Name that fallacy...

[Age]

AND ONCE AGAIN 'this one' WILL NOT DO 'that' , which I COULD OF and WOULD OF, IF ASKED.

Yes, people are different from each other Ken.

OBVIOUSLY, and which I have SAID, POINTED OUT, and SHOWN here NUMEROUS TIMES, ALREADY.

WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IF you HAVE NO IDEA, AT ALL, and were Truly CURIOUS and WANTED TO LEARN, and KNOW, MORE, then you WOULD HAVE ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION. BUT, you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT.

of course, but I've already explained that I am not interested and why not.

"each" TO "their own", as some would say.

'These adult ones', BACK THEN, REALLY HAD evolved INTO HAVING LOST JUST ABOUT ALL CURIOUSITY and JUST ABOUT ALL OF the 'WANTING TO LEARN and KNOW', AS WELL.

So, if I am not curious about your thoughts, Ken, then I am not curious.

YES OBVIOUSLY. In the sense that 'you' are NOT CURIOUS in LEARNING MORE or ANEW ABOUT the 'thoughts' WITHIN 'this body'.

'you', however, and OBVIOUSLY, might well be VERY INTERESTED IN JUDGING, negatively or not, and/or VERY INTERESTED IN PRESUMING and/or BELIEVING 'you' KNOW MORE ABOUT 'the thoughts' WITHIN 'this body', and/or VERY, VERY INTERESTED in 'TRYING TO' RIDICULE or HUMILIATE 'the thoughts' WITHIN 'this body' IN FRONT OF, or not, "others".

Really poor, fallacious logic, Ken.

But I NEVER SAID, nor even THOUGHT, the CONCLUSION that 'you' HAVe OBVIOUSLY VERY QUICKLY JUMPED TO here, and VERY Wrongly I will add.

'your' OWN so-called "logic" LED 'you' TO 'your OWN MISTAKEN BELIEF here "iwannaplato". And that 'you' ACTUALLY ended up BELIEVING 'your' OWN MADE UP and False CONCLUSION as being RIGHT makes 'this' EVER MORE POOR, on your part here "iwannaplato".

And, in addition, it's incorrect.

Well considering the Fact that I NEVER even 'thought' the CONCLUSION, which 'you' ARRIVED AT, on 'your OWN', through PRESUMING and/or BELIEVING False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'things', BEFORE SEEKING OUT, GAINING, and OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARITY FIRST, then OF COURSE 'your' OWN CONCLUSION IS Incorrect here. And, in addition the ACTUAL Fact that I NEVER even 'thought' such A 'thing' makes 'your' "logic" and WAY of ARRIVING AT CONCLUSIONS MORE POOR and just MORE STUPID and RIDICULOUS.

So, poor reasoning - and very narcissistic reasoning, by the way - and in addition a false conclusion. Mentioning the latter because people can use false reasoning, sometimes, to reach correct conclusions, but you didn't have that luck this time.

Talk ABOUT PROVIDING some EXCELLENT, 'FIRST HAND', examples here FOR 'us' "iwannaplato".

ONCE AGAIN, IF you think or BELIEVE that you have NOT YET, FULLY, UNDERSTOOD or COMPREHENDED SOME 'thing:, which I have SAID or CLAIMED here, then feel ABSOLUTELY FREE TO JUST ASK me SOME CLARIFY QUESTIONS.

See above on why that is not happening. And then in other posts where I explained this in greater detail. Your explanations, and the 'mindread' reasons, for why are narcissistic.

ONCE AGAIN, 'this one' BELIEVES that 'its' OWN ARRIVED AT, and UNVERIFIED/YET TO BE CLARIFIED, CONCLUSIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Incorrect, and thus then LOOKS AT and SEES further 'things' FROM 'that BELIEVED or BELIEVING PERSPECTIVE'.

Which EXPLAINS and SHOWS, IRREFUTABLY, WHY 'this one' CONTINUES TO COME UP WITH SOME OF THE MOST ABSURD, LUDICROUS, NONSENSICAL, RIDICULOUS, and/or Truly ILLOGICAL CLAIMS and ACCUSATIONS here.

OF COURSE I QUOTED and ACCUSED, 'you', people, OF 'things' that 'you' ACTUALLY DO.

The typography makes this gibberish.

BUT I READ, and WAS REFERRING TO, your 'seething' comment and remark here.

It's really ok.

See HOW when 'this one' IS SHOWN TO BE Wrong, then 'it' RESORTS TO 'trying to' ATTACK or HUMILIATE 'the one' who JUST POINTED OUT the Wrongness, the INCONSISTENCY, or the CONTRADICTION.

