Name that fallacy...

[Age]

Okay.

Does 'this' somehow , harm, hurt, or offend 'you' "iwannaplato", in some way?

Given who is it coming from, at this point in our communication, no.

BUT WHO is 'it' coming FROM, EXACTLY?

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

WHY NOT?

After all 'you' do NOT KNOW who and what 'i' AM, EXACTLY, YET.

So, I presume you are a person, not an it.[/quote]

1. 'it' can be just ANOTHER word for 'person'.

2. 'Presuming' that one is a 'person', as I KEEP POINTING OUT and SHOWING IS NOT ACTUALLY KNOWING.

If you're an AI. I can live, quite happily, with my assumption of your humanity. I'm happy to err in that direction, Turing be damned.

Okay. But, the word 'if' is just 'you' just MAKING ANOTHER ASSUMPTION/PRESUMPTION.

And what do 'you' refer to as the 'current time', EXACTLY?

Well, that depends on the time.

Well 'this' IS A VERY USELESS response, especially considering the Fact that the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, and even the so-called "expert ones" cou NOT even come up with an AGREED UPON definition of (the word) 'time', itself.

to
Yes, yes. Deduction can lead to false assumptions.

And one can START WITH false assumptions, ALSO, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

Yes, I've noticed you often do.

REALLY?

Here we have ANOTHER CLAIM.

YET, let 'us' SEE what ACTUAL response 'we' get here when I ASK 'it' to PROVIDE ANY or ALL of the SAID and CLAIMED 'false assumptions', which 'you', "iwannaplato" think or BELIEVE I have made here?

Will 'you' PROVIDE ANY "iwannaplato"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if you did not mean what that use of language entails,
then you have assumed false things about communication and we humans in the time this is being written.

Well, lucky then, I did NOT ASSUME ANY such 'thing'.

Right, then there were problems in your assumptions about language and/or those you are communicating with.

What are 'you' on ABOUT here "iwannaplato"?

Also, your CONCLUSION here does NOT, necessarily, logically follow on from your previous remark.

Sure, don't mention how.

Okay I will NOT now then.

I look forward to, one day, welcoming 'you' to the next phase and stage of evolution, itself, AS WELL.

You're making assumptions again.

ABOUT 'what', EXACTLY?

Your beliefs are showing, you naught boy, you.

And, what are those PRESUPPOSED 'beliefs', EXACTLY?

By the way, "iwannaplato" have 'you' NOTICED how OFTEN 'you' ALLUDE TO 'things'?

Hopefully now 'you' WILL CLARIFY, especially considering I ASKED, NICELY, for 'you' TO.

[Iwannaplato]

BUT WHO is 'it' coming FROM, EXACTLY?

Age.

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

1. 'it' can be just ANOTHER word for 'person'.

Not at the time this is being written.

Okay. But, the word 'if' is just 'you' just MAKING ANOTHER ASSUMPTION/PRESUMPTION.

The word 'if' is not me making another assumption. And even the sentence as a whole is not. It was an example, in a hypothetical.

Well 'this' IS A VERY USELESS response, especially considering the Fact that the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, and even the so-called "expert ones" cou NOT even come up with an AGREED UPON definition of (the word) 'time', itself.

It wasn't a very useful question, but I did my best to answer it.

REALLY?

Here we have ANOTHER CLAIM.

Yes, and you response is a claim.

YET, let 'us' SEE what ACTUAL response 'we' get here when I ASK 'it' to PROVIDE ANY or ALL of the SAID and CLAIMED 'false assumptions', which 'you', "iwannaplato" think or BELIEVE I have made here?

Will 'you' PROVIDE ANY "iwannaplato"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I have done this before. You claim to have no beliefs. On one occasion, long ago, you said you had one. I disagree that you have only one.

What are 'you' on ABOUT here "iwannaplato"?

What are you on about, in general, Age?

Okay I will NOT now then.

I can live with that.

And, what are those PRESUPPOSED 'beliefs', EXACTLY?

By the way, "iwannaplato" have 'you' NOTICED how OFTEN 'you' ALLUDE TO 'things'?

At a certain point, I find that you are not meeting me, as I would like to be met in a conversation. I have explained this before. You will only (for the most part) share your positions information, in a dialogue, when asked to do this OR when you make judgments of other people, showing your beliefs and assumptions. It ends up like an interrogation. I'd prefer a more balanced dialogue. Yes, I know, you think your approach is the only way to get at assumptions and a clear sense of the other person's definitions. I disagree. You have your preferences. I have mine. Allusive communication is missing a lot. I find your communication is missing a lot. At a certain point, I join you, though not in the same style, in not communicating much.

