Hopefully some will decide to read this

@FreeKasimir "I will stay silent even though I can't propose that one ought not speak!" You are pathetic.

@FreeKasimir @liquid2ulu I have already demonstrated how you and MonHop are wrong. Now it's up to you to stop evading.

@FreeKasimir Missing the point deliberately again. There are things other than mixed law which fall into a performative contradiction, such as ending argumentation in a peaceful manner. But you don't want to think about it because it feels bad.

@FreeKasimir @liquid2ulu "Senses are not valid until you ascertain sense data during argumentation." Look at you squirming around, trying to find excuses. Go ahead, run away and block me like when you left Eduardo's server, you yellow vatnik.

@MonarchoHoppean @liquid2ulu You simply asserted it.

@FreeKasimir @liquid2ulu "Truth claims must be ascertained during the course of argumentation" is the same as Kant's "reality is that which is perceived intersubjectively". "You can't know if A is A before you ascertain it during the course of argumentation!1!1!" You have Habermasian brainworms.

@run_guns I ought stop arguing = I ought not argue.

@MonarchoHoppean @liquid2ulu You mean that time you used a variation of "I'll aggress 5 seconds from now"? That's not a proper explanation. The purpose of argumentation is irrelevant if said purpose cannot be justified during its course. All because AE assumes argumentation is a must for ascertaining truth.

@MonarchoHoppean @liquid2ulu Are all actions supposed to be justified through argumentation, including leaving it? Yes or no? If you say no, AE is useless against mixed law. If you say yes, you are stuck arguing until you die. You are purposefully ignoring my question because it makes you uncomfortable.

@FreeKasimir You never apply the framework to anything other than mixed law advocates.

@MonarchoHoppean @liquid2ulu "I'll stay silent even though I can't propose that I ought not speak."

@MonarchoHoppean @liquid2ulu Doesn't affect my argument. Justify "I ought not argue right now."

@MonarchoHoppean @liquid2ulu You have no justification for resolving it. "I ought resolve the dispute (stop arguing) right now." Contradiction.

@MonarchoHoppean @liquid2ulu So you are simply going through with an unjustifiable action and then providing your reason for why you did it. "Why did you leave argumentation?" "I wanted to." "Why did you leave argumentation and aggress?" "I wanted to." You are applying the framework selectively.

@MonarchoHoppean @liquid2ulu "I am going to start aggressing." Same thing. Are you justified in doing it? No, you're not. This action has to be justified during the course of argumentation, which you are attempting to leave. Contradiction.

@liquid2ulu "I ought not argue right now because X." Justify it. Adding "you presented a good ownership claim" at the start does not help in the slightest.

@MonarchoHoppean You didn't get rid of the performative contradiction yet. Much like in Rothbard's hypothetical where everyone owns everything and has to ask permission to ask permission you are stuck constantly arguing.

@MonarchoHoppean In fact, we can apply this to speaking in general. You can't justify staying silent or not using gestures/sign language at any point because you have to presuppose communication to propose it. Can't justify ending communication through the means of communication.