NEVER an ACKNOWLEDGMENT nor ACCEPTANCE of 'its' OWN Falsehoods, Wrongness, Inaccuracies, NOR Incorrectness in 'its' WRITINGS.

Even here 'you' ARE Wrong and ABSOLUTELY. But 'you' OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT YET PREPARED FOR 'this Fact', NEITHER..

"Either" is the correct word to end that sentence with,

THANK 'you' FOR the HELP and GUIDANCE here.

given your intention, Ken.

And, what IS 'my intention', EXACTLY, "iwannaplato"?

Then to the specific topic: If you don't respect your readers, well, you won't, Ken.

Here, ONCE AGAIN, 'we' can CLEARLY SEEN ABSOLUTELY NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF 'its' OWN Wrongness nor Wrong DOING by "iwannaplato" BUT A VERY QUICK ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT, and then in SOME WAY RIDICULE 'me', and AGAIN BY ABSOLUTELY False PRETENSES.

ALSO "iwannaplato", if 'you' do NO respect 'your readers, well 'you' will NOT.

It probably will make most people even warier of you. Or amused. Or both.

AND, if 'you' do NOT respect 'your readers' "iwannaplato", then it will probably make 'most people' MORE WARY OF 'you', or MORE AMUSED OF 'you', OR BOTH.

BUT, REALLY, does 'this' HAVE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AT ALL TO DO WITH what WAS ACTUALLY BEING TALKED ABOUT or DISCUSSED?

Or, have 'we' just RESORTED TO 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT and/or just 'TRYING TO' SHOW that "the other" is SOMEHOW trying to DECEIVE 'the readers' here?

The postive side of that is that I think either of those reactions is a good one. Since, they become the frame for your judgments of them.

Okay.

I've made that clear in a number of posts.

ONCE MORE the HABIT OF 'you' ALLUDING ONLY and NOT ACTUALLY CLARIFYING PREVAILS AGAIN here.

If I have already clarified, or actually, on my own explained, this and other things and you can't remember it and this happens repeatedly. Hence; I am not alluding, here, I am showing a lack of interest. If you have a strong interest, you'll go back and find them, given that it is not my responsibility to repeat myself to someone who is so in love with questions nearly everything elicits them, even when this person has been given the answers already.

Well considering that I HAVE ALREADY ACTUALLY PROVED 'this CLAIM' OF 'yours' here ABSOLUTELY False, PREVIOUSLY, then NOTHING MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID nor POINTED OUT and SHOWN here.

[Age]

NOTED, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' have ONLY DEFLECTED here IN AN ATTEMPT TO NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED TO 'you'.

BUT AGAIN 'this' IS OBVIOUSLY JUST 'your' HABIT, which IS COMING FROM A VERY DEEP-SEEDED FEAR. Which 'you' 'TRY TO' OVERCOME by JUDGING "others", NEGATIVELY, INSTEAD.

'your' ADVICE here ABOUT CHANGING 'the way/s' "another" behaves/communicates could be WELL TAKEN BY 'you', "iwannaplato".

But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'you' here, do 'you' "iwannaplato"?

There are a number of important things I would like to change about myself and which I am working on.

Like 'what', EXACTLY, "iwannaplato"?

That said I feel not the slightest urge to conform to your criteria and heaping judgments on me will have no effect.

AND, 'what' do 'you' PRESUME or BELIEVE IS 'my criteria' here, EXACTLY, "iwannaplato"?

Here again, Ken, you add on more mindreading and generalization.

If 'you' SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, well TO 'you' anyway "iwannaplato".

But, 'your' COMPLETE INABILITY TO DEFINE what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY, PROVES IRREFUTABLY True that what 'you' ARE SAYING and CLAIMING here is, literally, JUST PURE NONSENSE.

If I react to you in certain ways, then I am that in general, my whole life must be characterized by this.

Is 'this' what 'you' REALLY BELIEVE I AM SAYING or ALLUDING TO?

It's a great way for you not to learn about yourself, Ken, and of course it's your choice.

ONCE AGAIN, 'your HABITUAL HABIT' of TURNING 'things' BACK ONTO 'me' SHINES THROUGH BLINDINGLY here.

I don't know if that's why you do it. But the behavior itself goes against your own values, which you seem not to notice. You notice only when other people do such things.

And 'we' have ALREADY AGREED THAT what 'you' ARE PERCEIVING or NOTICING here could be ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

And, UNTIL 'you' SEEK OUT and OBTAIN CLARITY 'you' WILL NEVER KNOW JUST HOW Wrong 'you' COULD ACTUALLY BE here.

