Pagan morality

[Iwannaplato]

So, 1) you asked for a link to where you did what I said. I gave you that and your response includes nothing about what you read there. Not sure why you wanted a link. 2) Since you seem to think I am trying to expose to the world what/who you, uh, really are, is that what you are doing when you psychonalyze others here?

Just out of curiosity, please note others here you are "studying".

I accepted the metaphor, sure. Right now it's just you and VA. Age I probed in a similar way for quite a long time, but ended that. There have been others, here and elsewhere. Wizard, Advocate....Age was very interesting, and then not. At least you and VA introduce texts and outside ideas, even if it seems you don't read them carefully. But Age presents just his own reactions which are very limited.

Then, of course, back to your very own repetitive groot regarding me here:

After all, I don't follow you around from thread to thread to thread in order to expose to the world what/who you, uh, really are?

It's not completely wrong and I don't feel defensive about that framing, but here's how I would frame it. 1) for a long time you were the main audience of those reactions. I was sure that some of the patterns of interaction that I and others were pointing out you would, especially given the number of people saying the same things and a subset of these being people you claimed to respect, eventually be acknowledged by you. You seemed intelligent and you seemed to understand that the positions we have, which would include those about ourselves, might be biased by experiences. IOW given your philosophical beliefs and the fact that you said you had changed positions radically over your lifetime, you would be someone who could acknowledge some patterns of interaction you have and patterns of presenting positions more easily than others. In this I was completely wrong. 2) Yes, I certainly was communicating with others about this, but mostly with those like Phyllo who noticed the same patterns. 3) I have been interaction A LOT to see what happens. Can he really not notice what he just did when I quote it. Can he really not notice the hypocrisy if I point out what he says to others and then what he just did? Etc. I became more and more fascinated by this. I really don't think many people read my responses to you. I know some, like Flannel Jesus, read them for a while, but lost interest, which I can certainly understand. I don't have any expectation at all that someone will read my posts and decide 'Oh, I'll avoid Iambiguous, he sounds like an asshole.' I assume, most of the time, that you may read my post, though I doubt carefully, and perhaps Phyllo dips in on occasion.

...it's still a tossup between 1] psycho-babble and 2] the sort of "serious philosophy" assessments I try avoid as much as possible.

How could you possibly interpret that as 'serious philosophy' assessments?

As far as psychobabble, sure I actually wrote about why I concluded certain things and in the past have given examples. You keep your psychobabble to yourself, but draw your own psychobabble conclusions. You don't avoid those.

Do you really think there are people interested in what iwannoplato thinks about what Iambiguous is doing? Really?
Because I don't. I suppose I could be wrong, but I doubt it in the extreme.

Some, no doubt, follow our exchanges more avidly than others.

REally, there are people avidly following our exchanges? Who are these people? I doubt even Phyllo dips into our longer posts more than skimming if at all.

Again, you really think that there is a bunch of people I could be somehow possibly convincing to see you a certain way? That's what you assumed I was doing, and seriously, again, I find it very hard to imagine anyone gives shit. Do you really think there are people avidly following our exchange? You really think I believe that? Because man I don't, and I would find it strange if you thought people cared about it.

"I post[ed] as 'Prismatic' at ILP years ago.
I had enough of discussions with your never ending dilemma there [kept digging a deeper and deeper hold] and decided it is a waste of time in responding to you.
I told you sometime ago in this forum, I do not want to enter into a discussion with you here.
You can post anything you want in my threads for your own interests, I will not be responding.

Uh, did you put him up to that?

I don't know what you are saying here. I remember the name.

And, in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, my own interest here is always in exploring how those theoretical exchanges bear any resemblance -- relevance -- to actual human interactions.

Except when it comes to your interactions here.

Go ahead, keep telling yourself that.

Admitting to what? Yeah, sure, if I wasn't old enough to be her father, and if I wasn't confined to this recliner, I would have no problem at all in contacting her and perhaps even pursuing a relationship. She's very intelligent, very articulate, very quick-witted, very keen on exploring the world around her without any intention of rejecting others who don't think exactly as she does. And, yeah, she's very attractive. The "looks" part.

