the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

[Iwannaplato]

If 'this' is what seems to 'you', then 'this' is what seems to 'you', correct?

BUT what seems to 'you', can be false or wrong, right?

Obviously. That is utterly implicit in the word 'seems'. Do you use the word seems in situations where you think you cannot be wrong?

And let me return the question. When you say LOL and then assert judgments of people you are interacting with, can you be wrong about those judgments?

So, 'language' can contain 'information', which 'we' can 'go into', and/or 'share', through mediums like books, true?

I said, language is involved. Further, I am focusing on the use of language to elicit. If you are not interested fine.

WHY would 'it' SEEM 'this way', TO 'you'.

I have explained that elsewhere in other interactions with you.

What information/knowledge do 'you', ACTUALLY, HAVE in regards to 'this place', which 'you' talk ABOUT and ARE IMAGINING here?

I didn't talk about the place. I was talking about you. It seems like you are from somewhere else or somewhen else, given the way you talk, judgmentally, about people here. And yet you seem to share qualities with the people here that you judge in us.

Okay. AND 'you' KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

No, please, you first. You assert that peace comes about via the process you mentioned. How do you know this happened?

Okay. So 'you' and "others" can NEVER EVER AGREE on the definitions of words, NOR on what those words are MEANING and/nor ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

Very binary thinking on your part. It's a specturm, which I believe I mentioned.

GOT 'you'.

Now, If 'I' AGREED WITH 'you' ON 'this', then 'this agreement' would NEVER EVER bring about peace among NOR between 'us' right "iwannaplato"?

The lack of peace between us has to do with how you interact and not the meanings of the words you use (alone). You're are a very judgmental person, with a lot of judgments about people here in the world. The anger you have about this comes out in an extremely condescending passive aggressive approach to people. We could spend an eternity agreeing on the definitions of words and your attitude would still be a problem.

Or as you would say LOL LOL LOL + some judgment.

Yes, you can shift how clear this is on a spectrum, but the process you want to engage in cannot even keep up with the changes that are happening.

AND 'you' KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

Have 'you' TRIED 'this'?

How do you know that your approach to people here is different/better and will lead to harmony?

Further it shows a misunderstanding of what language is.

REALLY?

Now, 'this' implies that 'you' ALREADY KNOW what 'language' IS, EXACTLY.

Would 'you' now like to INFORM 'us' of what language IS, EXACTLY?

No, I'll take a lesson from your approach.
Imply beliefs. Assert them. Claim not to have any (except one). Then given everyone you meet the onus to justify their postions. Intersperse judgments of them and the people of this time. Be condescencing and judge.
Repeat until they feel sick.

So, LOL, you think you don't have beliefs? LOL

Is IT?

What 'we' HAVE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of one NOT READING, and NOT SEEING and UNDERSTANDING, what I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN here.

Is it?
What 'we' HAVE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of AGE not adding anything to a conversation, NOT READING, and NOT SEEING and UNDERSTANDING, or responding to what I have said.

It is like the words that I SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to ADD IN do NOT get READ, and SEEN.

Now WHY could this be?

Could it be that a way that the human brain WORKS, in combination WITH the BELIEF-system, does NOT ALLOW 'them' to SEE nor HEAR some, particular, 'things'?

Like your own blindspot about what you are doing, here, at the time this is being written.

Hubris.

If the earth revolves around the sun, then the earth revolves around the sun. And NO amount of fighting AGAINST 'this Fact' makes 'the Fact' NOT TRUE.

It's good to see the great certainty you have regarding your own beliefs.

[Age]

The only thing you have in life is your belief system apparently. It's unfortunate.

'This' IS A TRULY AMAZING 'thing' to SAY and CLAIM. Especially considering what 'it' IS that I have been SAYING and talking ABOUT in relation to BELIEFS, themselves.

Also, AS USUAL, "atla", 'you' have NOT backed up NOR supported 'your' ACCUSATION and CLAIM here, even though 'it' was SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR.

I have,

'you' NEVER backed up NOR supported 'your' CLAIM and ACCUSATION here "atla", AT ALL.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and IRREFUTABLY PROVED ABSOLUTELY True.

To think, ASSUME, or BELIEVE 'you' HAVE SHOWS and REVEALS a GREAT DEAL ABOUT 'you' IN GENERAL.

one thing you have to understand about normal people is that they tend to remember things that were said in the past.

It was ONLY a few posts ago and about an hour and half so HOW could 'you' HAVE FORGOTTEN that 'you' have NOT backed up NOR supported 'your' CLAIM and ACCUSATION here "atla", AT ALL?

Or, HOW could 'you' REALLY BE 'TRYING TO' CLAIM what 'you' ARE now?

It's difficult to imagine for you I know.

Let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'you' COMPLETELY RUN AWAY, and ARE STILL 'TRYING TO' SNEAK AWAY and DEFLECT, FROM 'you' NOT BEING ABLE TO JUST ANSWER and CLARIFY the following QUESTIONS that I posed, and ASKED 'you', "atla".

1.What do 'you', "atla", 'think in' if NOT 'in language'?

2. Also, considering the Fact that there is a word or label for ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing', then WHY would just 'thinking in language' be so-called 'scary', to 'you'?

I have lost count of the number of times 'you' have ATTEMPTED TO DEFLECT when 'you' are COMPLETELY UNABLE TO JUST ANSWER VERY SIMPLE and VERY OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, in regards to what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here "atla".

[Atla]

'This' IS A TRULY AMAZING 'thing' to SAY and CLAIM. Especially considering what 'it' IS that I have been SAYING and talking ABOUT in relation to BELIEFS, themselves.

Also, AS USUAL, "atla", 'you' have NOT backed up NOR supported 'your' ACCUSATION and CLAIM here, even though 'it' was SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR.

I have,

'you' NEVER backed up NOR supported 'your' CLAIM and ACCUSATION here "atla", AT ALL.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and IRREFUTABLY PROVED ABSOLUTELY True.

To think, ASSUME, or BELIEVE 'you' HAVE SHOWS and REVEALS a GREAT DEAL ABOUT 'you' IN GENERAL.

one thing you have to understand about normal people is that they tend to remember things that were said in the past.

