Armed activists show up to library and demand they ban books

[Age]

*

My oh my, they grow up so quickly, don’t they.

It seems like just yesterday little Timmy was visiting the library to hear stories told by a strange man made up like a demon and wearing women's dresses.

If the WHOLE purpose of 'the exercise', within that picture, was to 'groom' children to NOT be frightened of so-called "weirdness", then that TEACHING has CERTAINLY NOT worked on 'you', "walker", if to 'you' if 'that' is, STILL, a 'strange man' made up like 'a demon'?

Are 'demons' MEANT TO BE frightening or NON frightening 'creatures'? What does the bible TELL us about 'demons'? Does the bible TELL us that we should be or should NOT be frightened and wary of 'demons'?

And now look at him, all grown up and cutting off his pecker.

'you' have 'good eyes' "walker". Can 'you' REALLY SEE 'this' in that picture? Or, is this just what 'you' ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true?

Or, are 'you' talking about and referring to some 'thing' ELSE?

How time does fly like an arrow, although fruit flies like a banana.

[Age]

Yet the parents are happy for their kids to be groomed to the weirdness of the Bible. I know which I find the most sinister ...

The demon is the most sinister, and the bible is not weird.

If the 'demon' is 'sinister' is it better to TEACH children to be frightened of 'the demon' or to be not alarmed of 'the demon'?

And, what is 'the demon', EXACTLY?

[Age]

I find it assuming that the armed banners are saying that its up to God.
So why don't they leave it to him?

I know some people do NOT like it when I agree with them, but GREAT POINT here anyway. "Although I do NOT agree that 'God' is a male gendered 'thing', I will just add and make clear here.)

[Iwannaplato]

BUT there are NO "two sides". So, supposedly 'going along' with 'that', which does NOT even exist, could be SEEN as being Truly ILLOGICAL or INSANE.

We are all vulnerable, regardless of what we write, to how it could be seen in ways we do not intend.

You even went on REINFORCING here that there are ACTUALLY "two sides" by using and writing the words, "a CERTAIN two-sides". There are NO "two sides" here. Full stop. End of story.

Hm, it seems like now you are leaving out a key part of what I wrote. It could be seen as disingenous. Would it be fair to say you believe that the total of what I wrote to the other poster reinforces that there are two sides? Or is it more accurate to say you don't believe what you asserted here? Is this then the one belief you have that you mention below?

Also, saying and claiming there is a 'logic' 'of a CERTAIN two sides' is, again, ILLOGICAL and ABSURD, to say the least.

This comment could be seen as you not understanding irony. In any case, would it be fair to say you believe that it is illogical and absurd? Or would it be more accurate to say you do not believe what you just asserted above?

Why not just POINT OUT the Fact that are NOT ACTUALLY 'two sides' AT ALL instead of wanting to appear as you are 'going along' with what does NOT even exist. This way of misbehaving can be perceived as being VERY DECEPTIVE and DECEITFUL.

Hm, this comment on your part could be seen as treating communication in a very limited way. Further as being dominated by what Reddy called the conduit metaphor for language.

Did I somehow seem to have a team and it's not your team so I'm bad? We should all pick a side and turn a blind eye to 'our own' idiocy?

And that seems to be what you are doing here in relation to me.

WHY?

Are you saying it doesn't seem that way? Can you demonstrate that?

What do you think or BELIEVE I am fighting or arguing here for, EXACTLY?

I didn't know you were fighting for something. What are you fighting for?

It is like 'team iwannoplato' versus 'team bots', right?

It's like Age who has no beliefs except all his beliefs or her beliefs about most everyone else.

Make a list of ANY or ALL the BELIEFS, which you BELIEVE I have or hold. Then we, at least, have some thing to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Are you saying you don't have beliefs? Can you demosntrate that?

Until then I do NOT have ANY BELIEFS AT ALL, except, of course, the ONE that I have mentioned before. And, which I rarely mention to FIND those who are ABLE TO RECOGNIZE and SEE where and when I, purposely, CONTRADICT "my" 'self'.

Why do you believe you only have one belief?

Oh, and by the way, NO one YET has NOTICED when I do. Or, if they have, then they have NOT YET brought it to light, so that we could then LOOK AT and discuss 'it'.

Perhaps they are not interested in the topic.

Language and communication are a bit more flexible than you believe.

ONCE AGAIN, I do NOT BELIEVE ANY thing here, regarding ANY of this.

Would it be fair to say that this must be your one belief, since you are asserting it to me now?

It could be said you are NOT noticing what you are ASSUMING here.

Obviously it could be said. Merely taking out the first four words in your sentence here and capitalizing the 'y' in 'you' would have managed it clearly.

Also, will you provide some examples of WHERE or WHEN language and communication is meant to be a bit more flexible than what you CLAIM "I believe"?

Are you saying that language and communication are not more flexible than you believe?

If no, then WHY NOT?

What are you AFRAID or SCARED OF, EXACTLY?

Are you assuming I am afraid or scared of something?

I do hope you come to notice all your own assumptions.

I would LOVE you to write down ALL of what you SEE are my ASSUMPTIONS.

Could one interpret that to mean that you know how you would feel if I did that?

That way I could TRULY notice ALL of my OWN alleged ASSUMPTIONS.

Would you notice them in that situation, or might you unconsciously avoid noticing that you did indeed have them? Would it be fair to say that you believe you know how you will react in future situations? Is that another belief or set of beliefs? Or is this part of your one belief?