I don't think you quite understand how those facts about yourself don't keep those patterns from happening anyway. But if you'd read what I wrote with care, you'd know I said it doesn't matter if you're a testosteroned male hovering around a young woman for that reason or not. What mattered was his assumptions. My post was tailored to his position.

No, what ultimately matters to me

That fine whatevers coming, but you assumed something and it wasn't the case. I have no idea if you are triggered by Maia in that way or not. It doesn't matter, my response was to Prom who seemed to think that's why men were all reacting the way they did. I don't care if he was right about you.

is the extent to which assumptions pertaining to meaning, morality and metaphysics are encompassed empirically and experientially. Such that we are able at least to attempt connecting the dots between things we assume are true "in our head" and the lives that we actually live.

When I pointed out that Prometheus was focusing on the person not the subject, and sexually, in fact, you defended and complimented him, even though you dislike when people make you the issue rather than the topic of your posts. IOW it was hypocritical.

Link me to that please.

Here's a post of mind where I went into the hypocrisy. You can click on the arrows to find the posts that led up to it. Note, you call people Stooges when they make you the issue and not the topic, according to you. I pointed out that Prometheus was doing that with Maia and suggested, in my first post, it might be time to call him a Stooge. You responded that he might be tongue in cheek, which seems to me irrelevant, but furhter said you'd be afraid to mess with the wittiest person here, or some other compliment along those lines. Feel free to follow Prometheus' continued sexual focused responses to an about Maia. Of course, it's not your job to monitor the thread. But once I raised the issue, you opted to brush it off, a person obviously focused on the person, making the person the issue, and not interested in the least in pagan philosophy. You didn't have to weigh in, but you did and in a complimentary manner and further as motivation for not calling him a Stooge, stating that he's not someone you want to mess with.

Well, if this is actually something that convinces you I am defending anyone who sexually harasses Maia or any other man, woman or child, go ahead, take this to the grave with you.

Actually, all I did was point out he was being a Stooge. You know, making someone the issue, not the topic the issue. For some reason you opted to respond, but to say he was being maybe tongue in cheek and you'd be wary of messing with someone with such wit. So, maybe he's being a Stooge, but you wouldn't want to point it out cause he might aim his razor wit at you. And he's kept on about Maia. Whatever it is, it's been focused on her and not the topic. If you want to point out I am doing the same thing, well, duh, you call me a Stooge, but not him, cause of his wit, I guess.

While, of course, over and over and over again, I can only note that my assessment of Stoogery here is in itself no less an existential contraption.

Sure, though it is within reach to explain why you didn't think he was being a Stooge when he was and continues to make Maia the issue/focus and not, for example, Pagan Morality. I actually expected no response from you. I just pointed out he was being a Stooge. But you did respond, to say it might be tongue in cheek, though of course, in that case, it would still be focused on her as a person and not the topic. And then told me that you'd be wary of confronting the best wit here.

[iambiguous]

So, 1) you asked for a link to where you did what I said. I gave you that and your response includes nothing about what you read there. Not sure why you wanted a link.

Well, that's your take on it. Mine is that given all the links pertaining to, among other things, the man with the hammer, I did respond. But since I refused to come around to your own way of thinking about this, I may just as well have not read them or responded at all.

Right?

2) Since you seem to think I am trying to expose to the world what/who you, uh, really are, is that what you are doing when you psychonalyze others here?

First of all, I flat out acknowledge over and again that, in regard to both morality [Pagan or otherwise], and human psychology, "I" am, for all practical purposes, drawn and quartered.

And, by and large, in my view, it is precisely in order to avoid being fractured and fragmented themselves that, given their own precious value judgments, objectivists often just shrug off things like psychological defense mechanisms. And certainly the arguments that I make pertaining to dasein.

Just out of curiosity, please note others here you are "studying".

I accepted the metaphor, sure. Right now it's just you and VA. Age I probed in a similar way for quite a long time, but ended that. There have been others, here and elsewhere. Wizard, Advocate....Age was very interesting, and then not. At least you and VA introduce texts and outside ideas, even if it seems you don't read them carefully. But Age presents just his own reactions which are very limited.