It was ONLY a few posts ago and about an hour and half so HOW could 'you' HAVE FORGOTTEN that 'you' have NOT backed up NOR supported 'your' CLAIM and ACCUSATION here "atla", AT ALL?

Or, HOW could 'you' REALLY BE 'TRYING TO' CLAIM what 'you' ARE now?

It's difficult to imagine for you I know.

Let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'you' COMPLETELY RUN AWAY, and ARE STILL 'TRYING TO' SNEAK AWAY and DEFLECT, FROM 'you' NOT BEING ABLE TO JUST ANSWER and CLARIFY the following QUESTIONS that I posed, and ASKED 'you', "atla".

1.What do 'you', "atla", 'think in' if NOT 'in language'?

2. Also, considering the Fact that there is a word or label for ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing', then WHY would just 'thinking in language' be so-called 'scary', to 'you'?

I have lost count of the number of times 'you' have ATTEMPTED TO DEFLECT when 'you' are COMPLETELY UNABLE TO JUST ANSWER VERY SIMPLE and VERY OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, in regards to what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here "atla".

When it comes to Age, I guess I ultimately blame religion. She seems to be autistic and mildly schizophrenic and mildly narcissistic, generally unable to live a normal life. So they came up with the bright idea to introduce Age to religion, that will give her something to do.

Well now she also thinks she is God. This didn't fare well on her psychological evaluations, so she came up with the idea that we all channel God, and that this is not a belief, it's the ultimate truth.

And because religion is a socially accepted form of mild insanity, no one can tell her that she's merely nuts.

[Wizard22]

It's just a moving-the-goalposts fallacy, aka. arguing in Bad Faith, or intellectual dishonesty.

It's perhaps one of, if not the-most common fallacies, especially on this forum. And why is it so common? Why do people regularly argue in bad faith? Because people don't want to risk 'losing' arguments, which is why they hide their premises. If a person spells out his logical premises and definitions honestly, from the start, then he stands to gain and learn from his errors. Most "thinkers" and philosophy hobbyists, don't want to actually learn, but instead seem to want the dopamine hit of 'winning', aha, gotcha!

Hence, there's never any truuuuuuuuuuue Scotsmen. Always fake ones.

[Age]

But just about ANY 'thing' could seem possible, to 'you', in regards to 'me'.

Yes, and in the other direction, seeming possible to you in regards to me.

BUT I do NOT usually go in 'that direction', if EVER.

However, if 'we' all just went ON what 'seemed possible', to 'the me', in regards to "the other", then 'we' would NOT GET ANYWHERE, as 'they' say.

Ah, let me give you a hint here about social interactions. [/quote]

Okay I will let 'you' give 'me' a hint here about the social interactions in the days when this is being written.

'This' could become VERY HELPFUL, thank 'you'.

You could have responded to what I put forward and said 'yes, that is how I view language'. Or you could have said no.

YES I COULD HAVE.

AND, by the way, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE, that is; IF 'you' JUST ASKED 'me' A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which involved a 'Yes' or 'No' ANSWER.

How much MORE SIMPLER and EASIER could this have been?

Or you could have said that it was partly true or you could have asked for clarification.

But I did NOT need clarification. 'you' expressed what SEEMED, TO 'you'. 'This' is FAIRLY WELL EXTREMELY STRAIGHTFORWARD, which TO 'me' does NOT need ANY further CLARITY.

As for 'me' SAYING that 'it' was 'partly true', 'not true', or 'fully true' would be A Wrong 'thing' for 'me' to do. As HOW could 'I' TELL 'you' what 'SEEMED' like, TO 'you'. OBVIOUSLY, ONLY 'you' KNOW what DOES or DOES NOT 'SEEM' like, TO 'you'.

'you' EXPRESSED what 'SEEMED' TO 'you'. I LEFT 'that', literally, AS 'that'.

There are other possibilities.

Okay. But for 'now' I will NOT ASK what 'they' ARE NOR COULD BE.

But, as usual, you chose to not move forward or try to in the conversation.

YES. BECAUSE, as usual, 'you' did NOT ASK 'me' FOR CLARITY. 'you', INSTEAD, as usual, TOLD 'me' what 'SEEMED' like, TO 'you'.

And NOTHING ELSE?

Same here.

What do 'you' MEAN here by SAYING, 'Same here'?

I ASKED 'you' the CLARIFYING QUESTION, 'And NOTHING ELSE?' in regards to 'your CLAIM' that 'you see language as eliciting experiences'.

I will make 'this' SIMPLER, FOR 'you' now.

Do 'you' ONLY see 'language', itself, as 'eliciting experiences' and NOTHING ELSE?

If yes, then 'this' would HELP TREMENDOUSLY in EXPLAINING HOW and WHY 'you' interact the way 'you' DO, socially.

You could have given your take on things.

YES I COULD HAVE.

BUT, considering 'you' did NOT SHOW ANY CURIOSITY through INQUISITIVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, I just LET 'you' EXPLAIN what 'SEEMS', or 'SEEMED', TO 'you', and left 'that', AS 'that'.

'you' SEEM MORE inclined to WANT TO EXPRESS 'your OWN VIEWS' rather then FINDING OUT and/or CLARIFYING "another's" VIEWS here.

But you see conversation, primarily, as requesting that others answer more and more questions.

What other BETTER WAY is there to GAIN and OBTAIN what the "other" IS ACTUALLY Truly SAYING, and MEANING?

Is there ANOTHER BETTER WAY to UNDERSTAND the "other" FULLY?

If yes, then what IS that OTHER BETTER WAY?

And, is ASKING, PRESUMED, MORE and MORE, QUESTIONS NOT the BEST WAY to ASCERTAIN whether the "other" Truly KNOWS what 'they' ARE SAYING and CLAIMING?

if no, then what is A BETTER WAY?

By the way, 'this here' IS a philosophy forum, do 'you', people, here COME NOT expecting to be QUESTIONED and/nor CHALLENGED OVER 'your' CLAIMS?

You imply positions, but don't assert them.

Is there something wrong with 'this'?

If yes, then what IS that 'thing/s', EXACTLY?

You judge, but don't offer something.