See, what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, however, is that what you SEE are my ASSUMPTIONS may well be just your very OWN MISINTERPRETATIONS of what I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN, and so until you write down what you SEE are my ASSUMPTIONS, so that we can DISCUSS 'them', what you are SEEING and/or ASSUMING may well up just being completely and utterly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect anyway, from the beginning, understood?

Would it be fair to say you see two possibilities in this situation and thus have a belief about the possibilities? And if you see more possibilities, but only mentioned two, why did you do that? And if you 'see' these possibilities would it be unfair to say you believe these are the possibilities?

Oh, and by the way, saying or writing, "Seriously, it's like dealing with bots." is a WARNING SIGN of just how much that one ASSUMES or BELIEVES that language and communication is NOT flexible.

Would it be fair to say you beleive that my saying that IS a warning sigh? Or is it more accurate to say you don't believe it is a warning sigh?

Are you NOT YET OPEN to the Fact that it could be YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the "others" are MEANING, which is what is LEADING you to ASSUME that 'you' are, "Seriously, dealing with bots"?

Are you open to the possibility that you underestimate or do not understand that language is an expressive tool, also, and not merely a conveyer of information?

Furthermore "iwannaplato", it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that language and communication among 'you', human beings, WAS VERY FLEXIBLE. This can be SEEN in just about EVERYWHERE in 'your' language and communication. And, which, by the way, is WHY there is SO MUCH CONFUSION, DISAGREEING, ARGUING, CONTRADICTION, BICKERING, and FIGHTING among 'you', human beings.

Would it be fair to say that when you make statements that assert certain things are the case, as in the above, and use the phrase 'extremely obvious' to describe your assertion, that you believe in that assertion? Is it safe to assume that this is your one belief mentioned earlier.´? Or is it more accurate to say that you do not believe that it is extremely obvious......? (fill in the rest of what I quoted above)

But SEE what 'you', human beings, are evolving UP TO is coming to FORMING thee GUTOE, and when this ARRIVES what WILL BE CLEARLY SEEN is that for language and communication to be FULLY UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN, then there can ONLY be One Truth, which is AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED by EVERY one.

Would it be fair to understand the above as a predcition of what is going to happen, made on your part, that you believe in?

Until then 'your' language and communication is absolutely FREE to be as absolutely FLEXIBLE as 'you' so wish and want it to be. 'you' are absolutely FREE to make 'your' language and communication ABSOLUTELY FLEXIBLE as you would like. BUT, do NOT be to surprised WHY 'you' are NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING 'each other' JUST YET.

Would it be fair to take this to mean that you believe you understand why humans do not understand each other?

[Age]

BUT there are NO "two sides". So, supposedly 'going along' with 'that', which does NOT even exist, could be SEEN as being Truly ILLOGICAL or INSANE.

We are all vulnerable, regardless of what we write, to how it could be seen in ways we do not intend.

I found when I write ABSOLUTELY Honestly, AND Truth-FULLY, then I am NOT vulnerable to how 'that' could be seen in ways other than that I had intended. That is, of course, IF ONLY the ACTUAL WORDS I have WRITTEN and SAID are READ, AND CLARIFICATION is made.

Maybe if you did NOT say and write, " There ARE 'two sides' " and reaffirm this by talking about the 'other', then what you ACTUALLY intended would NOT be SO EASILY and SIMPLY seen in the way that 'it' IS, here.

You even went on REINFORCING here that there are ACTUALLY "two sides" by using and writing the words, "a CERTAIN two-sides". There are NO "two sides" here. Full stop. End of story.

Hm, it seems like now you are leaving out a key part of what I wrote. It could be seen as disingenous. Would it be fair to say you believe that the total of what I wrote to the other poster reinforces that there are two sides?

NO, that would NOT be 'fair'.

Or is it more accurate to say you don't believe what you asserted here?

This is just AS Inaccurate, as the other.

Is this then the one belief you have that you mention below?

NO.

You are a LONG WAY OFF here.

Also, saying and claiming there is a 'logic' 'of a CERTAIN two sides' is, again, ILLOGICAL and ABSURD, to say the least.

This comment could be seen as you not understanding irony.

WHY when you are question or challenged on what you write, then what you write then becomes so-called 'irony'?

In any case, would it be fair to say you believe that it is illogical and absurd?

Again, NO.

Or would it be more accurate to say you do not believe what you just asserted above?

ONCE MORE, NO.

Why not just POINT OUT the Fact that are NOT ACTUALLY 'two sides' AT ALL instead of wanting to appear as you are 'going along' with what does NOT even exist. This way of misbehaving can be perceived as being VERY DECEPTIVE and DECEITFUL.

Hm, this comment on your part could be seen as treating communication in a very limited way.

I was asking you WHY you are NOT speaking TRUTHFULLY, instead of DECEIVINGLY?

If you do NOT want to answer the question, then so be it.

As from my comment, HOW, EXACTLY, could my statement be seen as treating communication in a very limited way?

Further as being dominated by what Reddy called the conduit metaphor for language.

You can continue to 'try to' DEFLECT from what I have been POINTING OUT and SHOWING here. If that makes you feel better, in some way.

Did I somehow seem to have a team and it's not your team so I'm bad? We should all pick a side and turn a blind eye to 'our own' idiocy?

And that seems to be what you are doing here in relation to me.

WHY?

Are you saying it doesn't seem that way? Can you demonstrate that?