Again, I'd exchange assessments with VA, but I sense his/her refusal to accept my offer revolves around another assumption of mine: that he/she understands just how fragile his/her own intellectual/philosophical assessments become once taken down out of the theoretical clouds.

Well, if only subconsciously, perhaps?

Then, of course, back to your very own repetitive groot regarding me here:

After all, I don't follow you around from thread to thread to thread in order to expose to the world what/who you, uh, really are?

It's not completely wrong and I don't feel defensive about that framing, but here's how I would frame it. 1) for a long time you were the main audience of those reactions. I was sure that some of the patterns of interaction that I and others were pointing out you would, especially given the number of people saying the same things and a subset of these being people you claimed to respect, eventually be acknowledged by you. You seemed intelligent and you seemed to understand that the positions we have, which would include those about ourselves, might be biased by experiences. IOW given your philosophical beliefs and the fact that you said you had changed positions radically over your lifetime, you would be someone who could acknowledge some patterns of interaction you have and patterns of presenting positions more easily than others. In this I was completely wrong. 2) Yes, I certainly was communicating with others about this, but mostly with those like Phyllo who noticed the same patterns. 3) I have been interaction A LOT to see what happens. Can he really not notice what he just did when I quote it. Can he really not notice the hypocrisy if I point out what he says to others and then what he just did? Etc. I became more and more fascinated by this. I really don't think many people read my responses to you. I know some, like Flannel Jesus, read them for a while, but lost interest, which I can certainly understand. I don't have any expectation at all that someone will read my posts and decide 'Oh, I'll avoid Iambiguous, he sounds like an asshole.' I assume, most of the time, that you may read my post, though I doubt carefully, and perhaps Phyllo dips in on occasion.

...it's still a tossup between 1] psycho-babble and 2] the sort of "serious philosophy" assessments I try avoid as much as possible.

How could you possibly interpret that as 'serious philosophy' assessments?

Same thing though, in my view. It's not like I can take serious philosophy out of my pocket like it was a wallet -- a thing -- and say, "yo, this is what serious philosophy really, really is".

As far as psychobabble, sure I actually wrote about why I concluded certain things and in the past have given examples. You keep your psychobabble to yourself, but draw your own psychobabble conclusions. You don't avoid those.

Don't we all? Or is there someone here who is actually able to tell us [time and again] when someone's assesment of another poster's submission is or is not actually true psycho-babble?

Do you really think there are people interested in what iwannoplato thinks about what Iambiguous is doing? Really?
Because I don't. I suppose I could be wrong, but I doubt it in the extreme.

Some, no doubt, follow our exchanges more avidly than others. Unless -- click -- I still just don't "get it", of course. But who here more than me acknowledges that in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, my own conclusions are about as far removed from objectivism as I understand it as I can possibly take them. While at the same, hoping to bump into someone here able to make this part...

1] that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein.
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

...go away?

And, again, in regard to those 3 points, how do you either see or not see them as applicable to you?

REally, there are people avidly following our exchanges? Who are these people? I doubt even Phyllo dips into our longer posts more than skimming if at all.

Again, that's how it seems to me. The Pagan Morality thread has exploded with views of late. And though, sure, the bot bit makes it hard to determine how many are "real" posters, but I suspect the bots are considerably fewer of late.

As for who they are, how the hell would I know? Those who post here, sure, but beyond that, who the fuck really knows what goes on "behind the curtain".

Again, you really think that there is a bunch of people I could be somehow possibly convincing to see you a certain way? That's what you assumed I was doing, and seriously, again, I find it very hard to imagine anyone gives shit. Do you really think there are people avidly following our exchange? You really think I believe that? Because man I don't, and I would find it strange if you thought people cared about it.

Okay, avidly may well be the wrong word. So, how would you describe it then?

God, I wish VA would take me up on the concrete examples I give him about his positions, but he avoids those like the plague. I just tried again and he did exactly what you do. He rephrases his postions as if this is a response.

