Replymessage unavailable
I had a thought telling me that I shall refrain from responding and instead choose to be the better person, especially considering that you clearly dodged a VC debate with me. Larping, sir, will only serve to impress those who are desperate on platforms such as telegram. I genuinely considered this dialogue as a useless and unimportant continuation, given that you will just keep instructing AI to utilize technical jargon to try and avoid the substance. Nevertheless, I will once again drive your filthy little reactionary brain to the substance by completely dismantling and abolishing your entire identity.
"Why would you propose a different setting, providing the examples that have a significantly smaller contextual window"
Define "contextual window" and give me one paper from the philarchive or ANY literature that employed this term.
"and enable the use of public manipulation techniques and pressures that are ineffective in a long, written correspondence under the assumption of anonymity?"
What is that supposed to pick out? Provide some type of stipulation and clarification.
"I'm not naive enough to expect a fair sparring session from the House Harkonnen (pardon the figurative reference). If I'm facing gatekeeping on a platform that lets a lot of actually questionable content slide, what would happen elsewhere? How far would certain people go in the age of deception, with various tools, social instruments and great wealth at their disposal?"
What a "smart" way to DODGE the debate, operating under the guise of safety and a desire to prioritize OPSEC, as if someone "important" cares about you. I must point out, sir, you are communicating VIA TELEGRAM, which already is TERRIBLE OPSEC. The debate could just as easily unfold here, on telegram, if you think it's a place far superior to discord or any other platform. We could create a group, gather a huge audience, and allow everyone to witness you stutter like a mutt to engage with any of my rhetoric and my sophisticated argumentation. I highly doubt you are going to be able to track, let alone get into a debate on metaphysical realism. Are you even familiar with nominalism, sir? Or metaphysical nihilism? Maybe doing a bit of research on philarchive (an actual website full of philosophical literature) would serve you well before you step into this structured experience. I can promise you, you are far away from the person you believe yourself to be.
"I wouldn't expect to impress anyone with a technical jargon that can be easily researched online to a lesser or greater depth, I'm just being efficient. You are the one that obsesses with impression here, so stop projecting."
What can be researched online? I want you to find these terms/phrases in ANY philosophical literature: "contextual window", "perpetual parasite caste", "Essential Pluralism", "adequate essence", "Essential Incommensurability", "connotative nucleus". Now, regarding the statement that you posited, I would like to see an argument for that. Additionally, I would like to know whether in your theory of argumentation you're presupposing these types of monotonic inferences, sir.
"Your lack of reading comprehension is not the evidence of my ideas being idiosyncratic and I would just be repeating myself to establish (re-infer) the definition of the concept of nature that I was implying with the rhetorical question, which, contrary to your inflated sense of importance, would be a waste of time as you have provided nothing constructive so far. Regardless, I have entertained your definition as well. The same applies to the definition of the parasitic caste, however I'm willing to entertain your questions if you stop using the strawman fallacies, deflection, inflation and misdirection and address the central points."