BECAUSE, as I have PREVIOUSLY STIPULATED, I WAIT FOR 'those' who seriously Want TO CHANGE, for the better, and who ARE Truly OPEN, and Honest.

These are the ones who WILL ALSO ACTUALLY LEARN, and GROW.

I AM ALSO in absolutely NO rush NEITHER.

If one is Truly OPEN, and INQUISITIVE, or WISE, then 'they' WILL ASK the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, and/or DO the CHALLENGING.

It's our responsibility and we get blamed for the conflicts of our time, all while your attitude leads to conflicts via its judgments.

BUT My 'judging' is NOT based upon on ANY 'superiority' NOR 'inferiority' AT ALL.

My 'judging' is JUST STATING that 'this' is what 'you' DO. And, if 'you' are NOT CURIOUS AT ALL regarding 'this judgment call', the so be it. LEAVE 'it' and MOVE ALONG.

Also, if 'the way' 'life' IS, in the days when this is being written, IS NOT BE-CAUSE of 'you', adult human beings, then WHO CAUSED or CREATED 'this was of life'?

Children?

I had experiences related to language and I used specific types of language to, potentially, elicit experiences in Flannel Jesus.

Okay.

BUT I AM STILL WONDERING, however, WHY would 'you' even BEGIN to think, PRESUME, or BELIEVE that there ARE 'portions' of 'the brain', which were, supposedly, NOT intended for language, (nor for 'other stuff').

And again, it seems like, given the very nature of your question, that you have a philosophy of language that is more fixed and works within the conduit metaphor. I was trying to elicit experiences.[/quote]

OKAY. AGAIN, if ''this' is 'what' 'SEEMS' TO 'you', then I can WAIT TILL 'you' ARE READY, OPEN, and Honest ENOUGH, TO ANSWER.

Do 'you' think that 'you' ARE NOT SHOWING, and REVEALING, HOW 'an individual brain' WORKS, EXACTLY?

No more or less than you.

Did I even EVER SUGGEST otherwise, TO 'you'?

What do 'you' think or ENVISION I am TRYING TO DO when I ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS?

Ah, but that's not all you are doing.

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' NEVER ANSWERED the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed, and ASKED 'you' here.

'you' PRESUMED SOME 'thing', and then ASSUME that 'I' and/or "others" KNOW what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that 'you' ARE PRESUMING.

I WILL, AGAIN, INFORM 'you' that UNTIL 'you' EXPLAIN in PLAIN SIMPLE "english" WORDS, I HAVE NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to what 'you' are talking ABOUT and/or REFERRING TO. AND, because I do NOT like to ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing', I do NOT like to even GUESS what 'you' ARE talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO here, NOR ANYWHERE ELSE.

What is, supposedly, NOT ALL I AM DOING?

I will, AGAIN, suggest that 'you' JUST READ the ACTUAL WORDS I WRITE, ALONE.
READ 'them' WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED 'thoughts' NOR PRESUMPTION 'thinking' going on AT ALL.
AND THEN, JUST ANSWER the ACTUAL WORDS, in the QUESTION, ONLY.

ALL of 'these PRESUMPTIONS' that 'you', posters, here ARE CONTINUALLY DOING, REALLY DO and REALLY ARE LEADING 'you', people, ASTRAY.

I suggest you reread your posts. Once your questions are put in the context of all that you are doing, they include assumptions.

BUT 'this' IS JUST 'your' ASSUMPTION, ALONE.

MY QUESTIONS DO NOT, necessarily, HAVE ABSOLUTELY ANY ASSUMPTIONS WITHIN 'them'.

Or, do 'you' PRESUME or BELIEVE that 'it' IS IMPOSSIBLE to JUST ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS INVOLVED?

If yes, then 'this' EXPLAINS A LOT OF 'your' RESPONSES, and NON-ANSWERS.

Would it be TO MUCH for 'me' to JUST ASK, POLITELY, if, from now on, could 'you', PLEASE JUST READ MY QUESTIONS as though I have ABSOLUTELY made NO ASSUMPTION AT ALL?

If 'you' could JUST DO 'this' for 'me', then 'we' could FIND OUT and SEE what TRANSPIRES.

ALSO, 'your response' here, OBVIOUSLY, CERTAINLY did NOT ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION I posed, and ASKED 'you'.

It is very tricky to answer questions that make assumptions about what is going on and what an interaction is, in language or otherwise.

Then MAY I SUGGEST that 'you' JUST STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, INCLUDING the ASSUMPTIONS that 'you' MAKE ABOUT what I MAY, or MAY NOT BE, ASSUMING.

To ASSUME NOT just that the "other" is MAKING AN ASSUMPTION I FIND UNNECESSARY and LEADS TO GETTING NOWHERE, but to ASSUME what 'the ASSUMPTION' IS, EXACTLY, of the "other", I FIND is just TAKING 'things' WAY TOO FAR.

I SUGGEST, FIRSTLY, JUST FINDING OUT IF the "other" is even MAKING AN ASSUMPTION, BEFORE going on TO ASSUME ANY ASSUMPTION AT ALL.

You could perhaps go into the ideas of eliciting experiences of others and contrast that with container/conduit models of communication.

I COULD.

BUT I FOUND that if "others" JUST ANSWERED the CLARIFYING QUESTION I pose, and ASK TO 'them', then 'this way' IS the BEST WAY TO 'elicit experiences' OF and FROM "others".

Although 'this way' CERTAINLY WAS NOT SHOWN to be WORKING, BACK in the days when this was being written, WITH 'you', posters, here.

IOW meet the person whose post it seems you are interested in half way.

BUT WHY?

Do 'you' MEET ANY one so-called 'half way' IF 'you' do NOT AGREE WITH and NOT ACCEPT what the "other" is SAYING and CLAIMING?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Then it would seem like you are actually interested.

HOW, EXACTLY, does ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, in order to GAIN and OBTAIN FURTHER CLARITY, and/or TO BETTER UNDERSTAND the "other", TO 'you', NOT 'SEEM' like 'I' AM ACTUALLY INTERESTED?

Or you could be interested in what I experienced in the post here your first responded to. What I experienced about language.

What BETTER WAY TO SHOW INTEREST, OF "another", than to ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, LIKE: 'What did 'you' EXPERIENCE ABOUT 'language', "iwannaplato"?