"I post[ed] as 'Prismatic' at ILP years ago.
I had enough of discussions with your never ending dilemma there [kept digging a deeper and deeper hold] and decided it is a waste of time in responding to you.
I told you sometime ago in this forum, I do not want to enter into a discussion with you here.
You can post anything you want in my threads for your own interests, I will not be responding.

Uh, did you put him up to that?

I don't know what you are saying here. I remember the name.

Discuss?
Views?
Notes:
Notes:

And, in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, my own interest here is always in exploring how those theoretical exchanges bear any resemblance -- relevance -- to actual human interactions.

Except when it comes to your interactions here.

Go ahead, keep telling yourself that.

Admitting to what? Yeah, sure, if I wasn't old enough to be her father, and if I wasn't confined to this recliner, I would have no problem at all in contacting her and perhaps even pursuing a relationship. She's very intelligent, very articulate, very quick-witted, very keen on exploring the world around her without any intention of rejecting others who don't think exactly as she does. And, yeah, she's very attractive. The "looks" part.

I don't think you quite understand how those facts about yourself don't keep those patterns from happening anyway.

Huh? These facts about myself are, by and large, what is keeping me confined to an exchange with Maia here. I can't have a physical relationship with her and, besides, she may well be rather aghast at the thought of one herself. There are always going to be things beyond my fully understanding, let alone fully controlling.

But if you'd read what I wrote with care, you'd know I said it doesn't matter if you're a testosteroned male hovering around a young woman for that reason or not. What mattered was his assumptions. My post was tailored to his position.

Back to that again. Me not reading carefully what you posted. And, again, in turn, from my frame of mind here and now, that still translates by and large into my not agreeing with what you post.

No, what ultimately matters to me...

That fine whatevers coming, but you assumed something and it wasn't the case. I have no idea if you are triggered by Maia in that way or not.

Again, I told you what triggers my interest in Maia above. I'm only acknowledging that were it not for my own existential "situation" "here and now" I'd have no problem at all in contacting her "for real" to see if a romantic relationship was even possible. But that's still la la land so I focus instead on the things we can pursue.

...is the extent to which assumptions pertaining to meaning, morality and metaphysics are encompassed empirically and experientially. Such that we are able at least to attempt connecting the dots between things we assume are true "in our head" and the lives that we actually live.

When I pointed out that Prometheus was focusing on the person not the subject, and sexually, in fact, you defended and complimented him, even though you dislike when people make you the issue rather than the topic of your posts. IOW it was hypocritical.

Link me to that please.

Here's a post of mind where I went into the hypocrisy. You can click on the arrows to find the posts that led up to it. Note, you call people Stooges when they make you the issue and not the topic, according to you. I pointed out that Prometheus was doing that with Maia and suggested, in my first post, it might be time to call him a Stooge. You responded that he might be tongue in cheek, which seems to me irrelevant, but furhter said you'd be afraid to mess with the wittiest person here, or some other compliment along those lines. Feel free to follow Prometheus' continued sexual focused responses to an about Maia. Of course, it's not your job to monitor the thread. But once I raised the issue, you opted to brush it off, a person obviously focused on the person, making the person the issue, and not interested in the least in pagan philosophy. You didn't have to weigh in, but you did and in a complimentary manner and further as motivation for not calling him a Stooge, stating that he's not someone you want to mess with.

Well, if this is actually something that convinces you I am defending anyone who sexually harasses Maia or any other man, woman or child, go ahead, take this to the grave with you.

Actually, all I did was point out he was being a Stooge. You know, making someone the issue, not the topic the issue.

I've never thought of prom75 in that way. Please note what you construe to be examples of him making me the issue.

For some reason you opted to respond, but to say he was being maybe tongue in cheek and you'd be wary of messing with someone with such wit.

That's what I think. Well, "here and now" anyway. Prom is by far, in my view, the wittiest poster here. But what that means to me others may or may not actually grasp...let alone agree with.

So, maybe he's being a Stooge, but you wouldn't want to point it out cause he might aim his razor wit at you.

As per usual, if, for whatever personal reason, you need to sustain this conviction about me, go ahead. I'm certainly not suggesting you are wrong about me, only that I don't recognize myself much at all in your own set of assumptions about me.

