Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 7:34 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 6:43 am
Because if the sentence, statement, or thought is IRREFUTABLE, then EVERY one could agree with 'it', and accept 'it'.
Sure, but now you've used a kind of synonym for the earlier phrase 'that anyone could agree with'. It's not explaining how you know this. If there is a process through which you analyze this sentence of yours and determine 'yes, this is irrefutable.' How do you know you don't have some kind of bias, for example, in your evaluation? What are the criteria?
This will appear as 'circular reasoning', however when one reaches a FINALITY of KNOWING, and/or UNDERSTANDING, then a form of 'circularity' is EXACTLY HOW the Universe, Itself, WORKS, and/or IS UNDERSTOOD, but how I ANALYZE a sentence and determine, or form, the OPINION, 'Yes, this sentence IS IRREFUTABLE' is by KNOWING that 'EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT that sentence'.
Now, how I KNOW that I do NOT have ANY kind of bias, even in my evaluation, is by KNOWING that because EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT 'a sentence', then I am NOT just basing, nor evaluating, 'that sentence' on 'my' OWN 'opinions/thoughts' ONLY.
The ONLY process that I KNOW OF to COME TO, FIND, and/or KNOW the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' is by JUST KNOWING that EVERY one could be IN AGREEMENT. See, if EVERY one IS AGREEING ON some 'thing', then there is NO one DISAGREEING. And, if NO one IS NOR COULD DISAGREE, then 'we' have ARRIVED AT the ABSOLUTE Truth. And, please NO one bring up the 'argumentum ad populum fallacy' BEFORE LOOKING AT and READING the ACTUAL WORDS that I have PUT FORWARD here.
So, 'the criteria' if you like, is JUST ' Putting one's self in the shoes of "others" ', as some might refer to the process/criteria, and USING KNOWING instead of thinking.
And just on a further note, What IS the ACTUAL Truth in Life is what EVERY one could or does AGREE WITH and ACCEPTS, and, What IS ACTUALLY Right in Life is what EVERY one could or does AGREE WITH and ACCEPTS in regards to what 'one' would want done to 'them' if 'they' were "the other". AGAIN, if ANY one is INTEREST in 'this', then 'we' could delve INTO 'it' MUCH FURTHER.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 7:34 am
But you used the 'your' word here, directly in front of the 'beliefs' word.
Now, if, when you used the 'your' word above here, you were NOT referring to 'my beliefs', then will you please explain what that word was referring to, EXACTLY?
Again, you responded to my specifically responding to Advocate, as if I was making a generalization about everyone. Other people may be able to do things he can't. Other people may come to conclusions differently than he does. Even, other people may not have beliefs. In a sense it was as if when I respond to one person, I am telling everyone about themselves. Given that Advocate said X, I can then see what this entails, given that he said that. That is what I did. You responded as if I had said this was true for you. If you know that given does not apply to you, there is no reason to take my statement as applying to you. And I certainly do not consider Advocates beliefs or methodology universal. Nor did I mention your name. Nor are you the OP writers. So, from my perspective it was a false interpretation that I necessarily mean you.
you seem to be MISSING the WHOLE POINT here.
When you RESPONDED TO me you SAID TO me, 'in the context of YOUR beliefs'.
Then, all I did was just ASK the CLARIFYING QUESTION,
'What 'beliefs' do 'you' ASSUME, PRESUME, or BELIEVE I have, EXACTLY?'
If you came to realize after you made your CLAIM ABOUT 'my beliefs' that actually I do NOT have ANY beliefs here, then so be it. All well and good. But DETRACTING or MISCONSTRUING what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE is NOT helping us here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
Also, how MANY TIMES does one have to INFORM "others" of the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, BEFORE "those others" ACCEPT what IS being SAID, and CLAIMED?
OBVIOUSLY NOT A one of 'you' could KNOW the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, within 'this head'. So, to PRESUME or, worse still, to BELIEVE that ANY one of 'you' DO is an ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY.
