Is it Wrong to Put Faith in Humanity?

[Age]

Has anyone ever told you that you sound conceited, Age? It's not a terrible thing, just something that can be annoying to some of us at times.

I've described him as presenting himself as superior and condescending quite few times. Belinda called him arrogant. I'm sure he's gotten similar labels from other people.

And Age has used the word himself, a few times....

By the way, ASSUMING that because one is, SUPPOSEDLY, "ignorant" of A LANGUAGE, then this MEANS that what that one SAYS or WRITES is then likely to be WRONG, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of 'egocentricity', 'superiority complex', and of one who is Truly 'conceited'.

Either this is because you are just way to impatient and do NOT read ALL of what I write, or you really are TRYING TO be extremely deceitful for some conceited outcome, or for some other reason.

And yet here he is asking you for clarification.

Will you link us to where I said those things?

If yes, then great.

But if no, then why not?

Age is like a mind virus. It wants to turn people back on themselves. To question everything they say, all the time. Age is self-doubt in chatbot form. Age is the onus giver.

It continually appears that i really am so many different things, to so many different human beings.

I wonder if they have ever considered, why?

[Age]

Age is like a mind virus. It wants to turn people back on themselves. To question everything they say, all the time. Age is self-doubt in chatbot form. Age is the onus giver.

In some senses, I think we're all "mind viruses". We spread our "intellectual" or "brain DNA" through language. Not all viruses may be malicious, though.

Would just turning people back onto themselves to just look very honestly and very deeply into themselves be really such a bad thing.

For example, imagine if by doing so people came to really know thy 'self', which in turn ended up making a Truly whole better 'world' for every one, and how that would actually be, and feel?

I've heard it said that some human traits that we now possess might have been put into us via viral infections. In any case, I perhaps get on Age's nerves as much as he does me.

But you have never gotten so-called on my nerves "gary childress".

I know, however, that if you people here had just been far more open and honest earlier, in regards to my questioning and/or challenging, then you would have also benefited, and benefited earlier, from the pleasure and enjoyment, which comes from living in 'a world' where every one is helping and supporting each other in creating the Truly peaceful and harmonious world, for every one.

At least I hope it isn't a one-way street and he only annoys me. I kind of feel bad about being annoyed by him if he isn't annoyed by me.

What can be clearly seen here is how these people, back then, really did want to, and thus also really did feel good about and enjoyed, annoying, hurting, harming, arguing or bickering with, and even fighting, and/or killing "the other".

But this, again, was just the result of what happens to children after they were raised and grew up in times and in societies where child abuse was rampant.

[Age]

I've described him as presenting himself as superior and condescending quite few times. Belinda called him arrogant. I'm sure he's gotten similar labels from other people.

BTW, I wonder where Belinda is these days. She used to make very compelling arguments and food for thought, at least I thought so.

The one known as "belinda" here had an ischemic stroke last month.

[Gary Childress]

I've described him as presenting himself as superior and condescending quite few times. Belinda called him arrogant. I'm sure he's gotten similar labels from other people.

BTW, I wonder where Belinda is these days. She used to make very compelling arguments and food for thought, at least I thought so.

The one known as "belinda" here had an ischemic stroke last month.

That's terrible. I'm sorry to hear that.

[Atla]

Wow. You seem to know a lot of 'autistic' people. Takes one to know one I suppose. Have fun when you are 'bored'. You are both as bad and boring as each other.

I've probably met and known as many as you have. I'm just somewhat perceptive psychologically, beats being a clueless hysterical wretch such as you.

'perceptive psychologically'. Oh ok. If you say so

No surprise that the concept is alien to you.

[Wizard22]

He certainly gives the impression of being completely emotionless. How difficult would that be for a human? It's just not normal by any stretch.

That's what alerted me...I've never seen a human do it.

[Iwannaplato]

Will you link us to where I said those things?

viewtopic.php?p=560634#p560634
viewtopic.php?p=409827#p409827

But if no, then why not?

There are many possible reasons why people don't do what you want. One of the main ones for me is that you expect a lot of work from people and if they don't do that work, then you judge them and lump them together with all the people at the time this is being written. IOW you are rude and make a lot of assumptions about people. When they do something that MIGHT mean X, you interpret it negatively as necessarily meaning X.

You also imply a lot about your own high status - transcendent, messenger from God, special role, no beliefs which makes you different from other people at the time this is being written - while engaging in petty judgments of anyone who doesn't act like you think they should.

When people put work into pointing this out to you, you can, yes, manage to acknowledge minor mistakes, but never do you question the core beliefs you have about yourself - the one listed in the paragraph above - or of other people or of what people need. You always know the best core process we should all engage in and if we don't we have a problem.