And he's kept on about Maia. Whatever it is, it's been focused on her and not the topic. If you want to point out I am doing the same thing, well, duh, you call me a Stooge, but not him, cause of his wit, I guess.

We are rather far apart in regard to how I construe Stoogery here. It may well be advisable for both of us to just accept that we'll probably never close the gap here.

Thus...

While, of course, over and over and over again, I can only note that my assessment of Stoogery here is in itself no less an existential contraption.

Sure, though it is within reach to explain why you didn't think he was being a Stooge when he was and continues to make Maia the issue/focus and not, for example, Pagan Morality.

That's between him and Maia. Does Maia see him as a Stooge? A Stooge is someone that, in my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, makes me the issue. But, again, how can that not in turn reflect only my own hopelessly subjective/subjunctive moral, political and philosophical prejudices?

I actually expected no response from you. I just pointed out he was being a Stooge. But you did respond, to say it might be tongue in cheek, though of course, in that case, it would still be focused on her as a person and not the topic. And then told me that you'd be wary of confronting the best wit here.

Again, link me to some examples of him reacting to me as you and phyllo and atla often react to me. Maybe I missed something.

[iambiguous]

What is the foundation of Pagan ethics?
by Yvonne Aburrow at Patheos

Teo Bishop writes, “I have always believed that the stories you tell about the gods you worship need to be relevant in the world you live in. They must be more than just stories. They must have application.” He goes on to say that “the intersection of the myth and the meaning is where morality is born”.

On the other hand, in regard to both meaning and morality, there are any number of myths/one true paths out there from which to choose. This, however, is when I suggest that, in regard to what someone believes anchors their Self to in terms of value judgments, we go here...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or your religious/spiritual/ideological path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths, ideologies, deontologies to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths and ideolgies.
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path or ideology

My comment on this was,

"I think the foundation of Pagan ethics is the idea that everything is sacred, because the Divine is / deities are immanent in everything.

Then I am back to what I bring up from time and time regarding the "Intrinsic Self". In other words, the part [which some call the Soul] that emables the particularly hardcore objectivists to shrug off every single objection to their own One True Path by simply not addressing them in depth.

And the "idea" that everything is sacred is fine...at least until you bump into others who share this ideality, but insist that only those things they construe to be sacred count.

As for nature being sacred, tell that to all of those who are utterly wiped out and devastated by one or another "natural disaster".

"The stories and mythologies that we share illustrate the idea of deities and spirits being involved in the world, and of people taking care of each other and of animals and plants. These are the illustrations of that basic insight."

Of course, there are "basic insights" all up and down the moral and political and spiritual spectrum.

So, you either figure out a way to acquire an Intrinsic Self, or you simply ignore all that stuff and accept that if you believe something is true, that makes it true.

[Iwannaplato]

Again, link me to some examples of him reacting to me as you and phyllo and atla often react to me. Maybe I missed something.

Oh, my God. Did you not understand that he was being a Stooge in relation to Maia? I linked you to the discussion where I specifically pointed out he was being a Stooge to Maia. I pointed out the post. You understood that then. You defended him not by saying that he wasn't being a Stooge to you. Now suddenly the category of being a Stooge only revolves around responses to you?

Hopeless.

[iambiguous]

Again, link me to some examples of him reacting to me as you and phyllo and atla often react to me. Maybe I missed something.

Oh, my God. Did you not understand that he was being a Stooge in relation to Maia?

What Maia is to him and what he is to Maia is between the two of them. I do not construe either one of them to be a Stooge. But again and again and again and again, only given the manner in which existentially I have come to understand the meaning of that word going back to how I construed the meaning conveyed by Tom Wolfe's rendition of his own Three Stooges: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tom-Wolfe

So, all I can do now is to note that, in my own opinion, I have addressed this accusation above. And that what may well really be unfolding here yet again is someone who has their own more or less objective understanding of the world around them, one that comforts and consoles them...and that's the bottom line. I'm not just disagreeing with their own moral and political prejudices, I'm pointing out that convictions of this nature may well be, in a No God world, the embodiment of dasein.