Hopefully now 'you' WILL CLARIFY, especially considering I ASKED, NICELY, for 'you' TO.

I accept that you intended this communication to be nicely presented. I would say it is more neutral than that. Nice, to me, is not the mere absence of insults or judgments.

[Trajk Logik]

Have you read any of Age's posts? What on Earth makes you think he's accurately calling out fallacies?

Age is one of the people who's post I don't read because I have already interacted with them and found them to be lacking in critical thinking skills as well as being intellectually dishonest. I was speaking in general terms that applies to everyone, not just one specific person. Why would you create a thread that is about one person, who doesn't deserve this type of attention? You have to much time on your hands that could be spent doing more productive things.

It isn't about just one person.

Exactly, which is what I said above. You're telling me what I have already said as if I didn't say it, or (more likely) you're just not reading my posts and are straw-manning again. You were the one that brought up a specific person, Age. Not me.

There are lots of people who dismiss counters to their arguments with spurious accusations of fallacies.

Sure, and there are lots of people who dismiss valid accusations of fallacies.

I don't need to reference every one of them by name to accurately answer the question you posed. A single example of somebody who does fallaciously assert fallacies rather than address counters is sufficient to demonstrate that I am not suggesting all assertions of fallacy are fallacious.

As I said, I haven't read Age's posts, so I wouldn't know which example you are referring to. I have read your posts and you have provided multiple examples of rejecting valid accusations of fallacies and continue to commit them as if they were a badge of honor, so you are no better than Age.

You should stop trying to make everything personal, I really don't give any sort of a fuck about you.

I'm not taking anything personal. You don't know me and I don't know you. But if you really didn't give a fuck about me, then how about you stop reading my posts and stop responding to me because your posts are a waste of space.

[Atla]

And WHO is "kenneth", "flashdangerpants"?

Why did you name yourself after the male Barbie doll btw?

[FlashDangerpants]

There is a fallacy rampant about these parts, but for which I know no name...

The bare bones of the fallacy are the simple shouts: "nobody understands me"; "all I see is strawmen"; "everybody ad homs me" ...or ... "in the DAyS whEn THIS wrITTen so caLLED "ADulT HuMANs" COUld NOT UNDERSTAnd HoW WISe iT WaS".

LOL. So now calling out a fallacy is a fallacy.

As you can see I have now successfully dealt with this petty objection.

[Trajk Logik]

There is a fallacy rampant about these parts, but for which I know no name...

The bare bones of the fallacy are the simple shouts: "nobody understands me"; "all I see is strawmen"; "everybody ad homs me" ...or ... "in the DAyS whEn THIS wrITTen so caLLED "ADulT HuMANs" COUld NOT UNDERSTAnd HoW WISe iT WaS".

LOL. So now calling out a fallacy is a fallacy.

As you can see I have now successfully dealt with this petty objection.

But you haven't because I pointed out that there are lots of people who dismiss valid accusations of fallacies.

You haven't shown which is the actual case because you have, 1) Age in that they have played the victim before, and 2) you in that you have dismissed valid accusations of fallacies before.

Not everyone reads Age's posts for the same reasons I have provided (it's strange that you still do), so you'd need to provide actual examples where Age is doing this, which you haven't done in this thread, because given your history it is just as likely that you are dismissing valid accusations of fallacies.

[FlashDangerpants]

LOL. So now calling out a fallacy is a fallacy.

As you can see I have now successfully dealt with this petty objection.

But you haven't because I pointed out that there are lots of people who dismiss valid accusations of fallacies.

However your original accusation was a strawman as I was not making any claim that to call out a fallacy is automatically fallacious, indeed right here I am correctly calling you out for a strawman fallacy.

This weird nonsense of yours is done.

[Trajk Logik]

As you can see I have now successfully dealt with this petty objection.

But you haven't because I pointed out that there are lots of people who dismiss valid accusations of fallacies.

However your original accusation was a strawman as I was not making any claim that to call out a fallacy is automatically fallacious, indeed right here I am correctly calling you out for a strawman fallacy.

This weird nonsense of yours is done.

It wasn't a straw-man because what you said AND given your history AND your lack of any examples, it is quit possible that you could be actually rejecting valid claims of a fallacy being committed. I already pointed this out to you but you choose to cherry-pick and not take everything I said in one post in it's entirety.

[FlashDangerpants]

But you haven't because I pointed out that there are lots of people who dismiss valid accusations of fallacies.

However your original accusation was a strawman as I was not making any claim that to call out a fallacy is automatically fallacious, indeed right here I am correctly calling you out for a strawman fallacy.