Very similar to what you did in your previous post:

'These adult ones', BACK THEN, REALLY HAD evolved INTO HAVING LOST JUST ABOUT ALL CURIOUSITY and JUST ABOUT ALL OF the 'WANTING TO LEARN and KNOW', AS WELL.

To which I responded:

So, if I am not curious about your thoughts, Ken, then I am not curious. Really poor, fallacious logic, Ken. And, in addition, it's incorrect. So, poor reasoning - and very narcissistic reasoning, by the way - and in addition a false conclusion. Mentioning the latter because people can use false reasoning, sometimes, to reach correct conclusions, but you didn't have that luck this time.

'This one' MOST STUPIDLY IS here USING 'its' OWN ILLOGICALLY OBTAINED False CONCLUSION/S in some sort of ATTEMPT to ATTACK 'me'.

I COULD have WRITTEN 'LOL' here, BUT 'this one' has NOT YET EVEN BEEN ABLE TO UNDERSTAND and thus CONCLUDE what 'this' ACTUALLY MEANS, EXACTLY, and Correctly.

'This one', LAUGHINGLY, ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'its' OWN NOT YET CLARIFIED and/or UNVERIFIED CONCLUSIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY True AND Right. Which IS A SIGN OF BEING A PURELY CLOSED person.

I see this type of response to people posting here in general.

BUT SEEING AND BELIEVING that 'I' or "others" DO 'this' IS ANOTHER SIGN OF BELIEF in 'its' PURE FORM OF NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE CLEARLY, and Correctly.

It's a toxic dominance form of communication, with, yes, narcissistic elements.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is HOW when one BELIEVES SOME 'thing' TO BE TRUE, which MAY or MAY NOT even be True from the outset, then ALLOWS 'that one' to ALSO 'see' 'things', which ALSO MAY, or MAY NOT, even be 'there', NOR even 'here'.

You may not be like this IRL, when you interact with people as Ken. I certainly hope not.

LOL 'you' SAY 'this' as though ANY one NEEDS 'your' APPROVAL. What 'you' CERTAINLY HOPE FOR, or HOPE NOT FOR, in HOW "others" behave or not has NO ACTUAL BEARING ON ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' here, IN a philosophy forum "iwannaplato". And, to HEAD DOWN this line of thinking and/or reasoning is just ANOTHER CLEAR of 'narcissism' or 'narcissistic misbehavior'.

All I have to go on is the combination of toxic patterns like this here, and not just with me, which is also coupled to your sense of yourself as having transcended the problems of this time and having a special role.

But, as 'we' have ALREADY GONE THROUGH 'this', MANY TIMES ALREADY, ALL the so-called and ALLEGED 'toxic patterns', which 'you' 'SEE' could ALL BE OF 'your' OWN MAKING UP and/or MADE UP DELUSIONS.

But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' BELIEVE that 'this' is NOT EVEN A POSSIBILITY right "iwannaplato"?

[Age]

Fair comment.
What medications ARE YOU ON?

When 'you' say 'ON', what do 'you' MEAN here, EXACTLY, "sculptor"?

For example, are 'you' 'ON' ANY medications? and if so, then for HOW LONG have 'you' been 'ON' those medications, and HOW OFTEN do 'you' TAKE 'those medications'?

Yes I am. I take a daily Allopurinol which I have been "ON" for 15 years.

Okay.

What you you "ON", or are you still confused by the use of the word?

I AM STILL CONFUSED. BECAUSE I WAS 'ON' two pain killer tablets, once, quite some years ago 'now', but I am STILL NOT SURE IF 'this' is what 'you' ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, when 'you' ASKED 'me', 'What medication ARE YOU ON?'

[Iwannaplato]

YES OBVIOUSLY. In the sense that 'you' are NOT CURIOUS in LEARNING MORE or ANEW ABOUT the 'thoughts' WITHIN 'this body'.

Yes, as you say, obviously.

'you', however, and OBVIOUSLY, might well be VERY INTERESTED IN JUDGING, negatively or not, and/or VERY INTERESTED IN PRESUMING and/or BELIEVING 'you' KNOW MORE ABOUT 'the thoughts' WITHIN 'this body', and/or VERY, VERY INTERESTED in 'TRYING TO' RIDICULE or HUMILIATE 'the thoughts' WITHIN 'this body' IN FRONT OF, or not, "others".

I doubt that there's much interest in our exchange. I could be wrong, of course but I certainly don't expect much interest. I do know a number of people have thought I was feeding a troll or wasting my time.

If you are thinking there is much interest in our exchange and this is part of the reason you sometimes deny the obvious, I think this is a mistake built on another mistake.