Well, I suppose I can feel the same way when you entered the discussion that was clearly and specifically dealing with Advocate and his beliefs and assumed this was aimed at everyone, including aimed at you.
I do NOT recall mentioning ANY 'thing' about 'this' being aimed at 'me'. I NEVER even ASSUMED that 'this' was being at 'me' NOR even EVERY one.
What I recall is I was just INFORMING you that what you CLAIMED "advocate" can NOT know IS ALREADY KNOWN, and if one CAN KNOW, then "advocate" and "others" CAN ALSO KNOW, AS WELL.
Maybe if you LOSE your PRESUMPTION that what you were talking TO "advocate" ABOUT I was ASSUMING was being aimed at "others" then you might SEE and UNDERSTAND what I have been ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
But then these kinds of things happen.
Okay great, so from now on will you please refrain from using the two words 'your beliefs' when replying to, and/or when referring to, me?
Sure, but only if you admit that you entered a discussion I had with Advocate and was clearly talking about his position on things, and managed to take this personally and universally.
This seems like a VERY STRANGE 'thing' for me TO DO in order for you to ONLY THEN refrain SAYING and CLAIMING that I HAVE BELIEFS.
Now, I ADMIT I entered into a discussion that 'you', "iwannaplato", were having with "advocate" in regards to "advocate's" position here on 'things', which I NEVER EVER took personally NOR universally.
AGAIN, I WAS and STILL AM just POINTING OUT that what you CLAIM "advocate" can NOT KNOW IS ALREADY KNOWN, KNOWN by me, and that if I can come to KNOW 'that thing', then so to CAN ALL OF you.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
And that you will refrain from doing this in the future.
BUT, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, I have NEVER been doing what you have been ASSUMING I been doing.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
It might be useful to read my first post, the one I was responding to that was his, and then your reponse to me.
I could SAY the SAME 'thing'.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
Hm. So, in these last posts I have never and asked a clarifying questions nor have I considered asking a clarifying question?
Interesting assertion.
What can now be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER example of one MAKING AN ASSUMPTION about what was being asserted, which I was NEVER asserting AT ALL. Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'this one' makes an ASSERTION/STATEMENT, and the adds a question mark at the end of 'it'. And, what else that can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'this one' HAD ALREADY JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION, based SOLELY on NOTHING MORE than 'its' VERY OWN, asserted, Wrong and Incorrect ASSUMPTION.
Now, as can be CLEARLY SEEN I have NEVER EVER asserted that you had NEVER EVER NOT ASKED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, NOR that you have NOT EVER CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION. RATHER, what I DID ASSERT ASSERT IS that EVEN WHEN you WRITE 'the words', 'That would be something we would need to find out', you STILL NEVER even CONSIDERED to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, (in regards to directly what you considered that you, and "others", would NEED to find out). Now, OF COURSE, you may well have CONSIDERED to ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION regarding what you considered was NEED to be FOUND OUT, but, if you had, then you NEVER ASKED absolutely ANY CLARIFYING QUESTION here regarding the VERY 'thing', which you SAID and CLAIMED was 'something we needed to find out'. BECAUSE if you HAD CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION and HAD DONE SO, then I WOULD HAVE CLARIFIED the VERY 'thing' that you SAID 'we' NEEDED to FIND OUT.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. I have asked clarifying questions many times.
'Many' IS A VERY RELATIVE TERM and PHRASE.
AND, I have NEVER suggested absolutely ANYWHERE that you have NOT ASKED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
I have considered doing it many times. Here was an example of you telling me about my thoughts, which is taboo in relation to you, but fine for you to do in relation to others,implicitly according to you.
I was just POINTING OUT that even IF you HAD CONSIDERED ASKING me A CLARIFYING QUESTION, in regards to what you CLAIMED 'we' NEEDED to FIND OUT, then you did NOT GO AHEAD and ASK ANY CLARIFYING QUESTION, regarding THAT 'thing'.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
I'm not going to pretend this pile of mental gymnastics applies. You may have worded the sentence poorly and this led to my response.
