Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[Age]

I think I can see the answer here.
Probably attention span more than anything.
I'm going to suggest a poor diet, compounded by a poor education.

Okay. But in the meanwhile, let 'us' not forget that this one claims, absolutely, that God does not exist, but then goes on to point out and claim that God does 'this' and/or God does not do 'that'.

You are just continuing to dig yourself into a hole

If you say so. But what 'hole' would that be, and what would 'it' be in relation to, exactly?

I just said and pointed out what I wanted and needed to do here. And, what I said and pointed out could not be refuted. Well not as far as I can see so far, and no one has even tried to. So, at the moment, what I pointed out and showed remains. Which is all I ever really wanted to do here.

[Age]

LOL.
Yes. Let's put it this way. I'll not be holding my breath whilst waiting for him to get it.
He'll just be asking me why I would ever want to hold my breath!!

Well this is Truly absurd thing to assume. But considering it claims that God does not exist while at the same time claiming God does somethings, but not others, as well.

Keep digging.

But I have already shown that what you just assumed was Truly absurd. Which was what I just said and claimed regarding that claim of yours here.

That your other two claims of yours contradicted each other, but that being Truly absurd spoke for itself anyway. Whereas, I had to show that this new claim of yours here is Truly absurd.

So, I finished doing this now. Now, we just wait to what this one presumes I am digging some supposed 'hole' in regards to 'what', exactly?

[Age]

If this is the case: you have to be open to understanding.
From what I can see here is that you are not

Will you list these things/s, which you presume I am not open to understanding here, exactly?

If yes, then great.

But if no, then why not?

No since you are not open it would not matter were I to list them.

But, if you could and would list them, then it would show the readers here that you actually do have some thing. So, it does matter were you to list them.

But, while you continue to remain allusive, and hide behind Truly ridiculous excuses, readers will start to wonder, 'Did this one even have actually anything at all, which it based its accusations on here?'

Or, is this one not listing absolutely anything at all because it actually has absolutely nothing at all?

It is like this one is the one who is not OPEN and has actually got something to hide here.

[Iwannaplato]

But, most if not all of the rest of your claims are based on your own already obtained presumptions and beliefs.

Note how earlier you said ' based on absolutely nothing.' Now you implicitly acknowledge without admitting it that part is based on something and 'most if not all' of the rest, is based on my already obtained presumptions and beliefs.

So, your earlier claim, according to you, was false.

This claim is also false, but I am pointing out that without you acknowledging it, your earlier claim is false according to you.

The part of this claim that is false is that it was based on already obtained presumptions and beliefs. You have no way to know this, but further much evidence that this is false.. And it avoids the fact that I have quite a bit of experience of you here. I didn't come to this forum with ideas about 'Age'. Nor did I know about Ken or the evolution of Ken into Age, until long after encountering your patterns..

Nor did I create the reactions of the people who see the same or similar patterns in your communication that I do - those who actually have spent time interacting with you. There are plenty more who have similar judgments, but whose interactions with your I haven't read.

And since the beginning I have tried a variety of ways of communicating with you, and when you assumed things, I pointed them out, or showed that you had beliefs, I pointed them out, or when you were hypocritical, I pointed them out.

Others have done this as well.

You can acknowledge minor issues: typos, unclear sentences. But anything related to claims WHICH YOU DO NOT BACK UP - your transcendence. your claims about having a special role, there being only One Mind, as some examples - even though you cannot or will not back them up, for some reason this does not demonstrate the kinds of negative judgments you aim at the people of this time and the posters in this forum when they do not back up their claims.

When you tell people they are incapable of X - universalizing from your perception of their interaction with you - you have never proven these claims, nor seriously considered that they are not doing something in a specific interaction with a specific person - you. No, you are allowed to tell them and others that they are incapable of doing something in general.

That's one example of a pattern that has occurred with a number of posters. And, again it includes claims that you cannot prove.

But when you cannot prove claims, it never demonstrates to you, for some reason that all those judgments you aim and individuals here when they don't do that or aim at people at the time this is being written in general,

never apply to you.

