one proof though, and this was his refutation: you just randomly jumbled a bunch of words together, and expect someone to agree with dictionaries and grammar, both of which are existential contraptions ... and because of this, you are shallow compared to me... just another kid.

What the fuck dude?

Serious?

What if I answered all of your posts like that?

[iambiguous]

I obviously need to add to this:

Iambiguous asked me point blank where he ever said anyone who disagrees with him is shallow, I explained it, and then he made the next post saying "look, he made it about me"

Just after I had noticed that he only went after my implied ad hom arguments instead of the actual proofs.

He did quote one proof though, and this was his refutation: you just randomly jumbled a bunch of words together, and expect someone to agree with dictionaries and grammar, both of which are existential contraptions ... and because of this, you are shallow compared to me... just another kid.

What the fuck dude?

Serious?

What if I answered all of your posts like that?

Note to others:

Sure, there is always the possibilty that ecmandu will make a point on this thread relevant to the points I raised with him. A point that, in your view, does in fact raise serious questions regarding my own argument.

Please bring that to my attention. Otherwise I'm done here and back to this:



Unless of course Faust chooses to continue our own exchange.

[Meno_]

've been thinking of retrollint this exchange . Gentlemen, if I may, wouldn't it be fitting at this point to engage on this worthy topic of objectivism on a forum concerned with formal debate, rather then subsisting primarily on basis of sentiment?

If it could be mutually admitted that such IS taking place.

After all learning is nothing to be shy about, particularly and admittedly with the help of the not too remote of wiki leak and other sources?

Please gentlemen, please!



https://youtu.be/1GNR12vGALI

[Silhouette]

Has anyone pointed out the circularity here yet?

1) "No being wants their consent violated unless it is on their own terms".

Consent: being on one's own terms.

2) "No being wants their consent violated unless they consent to it" = nobody wants their consent violated.

Want: consent.

3) "Nobody wants what they don't want".
Or 3 versions in full:
i) Nobody wants what they don't want, unless they want it.
ii) Nobody consents to having their consent violated unless they consent to it.
iii) It is on nobody's terms to have their terms violated unless it is on their own terms.

Any combination is the same tautology.

[surreptitious75]

Sort it out Ecmandu because you cannot construct an argument based on a tautology

[Ecmandu]

Sort it out Ecmandu because you cannot construct an argument based on a tautology

Addressed to sillouette as well.

I assumed you all remembered three or 4 threads ago where we went through precisely why I word it this way:

Let me put it this way again:

Most people like to be surprised, all consent violations are suprizes but not all suprizes are consent violations, there's what's called"pleasantly surprised".

The whole point of a pleasant suprize is that it needs to run the fine line of possibly always being a consent violation.

Some people just outright hate any suprize.

So here's the finer point I tried to make and clarify.

Most people want a reality where what would ordinarily be a consent violation for most people isn't one for them, but they cannot know one way or the other until it actually occurs for them.

So... this is the fine line of consent violation to that regard.

Now imagine this: someone states "I want my possible suprizes to be WITHIN THIS RANGE, but NO MORE than this range.

What they're doing here is putting themselves in the position to be horrified with possible surprises in that range, but they are setting the terms of the limit of the range.

The finer reason why this specific area needs to be articulated, is because, in hyperdimensional mirror realities, you can reflect the eternal form with or without modification. People who want to get to know the person or be with the person as they fully are, without modification is highly desirable for those who want the challenge of the full breadth of the person being reflected. But, as you consent to this, you are suddenly opening yourself up to what could be a major consent violation by practicing this degree of uncontrolled trust. Meaning: serious consent violation.

So, I move an additional layer back and state that , yes, people may want their consent violated at some point for an immersive experience peculiar to them and not others, BUT, given this, EVERYONE wants some terms to be their own.

If you say for example, it's ok if you violate my consent, someone may then send you to hell forever.
But, if you state, it's ok if you violate my consent, but if I want you to stop, you must stop immediately. You can't take advantage of me opening the door for one second and give me infinite consequence.

Most people don't even know what's out there, so their are neither making informed decisions on consent, nor are they fully aware of what they would enjoy.

So, the way I word this, is that most people actually do want some degree of consent violation, however, in stating this, everyone wants it on their own terms.

If you can think of a better way of putting this, be my guest.

[Silhouette]

"No being wants their consent violated unless it is on their own terms".
"Most people actually do want some degree of consent violation, however, in stating this, everyone wants it on their own terms."

Want <=> consent <=> being on one's own terms (as before).

i) Most people actually do want some degree of what they don't want, but everyone wants this to be how they want it.
ii) Most people actually do consent to some degree of consent violation, but everyone consents to this being how they consent to it.
iii) It is on most people's terms to have some degree of what isn't on their terms, but it's on everyone's terms for this to be on their own terms.

[Ecmandu]

"No being wants their consent violated unless it is on their own terms".
"Most people actually do want some degree of consent violation, however, in stating this, everyone wants it on their own terms."

Want <=> consent <=> being on one's own terms (as before).

i) Most people actually do want some degree of what they don't want, but everyone wants this to be how they want it.
ii) Most people actually do consent to some degree of consent violation, but everyone consents to this being how they consent to it.
iii) It is on most people's terms to have some degree of what isn't on their terms, but it's on everyone's terms for this to be on their own terms.

That's all fine and well, but every single one of you know exactly what I mean.

So, I put it forth, if you have better suggestions, be my guest. I'll consider it again as well.

[Silhouette]

That's all fine and well, but every single one of you know exactly what I mean.

Yes, and that's the problem.

if:
P = people want
x = the thing they want
then:
∀P(∃P(¬x))

if y = ∃P(¬x) for simplification,
then ∀P(y), which just shows the qualification in terms of x to be redundant, and you get "everyone wants what they want" in terms of y.

