(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.