Circularity of 'Objectivity' in Dictionary

[Age]

But VA really doesn't think that you exist. You're just an empty appearance from his perspective, for a while he can tentatively treat you as if you actually existed, but in the end he knows that you don't really exist at all. This is the secret to "optimal living".

Oh, I know. The funny thing was how easily you understood my post and he can't really.

He's never managed to admit that his antirealism denies the existence of anything that we do not experience directly. But we do not directly experience other minds. We infer them.

This is very, very True.

And let us not forget that you can very easily and very simply infer things, which are do not even exist or are not even there.

If you think some thing, a star, exists, even though you can't experience it directly, this is a delusion.

But how could absolutely anyone, logically, claim that the very thing that they are looking at is not being experienced directly, and be accepted as not delusional.

What do you people even mean by 'experiencing directly'?

How many sensory organs do you even have?

But he gets to believe in things that are inferred, BUT only when conditioned on FSKs.

Are so-called 'fsk's' even talked about outside of this forum, like in the way "veritas aequitas" talks about 'them/it' and refers to 'them/it' here?

He'll never go into what the exact boundaries are for 'experiencing directly'.

Well is it not an already established or known Fact that to just 'experience' some thing 'directly' is just done with or by and through either or all of the five senses?

He will accept other minds that are utterly beyond his experiencing, but not allow conclusions about other things that exist beyond his experiencing.

Even though there is not a single piece of proof, in the whole of the Universe, that there are so-called 'other minds', "veritas aequitas" will, supposedly, accept that there are, actually existing, 'other minds'.

Also, let us not forget that "veritas aequitas" accepts that there is an absolute morality existing, but will not, for example, accept that the sun nor the earth exists before "veritas aequitas" evolved in being created.

He'll say he doesn't believe in those things as absolutely mind independently existing, souls and stars, but he won't notice that his star example is based on distance.

In the end he ought to be a solipsist, given his beliefs. But I think, differently from you, that actually he's not a solipsist. He just doesn't realize that he ought to be to be consistant.

We're looking at positions he's ended up taking to try to defeat Peter Holmes.

As I have continually pointed out and shown here, these people, back then, would say just about anything, in the hope that it will back up and support there 'currently' held onto beliefs and/or presumptions.

It's a bit like his still using objective when he has actually completely denied objectivity as a useful term. He's called it intersubjectivity. But he can't live with his facts and his positions and beliefs not being called objective.

[Age]

You are speaking for yourself from an ignorant philosophical realist stance.
I have never claimed other people and their minds are real in the absolutely mind-independent within the philosophical realist sense.
I already stated this a "1000" times.

And still, as I have pointed out before, there is a difference between
attributing a philosophical position to you
and
pointing out what is entailed by your beliefs.

You simply cannot seem to conceive this difference.

Let me give an example.

A person could take a stand on racism. They could march in parades. They could even honestly say that they hate racism.
But someone, for example, could point out that they discriminate, perhaps unconsciously, against people of a certain race.

All of you adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, missed the whole point of 'racism' and being 'racist'.

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY TIMES they assert their anti-racism, they may be missing something about themselves or, in this case with you, the implications or what is entailed by their beliefs.

This is a very True good observation and very insightful point here.

Every time you assert 'I have said X so many times' you fail to understand that people are often pointing out what is entailed by your positions, which by the way don't always fit together.

As can be observed and seen here constantly.

If you actually interacted with other people, you might notice the difference. What you tend to do is repeat your positions. That is NOT interacting.

But when one does not want to discuss things and/or nor learn more nor anew, then they tend to just not listen or to, literally, just ignore the other.

One reason they could and do do this is because, 'Just in case the other is actually Right'.

[Age]

I believe you've been misunderstanding VA all along. He doesn't deny the existence of things we do not experience directly. His philosophy isn't related to such a take.

First off, he contradicts himself. He takes a position. Meets an objection. Takes on some kind of ontological or epistemological position to undermine is opposition or defend himself, without really seeing if the whole thing holds together. Given he can't admit to any serious mistakes, he ends up with a mishmash of beliefs, some of which don't fit together. I'll admit that deciding which position is just ad hoc handy and which is something he really believes is not easy to determine.

But he gets damn irritated at people and spends a lot of time insulting and trying to condescend to them. He believes we're out here - unless he's a bot.

Instead he denies the actual existence of everything, probably even himself. He misunderstood the general Buddhist idea of emptiness, has taken it to a perverted extreme. And then he also tried to shove his misunderstanding of Kantian philosophy into it.

I missed his essays on Buddhist emptiness. You may well be right about this.

I always thought that VA's "philosophy" was a distorted philosophy of Buddhist emptiness first and foremost, and he tried to fit everything into that framework. For example his entire take on Kant is a misunderstanding from this distorted Buddhist emptiness perspective. But Kant was never talking about emptiness, only VA believes that. Kant was only talking about epistemology, about limits of knowledge. Emptiness is an ontological take.