What do you think or BELIEVE I am fighting or arguing here for, EXACTLY?

I didn't know you were fighting for something. What are you fighting for?

I WAS and AM NOT.

I was just asking you ANOTHER OPEN QUESTION, from CLARITY.

But if you do NOT want to answer this one also, then so be it.

It is like 'team iwannoplato' versus 'team bots', right?

It's like Age who has no beliefs except all his beliefs or her beliefs about most everyone else.

Make a list of ANY or ALL the BELIEFS, which you BELIEVE I have or hold. Then we, at least, have some thing to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Are you saying you don't have beliefs? Can you demosntrate that?

YES, and YES.

Now, I asked you A QUESTION, and if you are NOT ABLE TO answer it Honestly, or do NOT have the decency to, then do NOT expect me to answer your questions, ANYMORE. Also, if you will NOT provide proof for your CLAIMS, then do NOT expect 'me' NOR "others" to do so.

ONCE AGAIN, it is VERY DECEITFUL to pretend to CLAIM some 'thing' is true, but when CHALLENGED on those CLAIMS, and asked to provide PROOF for those CLAIMS, you provide ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Until then I do NOT have ANY BELIEFS AT ALL, except, of course, the ONE that I have mentioned before. And, which I rarely mention to FIND those who are ABLE TO RECOGNIZE and SEE where and when I, purposely, CONTRADICT "my" 'self'.

Why do you believe you only have one belief?

But I do NOT.

WHY do you ASSUME or BELIEVE that I DO?

Or, are you just STILL 'trying to' DEFLECT AWAY from the Fact that you spoke about "two sides" existing, but THEN 'try to' CLAIM that they do NOT even exist?

Oh, and by the way, NO one YET has NOTICED when I do. Or, if they have, then they have NOT YET brought it to light, so that we could then LOOK AT and discuss 'it'.

Perhaps they are not interested in the topic.

I just SAID, 'Or, they have NOT YET brought it to light', which, OBVIOUSLY, includes having NO interest AT ALL in the topic.

It ACTUALLY 'stands to reason' that if one does NOT bring some 'thing' to light, then they have NO interest AT ALL, in that topic.

Language and communication are a bit more flexible than you believe.

ONCE AGAIN, I do NOT BELIEVE ANY thing here, regarding ANY of this.

Would it be fair to say that this must be your one belief, since you are asserting it to me now?

NO, NOT AT ALL.

It could be said you are NOT noticing what you are ASSUMING here.

Obviously it could be said. Merely taking out the first four words in your sentence here and capitalizing the 'y' in 'you' would have managed it clearly.

You are NOT noticing what you are ASSUMING here.

Also, will you provide some examples of WHERE or WHEN language and communication is meant to be a bit more flexible than what you CLAIM "I believe"?

Are you saying that language and communication are not more flexible than you believe?

NO, NOT AT ALL.

This, ONCE AGAIN, appears to be just ANOTHER ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION, DETRACTION, and/or DECEPTION.

If you will NOT provide some examples, then WHY NOT?

If no, then WHY NOT?

What are you AFRAID or SCARED OF, EXACTLY?

Are you assuming I am afraid or scared of something?

NO.

I am asking you what you are AFRAID or SCARED OF, EXACTLY. Do you NOT YET KNOW? Or, do you just NOT WANT TO inform us?

I do hope you come to notice all your own assumptions.

I would LOVE you to write down ALL of what you SEE are my ASSUMPTIONS.

Could one interpret that to mean that you know how you would feel if I did that?

One is absolutely FREE to INTERPRET ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL.

And, what is becoming INCREASINGLY CLEAR is your PERSISTENCE to NOT just be Truly OPEN and Honest here.

DEFLECTION can be just ANOTHER form of DECEPTION.

That way I could TRULY notice ALL of my OWN alleged ASSUMPTIONS.

Would you notice them in that situation, or might you unconsciously avoid noticing that you did indeed have them?

UNTIL you PROVIDE absolutely ANY perceived ones, to you, WE WILL NEVER KNOW, for sure, correct?

There is NO use ASSUMING absolutely ANY thing, especially when the ACTUAL PROOF could be so EASILY and SIMPLY presented.

And, your CONTINUAL REFUSAL to provide ABSOLUTELY ANY thing here, could be SHOWING and THUS REVEALING just how AFRAID and SCARED you REALLY ARE.

Would it be fair to say that you believe you know how you will react in future situations?

NO.

Is that another belief or set of beliefs?

LOL you are now answering your OWN questions, based on your OWN assumptions and beliefs.

Moot, by the way.

Or is this part of your one belief?

NO.

See, what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, however, is that what you SEE are my ASSUMPTIONS may well be just your very OWN MISINTERPRETATIONS of what I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN, and so until you write down what you SEE are my ASSUMPTIONS, so that we can DISCUSS 'them', what you are SEEING and/or ASSUMING may well up just being completely and utterly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect anyway, from the beginning, understood?

Would it be fair to say you see two possibilities in this situation and thus have a belief about the possibilities?

AGAIN, NO.

It is now appearing that just about ALL of YOUR ASSUMPTIONS here are just Wrong and Incorrect.

And if you see more possibilities, but only mentioned two, why did you do that?

Just MORE DEFLECTION.

And if you 'see' these possibilities would it be unfair to say you believe these are the possibilities?

MOOT.