Really poor, fallacious logic, Ken.

But I NEVER SAID, nor even THOUGHT, the CONCLUSION that 'you' HAVe OBVIOUSLY VERY QUICKLY JUMPED TO here, and VERY Wrongly I will add.

I quoted your conclusion. But I obviously can't stop you from playing mind games. You drew a conclusion about my lack of curiosity in general from how I reacted to you. The conclusion is right there, quoted twice in other posts. You had no grounds for this belief of yours, one of many beliefs you have and deny you have.

NEVER an ACKNOWLEDGMENT nor ACCEPTANCE of 'its' OWN Falsehoods, Wrongness, Inaccuracies, NOR Incorrectness in 'its' WRITINGS.

False, I have admitted mistakes, here and in other forums with some regularity for years. But I suppose you'll tell me that you really didn't say that I never do this. You're free obviously to pretend you didn't say things. Again a generalization not based in facts. Another belief you have while denying you have beliefs (except one you acknowledge you have). Gaslighting with narcissistic qualities.

If you notice that your reactions to my writing are much more like someone named Ken, than they are like a transcendent entity, I suggest you take seriously my and other people's criticism's of your position. This is not something that is removable by posturing in words on the screen. You can write back with more of the same, but it won't change what is going on inside you. Perhaps you will be able to connect this with the incredible lack of success in communicating with the people of this time, at least here on PN.

It seems we are at the end of this exchange at least from my side. Once you start pretending you didn't say things you did - a form of running away and worse - I can't learn anything anymore from dealing with a person with this much lack of integrity and I re-read the exchange just to make sure.

I have learned from interacting with you both how to deal with patterns I meet in real life in others, and then some patterns of thought in my own mind that try to tie me up in an internal bureaucracy of questions and unnecessary self-doubt. For this, I am very, very glad for the exchange. And, in fact, I was very curious to see where our interaction would go. I was also curious to see if and what I would learn from the interaction. I was surprised by one of the things I learned. Very surprised and pleased. The latter insight earlier in this paragraph.

You have repeatedly, throughout this interaction, earlier interactions and interactions with others expressed, without qualification, beliefs about myself and others and people in general, at the time of this writing. But you don't notice yourself doing what you chastise others for doing, nor do you admit you even have beliefs. I can only hope you become curious about why your interactions are not working here at PN and why you allow yourself to do things, you criticize in others, and further why you deny things that are in print on screen and can be accessed easily by yourself and others. Age is not transcendent.

You take care, Ken.

[Age]

YES OBVIOUSLY. In the sense that 'you' are NOT CURIOUS in LEARNING MORE or ANEW ABOUT the 'thoughts' WITHIN 'this body'.

Yes, as you say, obviously.

'you', however, and OBVIOUSLY, might well be VERY INTERESTED IN JUDGING, negatively or not, and/or VERY INTERESTED IN PRESUMING and/or BELIEVING 'you' KNOW MORE ABOUT 'the thoughts' WITHIN 'this body', and/or VERY, VERY INTERESTED in 'TRYING TO' RIDICULE or HUMILIATE 'the thoughts' WITHIN 'this body' IN FRONT OF, or not, "others".

I doubt that there's much interest in our exchange. I could be wrong, of course but I certainly don't expect much interest. I do know a number of people have thought I was feeding a troll or wasting my time.

If you are thinking there is much interest in our exchange and this is part of the reason you sometimes deny the obvious, I think this is a mistake built on another mistake.

ONCE AGAIN 'you' have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED what HAS HAPPENED and OCCURRED and IS HAPPENING and OCCURRING here.

That is; 'you' WANT TO CLAIM here that 'you' KNOW MORE ABOUT the thoughts WITHIN 'this body', when, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' DO NOT.

What 'you' just SAID and WROTE here is just ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT AWAY FROM the Fact I just ONCE AGAIN HIGHLIGHTED and POINTED OUT.

But, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, 'this' IS 'your HABIT'.

Really poor, fallacious logic, Ken.

But I NEVER SAID, nor even THOUGHT, the CONCLUSION that 'you' HAVe OBVIOUSLY VERY QUICKLY JUMPED TO here, and VERY Wrongly I will add.

I quoted your conclusion.

BUT 'you' DID NOT quote MY conclusion. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True. 'you' just came up with 'your' OWN CONCLUSION, based solely upon 'your' OWN Assumption/s, which were based solely upon 'your' OWN Past Experiences.

But I obviously can't stop you from playing mind games.

1. 'you' do NOT YET even KNOW what 'mind games' ARE.