WILL 'you' ANSWER 'this CLARIFYING QUESTION' I just posed, and ASKED 'you'?

It's fine if you are not interested in what I was talking about or what I meant by eliciting or the conduit metaphor.

BUT what 'you' have ALREADY SAID and WRITTEN ABOUT 'eliciting' or the 'conduit metaphor' SEEMS VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND, and KNOW.

What I AM, STILL, Truly INTERESTED IN LEARNING, and COMING-TO-KNOW, can be CLEARLY SEEN IN the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which I HAVE ALREADY posed, and ASKED. But which have NOT YET been ANSWERED.

I brought those things up for reasons of creating clarity, but if you are not interested in either my original 'description' of my experiences and attempt to elicit experiences, that's of course fine with me.

Okay. BUT it now SEEMS like 'you' WANT TO 'TRY TO' DETRACT FROM 'you' NOT being INTERESTED IN 'things' here.

But I am not interested in what for me is a tangent that goes in quite a different direction.

Okay. BUT if 'you' NEVER ANSWER the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, ASKED FROM A Truly UNASSUMING PERSPECTIVE, then 'you' WILL NEVER KNOW in WHAT DIRECTION 'things' COULD HAVE ACTUALLY GONE.

[Age]

If 'this' is what seems to 'you', then 'this' is what seems to 'you', correct?

BUT what seems to 'you', can be false or wrong, right?

Obviously. That is utterly implicit in the word 'seems'.

GREAT, 'this' HAS NOW BEEN RESOLVED.

Do you use the word seems in situations where you think you cannot be wrong?

NO.

And let me return the question. When you say LOL and then assert judgments of people you are interacting with, can you be wrong about those judgments?

1. WHEN do 'you' think was the LAST TIME I USED the 'lol' letters?

2. WHEN I USE the letters 'lol' 'you' do NOT YET even KNOW what 'it' MEANS and/nor REFERS TO, EXACTLY.

3. 'We' WILL HAVE TO WAIT, and SEE, IF 'I' WAS WRONG, or NOT.

4. ONLY through Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSIONS 'we' CAN SEE IF 'I' WAS WRONG.

5. I do NOT, usually, IF EVER, SAY 'things' WITHOUT being ABLE TO back 'them' up and support 'them' FULLY. So, IF 'I' AM WRONG, or NOT, 'we' WILL HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE, IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one QUESTIONS, and/or CHALLENGES 'me' OVER those 'lol's' and ASSERTED 'judgments'.

By the way, if I did NOT ADD nor INCLUDE the 'seem' word, IN WITH those ASSERTED JUDGMENTS, then this UTTERLY IMPLIES that I do NOT SEE what I AM SAYING and CLAIMING AS BEING WRONG.

BUT IF 'you' or ANY one "else" would like to QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE 'me', then PLEASE DO.

So, 'language' can contain 'information', which 'we' can 'go into', and/or 'share', through mediums like books, true?

I said, language is involved.

'you' ALSO SAID and CLAIMED OTHER 'things'.

Further, I am focusing on the use of language to elicit. If you are not interested fine.

AND, IF 'you' ARE NOT INTERESTED in JUST PROVIDING A 'Yes' OR A 'No' ANSWER, TO the YES or NO CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, and ASKED TO 'you' here "iwannaplato", then ALL WELL and GOOD.

ALSO, by what 'you' just SAID here, are 'you' SUGGESTING that "others" ONLY 'focus' ON what 'you' WANT TO, and ARE, ONLY 'focusing' ON here?

WHY would 'it' SEEM 'this way', TO 'you'.

I have explained that elsewhere in other interactions with you.

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' SEEM to HAVE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED the ACTUAL QUESTION being ASKED TO 'you' here.

What information/knowledge do 'you', ACTUALLY, HAVE in regards to 'this place', which 'you' talk ABOUT and ARE IMAGINING here?

I didn't talk about the place. I was talking about you. [/quote]

'you' WERE SPECIFICALLY talking ABOUT SOME 'place', when 'you' WERE SPECIFICALLY SAID and STATED, WITH the WORDS, 'whenever/wherever you are from/at.

It seems like you are from somewhere else or somewhen else, given the way you talk, judgmentally, about people here.

OF COURSE 'this' IS 'what' SEEMS LIKE, TO 'you'.

This IS WHY I ASKED 'you', 'Why would 'it' SEEM 'this way', TO 'you'?'

Now, IF 'you' EVER ASKED 'me' A CLARIFYING QUESTION, BEFORE 'you' MADE AN ASSUMPTION, and JUMPED TO SOME CONCLUSION, then 'you' could have VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY FOUND OUT that I WAS ASKING 'you', 'WHY would 'it' SEEM LIKE, TO 'you', that 'I' AM FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. Which OBVIOUSLY REFERS TO, 'ANOTHER PLACE', does 'it' NOT?

And yet you seem to share qualities with the people here that you judge in us.

'you' seem to think that 'judging people' is somehow WRONG, or NOT the RIGHT 'thing' TO DO. Is 'this' correct?

Okay. AND 'you' KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

No, please, you first.

ONCE AGAIN, WHEN CHALLENGED, and/or QUESTIONED, it WAS VERY POPULAR for 'these people', BACK THEN, TO RETREAT.

You assert that peace comes about via the process you mentioned. How do you know this happened?

BECAUSE I HAVE LIVED 'it', PERSONALLY, or 'FIRST HAND', as some would say.

Now, HOW do 'you' KNOW that FOREVER MORE 'peace' can NOT 'come about' through AGREEMENT?

Okay. So 'you' and "others" can NEVER EVER AGREE on the definitions of words, NOR on what those words are MEANING and/nor ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

Very binary thinking on your part. It's a specturm, which I believe I mentioned.

The ONLY REAL 'thing' 'you' MENTIONED here WAS: 'No, that will not/is not how peace comes about'.

Was 'this way' of thinking NOT 'binary thinking' and/or NOT 'Very binary thinking', on 'your' part?

AND, WHERE, EXACTLY, did 'you' mention that 'it' IS A 'spectrum'? Also, what does the 'it' word here even REFER TO, EXACTLY?

GOT 'you'.