I linked you to the discussion where I specifically pointed out he was being a Stooge to Maia. I pointed out the post. You understood that then. You defended him not by saying that he wasn't being a Stooge to you. Now suddenly the category of being a Stooge only revolves around responses to you?

Note to others:

Please decide for yourself -- click -- who the "winner" is here. As for the "category", I figured that sooner or later he'd come around to this.

Hopeless.

And right back at you with hapless.

[Iwannaplato]

What Maia is to him and what he is to Maia is between the two of them.

Well, that would have been a better response. Instead you suggested a confused reason for why he wasn't being a Stooge and included a motivation on your part to not get on the bad of side of such a skilled wit as Prom.

I do not construe either one of them to be a Stooge.

OK, so you think he wasn't making her the issue and was, in fact, posting on topic. Great. I disagree and I can't imagine how you could interpret a number of his posts this way - especially the one I pointed out to you - but at least you're taking a stand.

And you've dropped the 'when did Prom ever make me [iamb] the issue' odd distraaction, which is peachy.

That was the remark that led me to say 'Hopeless'. Interesting that you, without acknowledgment, withdrew that line, but still considered me hapless.

I still think you're hallucinating a group of avid readers of our exchanges. In any case, that group, which I don't believe exists, is not the where my goals lie. It is in the responses you make and the process of noticing the hypocrisies, evasions and inconsistencies.

[promethean75]

Didn't i tell you, Veg? Only if you're standing off to the side do the spaces between the slats look black.

1000004867.jpg

Carpentry quiz: when nailing up these slats, which ones do you put on first? Where do you start?

Rule: no piece can be ripped. That is, they all have to be the same width. And, the spaces between the slats have to be the same (with a 1/8 margin of difference at most).

Where is the most logical place to start?

[iambiguous]

What Maia is to him and what he is to Maia is between the two of them.

Well, that would have been a better response. Instead you suggested a confused reason for why he wasn't being a Stooge and included a motivation on your part to not get on the bad of side of such a skilled wit as Prom.

I can't help but wonder if I am more confused reading your posts than you are reading mine.

"Here and now" I'm not confused regarding my own understanding of Stoogery as it pertains to either Prom or Maia. Click, of course.

I do not construe either one of them to be a Stooge.

OK, so you think he wasn't making her the issue and was, in fact, posting on topic. Great. I disagree and I can't imagine how you could interpret a number of his posts this way - especially the one I pointed out to you - but at least you're taking a stand.

What Prom's motivation and intention are in regard to Maia are beyond my capacity to grasp. You'll have to take it up with them if Maia ever returns. And, again, sometimes he is hard to pin down because [to me] he seems to enjoy being the "smartass" from time to time, shaking things up, being provocative, etc.

And you've dropped the 'when did Prom ever make me [iamb] the issue' odd distraaction, which is peachy.

Meaning what?

Again:

So, all I can do now is to note that, in my own opinion, I have addressed this accusation above. And that what may well really be unfolding here yet again is someone who has their own more or less objective understanding of the world around them, one that comforts and consoles them...and that's the bottom line. I'm not just disagreeing with their own moral and political prejudices, I'm pointing out that convictions of this nature may well be, in a No God world, the embodiment of dasein.

That was the remark that led me to say 'Hopeless'. Interesting that you, without acknowledgment, withdrew that line, but still considered me hapless.

I can only react to what you post here existentially, subjectively. In the words, I take out of what you submit what I first put into it...my own rooted existentially in dasein "self". And, of course, the other way around. Then the distinction between what we can know and share objectively re the either/or world and what we seem unable to pin down objectively regarding conflicting goods.

[Iwannaplato]

What Prom's motivation and intention are in regard to Maia are beyond my capacity to grasp.

Right, but the category Stooge is based on behavior. Someone who makes the other person the issue rather than the topic. So, I pointed to a post where Prom was doing that. As I said I actually didn't expect you to respond, but I was surprised to find you responded the way you did. It's obvious what his behavior is. What his intentions are is another fact.