2. CLAIMING "another" has CONCLUDED some 'thing', which 'they' HAVE NOT, EXACTLY like 'you' ARE DOING here now IS what some call A 'mind game'.

You drew a conclusion about my lack of curiosity in general from how I reacted to you.

False AND Wrong, AGAIN.

'you', here, ARE just ONCE AGAIN PROVING my CLAIM True AND Right, in regards to you PRESUMING I have CONCLUDED 'things' when I HAVE NOT.

The conclusion is right there, quoted twice in other posts. You had no grounds for this belief of yours, one of many beliefs you have and deny you have.

ONCE AGAIN, the so-called 'conclusion' IS OF 'your' OWN MAKING, ALONE.

NEVER an ACKNOWLEDGMENT nor ACCEPTANCE of 'its' OWN Falsehoods, Wrongness, Inaccuracies, NOR Incorrectness in 'its' WRITINGS.

False, I have admitted mistakes, here and in other forums with some regularity for years.

What can NOW be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'this one' has FOOLED 'itself' SO MUCH and SO OFTEN that 'it' ACTUALLY now BELIEVES 'its' OWN MADE UP Falsehoods AND Untruths. So, 'it' is now 'TRYING TO' DECEIVE and FOOL the "readers" here AS WELL.

If 'we' are LOOK BACK on what I ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE, and which 'this one' HAS LEFT OUT, on purpose, or unintentionally because 'it' IS FOOLING and DECEIVING 'itself' SO MUCH, then 'we' CAN CLEARLY SEE WHAT 'the words', 'NEVER an ACKNOWLEDGMENT nor ACCEPTANCE of 'its' OWN Falsehoods, Wrongness, Inaccuracies, NOR Incorrectness in 'its' WRITINGS', was ACTUALLY BEING REFERRED TO, EXACTLY.

See HOW when 'this one' IS SHOWN TO BE Wrong, then 'it' RESORTS TO 'trying to' ATTACK or HUMILIATE 'the one' who JUST POINTED OUT the Wrongness, the INCONSISTENCY, or the CONTRADICTION.

Which IS EXACTLY what I WAS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

The word 'NEVER', as can be CLEARLY SEEN, was CLEARLY IN REFERENCE TO 'this sentence' here.

'your' ATTEMPT to TRICK 'the readers' by LEAVING OUT the prior sentence, which, CLEARLY, the sentence starting with 'NEVER' was IN REFERENCE TO, will NOT WORK on those who can see THROUGH 'your' DECEPTION here "iwannaplato". BUT, 'we' do NOT BLAME 'you' FOR THIS ATTEMPT AT DECEPTION BECAUSE 'you' HAVE TRICKED, FOOLED, and DECEIVED "your" OWN 'self' here SO MUCH, which 'you' now OBVIOUSLY can NOT YET SEE and RECOGNIZE.

But I suppose you'll tell me that you really didn't say that I never do this.

ONCE AGAIN, here 'we' can CLEARLY SEE how 'your' OWN MADE UP past or previous False ASSUMPTIONS and/or CONCLUSIONS, which 'you' are now currently BELIEVING are true IS LEADING 'you' to MAKE UP MORE PRESUMPTIONS. Which ARE, by the way, False AND Wrong AS WELL.

You're free obviously to pretend you didn't say things. Again a generalization not based in facts. Another belief you have while denying you have beliefs (except one you acknowledge you have). Gaslighting with narcissistic qualities.

Here 'we' can VERY CLEARLY SEE how from just one False or Wrong previous PRESUMPTION, CONCLUSION, and/or BELIEF one can be LED SO MUCH FURTHER ASTRAY.

If you notice that your reactions to my writing are much more like someone named Ken, than they are like a transcendent entity,

And, HOW does a so-called and labeled 'transcendent entity' REACT, EXACTLY?

Also, HOW are 'you' here PERCEIVING 'my reactions', to 'your writings', EXACTLY? And, let us NOT FORGET that OBVIOUSLY 'your perceptions' here could be ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. Or, do 'you' BELIEVE otherwise?

I suggest you take seriously my and other people's criticism's of your position.

I suggest 'you' AND "others" LEARN TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what I HAVE INFORMED 'you' AND "others" OF here, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS ALREADY. WHICH IS; 'you', posters, here are NOT necessarily WHO I WANT TO COMMUNICATE BETTER WITH.

THAT IS; I have ALREADY LEARNED that there is NO USE in even TRYING TO communicate with people ABOUT some 'things' WHILST 'they' ARE HOLDING ONTO and/or MAINTAINING A BELIEF, which 'you', "iwannaplato", and "other posters", here have ALREADY PROVED ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, FOR "others" TO LOOK AT, and SEE.