Now, If 'I' AGREED WITH 'you' ON 'this', then 'this agreement' would NEVER EVER bring about peace among NOR between 'us' right "iwannaplato"?

The lack of peace between us has to do with how you interact and not the meanings of the words you use (alone).

FOR 'you', does 'it'?

Also, and by the way "iwannaplato", could 'you' be MAKING Wrong ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT the ACTUAL WAY that I AM ACTUALLY INTERACTING here?

Could it be A POSSIBILITY that I am interacting in A WAY to PORTRAY SOME 'thing' that IS NOT ACTUALLY OCCURRING?

Could I be MAKING SOME 'thing' APPEAR here, or even SEEM LIKE, but which is NOT REALLY HAPPENING, and OCCURRING?

Could what has been ACTUALLY OCCURRING and HAPPENING here be DISCOVERED, and/or UNCOVERED, through DELVING DEEPER and MORE THOROUGHLY INTO 'things' here?

Or, does what FIRST APPEAR, or SEEM LIKE, TO 'you', what IS ACTUALLY and/or IRREFUTABLY what IS True?

You're are a very judgmental person, with a lot of judgments about people here in the world.

Unless I AM MISTAKEN, and PROVEN Wrong, then I have ONLY REALLY JUDGED just 'one', and that IS ALL of 'you', adult human beings, TOGETHER and/or COLLECTIVELY.

Also, IS there ANY 'thing' ACTUALLY Wrong WITH BEING VERY JUDGMENTAL, if the JUDGMENTS MADE can be PROVEN True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct?

The anger you have about this comes out in an extremely condescending passive aggressive approach to people.

Could it be A POSSIBILITY that, ACTUALLY, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ANGER here, from 'me', and ANY and/or ALL 'anger' that 'you' PERCEIVE is just AN ASSUMPTION and/or A FIGMENT OF 'your' IMAGINATION, ONLY?

Or, is ANY of 'this' NOT A POSSIBILITY?

ACTUALLY, could of THE WAY, which 'you' were RAISED and BROUGHT UP, hitherto, be affecting THE WAY 'you' ARE LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' here?

We could spend an eternity agreeing on the definitions of words and your attitude would still be a problem.

1. What IS the ACTUAL PERCEIVED 'problem' here?

2. Could 'my' ACTUAL ATTITUDE BE DIFFERENT FROM what 'you' ARE PERCEIVING, and IMAGINING, here?

Or as you would say LOL LOL LOL + some judgment.

Considering the Fact that WHEN I SAY, WRITE, and USE 'LOL' here 'you' do NOT YET EVEN KNOW what THE DEFINITION IS, JUST MAYBE IF 'you' EVER STOP PRESUMING 'things', JUDGING 'me', and STARTED ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, then 'you' MIGHT FIND OUT what I ACTUALLY MEAN, which MIGHT THEN just INFLUENCE and CHANGE 'THE WAY' 'you' LOOK AT, PERCEIVE, and SEE 'THE WAY' I AM, and HAVE BEEN, INTERACTING here.

Yes, you can shift how clear this is on a spectrum, but the process you want to engage in cannot even keep up with the changes that are happening.

AND 'you' KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

Have 'you' TRIED 'this'?

How do you know that your approach to people here is different/better and will lead to harmony?[/quote]

ONCE MORE, 'they' WILL NOT ANSWER MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed, and ASKED, TO 'them', BUT 'they' WANT 'me' TO ANSWER 'their' CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

1. I have NEVER EVER even SUGGESTED that 'my approach', to people here, would lead TO 'harmony'. In Fact the OPPOSITE could be QUITE TRUE.

2. WHY did 'you' CHANGE FROM talking ABOUT 'the process', regarding AGREEMENT, to 'my approach'?

3. Will 'you' now ANSWER the two CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I posed, and ASKED 'you' here.

Further it shows a misunderstanding of what language is.

REALLY?

Now, 'this' implies that 'you' ALREADY KNOW what 'language' IS, EXACTLY.

Would 'you' now like to INFORM 'us' of what language IS, EXACTLY?

No, I'll take a lesson from your approach.[/quote]

'you' could NOT be MORE CONFUSED here "iwannaplato".

I just about ALWAYS ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed, and ASKED TO 'me'.

So, for 'you' to NOT ANSWER is NOT TAKING A LESSON FROM 'my approach' AT ALL.

In fact 'you' ARE, AGAIN, just DOING what 'you' USUALLY and NORMALLY DO here. As can be CLEARLY SEEN above here.

Imply beliefs.

BUT I DO NOT 'imply' BELIEFS, AT ALL, IN what I SAY and WRITE here. RATHER, 'you' 'infer' BELIEFS, IN what I SAY and WRITE here.

'you' ASSUME I HAVE BELIEFS, IN what I SAY and WRITE. BUT A/NOTHER READING WITHOUT 'this ASSUMPTION' WILL SHOW and REVEAL OTHERWISE.

Assert them.

AGAIN, I would HAVE TO HAVE BELIEFS, FIRST, BEFORE I COULD ASSERT 'them'.

SURE, I ASSERT 'things', but 'they' ARE CERTAINLY NOT BELIEFS.

Claim not to have any (except one).

Is there ANY 'thing' Wrong WITH 'this'?

Then given everyone you meet the onus to justify their postions.

Well if one comes INTO a 'philosophy forum', and does NOT EXPECT that the 'onus' IS ON 'them' TO JUSTIFY 'their position/s', then JUST MAYBE a 'philosophy forum' is NOT 'the place' FOR 'them'.

Intersperse judgments of them and the people of this time.

AGAIN, is there ANY 'thing' Wrong WITH MAKING and/or INTERSPERSING 'JUDGMENTS', in and of ITSELF?

For example if someone does some 'thing', and IS JUDGED TO BE DOING SO, then 'what', EXACTLY, IS Wrong WITH 'this', IF there IS ANY 'thing' Wrong WITH 'this'?

Be condescencing and judge.

Are 'you' ABSOLUTELY 100% IRREFUTABLY SURE that I am BEing 'condescending', and/or have EVER BEEN 'condescending' here?