This has been pointed out time and again, by me and others.

When you sum up...it is based on nothing but presumptions and beliefs. Never on repeated experience and evidence.

So, this is gaslighting or a mind fuck...and as a pattern.

You managed to be affected by the responses of Alta to annoying, albeit more trivial, communicative patterns you have. Can you manage to make changes that may feel more ego-dystonic?

Not easy. I know. I've had to face extremely ego-dystonic things in relation to myself quite a number of times in my life. I don't think it is easy or pleasant. I can have sympathy for anyone who is facing such things.

But I'm not going to pretend that those patterns don't exist nor will I jump through unnecessary hoops so you don't have to feel those feelings.

[Age]

But, most if not all of the rest of your claims are based on your own already obtained presumptions and beliefs.

Note how earlier you said ' based on absolutely nothing.'

Could I have left out a word like, 'substantial', for example?

If yes, then could I have done this accidentally, or even on purpose?

If no, to either, then why not?

Now you implicitly acknowledge without admitting it

Why do you say here, 'without admitting it', when it has only just 'come-to-light', as some might say here?

you write, 'Now you ..., without admitting it'. Did you even give me a chance to 'admit it', before you made the new claim that I did something, 'without admitting it'?

that part is based on something and 'most if not all' of the rest, is based on my already obtained presumptions and beliefs.

So, your earlier claim, according to you, was false.

If this is the only way you want to 'look at', 'see' things, and conclude, without seeking out absolutely any clarity first, then, to you anyway, 'my earlier claim' 'must of' been 'false', and again according to you, to me anyway.

This claim is also false, but I am pointing out that without you acknowledging it, your earlier claim is false according to you.

But, if I do 'now' 'acknowledge it', which is only 'now' been brought here to be seen, then does this make you claim that my earlier claim is false, according to me, not false?

If no, then why bring up the 'without acknowledging it' once more again here 'now'?

The part of this claim that is false is that it was based on already obtained presumptions and beliefs.

Okay. So, will you provide the actual proof of this claim which will refute the the, supposed and so-claimed, part of this claim this false?

If no, then why not?

But if yes, then great 'we' will wait, patiently, to see the actual proof first before 'we' would be able to Accurately decipher if this claim here 'now' can prove the, supposed, part of the this claim, which is, purported, to be false, right?

You have no way to know this,

But you know this absolutely right, correct?

but further much evidence that this is false..

Yes, very, very True.

And it avoids the fact that I have quite a bit of experience of you here.

'you' have, supposedly, quite a bit of experience of 'me' here in regards to 'what', exactly, "iwannaplato"?

I didn't come to this forum with ideas about 'Age'.

Okay. And, just so absolutely all the readers here also become aware I did not even think that "iwannaplato" came to this forum with ideas about "age" as well.

Did absolutely think that "iwannaplato" even could have, let alone did so?

Nor did I know about Ken or the evolution of Ken into Age, until long after encountering your patterns..

What evolution from one into another?

What do you imagine or believe actually happened and occurred here, exactly?

Were you aware that 'we' also did not know about the evolution of 'you' into "yourself" here "iwannaplato", until shortly after encountering 'your' patterns here. But, 'we' are going to keep it a secret from 'you', which 'your' is being referred to here "iwannaplato".

Were 'you' aware that to say 'you' did know about the evolution of one into another, until long after encounter 'your' patterns, does not explain who nor what the 'your' is here, exactly?

What 'patterns', exactly, when did you notice 'the patterns', exactly, was it before the evolution into some perceived other thing, or was the recognition of 'the patterns' after the perceived evolving of one into the other?

Nor did I create the reactions of the people who see the same or similar patterns in your communication that I do - those who actually have spent time interacting with you.

Well considering you seem to be spending the most 'time' so-called 'interacting' with 'me' 'now', then the answer would have been the same anyway either way.

There are plenty more who have similar judgments, but whose interactions with your I haven't read.