And yet when people don't do the work you expect, you judge them, either openly or explicitly.

Yes, you have a somewhat unique approach - similar to some gurus and new age personalities - but when it comes down to it, you're just another guy with a lot of judgments of people, playing head games.

You were more respectable as Ken. There were these dashes of the human about you and less toxic dominance games.

So, if I hadn't provided the links, those are some of my reasons for why I wouldn't have and haven't followed other requests in the past.

See, if you can manage not to treat the requesting the definition of a word you have used yourself as a mistake, but rather as something that points to patterns of manipulation and role playing in a more global way.

Here on the internet, Age, you can pretend all sorts of things that are much harder to pretend when in person. You imply a lot and so you can, and do, claim, Oh but I didn't mean, and other gaslighting responses when your BS is pointed out. It is going to be very, very hard for you to learn anything here about what you are actually doing, since you seem dead set on denial.

Why do we have so many reactions to you? Actually if you read them, you'll find common threads, expressed metaphorically, literally, analytically. Or you can avoid the truth in the criticism and pretend that even these point to your grand nature.

And by the way: if you truly doubted I was being honest when saying what you said, all you had to do was search your own posts for the word conceited. It's ironic when dealing with genius pseudo-deities that they can barely tie their shoes. But, yeah, of course, you think it's other people's job to explain what you are doing.

Now this may seem harsh, Age or Ken, whoever you are: but the patterns you engage in are pretty typical gaslighting and head game patterns. How much of the world is being made more toxic by these kinds of head games???

[Age]

Will you link us to where I said those things?

viewtopic.php?p=560634#p560634
viewtopic.php?p=409827#p409827

As I said this is great. So thank you.

With you keep bringing up my words, and linking us to my words, is helping tremendously here.

Also, thank you for spending as much time and effort in going through my writings and finding things for me.

Furthermore, thank you for reminding readers here that I do continually seek out and obtain clarification, from others here. you reminding the readers here saves me from continually pointing out and explaining just how Truly important seeking and clarity really is in creating a Truly understanding and peaceful and harmonious 'world'.

But if no, then why not?

There are many possible reasons why people don't do what you want.

Who is saying or claiming that I ever wanted any such a thing here?

you really cannot read words without presuming and/or believing some thing, correct "iwannaplato"?

I suggest just looking at the actual words I use alone, without absolutely any preconception, presumption, nor belief and just see if you see things differently.

For example look at the actual question I posed, and asked for clarity above here.

I said and wrote, only; Will you link us to where I said those things?

As can be clearly seen and proved absolutely True, there was no 'want' absolutely anywhere there. Yet, you "iwannaplato" read that just, a Truly simple and open question, as though there was someone here/there 'wanting' some thing.

If you just stopped "yourself" from assuming and/or believing things, before you obtain and gain actual clarity first, then this will prevent and/or stop you from imagining things, which just are not there, and then prevent and/or stop you from going off on some completely off topic and/or completely unassociated tangent, like you have here, and which can lead to further completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect presumptions and beliefs like you have previously, and are about to do here, once more.

One of the main ones for me is that you expect a lot of work from people and if they don't do that work, then you judge them and lump them together with all the people at the time this is being written.

1. I did not 'want' you to do something. I could have been just 'seeing' if you would, or not.

2. Rather than just answering the clarifying questions I ask, just elaborating on what you say, and/or just backing up and supporting your already made claims, you appear to do far more work in searching and researching through my words to find what you perceive and/or hope will somehow 'foul me up', as some might say. Yet, what you have actually done through your searching is help and support me even further.

3. If you people will not back up and support your words and claims, especially within a philosophy forum/philosophical discussion, then I will, if i choose to, keep judging and/or lumping those ones together.

4. If you people, in the days when this is being written, are misbehaving like the people who would not listen to the one who was just trying to inform them of something that is True and Right, then I will lump all of you, and all of them, together. After all you are all doing the exact same thing/s. That is; not listening, and just trying your hardest to have your own personal, ended up being False and Wrong, beliefs and assumptions being heard and accepted as the absolute truth.

IOW you are rude and make a lot of assumptions about people.

If you say and believe so this is what i am and what I do.

However, and as we have gone through this already, what you assume and believe could well be absolutely or partly False and/or Wrong.

Now, if you would like to see me as being 'rude', through just words alone, then this is perfectly fine with me. This just proves further how the human brain, through a belief-system, actually works.