Oh, and by the way, saying or writing, "Seriously, it's like dealing with bots." is a WARNING SIGN of just how much that one ASSUMES or BELIEVES that language and communication is NOT flexible.

Would it be fair to say you beleive that my saying that IS a warning sigh?

NO.

Or is it more accurate to say you don't believe it is a warning sigh?

NO.

MISINTERPRETING what "others" SAY and mean, without even attempting to make ANY CLARIFICATION, is NOT fair.

This kind of MISJUDGING helps in leading 'you', people, to HATE and then KILL 'each other'.

Are you NOT YET OPEN to the Fact that it could be YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the "others" are MEANING, which is what is LEADING you to ASSUME that 'you' are, "Seriously, dealing with bots"?

Are you open to the possibility that you underestimate or do not understand that language is an expressive tool, also, and not merely a conveyer of information?

YES.

But what could be 'expressed' if NOT 'information'?

Furthermore "iwannaplato", it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that language and communication among 'you', human beings, WAS VERY FLEXIBLE. This can be SEEN in just about EVERYWHERE in 'your' language and communication. And, which, by the way, is WHY there is SO MUCH CONFUSION, DISAGREEING, ARGUING, CONTRADICTION, BICKERING, and FIGHTING among 'you', human beings.

Would it be fair to say that when you make statements that assert certain things are the case, as in the above, and use the phrase 'extremely obvious' to describe your assertion, that you believe in that assertion?

AGAIN, and ONCE MORE, NO.

Is it safe to assume that this is your one belief mentioned earlier.´?

NO. I find NO reason to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing, especially here in a philosophy forum.

So, ONCE AGAIN, I will suggest that it would be better for EVERY one if one just asks questions for CLARITY, FIRST, instead of and BEFORE making ANY ASSUMPTION, AT ALL.

CLEAR and PRECISE communication can NOT get much more SIMPLER and EASIER.

Or is it more accurate to say that you do not believe that it is extremely obvious......? (fill in the rest of what I quoted above)

If you can NOT even be bothered writing, let alone just copying and pasting, some thing, then do NOT expect me to ASSUME what you are referring to, EXACTLY.

But SEE what 'you', human beings, are evolving UP TO is coming to FORMING thee GUTOE, and when this ARRIVES what WILL BE CLEARLY SEEN is that for language and communication to be FULLY UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN, then there can ONLY be One Truth, which is AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED by EVERY one.

Would it be fair to understand the above as a predcition of what is going to happen, made on your part, that you believe in?

AGAIN NO.

And to ASSUME otherwise would have been just STUPIDITY, from the outset.

Until then 'your' language and communication is absolutely FREE to be as absolutely FLEXIBLE as 'you' so wish and want it to be. 'you' are absolutely FREE to make 'your' language and communication ABSOLUTELY FLEXIBLE as you would like. BUT, do NOT be to surprised WHY 'you' are NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING 'each other' JUST YET.

Would it be fair to take this to mean that you believe you understand why humans do not understand each other?

NO.

WHY 'you', human beings, do NOT YET, in the days when this was being, UNDERSTAND 'each other' IS ALREADY UNDERSTOOD.

So, NO 'belief' necessary.

By the way, would it be fair to take what you are doing here, is you are asking me whether I believe or do not believe "...", in regards to just about all of what I write, in the hope that you will FINALLY get to the one thing that I do BELIEVE (IN)?

If no, then great.

But if yes, then WHY NOT just ask me, 'What is the one thing you do believe", INSTEAD?

I found just asking Truly OPEN questions, for CLARITY, the best, simplest, and easiest way to obtain IRREFUTABLE CLARIFICATION.

Some of 'you' should do this, some time.

[attofishpi]

On the contrary, highly appropriate for it is civilized, and it assumes you aren't as stupid as you sound when you don't recognize that the demonic looking creature is enough to frighten the children, so they must be acclimated, i.e., groomed to weirdness.

Yet the parents are happy for their kids to be groomed to the weirdness of the Bible. I know which I find the most sinister, and it's not the guy in a frock.

Well, this is perplexing for once I am in agreement with Walker and disagree with you there Harbal.

I've seen some fucked up looking outfits men wear and plaster themselves in makeup - but if that freak turned up to my kids school to read stories to them, I'd make the c~nt real eyes what the term DRAG is for in 'drag queen' - I'd drag that queer fucked up freak and throw his disgusting ugly existence into the nearest fence\wall\car\truck\bus - basically, whatever convinced HIM to keep the fuck away from kids in such a disgusting putrid display.

[Iwannaplato]

I found when I write ABSOLUTELY Honestly, AND Truth-FULLY, then I am NOT vulnerable to how 'that' could be seen in ways other than that I had intended. That is, of course, IF ONLY the ACTUAL WORDS I have WRITTEN and SAID are READ, AND CLARIFICATION is made.

Would it be fair to say that you believe you sometimes write ABSOLUTELY honestly AND truthfully? That this is one of your beliefs? Or would it be more accurate to say you do not have the belief that you sometimes (or often) write absolutely honestly and truthfully?

Maybe if you did NOT say and write, " There ARE 'two sides' " and reaffirm this by talking about the 'other', then what you ACTUALLY intended would NOT be SO EASILY and SIMPLY seen in the way that 'it' IS, here.

Why would you choose to use the passive voice here? Re: 'would not be so easily and simply seen' instead of 'the way I saw it'?)

NO, that would NOT be 'fair'.

Would it be fair to say you believe it would not be fair?
Or would it be more accurate to say you do not believe it would not be fair?