'This' may well be EXACTLY what HAPPENED.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
That's the most charitable explanation I can accept.
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE MORE, is A CLOSED perspective AGAIN coming from CONFIRMATION BIAS.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
That you really didn't mean what you said and you hadn't formulated it well. So, if you had said something like: Oh, I can see how what I wrote seemed to mean X. Let me be more clear. But no, as usual you blame others for anything that comes up in an interaction you think is problematic.
Did you, or did you not, just BLAME 'me' SOLELY and WHOLLY 'just now' for what LED TO YOUR RESPONSE?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
And this whole interaction is extremely passive aggessive.
Is 'this' to EVERY one, MANY people, SOME, or just you ALONE?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
You enter a discussion I have with Advocate. You take what I CLEARLY said was about what he had said and for some reason decide to react as if I made a universal statement.
you CLAIMED "advocate" can NOT KNOW some 'thing'. I just INFORMED 'the readers' that what you CLAIMED "advocate" could NOT KNOW, IS ALREADY KNOWN. AND, that if one ALREADY KNOWS, then "advocate", and "others", ACTUALLY CAN KNOW 'that thing' ALSO.
SIMPLE, REALLY.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
When I explain that I wasn't making a universal statement, you find more ways to be outraged.
I JUST INFORMED 'you' AND "others" that I NEVER even 'thought' you were making a 'universal statement', IN THE BEGINNING.
WHY when I just CLARIFY and CLEAR 'things' UP, CALMLY, by just EXPRESSING and SHOWING the ACTUAL Truth through written words here you ASSUME and/or JUMP to some CONCLUSION that I AM OUTRAGED?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
And as usual lump whoever you are speaking with with their entire time period. You don't seem to understand the way you are positioning yourself or what you are doing.
BUT I KNOW EXACTLY 'the way' I AM POSITIONING 'me' here, AND, what I AM DOING.
WHY do you PRESUME otherwise?
Is there MUCH 'anger' ON "your side" or FROM 'you' "iwannaplato"?
If no, then WHY write, 'So much anger'?
There is CERTAINLY ABSOLUTELY NO 'anger' ON nor FROM "this side" of 'things', HERE.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
Okay. BUT, BEFORE I like to 'move on', or 'work from there', I, FIRST, like to DISCOVER and ASCERTAIN IF what one is SAYING and CLAIMING is what 'that one' BELIEVES is true or just THINKS is true, and then I would 'move on' and ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION/S regarding what, EXACTLY, 'their' BELIEF or THOUGHT ACTUALLY 'entails'.
That seems like a fair self-assessment.
1. I NEVER TOLD 'you' that you NEVER consider asking clarifying questions, with an 's'.
2. I was talking TO a 'reading audience' ABOUT what people would DO, BACK, in the days when you wrote what you did here.
3. I SAID, WROTE, MEANT, and was POINTING OUT that even when you SAID and WROTE 'the words', That would be something 'we' would NEED to find out', NO ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION IS PUT FORWARD. AGAIN, regarding the VERY 'thing' that was CLAIMED, NEEDED to be FOUND OUT.
If so, it was poor communication.
ON 'my part' ALONE, and/or ONLY?
ALSO, I have repeatedly mentioned that I am here, in the forum, to LEARN how to communicate BETTER, (with 'you', human beings).
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
Now, OF COURSE, you may well have ACTUALLY CONSIDERED ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION REGARDING 'that thing'. But you NEVER expressed one.
You said that the people of my time period don't consider asking clarifying questions. That's false. Not some of us.
BUT I NEVER SAID 'this' AT ALL. What I, INSTEAD, ACTUALLY SAID IS 'this':
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here IS that even WHEN 'this one', and even 'these people', back then, would even MENTION, publicly, the fact that, 'That would be something 'we' would NEED to find out', 'this one', and/or 'they', would STILL NEVER even CONSIDER to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which would THEN HAVE ALLOWED 'them' TO FIND OUT.