Do you believe that 'your take' on things here is the true and right one "atla"?

Could 'your own take' on others, and/or things, be misunderstandings or misinterpretations themselves?

Could "veritas aequitas" take on some of the things here be more accurate than yours are, in relation to what was actually intended and/or meant?

Or, could yours and "veritas aequita's" different takes on things both be False, Wrong, or Incorrect, in ways?

I've been patiently waiting for VA to finally resign himself to talking about emptiness (after all his Western philosophy arguments got demolished), believing emptiness to be his ultimate trump card. It's what gives him all the confidence.

And, "veritas aequitas" and others may well be waiting for you, "atla" to finally resign "yourself" from all of the False and Wrong talk and claims that you write, say, and make here.

Or, do you believe that you do not present misunderstandings here "yourself"?

But somehow we never got to that. Too bad, it would have been funny. Because he doesn't even understand emptiness properly.

But you "atla" do understand 'emptiness' not just 'properly', but also 'fully', right?

And, not just this you also understand 'emptiness' from, exactly, the exact same way all of the above writers have intended and meant 'emptiness' to mean, and be understood, right?

All these grand insights are above his head, be they from Eastern or Western philosophy.

But none of these so-called 'grand' insights are above the one known here as "atla" because "atla" is above and beyond all others here, and is the one who knows how to see, and read, the True intentions and meanings within all writers, correct "atla"? Well at least from all of the writers mentioned and talked about above here.

[Age]

Let me give an example.

A person could take a stand on racism. They could march in parades. They could even honestly say that they hate racism.
But someone, for example, could point out that they discriminate, perhaps unconsciously, against people of a certain race.

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY TIMES they assert their anti-racism, they may be missing something about themselves or, in this case with you, the implications or what is entailed by their beliefs.

If I believe in some thing [no racism] and do otherwise [acted out racist behavior], then that is wrong and need correction.
In all the views I have expressed here I have not acted otherwise.
If you think so, that is based on your ignorance.

you could never do wrong, nor even have a wrong thought, could you "veritas aequitas"?

If absolutely any one has a differing or opposing view than what you do, then it is, always, because 'the other', to you, is ignorant. And, never because any of your views could ever be false, wrong, inaccurate, nor incorrect in absolutely any way whatsoever, correct?

Also it is because I am resisting to trash out [discuss & explain in detail] the issue all the way due to your bitchiness.

you resist to explain your views mostly because you just cannot, logically.

At times, I may appear to have paradoxical views, e.g. "I am an antirealist and also at the same time a realist" but it is in a different sense and context.

Okay, but from what I have discovered and learned, the who in the question, 'Who am 'I'?' is certainly neither of these two things. But, if "veritas aequitas" wants to believe that 'I' am either or both of these things, then so be it.

... "the law of non-contradiction (LNC) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time" -Wiki
If anyone were to take my paradoxical views literally, that is due to their ignorance.

So, here 'we' have another one who believes that 'we' should not read its very own words, literally, and should just guess and/or presume what is actually meant.

Also, and paradoxically, this one, as well, as not yet learned what the word 'paradoxical' means nor refers to, exactly.

If there is anyone [hardcore p-realist] who will remain amiable in the discussion of opposing views, I don't mind spending time trashing out the issue with them.
So far, I have not come across a hardcore philosophical realist or anyone who seriously oppose my views who had not turned nasty, bitchy, insulting, snarky, mocking, throwing pejoratives, angry, - [naturally I will retaliate, avoid or ignore] thus generating hindrances that facilitate a deeper discussion into the issue.

In other words, "veritas aequitas" believes that its own views are the absolute true and right ones only, and if anyone has any opposing view, then they could never ever be right nor true.

[FlashDangerpants]

So far, I have not come across a hardcore philosophical realist or anyone who seriously oppose my views who had not turned nasty, bitchy, insulting, snarky, mocking, throwing pejoratives, angry, - [naturally I will retaliate, avoid or ignore] thus generating hindrances that facilitate a deeper discussion into the issue.

If everyone you get into conversation with turns out to be an asshole, then it's sort of a given that the true asshole is you.

Who are these hardcore philosophical realists by the way? It's such an unimportant topic, why would anyone hold a hardcore position on the matter?

[Atla]

First off, he contradicts himself. He takes a position. Meets an objection. Takes on some kind of ontological or epistemological position to undermine is opposition or defend himself, without really seeing if the whole thing holds together. Given he can't admit to any serious mistakes, he ends up with a mishmash of beliefs, some of which don't fit together. I'll admit that deciding which position is just ad hoc handy and which is something he really believes is not easy to determine.

But he gets damn irritated at people and spends a lot of time insulting and trying to condescend to them. He believes we're out here - unless he's a bot.

I missed his essays on Buddhist emptiness. You may well be right about this.

