Iambiguous runs scared

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous, you saw my notes on freewill, and instead of engaging them,you engaged a qualification about them.

My notes on freewill are pretty robust as they sit.

In sensing this, as usual, you avoid content.

[iambiguous]

I like the confidence in iambiguous...

Confidence? How on earth can I feel confident given that my entire argument here is predicated on the assumption that my entire argument here is just another existential contraption?

The how may be a mystery, but we were responding to writing like this....

Again, he'll either respond to the points I make here or cling to the hope that I don't actually take this to the "chamber of debate" forum.

But: could I ever be that cruel?!

And then this is also very confident....

I'm just curious as to how seriously you take yourself given that any number of the points you raise seem to have originated in the outer limits of twilight zone.

You still haven't figured out the parts of me here that are basically tongue in cheek. But not to worry: neither have I.

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous, you saw my notes on freewill, and instead of engaging them,you engaged a qualification about them.

My notes on freewill are pretty robust as they sit.

In sensing this, as usual, you avoid content.

I saw your notes only because I was never able not to have seen them. Anymore than you were ever able not to have written them.

Anymore than I was ever able not to point this out.

Looks like we're both off the hook again!

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous,

There's a very good reason I think the debate forums are the preferred method for us.

Which is why I didn't respond directly to your links.

You have a way of ALWAYS avoiding content.

You are content to let the thread die, without responding to salient points, and this is how you "win" debates on this board.

As I stated earlier, the debate forums are cement, neither of us can wiggle out of it.

I assert that in such a format, that you will not be able to win as much as you assert or hold your own as much as you assert than you do in the dustheap of continually recycled posts.

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous, you saw my notes on freewill, and instead of engaging them,you engaged a qualification about them.

My notes on freewill are pretty robust as they sit.

In sensing this, as usual, you avoid content.

I saw your notes only because I was never able not to have seen them. Anymore than you were ever able not to have written them.

Anymore than I was ever able not to point this out.

Looks like we're both off the hook again!

Read above post as well.

The freewill argument from neuronal determinism argues that the only reason we can read thoughts (before they consciously occur) from brain scans, is that the mind consciously (to save energy and improve reaction time) moves certain decisions and information to the autonomic nervous system.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Iambiguous,

You have a way of ALWAYS avoiding content.

!

[Meno_]

Iambiguous, you saw my notes on freewill, and instead of engaging them,you engaged a qualification about them.

My notes on freewill are pretty robust as they sit.

In sensing this, as usual, you avoid content.

I saw your notes only because I was never able not to have seen them. Anymore than you were ever able not to have written them.

Anymore than I was ever able not to point this out.

Looks like we're both off the hook again!

Read above post as well.

The freewill argument from neuronal determinism argues that the only reason we can read thoughts (before they consciously occur) from brain scans, is that the mind consciously (to save energy and improve reaction time) moves certain decisions and information to the autonomic nervous system.

Good point (epoche) onto argue from, and in my opinion inavoidable .

Here existential modes of brain functioning as relating to intentionality(intentional brain/mind function) is an interesting base of defining objectives.(neural differention-sympathetic/parasympathetic)

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous,

You have a way of ALWAYS avoiding content.

!

Let's try this...

You and ecmandu commence an exchange here in which you focus the discussion on this:

My argument for objective morality that all rational and virtuous beings can agree upon is that no being want their consent to be violated without it being in their own terms.

You debate and discuss the relationship between pragmatism, consent violations and objective morality -- as it is applicable to that which you both construe to be actual "content".

Then after I get the hang of it, I'll join in.

Note to others:

Let's shame them into pursuing this, okay?

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous, the board cornered me on that phrase, so I just reverted to

"Nobody wants their consent violated"

I then debated with sillouette that recursion causes different meaning and context by using the truth table as an example.

Remember how I defined definition and proof?

Definition is how we describe self evident dilineations

Proof is when we use definition to prove that a self evident delineation can't exist in any way (this proof through contradiction)

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous, the board cornered me on that phrase, so I just reverted to

"Nobody wants their consent violated"

I then debated with sillouette that recursion causes different meaning and context by using the truth table as an example.

Remember how I defined definition and proof?

Definition is how we describe self evident dilineations

Proof is when we use definition to prove that a self evident delineation can't exist in any way (this proof through contradiction)

Again:

Take this analysis to KT. Choose a context. Choose particular interactions in which ones consent might be violated. In either a God or No God world. As this relates to the actual choices that one makes pertaining to value judgments evolving around conflicting goods.

Then get back to me.

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous, the board cornered me on that phrase, so I just reverted to

"Nobody wants their consent violated"

I then debated with sillouette that recursion causes different meaning and context by using the truth table as an example.

Remember how I defined definition and proof?

Definition is how we describe self evident dilineations

Proof is when we use definition to prove that a self evident delineation can't exist in any way (this proof through contradiction)

Again:

Take this analysis to KT. Choose a context. Choose particular interactions in which ones consent might be violated. In either a God or No God world. As this relates to the actual choices that one makes pertaining to value judgments evolving around conflicting goods.

Then get back to me.

You're being disingenuous. I already did that.

I gave the abortion proof. It solves as pro choice.

I gave the political proof. It solves as liberal democracy with an educated populace

I gave the why existence exists instead of not existing proof

I have the freewill proof (it exists)

Debate me in the debate forums.

Not once have you quoted a single one of those proofs to discuss it.

Again: you ALWAYS avoid content!!! Salient content to your posts.

I worked my ass off to prove all 4 of those ...

