Please cite.
You are just being stupid.
Did I miss the bit where you looked at my writing to find the thing you agree with so that you can launch this epic of cooperative goodwill?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 3:25 pm Desiring to expand conversational possibilities does not exclude having and offering thoughts and opinions.
In the end this is what I see occurring here: once again, through obstinacy and stubbornness, all communication channels are shut down. No agreements, even simple, intuitive ones, are allowed to develop.
“You” are here exclusively to bicker.
Solution: locate one solitary point on which there is agreement and build on that.
I was already quite well aware of how impressive, fascinating and learned you find yourself to be.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 3:25 pm But no. In fact why even bother? What “you” desire and what serves you is just what occurs. Why alter procedure?
I open new vistas every day. At least in my own thinking, speculating and perceiving.You could have opened up new vistas by just opening a new line of conversation. If that's what you actually were doing. You were just trying to run interference for Gandalf the KKK.
You do not understand the different between "set the price of oil" and "have an impact on the price of oil".Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 9:24 amI love how ignorant you are, LOL!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... a086444ef4
Now we have agreement to build on.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 3:48 pm I was already quite well aware of how impressive, fascinating and learned you find yourself to be.
Well I'll just have to be the sexy one in this double act with the sassy no-nonsense banter and perhaps an off screen drinking problem.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 3:56 pmNow we have agreement to build on.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 3:48 pm I was already quite well aware of how impressive, fascinating and learned you find yourself to be.
My notion of “agreement” is quite different from how you interpret it. First, let me say that encompassing social agreements (in the US) will not be forthcoming. Therefore social, and political agreements, are largely out of the question.
My vote for most balanced actor in a supporting role goes to Mr. Dangerpants.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:01 pmWell I'll just have to be the sexy one in this double act with the sassy no-nonsense banter and perhaps an off screen drinking problem.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 3:56 pmNow we have agreement to build on.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 3:48 pm I was already quite well aware of how impressive, fascinating and learned you find yourself to be.
I know. You're essentially imagining that you can see behind the curtain... but your view is skewed and not truly reflective of all the contributing factors.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:07 pmWhere I seek “agreement” is in the understanding of why that is.
Why would anyone else care about putting much effort forth based on your conditions?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:07 pmI refer to intellectual agreements among thinking people.
It's not going to happen... because your concept of the reasons is skewed and limited.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:07 pmThe agreements I propose as possible allow for very different orientation and objectives to stand while the reasons for irreconcilable differences only to be better understood.
I do not know how to put this except directly: I assert, yet without an absolute certaintly, that in regard to these issues of American politics and *the culture wars* -- what the different factions think and say -- that I have possibly 10 times the experience that you have. You have almost zero experience. You never refer to reading or to sources. With you it is all *opinion* not knowledge. I might respect your opinions in some areas, but more often than not you are completely vague. That is, you make general statements that don't pertain enough to the realities. What you do is vain and easy.
Because the 'conditions' lead to a greater understanding -- potentially. Much better to do the work needed to *see behind the curtain* and to have understanding, then to be stuck in superficial views that are repeated like so many memes of today.Why would anyone else care about putting much effort forth based on your conditions?
In a nutshell this is all that you say in each and every one of your posts. And for years now. You critique any idea or perspective that is offered by tossing out the phrase that it is "limited" or in this case "skewed". But you yourself offer no replete analysis of anything, ever.It's not going to happen... because your concept of the reasons is skewed and limited.
Now you are really talking out of your posterior end! Talk about this 'larger dynamic' Lacewing. What are you referring to? Make it plain.You would have to drop all of your divisive and blaming nonsense in order to more accurately see and understand a larger dynamic at work.
And yet you fail to say anything very convincing or of noticeable relevance, rather you are often accused of missing/ignoring things, yes?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pm ...in regard to these issues of American politics and *the culture wars* -- what the different factions think and say -- that I have possibly 10 times the experience that you have.