So, this one knows, already, that there are 'plenty of others' who have similar judgments of 'me', but this one has not yet even read them.

Also, this one seems to keep forgetting that when one has, usually a completely opposing view of all of the others, of the group, then it is usually 'that one' who will get the most negative or most hateful and spiteful judgments made against.

But, if the earth really does revolve around the sun, and not the other way around, then it does not matter one iota what comments and judgments are being made about one, by even all of 'the group', the Truth will always remain the same.

And, how one successful one communicates, or does not, how one behaves or misbehaves, one one 'toes the line', as some might say, or not has no actual being on what the actual Truth is, exactly. If the earth revolves around the sun, then it just does.

So, please bring on more and more attempts of ridicule, humiliation, criticism, judging, and/or shutting down of 'me'. The more of you who do this, then them more actual proof I am obtaining, and thus able to show and use here.

And since the beginning I have tried a variety of ways of communicating with you, and when you assumed things, I pointed them out, or showed that you had beliefs, I pointed them out, or when you were hypocritical, I pointed them out.

See, this one can, still not, even after all of this time, and I will repeat still cannot, comprehend and understand, even though I have specifically pointed out to is, that I do not have beliefs here.

This one is the prime example of being absolutely blinded by one's own beliefs that this one, literally, cannot comprehend and understand what I so very obviously clearly pointed out and showed it.

Others have done this as well.

And, you and others could never be Wrong here, right?

It is always 'me' who is not seeing things clearly here, correct?

The actual beauty of when one is as blind and as deaf as this one is here, is that they, literally, try to project what they are actually doing onto others. As can be clearly seen in the words above here, by it.

You can acknowledge minor issues: typos, unclear sentences.

Are these the only issues', which you believe I 'can' acknowledge "iwannaplato"?

By the way, I do not even recall acknowledging a 'typo' before. But, if you have seen this, then this must exist right?

But anything related to claims WHICH YOU DO NOT BACK UP - your transcendence. your claims about having a special role,

I do not recall having absolutely any so-called 'special role'. But, if you believe I have, then, to you, I must of, correct?

If yes, then will you link 'us' to where I have said or even alluded to that I have some 'special role'?

there being only One Mind, as some examples - even though you cannot or will not back them up, for some reason this does not demonstrate the kinds of negative judgments you aim at the people of this time and the posters in this forum when they do not back up their claims.

Some of your sentences get rather 'wordy', as some might say here now, and thus become harder to follow, and understand.

But, anyway, do you believe that there is more than One Mind?

If yes, then can you and will you back this up with actual proof?

If no, then why not?

I can, and will, back up the One Mind with actual and irrefutable Truth. Again, for those with any real True interest in learning and/or seeing how.

When you tell people they are incapable of X - universalizing from your perception of their interaction with you - you have never proven these claims, nor seriously considered that they are not doing something in a specific interaction with a specific person - you.

Because no one has asked me to.

I am not sure how many times that I have to explain and inform this to you. But once again I just did.

No, you are allowed to tell them and others that they are incapable of doing something in general.

If you are incapable to back up some things, then you are just incapable of doing so. Just like if the earth revolves around the sun, then it just does.

That I know what you are capable of and not capable of before you "iwannaplato" do, is not something to be to embarrassed about. Sometimes something are known by one or more before others some to understand, and realize.

That's one example of a pattern that has occurred with a number of posters. And, again it includes claims that you cannot prove.

What are some of things that I claim are true but which you or another claims that I cannot prove?

But when you cannot prove claims, it never demonstrates to you, for some reason that all those judgments you aim and individuals here when they don't do that or aim at people at the time this is being written in general,never apply to you.

But what are you even referring to here, exactly?

What claims do you, laughably, believe that I cannot prove "iwannaplato"?

This has been pointed out time and again, by me and others.

Okay, it was pointed out, time and again, also, by many, many people to the one who said, 'Actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun', that 'that one' could not prove that claim. Yet, here 'we' are, in the days when this is being written right "iwannaplato".