And, if you would like to keep accusing me of making any 'assumption', let alone making a lot of assumptions, then I suggest, so you do not look like just another one who makes an accusation, but then runs away and tries to hide, you, from now on, provide actual examples of when i supposedly make 'assumptions'.

That way you will not be hiding behind some alluded to thing, but you will be transparent, instead.

When they do something that MIGHT mean X, you interpret it negatively as necessarily meaning X.

If you say and believe so, but, then again, without absolutely any examples to look at, and explore, here what you assume I am doing could be just all in your own made up imagination, for all we know.

And, what you are actually doing here, as can be clearly seen, is just alluding to something which may or may not be True, at all.

You also imply a lot about your own high status - transcendent, messenger from God, special role, no beliefs which makes you different from other people at the time this is being written

But I might not be implying this at all. However, this does not stop you from inferring things in absolutely anyway you like.

It is like when I do, or say, something that might mean one thing, you interpret that negatively as necessarily meaning one thing.

- while engaging in petty judgments of anyone who doesn't act like you think they should.

Do you think you adult human beings should abuse children and/or should keep abusing children?

And, if you call this petty judging, then so be it. It gives you, as an adult, some sort of an 'excuse' to keep doing the Wrong that you do, right?

What do you want from me, strong and/or serious judgments of what you do do, but would be far better if you adults did not do 'them'?

When people put work into pointing this out to you, you can, yes, manage to acknowledge minor mistakes, but never do you question the core beliefs you have about yourself

Because I have chosen to not have beliefs.

How much simpler could something get before it begins to 'sink in' and be comprehended and understood?

- the one listed in the paragraph above - or of other people or of what people need.

But what presume or believe are beliefs are not necessarily beliefs at all.

I wonder when and if this will ever be understood by this one.

You always know the best core process we should all engage in and if we don't we have a problem.

1. I have never ever said that you people have 'a problem'. To do so would go against the actual definition I use here.

2. Yes I say and claim I already know the best so-called 'core process' you human beings would be better of using. Is there anything wrong with this, especially considering the fact that I know I can back up and support this, irrefutably?

And yet when people don't do the work you expect, you judge them, either openly or explicitly.

you have, more or less, mentioned this already.

Yes, you have a somewhat unique approach

I will keep it for as long as I want.

Also, obviously the approach you human beings have been using for centuries and/or even millennia hitherto when this is being written has not been working in finding answers and/or solutions to philosophical questions/issues.

- similar to some gurus and new age personalities - but when it comes down to it, you're just another guy with a lot of judgments of people, playing head games.

See here is another prime example of just how assumptions and/or beliefs prevent and stop you human beings from learning more and/or anew, and thus from becoming wiser.

This one has not even serious begun to challenge nor question me in regards to what I have actual said, meant, and claimed, but has, already, concluded that 'I' am just another so-called 'guy', with a lot of judgments of people, oh that 'I' play so-called 'head games'.

You were more respectable as Ken.

Did you really spend time reading through my 'past writings'?

And yet there were some who claims that absolutely no one 'in the future', from when those words were written, would look back over and read 'my writings'.

There were these dashes of the human about you and less toxic dominance games.

If you say and believe so.

I obviously had not learned how to write properly and correctly then, right?

So, if I hadn't provided the links, those are some of my reasons for why I wouldn't have and haven't followed other requests in the past.

But you did provide those links, so there was absolutely no reason at all to write absolutely anything further here.

See, if you can manage not to treat the requesting the definition of a word you have used yourself as a mistake,

But I never treat asking for clarification, as a 'mistake'. I seek clarification, purposely. See, when I get it, or not, then I can learn more in how to communicate better, with you, human beings.

but rather as something that points to patterns of manipulation and role playing in a more global way.

So, it appears here that are claiming that on absolutely every occasion you use a word, which you have previously used, you know, without absolutely any doubt at all, what the definition of that word is, exactly and precisely, right?

Do you envision or imagine, or maybe even believe and consider, "yourself" "iwannaplato" as some sort of absolute genius who knows the meaning and definition of all previously used words, on absolutely every occasion you then use them?

Now, if yes, then okay.

But if no, and do cannot recall the actual definition of a word, on every occasion, then okay.

Also, as for 'manipulation' and 'role playing', could it be True that I am not actually playing the 'role' that you imagine and/or believe, and/or could I be 'manipulating' in another way that you think or believe I AM?

Here on the internet, Age, you can pretend all sorts of things that are much harder to pretend when in person.

If I recall correctly, you have mentioned this at least a few times, already.

You imply a lot and so you can, and do, claim, Oh but I didn't mean, and other gaslighting responses when your BS is pointed out.