Not only are you trolling, now you're just being an ass about it

[Meno_]

Good point (epoche) onto argue from, and in my opinion inavoidable .

Here existential modes of brain functioning as relating to intentionality(intentional brain/mind function) is an interesting base of defining objectives.(neural differention-sympathetic/parasympathetic)


No point in going around the bush, nothing definitive comes out of this cat and mouse , or it devolved(es) below an existential hold, onto the realm of paradox.



Again, merely an observation from dead center, and I am also striving to keep afloat.

Reason: ? Those who can not learn from history are condemmed and consumed to and by repeating it.

[Ecmandu]

Oh, iambiguous, and Karpel tunnel is not your little fucking puppet...

In response to this

(Too much to quote)

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194889&p=2726923#p2726923

That's sociopathic behavior iambiguous

[iambiguous]

Again:

Take this analysis to KT. Choose a context. Choose particular interactions in which ones consent might be violated. In either a God or No God world. As this relates to the actual choices that one makes pertaining to value judgments evolving around conflicting goods.

Then get back to me.

You're being disingenuous. I already did that.

Note to others:

See why I choose to play the cat to his mouse here? See why my exchanges with him are more in the way of just frivolous entertainment?

It's demeaning to both of us.

Now, he claims to have already done what I asked of him regarding an exchange with KT involving "content".

When he clearly has not.

All he can do is either accept my challenge or continue to wiggle out of it.

And your mission [if you choose to accept it] is to put increasing pressure on him to accept my challenge.

Either that or to offer explanations of your own as to what you think makes him tick.

I'm not saying he isn't actually making important points here. I'm merely pointing out that, if he is, they continue to escape me.

But maybe not you.

[Ecmandu]

Again:

Take this analysis to KT. Choose a context. Choose particular interactions in which ones consent might be violated. In either a God or No God world. As this relates to the actual choices that one makes pertaining to value judgments evolving around conflicting goods.

Then get back to me.

You're being disingenuous. I already did that.

Note to others:

See why I choose to play the cat to his mouse here? See why my exchanges with him are more in the way of just frivolous entertainment?

It's demeaning to both of us.

Now, he claims to have already done what I asked of him regarding an exchange with KT involving "content".

When he clearly has not.

All he can do is either accept my challenge or continue to wiggle out of it.

And your mission [if you choose to accept it] is to put increasing pressure on him to accept my challenge.

Either that or to offer explanations of your own as to what you think makes him tick.

I'm not saying he isn't actually making important points here. I'm merely pointing out that, if he is, they continue to escape me.

But maybe not you.

Now you're shamelessly cherry picking to shift context:

The proofs ARE the content (duh)

Read my full reply here:

viewtopic.php?p=2726923#p2726923

[iambiguous]

Again:

...he claims to have already done what I asked of him regarding an exchange with KT involving "content".

When he clearly has not.

All he can do is either accept my challenge or continue to wiggle out of it.

Note to KT:

Take him up on it. Let's get this thing started.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Again:

...he claims to have already done what I asked of him regarding an exchange with KT involving "content".

When he clearly has not.

All he can do is either accept my challenge or continue to wiggle out of it.

Note to KT:

Take him up on it. Let's get this thing started.

You stated that Ecmandu was afraid to debate you. I don't think he is. I don't know why you are bringing me into this. The easiest way to test if he won't do it is to agree. Let's test your theory. YOu've already made more posts, I think, here in this thread, than he suggested the debate entail. Right now you are acting more like the one who is afraid. You might not be. You might be lazy. It might be something else. You'll forgive me but your attitude towards him makes it hard for me to buy you won't debate him because you don't want to be cruel.

[MagsJ]

Moved to CoD, where it belongs..

[Ecmandu]

Karpel,

Actually, iambiguous is being cruel by not debating me, not just cruel to me, but everyone else on the boards as he continues, unobstructed, to spout his drivel.

[MagsJ]

I'm sure that's the way to get someone to engage with you Ec.. I bet Iam is chomping at the bit, in his excitement at the thought of replying to you.

This thread may soon well run its course..

[Ecmandu]

I'm sure that's the way to get someone to engage with you Ec.. I bet Iam is chomping at the bit, in his excitement at the thought of replying to you.

This thread may soon well run its course..

My personality, a cajoling, or lack thereof, should not be the deciding factor - the content is all that matters for true seekers and defenders of wisdom.

I state to iambiguous that he has agreed with me if he refuses to debate me on an argument he has already stated is so easy for him, that it's actually be cruel for him to debate me.

My terms are that the board members vote in an open vote.

I'm the only objectivist on these boards.

Iambiguous has so little to fear, yet he still runs away.

[Ecmandu]

I don't know what to do here.

MagsJ did something really fucking weird here.

I agree with iambiguous on this.

Until we both agree to debate, this thread is off.

[MagsJ]

Moved to the Challenges forum.. that should resolve any concerns now.

[Ecmandu]

I'm pumped for this debate!!

By responding, we just completed round one of 6 rounds!

I actually think iambiguous made a very respectful first reply to my challenge!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194942

I've known this since this morning, but have been flooded all day and haven't had time to start round 2 yet, but certainly will before bedtime for me tonight!

[iambiguous]

I'm pumped for this debate!!

By responding, we just completed round one of 6 rounds!

I actually think iambiguous made a very respectful first reply to my challenge!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194942

I've known this since this morning, but have been flooded all day and haven't had time to start round 2 yet, but certainly will before bedtime for me tonight!

You do know that this is all unfolding only in your head, right?