Wrong. I have a wealth of experience that is different than yours -- as well as awareness and insight that many people who know me value. This world is not all about a certain set of fabrications or conventions. People do not have to follow the same path.
I do my best to describe concepts when they don't fit into conventional terms.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pmI might respect your opinions in some areas, but more often than not you are completely vague.
Which realities?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pmThat is, you make general statements that don't pertain enough to the realities.
It's neither.
You've said so, yet people are not reaching agreement on your focus and your terms.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pmI suggest that there are better ways to approach understanding.
That's a lie... which you evidently need to do because the truth doesn't suit you.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pmIn a nutshell this is all that you say in each and every one of your posts.Lacewing wrote:It's not going to happen... because your concept of the reasons is skewed and limited.
I've pointed it out because it is true when people are ranting about something being a specific way without reasonably balanced considerations -- which people do a lot on this forum. Such rants are more self-serving to their argument, rather than being honest.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pmAnd for years now. You critique any idea or perspective that is offered by tossing out the phrase that it is "limited" or in this case "skewed".
Yet another lie... wow. I've offered many thoughtful posts about why things might be the way they are, and how they might evolve.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pmBut you yourself offer no replete analysis of anything, ever.
Yes, it is... and it has been pointed out to you by multiple posters.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pmIt is not that my reasoning in regard to social analysis is either limited or skewed
Wrong again. You've really gone off the rails. I didn't mean to get you so upset that you would be reduced to lying and making delusional accusations like I.C. does.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pm...it is in fact that you have no basis of any sort on which to offer any but the most superficial opinions.
I've engaged at length with you a few times on your claims/reasons. It was not worth it. You have an agenda and a process that you evidently think everyone else must fit into -- and your viewpoint is the 'agreement' you actually seek to arrive at.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pm You would have to engage with at least one the *reasons* that I offer and refute it. You don't because you can't Lacewing.
I have already talked about it at length. You know that. If you cannot present/discuss ideas with a more balanced (truer) perspective -- if you cannot step beyond dualistic, two-dimensional thinking -- then of course you are working with a skewed and limited view, and that is vain and lazy.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pmTalk about this 'larger dynamic' Lacewing.Lacewing wrote:You would have to drop all of your divisive and blaming nonsense in order to more accurately see and understand a larger dynamic at work.
When you falsely pit one 'side' or viewpoint against another, and align yourself with the 'right' side (as you see it) -- as you have just done (again) between your viewpoint/experience and mine -- you are being divisive and blaming, rather than seeing a broader truth from multiple perspectives.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:52 pmExplain exactly what you are talking about and show me why you see it as "divisive and blaming nonsense".
Explain exactly what you are talking about and show me why you see it as "divisive and blaming nonsense". Do that here, among your peers.
I do not think you will even attempt it. You are, by and large, an empty vessel.
I added this... (as I've said before)Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:52 amExplain exactly what you are talking about and show me why you see it as "divisive and blaming nonsense". Do that here, among your peers.
I do not think you will even attempt it. You are, by and large, an empty vessel.
In a nutshell this is all that you say in each and every one of your posts. And for years now. You critique any idea or perspective that is offered by tossing out the phrase that it is "limited" or in this case "skewed". But you yourself offer no replete analysis of anything, ever.
So, you're going to keep doubling-down by simply repeating a lie that serves you.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 12:15 pmIn a nutshell this is all that you say in each and every one of your posts. And for years now. You critique any idea or perspective that is offered by tossing out the phrase that it is "limited" or in this case "skewed". But you yourself offer no replete analysis of anything, ever.
Yes, “talk at length” if that means going on with general assertions not specific enough to actually discuss.Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 3:04 am I have already talked about it at length. You know that. If you cannot present/discuss ideas with a more balanced (truer) perspective -- if you cannot step beyond dualistic, two-dimensional thinking -- then of course you are working with a skewed and limited view, and that is vain and lazy.