Here we have an example of another claim by this poster here, now let us see if, this time, it will provide a link to where this has, supposedly, happened.

And, if it does not, then it, quite conveniently, has already produced some alleged reasons, and excuses, for not doing so.

It is going to be very, very hard for you to learn anything here about what you are actually doing, since you seem dead set on denial.

As can be clearly seen here, once again, 'projection' was a very common occurrence by some people, back in the days when this was being written.

Now, why do you not just say what I am, supposedly, actually doing, instead of just your usual alluding to some thing. Then, at least, you would have some proof of you having actually said what I am actually supposed to be doing, which you then could produce and put forth and say and claim, look I even told "age" what it is doing, and it still could not learn absolutely any thing at all about what it was actually doing.

Why do we have so many reactions to you?

Because you human beings are very 'reactive creatures'.

Actually if you read them, you'll find common threads, expressed metaphorically, literally, analytically.

Will you provide any examples of 'them', which you, once again, are just alluding to?

Or, better still will you provide absolutely any links?

Or you can avoid the truth in the criticism and pretend that even these point to your grand nature.

See, how much this one can only allude to some, supposed, thing, but cannot bring itself to actually just name 'it', or 'them'?

It could be said or claimed that one could lose count trying to count how many times this one just alludes to some, maybe imagined, or real, thing without just naming what 'the thing' is, exactly.

For example just trying counting how many times this one had done this just here at just the end part of this one and only post.

And by the way: if you truly doubted I was being honest when saying what you said, all you had to do was search your own posts for the word conceited.

But I never ever doubted I said that.

I just asked you if you will link us to where I said those things.

And, as I have already said and acknowledged, thank you for doing this.

It's ironic when dealing with genius pseudo-deities that they can barely tie their shoes. But, yeah, of course, you think it's other people's job to explain what you are doing.

No I do not. you just appear to love claiming that I do some particular things, while also appear to enjoy only alluding to some thing but never actually just saying what that thing is, exactly.

Now this may seem harsh, Age or Ken, whoever you are: but the patterns you engage in are pretty typical gaslighting and head game patterns.

Once again, you allude to some thing but never actually say what it is, exactly.

Oh, and by the way, I never found absolutely anything you said here so-called 'harsh' at all.

In fact I find what you say, claim, and just allude to here very comforting, as you are proving exactly what I have to eventually say, claim, and reveal.

How much of the world is being made more toxic by these kinds of head games???

As much as you want to believe, right?

[Wizard22]

Because I have chosen to not have beliefs.

Do you believe, in the time when this was written, that adult Humans should not harm or abuse child Humans???

[Gary Childress]

You were more respectable as Ken. There were these dashes of the human about you and less toxic dominance games.

Who is "Ken"? Has Age posted before under other names? By what means has this been determined? Has Age admitted himself to being "Ken"?

[Age]

Because I have chosen to not have beliefs.

Do you believe, in the time when this was written, that adult Humans should not harm or abuse child Humans???

No.

I also do not disbelieve it.

Instead I not just think this, but I know that it would already be a much better 'world' if adult human beings had stopped abusing children earlier, and and were not abusing children 'now', in the days when this is being written.

[Gary Childress]

.

[Gary Childress]

.

[Iwannaplato]

You were more respectable as Ken. There were these dashes of the human about you and less toxic dominance games.

Who is "Ken"? Has Age posted before under other names? By what means has this been determined? Has Age admitted himself to being "Ken"?

I don't know if he's admitted it. I think it was Atla who guided me to Ken. I find it hard to imagine Ken isn't Age.

Here's a couple of Ken's later posts. I think you'll at least see why we consider Ken to be Age.
viewtopic.php?p=348377#p348377
viewtopic.php?p=318305#p318305

[FlashDangerpants]

You were more respectable as Ken. There were these dashes of the human about you and less toxic dominance games.

Who is "Ken"? Has Age posted before under other names? By what means has this been determined? Has Age admitted himself to being "Ken"?

I don't know if he's admitted it. I think it was Atla who guided me to Ken. I find it hard to imagine Ken isn't Age.

Here's a couple of Ken's later posts. I think you'll at least see why we consider Ken to be Age.
viewtopic.php?p=348377#p348377
viewtopic.php?p=318305#p318305

He confirmed that he is Ken in conversation with me, while he was Ken he wrote something about future generations valuing this site because it is a record of the development of his ideas. When I mocked him for that as Age he agreed that these were his own words. It's hard to find the perfect post for that shit, but this one should suffice
viewtopic.php?p=519569#p519569