By the way, if 'you' EVER get around to LEARNING, COMPREHENDING, UNDERSTANDING, and KNOWING WHO 'I' AM, EXACTLY, then 'you' will NOT SEE 'I' BE-ing 'Judge' as being Wrong in ABSOLUTELY ANY WAY AT ALL.

Repeat until they feel sick.

Some people ALSO 'feel sick' when they are continually TOLD how 'good' they are, and/or how 'loved' they are.

ABSOLUTELY EVERY one VIEWS and SEES 'things' DIFFERENTLY.

Now, if 'you' KNOW of A WAY where one CAN COMMUNICATE IN 'A WAY' that does NOT MAKE ABSOLUTELY ANY one so-called 'feel sick', then PLEASE WILL 'you' let 'me' KNOW?

Also, and by the way, can 'you', human beings, MISINTERPRET 'the way' "others" ARE COMMUNICATING, and ESPECIALLY SO IN 'a forum' through WRITTEN WORDS, ALONE?

So, LOL, you think you don't have beliefs? LOL

What do 'you' MEAN by 'LOL' here, "iwannaplato"? And,

Do 'you' think, PRESUME, and/or BELIEVE that 'I' HAVE BELIEFS?

If yes, then what are 'they', EXACTLY?

Is IT?

What 'we' HAVE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of one NOT READING, and NOT SEEING and UNDERSTANDING, what I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN here.

Is it?

YES, VERY, VERY MUCH SO.

Now, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to FIND OUT and SEE WHY, then just ASK the, right, CLARIFYING QUESTION/S.

What 'we' HAVE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of AGE not adding anything to a conversation, NOT READING, and NOT SEEING and UNDERSTANDING, or responding to what I have said.

Do 'you' REALLY BELIEVE that I have NOT 'responded' to what you have SAID here, and/nor NOT 'added' ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' to A 'conversation' here?

And, what do 'you' think or BELIEVE I have NOT READ, NOT SEEN, and/or NOT UNDERSTOOD here?

It is like the words that I SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to ADD IN do NOT get READ, and SEEN.

Now WHY could this be?

Could it be that a way that the human brain WORKS, in combination WITH the BELIEF-system, does NOT ALLOW 'them' to SEE nor HEAR some, particular, 'things'?

Like your own blindspot about what you are doing, here, at the time this is being written.

1. SEE HOW 'they' do NOT WANT TO FIND OUT what 'they' MISSED and/or MISUNDERSTOOD.

2. What is 'it', EXACTLY, ABOUT what 'I' AM DOING here, 'now', at the time this is being written, which 'you' SAY and/or BELIEVE I am BLIND TO?

Hubris.

If the earth revolves around the sun, then the earth revolves around the sun. And NO amount of fighting AGAINST 'this Fact' makes 'the Fact' NOT TRUE.

It's good to see the great certainty you have regarding your own beliefs.
[/quote]

AGAIN, what do 'you' think or BELIEVE are 'my OWN BELIEFS' here?

And, 'you' do NOT YET FULLY REALIZE HOW CERTAIN I AM REALLY AM, of what I KNOW and UNDERSTAND here.

[Age]

I have,

'you' NEVER backed up NOR supported 'your' CLAIM and ACCUSATION here "atla", AT ALL.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and IRREFUTABLY PROVED ABSOLUTELY True.

To think, ASSUME, or BELIEVE 'you' HAVE SHOWS and REVEALS a GREAT DEAL ABOUT 'you' IN GENERAL.

one thing you have to understand about normal people is that they tend to remember things that were said in the past.

It was ONLY a few posts ago and about an hour and half so HOW could 'you' HAVE FORGOTTEN that 'you' have NOT backed up NOR supported 'your' CLAIM and ACCUSATION here "atla", AT ALL?

Or, HOW could 'you' REALLY BE 'TRYING TO' CLAIM what 'you' ARE now?

It's difficult to imagine for you I know.

Let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'you' COMPLETELY RUN AWAY, and ARE STILL 'TRYING TO' SNEAK AWAY and DEFLECT, FROM 'you' NOT BEING ABLE TO JUST ANSWER and CLARIFY the following QUESTIONS that I posed, and ASKED 'you', "atla".

1.What do 'you', "atla", 'think in' if NOT 'in language'?

2. Also, considering the Fact that there is a word or label for ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing', then WHY would just 'thinking in language' be so-called 'scary', to 'you'?

I have lost count of the number of times 'you' have ATTEMPTED TO DEFLECT when 'you' are COMPLETELY UNABLE TO JUST ANSWER VERY SIMPLE and VERY OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, in regards to what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here "atla".

When it comes to Age, I guess I ultimately blame religion.

Okay. I WONDER what 'this' would be BASED UPON, EXACTLY?

She seems to be autistic

So, BEFORE I WAS 'autistic', TO "atla", but, now, I ONLY 'seem' to be 'autistic'.

and mildly schizophrenic and mildly narcissistic, generally unable to live a normal life.

BEFORE 'you' WERE CERTAIN I WAS VERY 'schizophrenic' and VERY 'unable' to live some so-called 'normal' life.

So they came up with the bright idea to introduce Age to religion, that will give her something to do.

Who are 'they', EXACTLY?

Well now she also thinks she is God.

WHEN have I EVER 'thought' 'this' here, "atla"?

This didn't fare well on her psychological evaluations, so she came up with the idea that we all channel God, and that this is not a belief, it's the ultimate truth.

WOW 'you' REALLY KNOW 'me' hey "atla"?

And because religion is a socially accepted form of mild insanity, no one can tell her that she's merely nuts.

BUT 'you' can KEEP SAYING and TELLING 'me' 'this' for AS LONG and FOR AS MUCH as 'you' LIKE "atla".

[FlashDangerpants]

It's just a moving-the-goalposts fallacy

Well look at that, even Gandalf the KKK understands what a fallacy is in a way that is beyond the talents of Trajik.

Good news you weird little God-chanelling nazi fuckstain, Trajik Logik now thinks you are great because he thinks I am just abusing you out of the blue.

[Wizard22]

Well look at that, even Gandalf the KKK understands what a fallacy is in a way that is beyond the talents of Trajik.

Good news you weird little God-chanelling nazi fuckstain, Trajik Logik now thinks you are great because he thinks I am just abusing you out of the blue.