Or is it more accurate to say you don't believe what you asserted here?

This is just AS Inaccurate, as the other.

Would it be fair to say you believe this is just as inaccurate? Or did you assert something that you do not believe and if so why would you do that?

Is this then the one belief you have that you mention below?

NO.

You are a LONG WAY OFF here.

So, it is another belief you have? Would it be fair to assert that you belev I was incorrect if I thought it was your belief I was a long way off?

Also, saying and claiming there is a 'logic' 'of a CERTAIN two sides' is, again, ILLOGICAL and ABSURD, to say the least.

This comment could be seen as you not understanding irony.

WHY when you are question or challenged on what you write, then what you write then becomes so-called 'irony'?

It seems like you are assuming I didn't intend it as irony but found this tactically convenient after I was challenged. Would it be fair to say you believe I did not intend it as irony? And if not, why ask? If you are geniunely asking and I assert that I orginally intended it as ironic, would you believe me?

In any case, would it be fair to say you believe that it is illogical and absurd?

Again, NO.

Oh, good. You don't believe I was being illogical or absurd.

I was asking you WHY you are NOT speaking TRUTHFULLY, instead of DECEIVINGLY?

That question includes the assertion that I was not speaking truthfully. If one asks Why one is not speaking truthfully it contains the premise that I am not and you are only interested in my motivation. So, do you believe I was not speaking truthfully and also that I was speaking deceivingly?

Further as being dominated by what Reddy called the conduit metaphor for language.

You can continue to 'try to' DEFLECT from what I have been POINTING OUT and SHOWING here. If that makes you feel better, in some way.

The second sentence is not grammatically complete. Are you asserting something here. I did not understand it.

I WAS and AM NOT.

I was just asking you ANOTHER OPEN QUESTION, from CLARITY.

Great.

It's like Age who has no beliefs except all his beliefs or her beliefs about most everyone else.

Make a list of ANY or ALL the BELIEFS, which you BELIEVE I have or hold. Then we, at least, have some thing to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Are you saying you don't have beliefs? Can you demosntrate that?

YES, and YES.

Now, I asked you A QUESTION, and if you are NOT ABLE TO answer it Honestly, or do NOT have the decency to, then do NOT expect me to answer your questions, ANYMORE. Also, if you will NOT provide proof for your CLAIMS, then do NOT expect 'me' NOR "others" to do so.

It seems like you believed I expected answers to my questions. Do you believe that people only ask questions to get answers? Are you aware of other types of communciation where questions are asked with other purposes (to elicit thinking, rhetorical questions, Zen koans, and so on)?

ONCE AGAIN, it is VERY DECEITFUL to pretend to CLAIM some 'thing' is true, but when CHALLENGED on those CLAIMS, and asked to provide PROOF for those CLAIMS, you provide ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Would it be fair to assume you have the belief that doing what you describe here is deceitful? If not why would you assert it?

Until then I do NOT have ANY BELIEFS AT ALL, except, of course, the ONE that I have mentioned before. And, which I rarely mention to FIND those who are ABLE TO RECOGNIZE and SEE where and when I, purposely, CONTRADICT "my" 'self'.

Why do you believe you only have one belief?

But I do NOT.

WHY do you ASSUME or BELIEVE that I DO?

So, when you assert things, iow put them in statement form, you do not believe them?

Oh, and by the way, NO one YET has NOTICED when I do. Or, if they have, then they have NOT YET brought it to light, so that we could then LOOK AT and discuss 'it'.

Perhaps they are not interested in the topic.

I just SAID, 'Or, they have NOT YET brought it to light', which, OBVIOUSLY, includes having NO interest AT ALL in the topic.

It ACTUALLY 'stands to reason' that if one does NOT bring some 'thing' to light, then they have NO interest AT ALL, in that topic.

So, you don't believe not having the capability or having other motives could be at play? What was the reason you put 'stands to reason in citation marks? Would it have been incorrect to have that phrase in that question without the citation marks? Why?

It could be said you are NOT noticing what you are ASSUMING here.

Obviously it could be said. Merely taking out the first four words in your sentence here and capitalizing the 'y' in 'you' would have managed it clearly.

You are NOT noticing what you are ASSUMING here.

Do you think most people would assume you believe I am not noticing what I am assuming there even though you are speaking honestly and truthfully?

Also, will you provide some examples of WHERE or WHEN language and communication is meant to be a bit more flexible than what you CLAIM "I believe"?

Are you saying that language and communication are not more flexible than you believe?

NO, NOT AT ALL

. So, since you are being honest and truthful most people will not think that you lack a belief around this issue?


What are you AFRAID or SCARED OF, EXACTLY?[/quote]Are you assuming I am afraid or scared of something?[/quote]

NO.

Lovely, thank you.

I am asking you what you are AFRAID or SCARED OF, EXACTLY. Do you NOT YET KNOW? Or, do you just NOT WANT TO inform us?

Again, it seems to me that despite you being honest and truthful here, it seems to me many people will think you believe I am scared of something. But earlier you said

I found when I write ABSOLUTELY Honestly, AND Truth-FULLY, then I am NOT vulnerable to how 'that' could be seen in ways other than that I had intended.

Does this mean that people will not take your assertions and implicit necessary assumptions in questions as beliefs on your part?
That people will not think you believe I am scared, if you ask, repeatedly what I am scared of? and then follow up with Do I know yet? a question that also assumes I am scared? and there was on question more with a similar apparant assumption. Will these not be interpreted by some/many people as you believing I am scared? How do you know this?

