My friend, noone cares about off-site debates there. If you disagree you can simply make new CRT of rebunk
My bad dude, but I didn't say they had to do it, just that if they wanted to continue the debate we should probably take it off site since i don't wanna derail the thread, looking back, I came off as some weird discord debater
Also, i probably will make a CRT for 1-A+/High 1-A regardless on if the gates are dimensional but i've got a question on how long i've got to wait before posting CRT after a big revision like this?
As for the other guy, nobody is adding you on Discord to enter a call with you over tentacles; the fact that you had to specify vc too, just gives off Discord debater vibes.
I don't see why you didn't directly reply me, that gives me the impression that you didn't want me being pinged ngl, but again, it was just suggestion since i don't wanna derail the thread but still want to discuss it, don't frame our situation like that
You know what i find funny about this? the fact you where painting yourself to Antvasima as some 'neutral 3rd party who was just correcting me for spreading misinformation' yet you have double standards like this, the other party was also aggressive, don't be hypocritical
was caught lying about what you argued
I wasn't lying, you just like to nitpick, (like A LOT tbh) at irreverent throw away stuff and treat it as if you've found some massive fault in my reasoning
What i will say is that i was mistaken on a few things such as all existence reality converging into oneness entailing the absence of parts..but i dropped that and provided further arguments that prove it is in this case, saying that's "lying" would be like if i said you where lying for mixing up Sunni understanding of Tawheed with Unity without potency when it's the complete opposite of that
please abstain from responding to me; I'd like to keep my peace to myself
So let me get this straight; you've made several bold accusation about me to try to tarnish my look and except me to
not defend myself? Yaaaah...I think I'll hard pass on that
Not that it matters in any case, I secondarily won't respond to that argument because it is trivial and completely irrelevant to my talking points.
You're telling me my reply is the irrelevant one when you're whole premise in your replies is just a big nothingburger?
You posits that i'm still equating oneness with divine simplicity while i already dropped that stance and elaborated with more proof that the oneness in question lacks parts and differentiation, you seemingly continue to ignore that
You posits that i was using the Archetypes ineffability as an excuse to supposed multiplicity while i never did this, the argument was that multiplicity is a phenomenological illusion of the limited mind, ineffability is just supporting evidence to this, you seemingly continue to ignore that
And that's just the stuff in the reply that actually
tries to engage with the argument, the rest of it is just irrelevant nitpicking like you yapping about Dharmakaya not being Tier 0 for 2 or 3 paragraphs, that's cool and thanks for informing me, but that still doesn't actually address my point that a character doesn't need to abide by Pure Act to reach Tier 0
So why don't I word this better for you:
Not that it matters in any case, I secondarily won't respond to that argument because I was called out for Straw manning and excessively nitpicking without ever actually engaging with it's substance
Even previously you yourself to cited a paper on monism you yourself never read about (assuming you just got the expressed sentiment from copilot AI and called it a day)
I never claimed to have read the acritical, i specifically clarified that i got from Wikipedia
just to continue your chain of arguing in sheer arrogance
Enlighten me
If this is you showing your true colours and your obsession with trying to "dominate" in discussions
tf are you even typing atp and who are you quoting
even going so far as to argue in bad faith, rather than work towards a reasonable consensus.
I'm the one arguing in bad faith and not OP who deadass said the use of the word "The" inherently means that Abyss is the only structure outside dismissions even though thats actively contradicted in the same text calling other places unidimensioned?
Also, literally one of the first thins OP did was take passages that have no relation to the upper echelon of the Verse and used it as supporting evidence to downgrade it, if you ask me, thats whats bad faith here
It just repeats what we've heard throughout the thread rather than directly engaging with the contradictions, even glossing over them to avoid critical analysis of the actual scans, and just going in circles.
I literally engaged with all the supposed contradictions, you just seem to ignore that
vsbattles.com