Now, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to INTERPRET what 'this' MEANS in ABSOLUTELY ANY WAY you like, BUT 'this' IS what I ACTUALLY SAID.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
Aside from missing that I do in fact ask clarifying questions.
Even 'this' is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, or just MISUNDERSTOOD.
or your commicated poorly. [/quote]
Did you PURPOSELY MISSPELL the 'communicate' word here?
And, I would NEVER DISAGREE that I communicate POORLY. OBVIOUSLY, if MY WORDS are being TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, and/or just being MISUNDERSTOOD, then, CLEARLY, I could have communicated BETTER.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
Which you seem to understand is possible at a general, abstract level, but whenever in a specific instance someone does not understand what you WANTED to convey, you blame them. There may be exceptions to this, but I see this happening often as I have here.
How, EXACTLY, did I, SUPPOSEDLY, BLAME ANY one ELSE here?
Just SAYING that 'this' is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, or just MISUNDERSTOOD, is NOT NECESSARILY BLAMING "the other" AT ALL.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
I. I do even 'think' that 'you' have 'your thoughts'. This is BECAUSE of who and what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY. What can be CAN CLEARLY SEEN is that I USED single quotation marks around the 'their' word. Which, as I have EXPLAINED previously, but which, OBVIOUSLY, you may have MISSED, is that when words are surrounded by single quotation marks in the writings under the label 'age' here, then the ACTUAL MEANING, or what IS being REFERRED TO, of that word/s NEEDS to be FOUND OUT, and UNDERSTOOD, from 'my perspective', FIRST, for 'the rest' to be FULLY and/or WHOLLY UNDERSTOOD.
2. I NEVER even TOLD 'you' ANY such 'thing'. I was just INFORMING a 'reading audience' to TAKE NOTICE of what could be CLEARLY SEEN in 'your words' here. And, all 'that' really was was that although you wrote 'the words', 'That would be something we need to find out', you NEVER ACTUALLY ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which, if you did, then what was NEEDED to be FOUND OUT would have ALREADY BEEN FOUND OUT.
Uh huh.
From what I have ASCERTAINED so far here, your statements were SAYING and CLAIMING that some 'thing' could NOT be DONE, and I have JUST IMPLIED, and even CLAIMED, that ACTUALLY 'that thing' CAN, and WILL, be DONE, (and, on earth as it is in heaven, as some might add).
Now,
1. What IS 'the context', EXACTLY, in your statements?
I was respönding to Advocate. I quoted him. I responded to his statements, clearly, and showed him what I thought his beliefs entailed.
OBVIOUSLY you were responding to "advocate", BUT 'this' is NOT what I ASKED you TO CLARIFY.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
Perhaps you don't understand how contexts are created by quoting, here, in this time. But there was nothing in my post to indicate, in any way, that I was telling everyone what they could not do or could do or were, etc.
you appear to STILL NOT YET BE READY TO LET GO OF THIS COMPLETELY Wrong and Incorrect ASSUMPTION here, of YOURS.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
And I have already explained this. Yet, I am to explain this again.
If you say so. However, what you have ACTUALLY SAID is WRITTEN in 'your words' above here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
2. What do you now CLAIM are 'the implications that I have interpreted', EXACTLY, which you also CLAIM were NOT ACTUALLY present in 'the context', in your statements?
I have already said this. And your own responses above SHOW that you understand what I meant, since you precisely deny you ever meant it.
Okay, but I just wanted to SEE what you REALLY MEANT, IN 'your OWN words'.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
You seem quite angry and looking for a fight.
Well 'this' is the EXACT OPPOSITE from what IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING and HAPPENING here, from my perspective anyway.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
It's like you ran between two people and took a statement clearly meant to indicate the other person, and decided to take it to mean you.