If I suggest that most people think when someone asserts something they believe it to be true, and that even if you are honest and truthful but make assertions, many will assume you believe those assertions are true, will you agree? If yes, how can they not realize this if you have been truthful and honest?

I do hope you come to notice all your own assumptions.

I would LOVE you to write down ALL of what you SEE are my ASSUMPTIONS.

Could one interpret that to mean that you know how you would feel if I did that?

One is absolutely FREE to INTERPRET ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL.

I don't believe you are under any obligation to answer my questions, but given the format it is as if you answered my question, but do you think you did? Did you answer about how you would feel?

And, what is becoming INCREASINGLY CLEAR is your PERSISTENCE to NOT just be Truly OPEN and Honest here.

So you are asserting that it is clear that I have a persistence not to be truly open and honest, but that you do not believe this to be true?

If you do not believe that assertion, thank you. I don't understand why you make assertions you do not believe to be true, but I am glad I tried to clarify via questions. Because I now think you have no beliefs about my behavior and intentions.

[Age]

I found when I write ABSOLUTELY Honestly, AND Truth-FULLY, then I am NOT vulnerable to how 'that' could be seen in ways other than that I had intended. That is, of course, IF ONLY the ACTUAL WORDS I have WRITTEN and SAID are READ, AND CLARIFICATION is made.

Would it be fair to say that you believe you sometimes write ABSOLUTELY honestly AND truthfully? That this is one of your beliefs? Or would it be more accurate to say you do not have the belief that you sometimes (or often) write absolutely honestly and truthfully?

Maybe if you did NOT say and write, " There ARE 'two sides' " and reaffirm this by talking about the 'other', then what you ACTUALLY intended would NOT be SO EASILY and SIMPLY seen in the way that 'it' IS, here.

Why would you choose to use the passive voice here? Re: 'would not be so easily and simply seen' instead of 'the way I saw it'?)

NO, that would NOT be 'fair'.

Would it be fair to say you believe it would not be fair?
Or would it be more accurate to say you do not believe it would not be fair?

Or is it more accurate to say you don't believe what you asserted here?

This is just AS Inaccurate, as the other.

Would it be fair to say you believe this is just as inaccurate? Or did you assert something that you do not believe and if so why would you do that?

Is this then the one belief you have that you mention below?

NO.

You are a LONG WAY OFF here.

So, it is another belief you have? Would it be fair to assert that you belev I was incorrect if I thought it was your belief I was a long way off?

Also, saying and claiming there is a 'logic' 'of a CERTAIN two sides' is, again, ILLOGICAL and ABSURD, to say the least.

This comment could be seen as you not understanding irony.

WHY when you are question or challenged on what you write, then what you write then becomes so-called 'irony'?

It seems like you are assuming I didn't intend it as irony but found this tactically convenient after I was challenged. Would it be fair to say you believe I did not intend it as irony? And if not, why ask? If you are geniunely asking and I assert that I orginally intended it as ironic, would you believe me?

In any case, would it be fair to say you believe that it is illogical and absurd?

Again, NO.

Oh, good. You don't believe I was being illogical or absurd.

I was asking you WHY you are NOT speaking TRUTHFULLY, instead of DECEIVINGLY?

That question includes the assertion that I was not speaking truthfully. If one asks Why one is not speaking truthfully it contains the premise that I am not and you are only interested in my motivation. So, do you believe I was not speaking truthfully and also that I was speaking deceivingly?

Further as being dominated by what Reddy called the conduit metaphor for language.

You can continue to 'try to' DEFLECT from what I have been POINTING OUT and SHOWING here. If that makes you feel better, in some way.

The second sentence is not grammatically complete. Are you asserting something here. I did not understand it.

I WAS and AM NOT.

I was just asking you ANOTHER OPEN QUESTION, from CLARITY.

Great.

It's like Age who has no beliefs except all his beliefs or her beliefs about most everyone else.

Make a list of ANY or ALL the BELIEFS, which you BELIEVE I have or hold. Then we, at least, have some thing to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Are you saying you don't have beliefs? Can you demosntrate that?

YES, and YES.

Now, I asked you A QUESTION, and if you are NOT ABLE TO answer it Honestly, or do NOT have the decency to, then do NOT expect me to answer your questions, ANYMORE. Also, if you will NOT provide proof for your CLAIMS, then do NOT expect 'me' NOR "others" to do so.

It seems like you believed I expected answers to my questions. Do you believe that people only ask questions to get answers? Are you aware of other types of communciation where questions are asked with other purposes (to elicit thinking, rhetorical questions, Zen koans, and so on)?

ONCE AGAIN, it is VERY DECEITFUL to pretend to CLAIM some 'thing' is true, but when CHALLENGED on those CLAIMS, and asked to provide PROOF for those CLAIMS, you provide ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Would it be fair to assume you have the belief that doing what you describe here is deceitful? If not why would you assert it?

Until then I do NOT have ANY BELIEFS AT ALL, except, of course, the ONE that I have mentioned before. And, which I rarely mention to FIND those who are ABLE TO RECOGNIZE and SEE where and when I, purposely, CONTRADICT "my" 'self'.

Why do you believe you only have one belief?

But I do NOT.

WHY do you ASSUME or BELIEVE that I DO?

So, when you assert things, iow put them in statement form, you do not believe them?