You're mentally deranged; at least your avatar matches your inner psyche.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well look at that, even Gandalf the KKK understands what a fallacy is in a way that is beyond the talents of Trajik.

Good news you weird little God-chanelling nazi fuckstain, Trajik Logik now thinks you are great because he thinks I am just abusing you out of the blue.

You're mentally deranged; at least your avatar matches your inner psyche.

You never did explain whether God was speaking to you or through you when He inspired you to write all that stuff about "Globohomo".

[Iwannaplato]

BUT I do NOT usually go in 'that direction', if EVER.

Ah, ha. Then you use language in ways that will be regularly misinterpreted by people at the time this is being written. I think it would be good if you treated current English as a foreign language.

Okay I will let 'you' give 'me' a hint here about the social interactions in the days when this is being written.

YES I COULD HAVE.

AND, by the way, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE, that is; IF 'you' JUST ASKED 'me' A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which involved a 'Yes' or 'No' ANSWER.

OK, so you have a rule, it seems, that someone must ask you clarifying questions or you will not respond to content. Good to know. But then, I find a more varied approach useful.

How much MORE SIMPLER and EASIER could this have been?

Actually, your version is more complicated. I put forth an idea and then must as a clarifying question. I could simply put forth an idea of what is happening and you could respond to that idea, without needing the prompt. But, I see that you want that extra step. Fine. I can think of that as your culture. But while thinking it's fine for you to expect everyone to conform to your culture and to judge them if they don't, I may well ask clarifying questions, but I will not be adhering to this as a rule.

Or you could have said that it was partly true or you could have asked for clarification.

But I did NOT need clarification. 'you' expressed what SEEMED, TO 'you'. 'This' is FAIRLY WELL EXTREMELY STRAIGHTFORWARD, which TO 'me' does NOT need ANY further CLARITY.

Right, that was one of a number of options.

As for 'me' SAYING that 'it' was 'partly true', 'not true', or 'fully true' would be A Wrong 'thing' for 'me' to do. As HOW could 'I' TELL 'you' what 'SEEMED' like, TO 'you'. OBVIOUSLY, ONLY 'you' KNOW what DOES or DOES NOT 'SEEM' like, TO 'you'.

Yes, people in this time, at least many of them, understand that it is possible to then move forward and express how it seems to them. To reply to the content of my assertions. To build or critique.

'you' EXPRESSED what 'SEEMED' TO 'you'. I LEFT 'that', literally, AS 'that'.

Well, no, you didn't. You asked me if I could be wrong about what seems to me to be the case. Perhaps the people in your time use the verb 'seem' in a different way. But that seemed like a truly unnecessary tangent, especially in the context of no response to content.

There are other possibilities.

Okay. But for 'now' I will NOT ASK what 'they' ARE NOR COULD BE.

Fine: I think 'or' likely conveys what you meant better than 'NOR' here.

But, as usual, you chose to not move forward or try to in the conversation.

YES. BECAUSE, as usual, 'you' did NOT ASK 'me' FOR CLARITY. 'you', INSTEAD, as usual, TOLD 'me' what 'SEEMED' like, TO 'you'.

Notice the way you are not responding to what I wrote here. I said you chose not to move forward or try to in the conversation. You say that you did not do this because I did not ask you for clarity. I think this is a limited approach to conversation and actually restricts moving forward, if it is the only conception of moving forward in a conversation.

And NOTHING ELSE?

Same here.

What do 'you' MEAN here by SAYING, 'Same here'?

I ASKED 'you' the CLARIFYING QUESTION, 'And NOTHING ELSE?' in regards to 'your CLAIM' that 'you see language as eliciting experiences'.

I will make 'this' SIMPLER, FOR 'you' now.

Do 'you' ONLY see 'language', itself, as 'eliciting experiences' and NOTHING ELSE?

If yes, then 'this' would HELP TREMENDOUSLY in EXPLAINING HOW and WHY 'you' interact the way 'you' DO, socially.

It doesn't seem like you have much interest in what I wrote in the post, except to get at clarifications of terms. Are you interested in the philosophy of language? The phenomenology of language? Other ways of viewing what is happening during communication?

You could have given your take on things.

YES I COULD HAVE.

BUT, considering 'you' did NOT SHOW ANY CURIOSITY through INQUISITIVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, I just LET 'you' EXPLAIN what 'SEEMS', or 'SEEMED', TO 'you', and left 'that', AS 'that'.

Again, I think you have a limited sense of what shows curiosity. We are here in a philosophy forum. If I post to someone it is in that context. I express views and ideas with the assumption that the other person has chosen, as you did, to respond to the issue/points I raised in response to someone else.

You're happy to imply or state things about me as a person. I don't think I've ever asked you to clarify what you think I am like as a person or what we are all like as people in the time this is being written. And yet you manage to offer this, even when it is off topic. Here I was talking about a way of viewing language and it seems like you could not weigh in on the issue, unless I asked you a clarifying question. Yet, you can manage to weigh in on other things without that question.

It's fine with me if you don't want to express any thoughts on what I was writing about. But it makes you vastly less interesting as a discussion partner, to me, that is.

'you' SEEM MORE inclined to WANT TO EXPRESS 'your OWN VIEWS' rather then FINDING OUT and/or CLARIFYING "another's" VIEWS here.

I consider most people to be adults who don't need to be invited to speak. I read people's views all the time here. I am interested and show this in a wide set of ways, a wide set of ways understood at the time this is being written.

You seem interested in two things: asking clarifying questions and judging people. You seem to only want to do these two things and judge others who do not do the former as much as you think they should.

We have our preferences, you and I.

But you see conversation, primarily, as requesting that others answer more and more questions.

What other BETTER WAY is there to GAIN and OBTAIN what the "other" IS ACTUALLY Truly SAYING, and MEANING?

You can triangulate by responding with your ideas. This can quickly lead to, for example, me saying, ah, perhaps you thought I meant X, and then adding more of my position or asking something about yours or noting what seem like areas in common...and so on.

Is there ANOTHER BETTER WAY to UNDERSTAND the "other" FULLY?

My point is not that you should give up clarifying questions. It seems you think this is THE tool, period, and then also judgments. I think that's limited. I suppose I think having a more diverse way of interacting is better, yes.