And 'this' IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE FROM what I have ACTUALLY been DOING. As can be CLEARLY SEEN IN my WRITINGS above here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
I don't think you realize how much your behavior is dominance and position behavior, coupled with passive aggressiveness.
Could your INTERPRETATION/S and ASSUMPTION/S here be WRONG or INCORRECT in ANY WAY?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
So, it generallly is rather pointless to communicate with you, unless someone truly doesn't care that this passive aggressiveness will be aimed at them. You get to make, in the sense that you allow yourself to, make statements about other people, that you are outraged by when you think you are on the receiving end of similar points. I do believe you don't notice this. I could be wrong, but that's the charitable interpretation.
WHY 'charitable', supposedly?
Also, could it be POSSIBLE that I am, supposedly, NOT NOTICING 'this', BECAUSE I am ACTUALLY NOT DOING 'this', and, in fact, you are just MAKING Wrong ASSUMPTIONS here?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
You created conflict in this thread. And want to continue with this conflict despite my repeatedly saying I wasn't talking about you or people in general.
AND, I HAVE CONTINUALLY Corrected your Wrong PRESUMPTION here. That is; I STILL have NOT SAID nor even SUGGESTED that you were even talking ABOUT 'me' NOR 'people in general'.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
You have judgments of the people of this time, and this leads to a confirmation bias.
'This' does NOT necessarily even logically follow.
If one has 'judgments', of people, and about what 'those people' ACTUALLY WERE DOING, then how, EXACTLY, does 'this', supposedly, 'lead to a confirmation bias'?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
And you seem to think you or 'you' have transcended this time or never were a part of it.
You're unique in many ways, but you're just another guy creating conflict.
WHY is it 'me' who is, supposedly, CREATING CONFLICT?
And, it is ONLY 'me' who is, supposedly, CREATING CONFLICT here?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
And if you think you are not, I would suggest you read back over the dialogues you have had with other people and see what happens.
Okay.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
Notice how right now you are taking this personally and getting pissed off.
Are you SERIOUS, or, are you JOKING, here now?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
I realize the internet allows you to present yourself in all sorts of ways. But while you can present yourself in any way you like, you are sitting there now and know yourself what you are feeling.
AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT so-called 'pissed off' AT ALL.
In fact I am finding 'this' here now rather VERY AMUSING, and FUNNY.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
And if you go back to your first response to me in this thread, you can see how you created a me-judging-you and people in general context, out of nothing. And dove into being aghast at this.
WHY are you PRESUMING that there is ANY 'aghast' AT ALL here in relation to 'me'?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
Why would someone do that? What are you carrying around in judgments and needs that leads to this sort of thing?
WHY are you STILL 'trying to' DEFLECT FROM what I ACTUALLY ONLY DID, which was; JUST POINT OUT that what you CLAIMED and ACCUSED "advocate" of NOT being able TO KNOW, ACTUALLY CAN BE KNOWN, AND, IS ALREADY KNOWN anyway?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
Just mull that. I'm not interested in what you will present here in the utter control one can have over presentation of self in an online forum. If we lived near each other fine.
How do you KNOW that 'we' do NOT live near "each other"?
And, how far is 'near', to you?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 6:57 am
I could listen, because then we could meet face to face and all the body language, voice tone, hesitations,e tc. would be present. And it would not so easy to put up this front of not being like other people in this time. Which you will find out if you try this kind of dynamic on people in person, when they can see your face, hear your voice, see the state of your fingernails and all the other possible manifestations of you in the moment to moment.
There's a pattern. I wish you could see it. I'm responding to it. If you can't see or feel it, well, that's the situation now.
PLEASE DO NOT FORGET that 'you' ARE NOT necessarily MY INTENDED AUDIENCE anyway.
ONCE 'those' who COME TO SEE and UNDERSTAND what I have been POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and MEANING here WILL ALSO SEE and UNDERSTAND WHY I WROTE, and/or WRITE, 'the way' that I DO, here.
And 'this' IS the situation, HERE-NOW.