Oh, and by the way, NO one YET has NOTICED when I do. Or, if they have, then they have NOT YET brought it to light, so that we could then LOOK AT and discuss 'it'.

Perhaps they are not interested in the topic.

I just SAID, 'Or, they have NOT YET brought it to light', which, OBVIOUSLY, includes having NO interest AT ALL in the topic.

It ACTUALLY 'stands to reason' that if one does NOT bring some 'thing' to light, then they have NO interest AT ALL, in that topic.

So, you don't believe not having the capability or having other motives could be at play? What was the reason you put 'stands to reason in citation marks? Would it have been incorrect to have that phrase in that question without the citation marks? Why?

It could be said you are NOT noticing what you are ASSUMING here.

Obviously it could be said. Merely taking out the first four words in your sentence here and capitalizing the 'y' in 'you' would have managed it clearly.

You are NOT noticing what you are ASSUMING here.

Do you think most people would assume you believe I am not noticing what I am assuming there even though you are speaking honestly and truthfully?

Also, will you provide some examples of WHERE or WHEN language and communication is meant to be a bit more flexible than what you CLAIM "I believe"?

Are you saying that language and communication are not more flexible than you believe?

NO, NOT AT ALL

. So, since you are being honest and truthful most people will not think that you lack a belief around this issue?


What are you AFRAID or SCARED OF, EXACTLY?

you assuming I am afraid or scared of something?

NO.

, thank you.

I am asking you what you are AFRAID or SCARED OF, EXACTLY. Do you NOT YET KNOW? Or, do you just NOT WANT TO inform us?

Again, it seems to me that despite you being honest and truthful here, it seems to me many people will think you believe I am scared of something. But earlier you said

I found when I write ABSOLUTELY Honestly, AND Truth-FULLY, then I am NOT vulnerable to how 'that' could be seen in ways other than that I had intended.

Does this mean that people will not take your assertions and implicit necessary assumptions in questions as beliefs on your part?
That people will not think you believe I am scared, if you ask, repeatedly what I am scared of? and then follow up with Do I know yet? a question that also assumes I am scared? and there was on question more with a similar apparant assumption. Will these not be interpreted by some/many people as you believing I am scared? How do you know this?

If I suggest that most people think when someone asserts something they believe it to be true, and that even if you are honest and truthful but make assertions, many will assume you believe those assertions are true, will you agree? If yes, how can they not realize this if you have been truthful and honest?

I do hope you come to notice all your own assumptions.

I would LOVE you to write down ALL of what you SEE are my ASSUMPTIONS.

Could one interpret that to mean that you know how you would feel if I did that?

One is absolutely FREE to INTERPRET ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL.

I don't believe you are under any obligation to answer my questions, but given the format it is as if you answered my question, but do you think you did? Did you answer about how you would feel?

And, what is becoming INCREASINGLY CLEAR is your PERSISTENCE to NOT just be Truly OPEN and Honest here.

So you are asserting that it is clear that I have a persistence not to be truly open and honest, but that you do not believe this to be true?

If you do not believe that assertion, thank you. I don't understand why you make assertions you do not believe to be true, but I am glad I tried to clarify via questions. Because I now think you have no beliefs about my behavior and intentions.

Have you NOTICED that you ask questions based upon your OWN ALREADY held ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, and NOT just for CLARIFICATION purposes only?

Is this what that other human being named "plato" would have done?

If 'you' REALLY 'wanna be plato', then you would HAVE TO DO what "plato" would do.

See, unlike 'you', "iwannoplato", "plato" would NOT be AFRAID and SCARED of being QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED.

[Harbal]

But ALL 'tenets' can be MISINTERPRETED, as can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout human history, and just within this forum.

And often deliberately misinterpreted by religious leaders, or at least interpreted with bias.

Oh, and by the way, is there some 'thing' within the bible, which a human being should not be doing anyway?

I haven't read the Bible, so I can only judge by what I hear about it. I don't think it is a good thing to worship or idolise anybody, or any thing, and I do not think it a good thing to regard any authority to be infallable. Those are things that I do not think a human being should be doing.

Absolutely ANY BELIEF has the EXACT SAME rigid constraints. That is; while one has or holds a BELIEF they are NOT OPEN to absolutely ANY thing opposing THAT BELIEF.

I think it is the rigid constraints that you are applying to the word "belief" that is the problem here. Like most words, it can vary in meaning. Religious belief tends to be based on the principle that virtue lies in the act of believing, rather than its content. A religious belief is not something you are supposed to question, but rather something you are encouraged to doggedly cling to. Some people treat political beliefs like that, so it isn't confined solely to religion.

I think the above type of belief is a different thing to the type of believe one comes across in, say, a court room. A jury will convict or acquit based on the evidence that is presented to them, and they will be (or should be) open to the possibility that any belief they form, based on that evidence, might change in the light of any subsequent evidence. This kind of belief does not (should not) have any ideological or emotional attachment invested in it.

One word, but with two distinct meanings, I would suggest.

In ALL religions the message is to FOLLOW thee True One, which is just thee True Self, which is within ALL of 'you', which has been MISTAKEN, MISCONSTRUED, and MISINTERPRET with the words "your self", along with other oxymorons, misnomers, and other False, Wrong, and Incorrect terms and usage of words. But this WILL all become MUCH CLEARER as 'we' move along here.

I don't agree. In Christianity, Jesus and God are not metaphors for self, they are literal characters.

