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.
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.
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.
'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!
Has anyone pointed out the circularity here yet?
- “No being wants their consent violated unless it is on their own terms”.
Consent: being on one’s own terms.
- “No being wants their consent violated unless they consent to it” = nobody wants their consent violated.
Want: consent.
- “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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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
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.
Ok I thought you also said:
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.
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.
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.