This weird nonsense of yours is done.

It wasn't a straw-man because what you said AND given your history AND your lack of any examples, it is quit possible that you could be actually rejecting valid claims of a fallacy being committed. I already pointed this out to you but you choose to cherry-pick and not take everything I said in one post in it's entirety.

So you Hastily Gerneralized from your very limited experiences to make assumptions about what mistakes I might make if you assume a certain quantity of talentlessness on my part ... and then you just ran with that hasty generalization?

[Impenitent]

can a turtle make a hasty generalization?

-Imp

[seeds]

"iwannaplato" is obviously hallucinating if 'it' thinks or believes that I do or have done what 'it' is alleging here.

'It'??
In the time that this was written this would be considered dehumanizing.

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

Not so fast there, iwannaplato.

I mean, if not an "it," then what would you call a "channeled entity" that claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible, and is now using Age's/ken's body as a conduit through-which to share "its" thoughts with us right now in the days when this was written?

See the quote below by Age [aka, ken] from a 2017 post...

ken [aka, Age] wrote:

"...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things..."

The point is that until the unknown something that has commandeered Age's/ken's body, reveals to us what "it" actually is, then I don't think it's at all inappropriate to call it an "it".

(Btw, I wonder where the real Age/ken is. Oh dear! (shades of the Twilight Zone)....If you can somehow read this real Age/ken, then hang in there buddy. Now that we understand your dilemma, we'll keep trying to banish this confused "it" thing from your body so that this impostor creature can no longer make a shambles of your reputation.)
_______

[Atla]

Did you guys notice that this universal-mind-thing that Age is channeling has the exact same cognitive oddities as Age the human does?

Which must be why Age was chosen for the job. But those who don't yet know THE ACTUAL TRUTH, might be tempted to go with a more mundane explanation for this most remarkable coincidence.

[Iwannaplato]

Not so fast there, iwannaplato.

I mean, if not an "it," then what would you call a "channeled entity" that claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible, and is now using Age's/ken's body as a conduit through-which to share "its" thoughts with us right now in the days when this was written?

See the quote below by Age [aka, ken] from a 2017 post...

ken [aka, Age] wrote:

"...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things..."

Well, that's pretty interesting.

I still stick to my general policy. If a lifeform is communicating with me, I won't think of it as an it but rather a who.
But now I'm really curious to see how Age reacts to all this.

The point is that until the unknown something that has commandeered Age's/ken's body, reveals to us what "it" actually is, then I don't think it's at all inappropriate to call it an "it".

I'm open to this, though closed to being called an 'it' by him or it as the case may be.

(Btw, I wonder where the real Age/ken is. Oh dear! (shades of the Twilight Zone)....If you can somehow read this real Age/ken, then hang in there buddy. Now that we understand your dilemma, we'll keep trying to banish this confused "it" thing from your body so that this impostor creature can no longer make a shambles of your reputation.)

I'm actually open to this kind of situation being real. But some of these entities, well, just cause they're disembodied entities, doesn't mean they're wise. But some of them sure think they are.

[Atla]

But now I'm really curious to see how Age reacts to all this.

If I remember correctly, on her old account Age openly talked as God sometimes. She never had any doubt the she's (channeling) God.

Now she is merely trying to be all "mysterious" about it, hiding the God-channeling behind 10 layers of obfuscation. Now you have to be fully open to what she has to say and fully committed to listening to her and answering clarifying questions for months, before you are ready to be told the ACTUAL TRUTH.

[seeds]

But now I'm really curious to see how Age reacts to all this.

If I remember correctly, on her old account Age openly talked as God sometimes. She never had any doubt the she's (channeling) God.

Now she is merely trying to be all "mysterious" about it, hiding the God-channeling behind 10 layers of obfuscation. Now you have to be fully open to what she has to say and fully committed to listening to her and answering clarifying questions for months, before you are ready to be told the ACTUAL TRUTH.

And on the rare occasions that "it" finally reveals the "ACTUAL TRUTH" of something it has been withholding from us, it turns out to be utterly mundane, and absolutely nothing of any revelatory nature.

I mean, you'd think that an other-worldly entity that alleges to have helped inspire the writing of the Bible would have a little more insight into the nature of reality than that of a 14-year-old schoolgirl who just recently put some thought into the big questions.

And in light of the disappointing information that "it" has revealed to us in the past, the channeled entity nevertheless has the gall to wonder why we don't feel like taking the time to ask it innumerable "clarifying questions" in order to elicit more of the same disappointing answers.
_______