[Harbal]

Well, this is perplexing for once I am in agreement with Walker and disagree with you there Harbal.

I've seen some fucked up looking outfits men wear and plaster themselves in makeup - but if that freak turned up to my kids school to read stories to them, I'd make the c~nt real eyes what the term DRAG is for in 'drag queen' - I'd drag that queer fucked up freak and throw his disgusting ugly existence into the nearest fence\wall\car\truck\bus - basically, whatever convinced HIM to keep the fuck away from kids in such a disgusting putrid display.

I admit that the thing is not really to my taste, but I don't have your extreme, negative response to it. I am certainly not attracted to the spectacle, but neither am I disgusted, threatened, or frightened by it. My attitude towards religious instruction being given to kids is probably comparable to yours in strength, though.

[Harbal]

If the 'demon' is 'sinister' is it better to TEACH children to be frightened of 'the demon' or to be not alarmed of 'the demon'?

And, what is 'the demon', EXACTLY?

How many instances of child abuse, sexual or physical, are perpetrated by men dressed as women, would you say?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If the 'demon' is 'sinister' is it better to TEACH children to be frightened of 'the demon' or to be not alarmed of 'the demon'?

And, what is 'the demon', EXACTLY?

How many instances of child abuse, sexual or physical, are perpetrated by men dressed as women, would you say?

A mischievous question. Most men don't 'dress as women' (that is women who wear dresses and heels). 'Dressing as a woman' could mean wearing jeans and Doc Martens, or denim overalls and crocs, or trousers and a blazer with sneakers, or......So one could equally say that ALL men dress as women.

[Iwannaplato]

Have you NOTICED that you ask questions based upon your OWN ALREADY held ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, and NOT just for CLARIFICATION purposes only?

I would have asked the same general question of you, and did ask a similar one is specific instances, but I have found out, after asking questions, that you do not believe any seeming assumptions in your questions or any assertions that you make. You lack beliefs except the one mentioned somewhere else in the forums.

I got confused because if I didn't beleive someone was scared but thought they might be, I would ask 'Are you scared?' Then move on, if I got an affirmative answer, to asking why. But now I see that even questions when used by many if not most people would indicate a belief or assumption, in your case, they do not. This is useful information. Perhaps there are even some idiosyncratic uses of words or communication that you have which would further clarify things. I think however I am more interested in the topic here than I am in your use of language.

Is this what that other human being named "plato" would have done?

I am not named Plato, just to be clear, not that you believed I was named that. Actually, I did get the impression that Plato presented Socrates as believing things but used a process of questioning rather than direct stating. But given that this is another mind, in another culture, speaking through a character (if based on a real person), I do not know if this is the case.

If 'you' REALLY 'wanna be plato', then you would HAVE TO DO what "plato" would do.

The name I chose here was Iwannaplato not Iwannabeplato. I have explained elsewhere, in another thread, why I chose that moniker, but in any case I do not want to be Plato.

See, unlike 'you', "iwannoplato", "plato" would NOT be AFRAID and SCARED of being QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED.

And before our recent exchange I would have thought by saying this it meant you believed I was afraid, scared of being questioned etc. But now I know you assert things you do not believe, because over and over when asked if you believe what you asserted, you answered 'no.' This was helpful clarification for me. For the record I am not scared. I certainly found the interaction interesting, but not challenging in any negative sense. I am not sure what nuance is added by saying 'Not be AFRAID' and then adding SCARED, also. But neither applies to my emotional state during our exchange.

As said, I found this interesting, mainly in finding out how you...hm...perhaps it's best to say...how you don't usually use language and some of the things you do not mean when you assert things. Truly interesting. But, now, have gone through that process, I will focus on other topics.

[Harbal]

But if you really do know of A BELIEF, which you could really 'reason' with, then I, for one, would LOVE to SEE 'it'.

I think we are letting ourselves get hemmed in by language here, Age. Words should be our servants, not our masters.

The word "belief" can have various meanings and connotations, so I can't usefully give you an example of what you are asking for.

One of my biggest goals, here in this forum, is to learn how to OVERCOME people's BELIEFS, and if there is A WAY, then I am Truly SEEKING 'it' OUT. So, if you can help me in ANY way AT ALL I would REALLY LOVE to SEE and LEARN 'that way'.

Why is this your goal? I think we have to distinguish between beliefs that pose a danger to society, or groups within society, and beliefs that may be considered to be foolish, but are harmless. If someone believes it is right to persecute people because of skin colour, or sexual orientation, then their beliefs should be challenged -in my opinion- but if they just believe the Earth is flat, why make the effort?

If you really do KNOW how to 'reason' with people with BELIEFS, then will you PLEASE share that knowledge with me?

If i appear to be begging and pleading here, then this is because i AM begging and pleading with you here.

I don't think you can reason with beliefs that are not based on reason, and this is what I meant when I said that people who are embedded in a religion are not open to reason.

I think you are setting yourself an impossible task, Age. Most of the people here are here to assert their own views, not to be persuaded by the arguments of others. I actually think that some of them believe they are the reincarnation of great bygone philosophers, and you are going to get absolutely nowhere with those.

[Harbal]

A mischievous question. Most men don't 'dress as women' (that is women who wear dresses and heels). 'Dressing as a woman' could mean wearing jeans and Doc Martens, or denim overalls and crocs, or trousers and a blazer with sneakers, or......So one could equally say that ALL men dress as women.

Let's say men in drag, then.