If yes, then what IS that OTHER BETTER WAY?

And, is ASKING, PRESUMED, MORE and MORE, QUESTIONS NOT the BEST WAY to ASCERTAIN whether the "other" Truly KNOWS what 'they' ARE SAYING and CLAIMING?

I don't know what you think gets lost if you had simply phrased this in statement form. At the time this is being written we are quite aware of implicit assertions and expressions of incredulity.

if no, then what is A BETTER WAY?

By the way, 'this here' IS a philosophy forum, do 'you', people, here COME NOT expecting to be QUESTIONED and/nor CHALLENGED OVER 'your' CLAIMS?

Of course.

You imply positions, but don't assert them.

Is there something wrong with 'this'?

If yes, then what IS that 'thing/s', EXACTLY?

Because it keeps the onus on other people only. You get to imply things and claim you have no beliefs. It's disingenous. I don't like it.

You judge, but don't offer something.

BECAUSE, as I have PREVIOUSLY STIPULATED, I WAIT FOR 'those' who seriously Want TO CHANGE, for the better, and who ARE Truly OPEN, and Honest.

I don't experience you this way. I don't experience you as someone interested in other people's ideas. You seem extremely fixed and set in your ways. I don't get the impression you are interested in changing or learning from others. You communicate in ways that, at the time this is being written, are condescending. And with regularity. Despite your claim to not have any beliefs (and I mean beliefs in the sense of 'things that you believe are true) you imply and state beliefs about a rather large number of things.

Imagine a relationship where one partner always is asking for justification for everything, claims to not have any beliefs and doesn't add much direct content to the conversations. That's a dominance pattern, in the time that this is being written. It is putting people on t he defensive. Now you might be able to claim that they are responsible for this, but since you so often express judgment for the people of this time and laugh at them in general and in the specific, that claim is not even weak, it's groundless.

It's our responsibility and we get blamed for the conflicts of our time, all while your attitude leads to conflicts via its judgments.

BUT My 'judging' is NOT based upon on ANY 'superiority' NOR 'inferiority' AT ALL.

Then you would include yourself in those judgments. It would be 'we' not 'you'.

My 'judging' is JUST STATING that 'this' is what 'you' DO. And, if 'you' are NOT CURIOUS AT ALL regarding 'this judgment call', the so be it. LEAVE 'it' and MOVE ALONG.

Well, 1) it is disingenous to say it is just stating, since you often accompany your judgments with LOLs, for example. 2) I don't believe you.

Also, if 'the way' 'life' IS, in the days when this is being written, IS NOT BE-CAUSE of 'you', adult human beings, then WHO CAUSED or CREATED 'this was of life'?

This question implies that I have said that humans haven't cause a lot of the problems. I have said to you elsewhere, at least I think it was you, that problems are also created by the situation we are in. But the problems are also being caused by you. You are hear, judging and laughing at people, judging also their more diverse set of ways of communicating. There are other causes, but none of them have anything to do with the issue I wrote about in the post you first responded to.

I see little evidence you are interested in that topic.

OKAY. AGAIN, if ''this' is 'what' 'SEEMS' TO 'you', then I can WAIT TILL 'you' ARE READY, OPEN, and Honest ENOUGH, TO ANSWER.

More judgments. Just because I do not conform to your priorities in an interaction and your preferences and satisfy your desires, you conclude that the reason I am not responding the way you want is because I am not open and honest enough to answer.

That is a belief. You know those things you claim not to have. It was a poor assumption. And it's a dominance move.

You didn't do what I want....you have these qualities

Welcome to the time we are writing in. You are part of the problem. And I cannot respect you if you cannot see this and admit it.

And that was an example of you going in a direction you claimed not to ever go in, right up there in the beginning of my quotes in this post.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=682195 time=1701375998 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=682186 time=1701375282 user_id=15238]
All meaningful philosophy is linguistic.
[/quote]
:lol:

Personally I think that people who think in language are disadvantaged in philosophy. It's limited and limiting.
[/quote]

If an idea cannot be communicated, it's worthless. If it can, it can be explained in simple physical metaphors, which are the basis of all language. You're wrong.

[Advocate]

[quote=Wizard22 post_id=682278 time=1701422185 user_id=22733]
[quote=Advocate post_id=469683 time=1599488299 user_id=15238]
a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end
[/quote]
Why was it a "problem" in the first place?
[/quote]

That problem is people believing NTS is a logical false while it's not. People merely have different ideas of what TS is.

[Atla]

All meaningful philosophy is linguistic.

Personally I think that people who think in language are disadvantaged in philosophy. It's limited and limiting.

If an idea cannot be communicated, it's worthless. If it can, it can be explained in simple physical metaphors, which are the basis of all language. You're wrong.

Worthless to whom?
Well yes all language is in language, I agree on that count.

[Iwannaplato]

That problem is people believing NTS is a logical false while it's not. People merely have different ideas of what TS is.

No, that's wrong on two counts. First, it is not logically false because it describes a real phenomenon where some people exclude members of a category disingenuously. Sure, that group may continue to act like they are excluding on good grounds, but in fact they are excluding what is inconvenient. IOW, it's not that the two people actually disagree about the definition, but one person is excluding merely as a defensive maneuver.
Yes, in other situations there may be a genuine disagreement about what should be included.

That's why it is an informal fallacy, not a formal one. It depends on the situation.

So, the two problems are 1) you are assuming that people exclude in good faith. 2) you are treating it as a formal fallacy.

Rational people can decide that when a person invents criteria they never mentioned before in order to exclude troublesome examples, and if there is a pattern of doing this, they are engaging in an NTS fallacious arguing.

Sometimes one can catch such people contradicting themselves. One points out that the criteria they use to exclude group X would also exclude examples they include and depend on, for example.

There are other ways the pattern can be seen.

This in no way means that genuine disagreements about inclusion/exclusion can't happen. That can happen ALSO.

But that doesn't exclude the real phenomenon that you can't seem to imagine doesn't exist.

Yes, the NTS can be misused. But it is nevertheless a useful concept because, it can be correctly applied.

Hell, people sometimes admit it when it is pointed out to them. Though incredibly rarely in online philosophy forums.