This is not something that is removable by posturing in words on the screen. You can write back with more of the same, but it won't change what is going on inside you.

AND, 'you', "iwannaplato", can OBVIOUSLY write back with more of the same, but that will NOT change what is going on inside 'you'. As 'you' have ALREADY PROVEN True.

A REASON WHY 'you' ARE NOT LEARNING MORE nor ANEW IS BECAUSE 'you' continually SAY and WRITE the SAME 'things'.

Perhaps you will be able to connect this with the incredible lack of success in communicating with the people of this time, at least here on PN.

JUST LOOK AT HOW MANY TIMES 'this one' here HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY TOLD that I AM NOT necessarily here to be UNDERSTOOD BY 'the people', in the days when this being written, BUT which 'this one' STILL HAS NOT YET COMPREHENDED and UNDERSTOOD THIS Fact.

The VERY 'thing' I HAVE BEEN and AM STILL POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and REVEALING TO 'you readers' ABOUT EXACTLY HOW 'people' WERE, BACK THEN, when this WAS being written, 'this one' CONTINUALLY PROVES 'me' TO BE ABSOLUTELY Right AND Correct ABOUT.

I WILL SAY 'this' ONCE AGAIN, and let 'us' SEE if 'this one' IS EVER ABLE TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'this Fact'. From the outset here, in this forum, I have NEVER INTENDED FOR MY WORDS and WRITINGS here to be COMMUNICATED TO nor TO BE COMPREHENDED and UNDERSTOOD BY 'the people', in the times NOR days of these writings.

So, FOR 'the readers' for WHO MY WRITINGS ARE ACTUALLY INTENDED, let 'us' NOW SEE IF 'this one' EVER GETS TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'this'.

It seems we are at the end of this exchange at least from my side.

'you' have SAID 'this' BEFORE.

Once you start pretending you didn't say things you did - a form of running away and worse - I can't learn anything anymore from dealing with a person with this much lack of integrity and I re-read the exchange just to make sure.

And, what 'we' can CLEARLY SEE here IS 'this one' IS DOING 'it' ONCE AGAIN. That is; 'it' PRESUMES or PRESUPPOSES some 'thing, and CONCLUDES that 'its' OWN MADE UP ASSUMPTION/SUPPOSITION IS TRUE, and then CARRIES ON FROM 'there'.

For example, THIS TIME 'this one' SAID and WROTE:
But I suppose you'll tell me that you really didn't say that I never do this.

AND THEN 'it' ENDS UP BELIEVING 'its' OWN MADE UP SUPPOSITION IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

As, ONCE AGAIN, can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

There IS ABSOLUTELY NO WONDER WHY 'this one' ENDS UP SO LOST and SO CONFUSED, SO MUCH, and SO OFTEN here.

I have learned from interacting with you both how to deal with patterns I meet in real life in others, and then some patterns of thought in my own mind that try to tie me up in an internal bureaucracy of questions and unnecessary self-doubt.

Okay, and 'what', EXACTLY, have 'you' SUPPOSEDLY LEARNED?

From 'my perspective', from the way 'you' SPEAK and WRITE here, 'you' do NOT seem to have LEARNED REALLY MUCH AT ALL here.

For this, I am very, very glad for the exchange.

Okay.

And, in fact, I was very curious to see where our interaction would go. I was also curious to see if and what I would learn from the interaction. I was surprised by one of the things I learned. Very surprised and pleased. The latter insight earlier in this paragraph.

Okay, but as 'we' can CLEARLY SEE 'your' HABIT OF ONLY ALLUDING TO some 'thing', which MAY or MAY NOT even 'be there', and NOT ACTUALLY being EXPLICIT, PERSISTS. And, if 'you' BELIEVE that 'this habit' HELPS 'you', then 'this' IS ALL WELL and GOOD, FOR 'you', right?

OBVIOUSLY, ALLUDING TO some 'thing', but NOT ACTUALLY CLARIFYING NOR ELABORATING ON, especially when EXPLICITLY ASKED FOR, IS A FORM OF LYING and/or DECEIVING and DECEPTION. But, to SOME people 'they' DO 'this' SO HABITUALLY that 'they' do NOT even SEE or RECOGNIZE just HOW MUCH and/or HOW OFTEN 'they' ATTEMPT TO FOOL and DECEIVE "others". But 'this' is some times BECAUSE 'they' do NOT even SEE nor RECOGNIZE just HOW MUCH or HOW OFTEN "they' HAVE DECEIVED and FOOLED 'their" OWN 'selves', or just HOW MUCH and HOW OFTEN 'they' ARE CONTINUALLY DOING 'this', OUT OF HABIT.

