Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:06 am
But considering 'you' have SHOWN that 'you' are NOT interested in bringing any thing forward to LOOK AT and DISCUSS, and that you obviously prefer to just LOOK AT 'me' the person, see me as being disabled, and also prefer to attempt to ridicule 'me' as being not able to read, as though this was some sort of excuse for your lack of action here, then all of this says far more about 'you' than it does 'Me'.
This is the interesting part of your message.
I can see you think my interest in your identity is for some bad reason.
Are you absolutely STUPID or are you just TRYING your hardest to deflect? Or, are you just completely and utterly BLINDED by your own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS?
When did I EVER think you being interested in my AGE is for some bad reason? Also, you were interested in my AGE and NOT in my identity, which can be PROVEN if we were to LOOK BACK throughout our discussions?
What do you now propose you have done to show interest supposedly in my "identity?"
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pm It's not. I'm trying to figure out what consideration you warrant, and how to -- so to speak -- speak in the language you understand. It's clear we're missing each other, because the conversation is unfocused and unduly prickly.
But you are WRONG, once again. I am NOT missing 'you' at all.
Have a look back at our discussion. I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN 'you' for what 'you' REALLY ARE.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pm I'm trying to do something to make it better.
You can LIE to "yourself" for as long as you want, but it is not going to help you.
I already asked you to provide examples of how you would speak to me differently if you KNEW my age. You, once again, did NOT provide any thing at all. What do you think you could do make 'it' better?
Here is a suggestion for you to make 'it' BETTER.
1. Answer my clarifying questions DIRECTLY?
2. Ask me clarifying questions.
3. Challenge me on what I say, like I do on what you say.
4. STOP looking at me on a personal level and just stay concentrating on the actual WORDS and MEANINGS behind those WORDS that are IN FRONT OF 'you'.
5. If, and when, you CLAIM some thing to be true, have at least SOME thing that you could use for evidence and proof for that CLAIM.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pmYou're "disabled," you say: how?
Did I? Whereabouts, what did I say?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pm How does one make allowances for this particular issue you have? It makes a big difference what it is. Is it a communication disorder? A cognitive disorder? A developmental disorder? A physical disorder? Is it biochemical? Is it an educational problem? Is it mere lack of age or experience? Or is it a character and behavioural issue, like Oppositional-Defiant Disorder? One doesn't respond to any two of these the same. Absent knowing, it's impossible for me to know what consideration you need.
Once again, ALL of this is an attempt to DEFLECT from the issues I have been POINTING OUT and SHOWING, which you have been 'trying' your hardest to ignore and deflect away from.
Is this your ONLY way you can 'try to' deflect away from the issue here, WHICH IS;
Causality ALWAYS exists, and did NOT start as you CLAIM it did.
Seriously how hard is to stay on this?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pmBut I can see you're too mistrustful to be frank, and don't want me to guess, so we are at an impasse -- I have no basis for conclusions but that your communication style is not polite or focused.
This coming from the one who WILL NOT answer any clarifying question at all. This is a philosophy forum. If you find concentrating on 'trying' all 'you' can make the "other" look less than 'you' far more important than just discussing the points raised here, then so be it. you are FREE to do absolutely any thing you want to do here.
But you CLAIM that causality began, so I would LOVE to see you 'try' to PROVE this.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pm And that could be the product of legitimate disability, or just of flawed character. Who's to know?
LOL "legitimate disability", and "flawed character" you will NOT stop 'trying to' make 'you' appear more capable or more superior than the "other", will you?
How about, instead, just 'trying to' prove what 'you' CLAIM is even possible, let alone even true? Or, how about PROVING what I say is WRONG, instead of just saying IT IS WRONG?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:14 pmEither way, there's no productive way forward in discussion so long as we don't understand one another.
But that is the main thing here I understand 'you' PERFECTLY. I KNOW how 'you' work and WHY 'you' are the way you ARE.
This HOW and WHY I KNOW 'you' can NOT do nor prove any thing 'you' CLAIM here.
I'm not sure how you get that, but okay.