When you sum up...it is based on nothing but presumptions and beliefs. Never on repeated experience and evidence.

I have already informed you of the absolute usefulness of 'evidence', itself, and explicitly explained the reasons why, to you. But, obviously, you completely missed this or completely misunderstood this, once more. Again, because your own person beliefs and presumptions stop and prevent you from seeing what is actually being said and written here, to you.

Also, and by the way you still seem a long, long way off learning about how experience effects things here, and how what is affected, then effects the way that then you look at and see things, and ultimately obtain further 'evidence', and 'experiences'.

By the way "iwannaplato" I know, and believe in, within 'you', the ability to learn, comprehend, and understand all of this here exists. Just at the moment, however, when this is being written 'you' are blocked and prevented from learning and seeing things here. Which is all well and good, because things are certainly about to completely turn around and changed for the very best.

So, this is gaslighting or a mind fuck...and as a pattern.

If here you are believe and are suggesting that it is 'I' who is so-called 'gaslighting' and 'fucking with the One Mind', and that this is a pattern or mine, then okay.

You managed to be affected by the responses of Alta to annoying, albeit more trivial, communicative patterns you have.

How and why do you believe that I so-called 'managed to be affected by the words on a screen', exactly?

Can you manage to make changes that may feel more ego-dystonic?

you "iwannaplato" would be the best one to ask, and confer with, here regarding this.

Especially considering that you have been, for sometime now, claiming to know the thoughts and thinking with 'this body' far, far more and far, far better than 'I' ever could, and do.

Not easy. I know. I've had to face extremely ego-dystonic things in relation to myself quite a number of times in my life.

Ah, so exactly like "atla" and "veritas aequitas" here, this one also 'sees' things 'in others' based on what they have each individually have experienced, and have had to 'seriously look at and into, which then affected change within them. So, 'now' they 'see' these exact same things 'within others' as well.

A type of 'anthropomorphism' if one likes, just in an individual human being sense instead of in a collective human being sense.

I don't think it is easy or pleasant. I can have sympathy for anyone who is facing such things.

Okay. Would this be based on your past experiences, and evidence, or on your own personal presumptions and beliefs?

But I'm not going to pretend that those patterns don't exist nor will I jump through unnecessary hoops so you don't have to feel those feelings.

Okay. But I am still not yet sure of what 'those feelings' are, exactly, which you once again mention, talk about, and allude to, but never actually said what they were, exactly.

Oh, and by the way, did you ever get around to 'mulling over' why you said what you claimed 'should not be taken literally', when in fact in could not just be 'taken literally', but also be proved to be actual irrefutably, literally, True, as well?

Or, has this long been forgotten about, by you?

[Iwannaplato]

Could I have left out a word like, 'substantial', for example?

If yes, then could I have done this accidentally, or even on purpose?

If no, to either, then why not?

You are in a much better position to answer those questions. Again, I suggest mulling.

you write, 'Now you ..., without admitting it'. Did you even give me a chance to 'admit it', before you made the new claim that I did something, 'without admitting it'?

Confused. If on Tuesday I say 'You are a murderer.' And on Wednesday I say 'You might be a murderer.' You have changed your position. If you make both of these statements in the middle of a bunch of judgments of that person and yet, for some reason on Wednesday you don't say: I realized that I didn't know for sure X, you had a chance.

I don't need to give you a chance, for you to have chances. It is as if your behavior, your ability to be aware of yourself, is dependent on me. It's not.

Just within the first few sentences of many of your post there is so much implicit nonsensical drivel. If you had the slightest humility - these days - such as you did have in the early days when you were Ken, then I might see these kinds of confusions in a more sympathetic way.

If they weren't part of a general communication to others and myself that includes judgments of everyone living now, and lots of individual judgments that are unfounded, coupled with the implicit and explicit condescension, then that also might leave room for sympathy. But since the social and interactive confusions you have are deeply enmeshed with the way you approach and view people, the initial sympathy I felt, even when you were rather rude, isn't present anymore.