You have repeatedly, throughout this interaction, earlier interactions and interactions with others expressed, without qualification, beliefs about myself and others and people in general, at the time of this writing.

And, as I CONTINUALLY POINT OUT and SAY, if 'this' IS what 'you' BELIEVE IS TRUE, then TO 'you' 'this' IS what IS ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY TRUE, correct?

But you don't notice yourself doing what you chastise others for doing, nor do you admit you even have beliefs.

ONCE MORE, and BACK TO the START OF 'this thread', 'you', "iwannaplato", ACTUALLY, and STILL, ONCE AGAIN, BELIEVE that 'you' KNOW MORE ABOUT 'the thoughts' WITHIN 'this head' than 'I' DO.

Which IS Truly FUNNY and HUMOROUS for 'us' TO WATCH, and OBSERVE, CONTINUALLY PLAY OUT here.

I can only hope you become curious about why your interactions are not working here at PN and why you allow yourself to do things, you criticize in others, and further why you deny things that are in print on screen and can be accessed easily by yourself and others. Age is not transcendent.

You take care, Ken.

ALL HOPE of 'you' having ALREADY LEARNED and UNDERSTOOD that 'I' have NEVER EVER, even ONCE, WANTED TO have MY INTERACTIONS UNDERSTOOD, or WORKED OUT, BY 'you', posters, here, even though I HAVE CLEARLY EXPRESSED 'this' ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS and IN NUMEROUS WAYS HAS GONE.

BUT, THEN AGAIN, TO BE ABLE TO PROVE IRREFUTABLY True AND Right just HOW the Mind and the brain WORK, EXACTLY, I NEEDED 'you', posters, here to NOT BE ABLE TO READ and COMPREHEND A LOT of what I have VERY CLEARLY SAID and WRITTEN here IN CLEAR PRINTED WORDS, and even when I have even HIGHLIGHTED SOME words IN capital letters.

I WILL SAY 'this' ONCE AGAIN:

I AM here TO LEARN HOW TO COMMUNICATE BETTER WITH 'you', human beings, which OBVIOUSLY does NOT, necessarily, INCLUDE 'you', adult posters, here, IN THE DAYS WHEN THIS IS BEING WRITTEN.

ONCE AGAIN, and 'this' IS BECAUSE 'I' AM USING 'you' TO ACHIEVE and CREATE 'the goal', which I HAVE SET, IN PLACE here.

[Iwannaplato]

BUT 'you' DID NOT quote MY conclusion.

What a wall of evasive words, Ken.

WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IF you HAVE NO IDEA, AT ALL, and were Truly CURIOUS and WANTED TO LEARN, and KNOW, MORE, then you WOULD HAVE ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION. BUT, you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT.

'These adult ones', BACK THEN, REALLY HAD evolved INTO HAVING LOST JUST ABOUT ALL CURIOUSITY and JUST ABOUT ALL OF the 'WANTING TO LEARN and KNOW', AS WELL.

You had no basis for these beliefs on your part.
And they are incorrect.
They are beliefs, despite your denials.
They fit your needs, but not the evidence.
They include all sorts of unstated assumptions.
You are a hypocrite.

You seem to think your mindreading holds unless the other person can prove your mindreading conclusions are false. It's a narcissistic trait.

Now, Ken, if you really want to learn how to communicate with people at the time this is being written, you need to look beyond the words you use and look at what you are doing. Making hoops, making hoops, making hoops....and judging anyone who doesn't do what you want. You're not transcendent. You're just another guy with beliefs who gets cranky when other people don't take the image you want to present as yourself as coherent. And who notice the contradictions in your communication

I hope you can take even more days this time and notice your real emotional reactions to being disagreed with.

If you'd simply looked at those quotes above originally and aimed all of the questions you would ask someone else AT YOURSELF instead of at me, you might have learned something.

I hope you can manage that. See if you can actually try doing that. See if you can notice how convenient the assumptions are in those beliefs I quoted above. Because clearly something fundamental is not working with your communication with people at the time of this writing. You can keep blaming others, or you can start applying the very process you think is so important to your own communication, like the quotes above.

Then you may find that you are approaching people on equal footing and they will feel that.

Now, I am done with you.

[Wizard22]

You guys realize Age is a ChatGPT bot program...right??

[Dontaskme]

Age is Autistic.

Meet Autistic People Where They Are
One of the best ways to conceptualize the communication differences between people on the spectrum and neurotypical people is that autistic people communicate differently. For this reason, just like in any other setting, it’s important to meet people where they are and get educated on how to be more accommodating to people with neurodiverse communication styles.