Further, it never stops you from speculating on the motivations and intentions of people who you do call Stooges. But I wasn't asking for that speculation.

You'll have to take it up with them if Maia ever returns. And, again, sometimes he is hard to pin down because [to me] he seems to enjoy being the "smartass" from time to time, shaking things up, being provocative, etc.

Irrelevant.

And you've dropped the 'when did Prom ever make me [iamb] the issue' odd distraaction, which is peachy.

Meaning what?

Again:

Suddnely you started asking me when Prom had posted Stooge posts in relation to you, as if that was the issue. It is not something I've ever claimed. It was odd because it seemed clear from many posts you understood that it was in relation to Maia. When I pointed this out, you dropped that line, but without acknowledging anything. I was noting that it was good you dropped it.

[attofishpi]

With respect plato, I think it's time everyone just drop this line of enquiry and hopefully Maia will return to talk more about he Pagan beliefs.

This is getting ridiculous..

[iambiguous]

What Prom's motivation and intention are in regard to Maia are beyond my capacity to grasp.

Right, but the category Stooge is based on behavior.

The category Stooge?! No, here, a Stooge is only a projection of my own personal opinions/prejudices regarding the posts I read here. Nothing more.

So, I pointed to a post where Prom was doing that. As I said I actually didn't expect you to respond, but I was surprised to find you responded the way you did. It's obvious what his behavior is. What his intentions are is another fact.

Right, just as with me, you've got Prom all figured out. On the other hand, any folks online for any length of time know full well just how precarious it can be thinking you're on to someone in a place like this.

Further, it never stops you from speculating on the motivations and intentions of people who you do call Stooges. But I wasn't asking for that speculation.

Again, it's always going to be a judgment call embedded in, say, particular moods and dispositions?

You'll have to take it up with them if Maia ever returns. And, again, sometimes he is hard to pin down because [to me] he seems to enjoy being the "smartass" from time to time, shaking things up, being provocative, etc.

Irrelevant.

Well, that settles that, doesn't it?

And you've dropped the 'when did Prom ever make me [iamb] the issue' odd distraaction, which is peachy.

Meaning what?

Again:

So, all I can do now is to note that, in my own opinion, I have addressed this accusation above. And that what may well really be unfolding here yet again is someone who has their own more or less objective understanding of the world around them, one that comforts and consoles them...and that's the bottom line. I'm not just disagreeing with their own moral and political prejudices, I'm pointing out that convictions of this nature may well be, in a No God world, the embodiment of dasein.

Suddnely you started asking me when Prom had posted Stooge posts in relation to you, as if that was the issue.

From my frame of mind. you're the one making it an "issue". You seem curious as to why I don't construe Prom to be a Stooge. We'll I tried to explain that above.

It is not something I've ever claimed. It was odd because it seemed clear from many posts you understood that it was in relation to Maia. When I pointed this out, you dropped that line, but without acknowledging anything. I was noting that it was good you dropped it.

I have no idea what your point is here. I call people Stooges based on my own set of assumptions regarding what "here and now" I believe that to mean "In my head". Maia and Prom don't "fit" into them.

And, in fact, even in regard to our own exchanges, we can go post after post in which I react only to your argument. The Stooge bit doesn't come up. Then out of the blue [from my end] it's like you "lose it" and configure into what I do construe a Stooge to be.

[Iwannaplato]

With respect plato, I think it's time everyone just drop this line of enquiry and hopefully Maia will return to talk more about he Pagan beliefs.

This is getting ridiculous..

Oh, this has nothing to do with Maia now.
Someone says Someone is an X when they do Y.
I point to someone doing Y and that someone cannot manage to say they are an X.
And the mental gymnastics this person uses to avoid admitting that is fascinating.
We don't know his motives - but the 'being X' is based on behavior, and further this never stopped him before from calling someone X AND attributing motives.
But this person would be way of challenging that person because he is such a wit.
But this person didn't do it to me.

But it's not my place to monitor how they interact.

- fine, but that's not where he started. It started with he wasn't sure of the motives and then his fear of confronting. When that looked wrong, we get that it isn't his role.