But despite my not feeling my sympathy for you now during these interactions, my response could still be helpful to you. Just as on small issues like typography you have managed to let yourself be helped, it could happen here.

I certainly wouldn't begrudge it.

[Age]

Could I have left out a word like, 'substantial', for example?

If yes, then could I have done this accidentally, or even on purpose?

If no, to either, then why not?

You are in a much better position to answer those questions. Again, I suggest mulling.

So, instead of just 'admitting', your instead try to deflect, once again.

you write, 'Now you ..., without admitting it'. Did you even give me a chance to 'admit it', before you made the new claim that I did something, 'without admitting it'?

Confused.

No. you wrote that, I 'now' did something 'new', and then immediately wrote, 'without admitting it'. As can be seen above here.

If on Tuesday I say 'You are a murderer.' And on Wednesday I say 'You might be a murderer.' You have changed your position.

Talk about 'confused'. I never changed my position, because I never had a position. you were the only one with a position, so you are the only one that could have changed 'your position'. As can be clearly seen and proved True here. 'your position', literally, changed. The two different positions, you had, proved this.

If you make both of these statements in the middle of a bunch of judgments of that person and yet, for some reason on Wednesday you don't say: I realized that I didn't know for sure X, you had a chance.

But it was 'you' making those different statements, and thus 'changed positions. Not me.

I don't need to give you a chance, for you to have chances. It is as if your behavior, your ability to be aware of yourself, is dependent on me.

you have, obviously, missed or misunderstood what i was 'getting at', and pointing out here. But, it is not your first time, and may well not be your last either.

It's not.

I know. The last one I am dependent upon is anyone of 'you' here.

Just within the first few sentences of many of your post there is so much implicit nonsensical drivel.

If you believe so, and just want to say and claim there is, without ever proving this, then this is perfectly fine with me. you are showing the readers what you are capable of doing, and also what you are not capable of doing.

If you had the slightest humility - these days - such as you did have in the early days when you were Ken, then I might see these kinds of confusions in a more sympathetic way.

The very last thing I want, nor need, from you is absolutely any sympathy at all.

I just want Honesty, OPENNESS, and serious Want to change, for the better, from 'you'. Exactly like from the beginning, and always.

But, if you are not yet capable of these things here, then that is fine. I already understand perfectly why you are the way you are "iwannaplato"

If they weren't part of a general communication to others and myself that includes judgments of everyone living now, and lots of individual judgments that are unfounded, coupled with the implicit and explicit condescension, then that also might leave room for sympathy.

This one actually believes that it is so superior to 'others', that 'others' actually deserve this one sympathy. Which, if was not so absolutely hilarious to watch and observe one be so 'self-grandiose', then I could then be more sympathetic to your plight and your many deficiencies here "iwannaplato".

But since the social and interactive confusions you have are deeply enmeshed with the way you approach and view people, the initial sympathy I felt, even when you were rather rude, isn't present anymore.

Am I supposed to be somewhat disappointed here?

Or, are you just virtue signalling again here "iwannaplato"?

But despite my not feeling my sympathy for you now during these interactions, my response could still be helpful to you.

In what way does your grandiose complex believe you could still be helping 'me', exactly?

Just as on small issues like typography you have managed to let yourself be helped, it could happen here.

See, how this one purposely picks and chooses the very things, which I have specifically pointed out and showed, absolutely, are not true, and just keeps repeating that it did happen, to just try and get a 'reaction'?

I certainly wouldn't begrudge it.

Okay, if you say so.

Have you yet worked out that I was only saying and pointing out that I could prove irrefutably True, in regards to what you wrote, which you also stated and claimed, 'should not be taken literally'?

Or, are you still so bewildered and befuddled by your own beliefs and very CLOSED perspective here that you still have not worked out what has been happening and occurring here, yet?

[Iwannaplato]

You lied about me in your statements including the phrase absolutely true. PM me about it if you can act like an adult on the issue.