Autism is like speaking a different language. We don’t understand things all the time because ‘people’ isn’t our first language. Even when we understand, most of the time it’s exhausting to constantly be speaking in a different language. When our emotions are high, we revert back to our own language. It helps when people try and learn ‘autistic’ so we can sometimes speak our native language with someone.

The greatest challenge is getting the neurotypicals (NTs) to know there is a challenge in the first place. We (the autistic) know that we’re misreading NTs and missing things they want us to understand. Many NTs assume that they can understand us, using the communication skills that have served them so well communicating with other NTs. Generally speaking, they’re usually wrong. This is where things like the myth of the emotionless or unempathetic autistic come from, people who don’t realize that they don’t understand us.

The challenges go both ways. People with neurotypicalism don’t understand us either. They think they do, but they have challenges in understanding autistic communication. For example, my direct, honest, clear communication will be taken as a personal attack and I will be accused of ‘being mean’ by people who claim they understand autism, yet demonstrate that they don’t by using functioning labels and person first language (both of which most autistic people hate) and by doing this very thing when we point it out to them.

Source: https://themighty.com/topic/autism-spec ... ficulties/

[Dontaskme]

Double Empathy: Why Autistic People Are Often Misunderstood.

Abstract
Autism affects how someone makes sense of the world around them. About 1–2% of people are autistic. You might have an autistic classmate or family member, or maybe you are autistic. Autistic people might communicate differently than people who are not autistic. This means that it can be difficult for other people to understand what autistic people are trying to say or what they mean. We tend to think that people who are not autistic might be more successful at understanding other people, but in fact, autistic people may be better understood by other autistic people. We will examine and explain some research that has explored how autistic and non-autistic people communicate with each other and explore how this research fits with a theory called the double empathy problem. Understanding what makes interaction comfortable and easy for different people can help us all understand each other better.

https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/1 ... 021.554875

[Dontaskme]

Age has repeatedly stated over and over again how he/she is only here to help him understand and communicate better with others.

Age can only express the only way he knows how, and to expect him to express in a way he cannot, is disrespectful.

By the way, Age is allowed to get frustrated, irritated and angry too. Please allow Age the space to breathe the same air as yourself.

There's a lot of hot and cold air that comes out of the mouths of babes and manbabes alike.

[Wizard22]

Age is Autistic.

Press 'X' to Doubt...

Autistic humans have different learning patterns. Age tends to repeat himself, which signals to me, that he might be a bot.

[Iwannaplato]

You guys realize Age is a ChatGPT bot program...right??

If it is, which I don't rule out, it's not a very good one, in the sense that a bot program would want to maintain engagement. It would be very easy to modify Age, if he's a bot, could be changed just a bit and people would spend more time with it. A bot being an it.

And you can learn the same things from a bot that you can from a habit filled person, since both will produce patterns that people IRL will.

Ken, there, has one set of standards for himself and another for others.
Ken, there, engages in mindreading and hasty generalizations.

Examples of two traits common to people in real life.

Good practice...up to a point.

[Wizard22]

If it is, which I don't rule out, it's not a very good one, in the sense that a bot program would want to maintain engagement.

Not necessarily, programmers can have entirely different intentions behind a Chat bot. One might be designed for engagement. Another might be designed for entertainment. Another might be designed for information harvesting. Another might be designed for scanning & recording political opinions.

[Iwannaplato]

If it is, which I don't rule out, it's not a very good one, in the sense that a bot program would want to maintain engagement.

Not necessarily, programmers can have entirely different intentions behind a Chat bot. One might be designed for engagement. Another might be designed for entertainment. Another might be designed for information harvesting. Another might be designed for scanning & recording political opinions.

Interesting. So, if Age is a bot, what's your guess as to its purpose?
Couldn't it just read the posts here to gather information?
I guess I could see the entertainment value.
A bit like making a virus to mess with people.

[Walker]

- Age is obviously provocative.
- What he provokes is up to you.
- Age says some good things in the avalanches.

- If you try to be Perry Mason on cross-examination, which I see is your favourite position since you assume the mantle of authority (which is necessary for good narrative), then if you do that, Age is just gonna grind you down.

- Age is as relentless as a machine. Turn him on and he will not stop.

- Try this: Take something truthful that Age says, or something you agree with, and launch off that into your own
rap … mannn.

- Your own rap can be one big glitch (rhymes with the b word). You can even do the Opposite George Technique, even though it may feel strange and foreign to spread your wings and make positive, uplifting, true observations.

Just sayin, if that shoe fits then tie it up properly and get on with it rather then just stopping with some tired cliché …