Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 12:44 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 12:27 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 3:41 pm
Are you sure you're being "attacked"?
'I', personally, can NOT ACTUALLY be 'attacked', and this is WHY I SPECIFICALLY and PURPOSELY USED the 'try to' words here.
Now, do the following words appear to 'you' as being an 'attempt' at an 'attack' of 'a person', or of 'the words' from one:
'Age, you have gone off the rails, screwed the pooch, flipped your wig, drunk the kool-aid, buttered your bread, made your bed etc.'
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 3:41 pm
What do you mean by "attacked"?
ATTEMPTING TO 'ridicule' "the other".
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 3:41 pm
How do you "attack" a statement without also "attacking" the person who made it?
By FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE, and LEAVING OUT ANY and ALL references TO 'the person'.
I hear you. However, sometimes focusing on the person is a way of holding a speaker "accountable" for what they say.
'you ARE absolutely FREE to FOCUS on 'the speaker/writer' AS MUCH AS you like. BUT, in the meantime you are NOT FOCUSING on the 'ACTUAL words' AS WELL, FULLY, then you will OBVIOUSLY LOSE TRACK of what 'it' IS that you WANT TO HOLD 'the speaker/writer' ACCOUNTABLE FOR, EXACTLY?
See, can a 'person' Truly HEAR, and SEE, what IS ACTUALLY being SAID/WRITTEN, FULLY, while 'they' ARE FOCUSING ON some 'thing' ELSE, like, for example, 'the person'?
To be ABLE to HOLD "another" ACCOUNTABLE, for what they say, then one would HAVE TO BE FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE. As I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING throughout this forum here.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 12:44 am
Otherwise, a person could say, "Is murder really wrong, prove it".
This sentence here does NOT, LOGICALLY, FOLLOW FROM your previous sentence.
Absolutely ANY one can SAY absolutely ANY 'thing', like 'this' just here, BUT what has 'this' got to do WITH FOCUSING on 'the person'?
If 'you', for example, SAID, 'Murder really wrong', and "another" ASKED and SAID, 'Is murder really wrong, prove it', then what would FOCUSING ON 'the person' ACTUALLY ACHIEVE here?
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 12:44 am
At which point asking that person if he'd like to be murdered would probably be the best way to pull their head out of their ass.
WHY would absolutely ANY human being ASSUME such a 'thing' as 'this' here?
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 12:44 am
It's better than saying, "I can't prove it".
I can NOT even FOLLOW what 'you' are saying, and GETTING AT, here, "gary childress".
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 12:44 am
And if they feel invulnerable and say, "You don't know me, you'll never be able to murder me, now answer me and prove that murder is wrong."
There ARE just SO MANY 'ifs' here.
What happens IF the FIRST of 'your' 'ifs' here did NOT even eventuate IN THE BEGINNING?
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 12:44 am
Then a philosopher has to get even more "personal" or else the interlocutor is going to be running around the Intenet with an immortal feeling of impunity spreading bad that ought not to be spread.
¯\_(*_*)_/¯
FROM ONE PRESUMPTION, TO ANOTHER, TO ANOTHER, OVER and OVER. ALL BECAUSE 'you' were FOCUSING ON 'the person' INSTEAD OF the ACTUAL WORDS being SAID and USED.