The problem of tautologies is that you're not actually saying anything. We know what you mean, and tautologies are meaningless.

[Ecmandu]

That's all fine and well, but every single one of you know exactly what I mean.

Yes, and that's the problem.

if:
P = people want
x = the thing they want
then:
∀P(∃P(¬x))

if y = ∃P(¬x) for simplification,
then ∀P(y), which just shows the qualification in terms of x to be redundant, and you get "everyone wants what they want" in terms of y.

The problem of tautologies is that you're not actually saying anything. We know what you mean, and tautologies are meaningless.

Sillouette, you don't have me in a corner at all, I'm just trying to work a more subtle argument about what that might mean for people.

All I need to say, is that nobody wants their consent violated. And I can say that people simply use that room for a whole variety of experiences that others don't.

I'm not in a box here, I'm attempting through transparency, to make a subtler argument.

Mr reasonable was right. Most women during sex, love to have their face forcibly pushed into a pillow while they're being strangled (by suprize)!

All I have to argue is that they are evil for being that way in the first place, and that nobody likes their consent to be violated, or that the planet is being destroyed when anyone sends a powerful "no means yes" signal to the cosmos. I don't have to lose this debate. I'm trying to make a subtler point.

[Ecmandu]

Damn, you guys are right, I'm not sure I can make that argument non tautologically. The stakes are too high:

I have to revert back to the non circular, non tautological, true by definition: nobody wants their consent to be violated.

I tried though. Oh well.

[Silhouette]

"No being wants their consent violated unless it is on their own terms".
"Most people actually do want some degree of consent violation, however, in stating this, everyone wants it on their own terms".
"Nobody wants their consent to be violated".

Want <=> consent (as before).

i) Nobody wants what they don't want.
ii) Nobody consents to their consent being violated.

if:
P = people want/consent to
x = the thing they want/consent to
then:
¬P(P(¬x))

Pretty sure it simplifies through ¬P(¬P(x)) or P(¬P(¬x)) to P(x)
Again: tautology.

[Ecmandu]

"No being wants their consent violated unless it is on their own terms".
"Most people actually do want some degree of consent violation, however, in stating this, everyone wants it on their own terms".
"Nobody wants their consent to be violated".

Want <=> consent (as before).

i) Nobody wants what they don't want.
ii) Nobody consents to their consent being violated.

if:
P = people want/consent to
x = the thing they want/consent to
then:
¬P(P(¬x))

Pretty sure it simplifies through ¬P(¬P(x)) or P(¬P(¬x)) to P(x)
Again: tautology.

??? What didn't you understand about the post above ???

I said that you guys are right!!!

Read it

[Artimas]

Isn’t consent like the number one way the government controls everything?

There has to be chaos and order regardless, value... does not matter to reality but only to ourselves. Sure no one likes having their consent violated but sometimes it is necessary, is it not? Is that not how knowledge works? Through bowing to achieve an understanding? This is nothing new, merely observable.. what is new is the expression of it.

And it is not about winning, it’s about achieving an understanding.

[Silhouette]

"No being wants their consent violated unless it is on their own terms".
"Most people actually do want some degree of consent violation, however, in stating this, everyone wants it on their own terms".
"Nobody wants their consent to be violated".

??? What didn't you understand about the post above ???

I said that you guys are right!!!

Read it

Ok I thought you also said:

I have to revert back to the non circular, non tautological, true by definition: nobody wants their consent to be violated.

So I thought I'd clarify the "the non circular, non tautological, true by definition: nobody wants their consent to be violated." as circular as well, that you said you were reverting back to.

Glad I could help though, it's really tough to come up with something that's necessarily true without it being reducible to tautology - in fact I think necessarily true statements necessarily do reduce to tautology (including the statement I just made).

This falls firmly in line with my theory that only relative falsity can have meaning, so hopefully this theory is flawed too or else it's a contradiction. In fact I think I just figured out its flaw: it is a contradiction in the same way as "the liars paradox".

If my theory is true, then it too needs to be relatively false, and if it's relatively false then it cannot be true.
Perhaps this is the origin of the Yin Yang conception of truth, and the aesthetic of beauty in imperfection, and awe in "wise" sayings that indicate truth in apparent contradiction.

Isn’t consent like the number one way the government controls everything?

Consent in politics is like an Orwellian term.
You are given a set of conditions that you must accept, but you must also submit that you consent to them.
The violation of this consent is thereby to an extent expected, and the interesting part is that this is commonly overlooked.

In all "healthy" systems of control there is an official set of rules to be enforced. But only outright or repetitious violation of these rules and a refusal to consent is punished - satisfying the psychosocial need for scapegoats. The expectation and tolerance of limited violation of these rules is put down to human imperfection and absolved through guilt and apology.

So yes, it's about achieving an understanding.

[Ecmandu]

Isn’t consent like the number one way the government controls everything?

There has to be chaos and order regardless, value... does not matter to reality but only to ourselves. Sure no one likes having their consent violated but sometimes it is necessary, is it not? Is that not how knowledge works? Through bowing to achieve an understanding? This is nothing new, merely observable.. what is new is the expression of it.

And it is not about winning, it’s about achieving an understanding.

My proof to iambiguous is that if we can prove that mutually exclusive consents or conflicting goods cannot possibly be resolved, then we can objectively define reality itself as inherently evil for all time.

I know everyone thus far agrees with me that "nobody wants theirconsent violated" is non circular, non tautological and true by definition.

[Ecmandu]

Sorry silluoutte, I didn't read you carefully enough, my bad.

It's not tautological because it reads as:

"Everybody wants", "the opposite of nobody wants"

So, do you still agree with me?

That it's non circular / non tautological - and definitional. ?!?