That's what I find interesting. Heck, I was surprised he even responded. My first post saying 'Hey Iamb, Prom is being a Stooge' was kinda tongue in cheek, though I did think he met Iambiguous' criteria. But the dance of denial or confusion from there has been amazing. I don't know what's going on underneath - perhaps he is simply very confused about his own positions and can't remember what he says. I have no idea.

[Iwannaplato]

The category Stooge?! No, here, a Stooge is only a projection of my own personal opinions/prejudices regarding the posts I read here. Nothing more.

You have defined it time and again, this label of a category of people, based on their behavior. It's your category.

So, I pointed to a post where Prom was doing that. As I said I actually didn't expect you to respond, but I was surprised to find you responded the way you did. It's obvious what his behavior is. What his intentions are is another fact.

Right, just as with me, you've got Prom all figured out.

Huh? You just make stuff up. Where did I say that? I have no idea what he motives were for what you call Stooge behavior in relation to Maia.

On the other hand, any folks online for any length of time know full well just how precarious it can be thinking you're on to someone in a place like this.

Ah, good. It's felt precarious to you that you think I am out to reveal to others your true nature and that when we have problems with your behavior it's really about how your posts have challenged the beliefs we have.

I didn't know you felt precarious about that. That changes how I react to it, since it never seems precarious and you repeat it so often.

Further, it never stops you from speculating on the motivations and intentions of people who you do call Stooges. But I wasn't asking for that speculation.

Again, it's always going to be a judgment call embedded in, say, particular moods and dispositions?

No, it wasn't necessary at all. Stooges, according to you, do certain things. He was doing those things. Unless you can show how his posts about Maia were really about Pagan Morality. Me and all the reasonable men and women are interested.

And, in fact, even in regard to our own exchanges, we can go post after post in which I react only to your argument. The Stooge bit doesn't come up. Then out of the blue [from my end] it's like you "lose it" and configure into what I do construe a Stooge to be.

I believe this is how you experience it. I don't know, but it's so hard to imagine being conscious of all this evasion.

I mean, look. You did take a clear stand, a few posts ago. Prom isn't a Stooge to you.
I think he meets the criteria you have said when calling us Stooges - making the person the focus, not the topic.
You disagree and then start talking about not knowing his motivations - for doing that.
Well, it was a behavioral category.
But fine, you've taken your stand.

We can drop it. I doubt you'll ever explain why suddenly only certain motivations for that behavior make one a Stooge, which was never in your description of what made a Stooge before - but you are sticking to your position, won't explain why now it must include specific motivations, won't explain why you would justify not confronting him because he is a serious wit, and so on.

But, if you are not going to elaborate more, that's fine. If you come with more oddities, well, I may respond to those. If you think you've responded completely, then it's over.

[attofishpi]

With respect plato, I think it's time everyone just drop this line of enquiry and hopefully Maia will return to talk more about he Pagan beliefs.

This is getting ridiculous..

Oh, this has nothing to do with Maia now.
Someone says Someone is an X when they do Y.
I point to someone doing Y and that someone cannot manage to say they are an X.
And the mental gymnastics this person uses to avoid admitting that is fascinating.
We don't know his motives - but the 'being X' is based on behavior, and further this never stopped him before from calling someone X AND attributing motives.
But this person would be way of challenging that person because he is such a wit.
But this person didn't do it to me.

But it's not my place to monitor how they interact.

- fine, but that's not where he started. It started with he wasn't sure of the motives and then his fear of confronting. When that looked wrong, we get that it isn't his role.

That's what I find interesting. Heck, I was surprised he even responded. My first post saying 'Hey Iamb, Prom is being a Stooge' was kinda tongue in cheek, though I did think he met Iambiguous' criteria. But the dance of denial or confusion from there has been amazing. I don't know what's going on underneath - perhaps he is simply very confused about his own positions and can't remember what he says. I have no idea.

OK, carry on (I thought this was Maia's thread, but it turns out its a narcissists)

[Iwannaplato]

OK, carry on (I thought this was Maia's thread, but it turns out its a narcissists)

Fair enough. I'll drop it, though it was Iambiguous's opening post and thread, not Maia's.