I always thought that VA's "philosophy" was a distorted philosophy of Buddhist emptiness first and foremost, and he tried to fit everything into that framework. For example his entire take on Kant is a misunderstanding from this distorted Buddhist emptiness perspective. But Kant was never talking about emptiness, only VA believes that. Kant was only talking about epistemology, about limits of knowledge. Emptiness is an ontological take.

Do you believe that 'your take' on things here is the true and right one "atla"?

Could 'your own take' on others, and/or things, be misunderstandings or misinterpretations themselves?

Could "veritas aequitas" take on some of the things here be more accurate than yours are, in relation to what was actually intended and/or meant?

Or, could yours and "veritas aequita's" different takes on things both be False, Wrong, or Incorrect, in ways?

I've been patiently waiting for VA to finally resign himself to talking about emptiness (after all his Western philosophy arguments got demolished), believing emptiness to be his ultimate trump card. It's what gives him all the confidence.

And, "veritas aequitas" and others may well be waiting for you, "atla" to finally resign "yourself" from all of the False and Wrong talk and claims that you write, say, and make here.

Or, do you believe that you do not present misunderstandings here "yourself"?

But somehow we never got to that. Too bad, it would have been funny. Because he doesn't even understand emptiness properly.

But you "atla" do understand 'emptiness' not just 'properly', but also 'fully', right?

And, not just this you also understand 'emptiness' from, exactly, the exact same way all of the above writers have intended and meant 'emptiness' to mean, and be understood, right?

All these grand insights are above his head, be they from Eastern or Western philosophy.

But none of these so-called 'grand' insights are above the one known here as "atla" because "atla" is above and beyond all others here, and is the one who knows how to see, and read, the True intentions and meanings within all writers, correct "atla"? Well at least from all of the writers mentioned and talked about above here.

Again nothing concrete here, if you have nothing to contribute and are just here to make random accusations then fuck off.

[Age]

I always thought that VA's "philosophy" was a distorted philosophy of Buddhist emptiness first and foremost, and he tried to fit everything into that framework. For example his entire take on Kant is a misunderstanding from this distorted Buddhist emptiness perspective. But Kant was never talking about emptiness, only VA believes that. Kant was only talking about epistemology, about limits of knowledge. Emptiness is an ontological take.

Do you believe that 'your take' on things here is the true and right one "atla"?

Could 'your own take' on others, and/or things, be misunderstandings or misinterpretations themselves?

Could "veritas aequitas" take on some of the things here be more accurate than yours are, in relation to what was actually intended and/or meant?

Or, could yours and "veritas aequita's" different takes on things both be False, Wrong, or Incorrect, in ways?

I've been patiently waiting for VA to finally resign himself to talking about emptiness (after all his Western philosophy arguments got demolished), believing emptiness to be his ultimate trump card. It's what gives him all the confidence.

And, "veritas aequitas" and others may well be waiting for you, "atla" to finally resign "yourself" from all of the False and Wrong talk and claims that you write, say, and make here.

Or, do you believe that you do not present misunderstandings here "yourself"?

But somehow we never got to that. Too bad, it would have been funny. Because he doesn't even understand emptiness properly.

But you "atla" do understand 'emptiness' not just 'properly', but also 'fully', right?

And, not just this you also understand 'emptiness' from, exactly, the exact same way all of the above writers have intended and meant 'emptiness' to mean, and be understood, right?

All these grand insights are above his head, be they from Eastern or Western philosophy.

But none of these so-called 'grand' insights are above the one known here as "atla" because "atla" is above and beyond all others here, and is the one who knows how to see, and read, the True intentions and meanings within all writers, correct "atla"? Well at least from all of the writers mentioned and talked about above here.

Again nothing concrete here,

Yes, you are right, absolutely nothing concrete was even intended.

As can be very clearly seen I just posed, and then asked you, some clarifying questions, which, of course, you failed absolutely to answer any of them.

if you have nothing to contribute and are just here to make random accusations then fuck off.

But, not an accusation was made by me here.

And, let us look at the accusations you have made above here. Yes, absolutely nothing concrete at all. So, as some might say, if you have nothing to contribute, and are here just to make random accusations, so then you should know where to go by now.

[Atla]

Do you believe that 'your take' on things here is the true and right one "atla"?

Could 'your own take' on others, and/or things, be misunderstandings or misinterpretations themselves?

Could "veritas aequitas" take on some of the things here be more accurate than yours are, in relation to what was actually intended and/or meant?

Or, could yours and "veritas aequita's" different takes on things both be False, Wrong, or Incorrect, in ways?



And, "veritas aequitas" and others may well be waiting for you, "atla" to finally resign "yourself" from all of the False and Wrong talk and claims that you write, say, and make here.

Or, do you believe that you do not present misunderstandings here "yourself"?


But you "atla" do understand 'emptiness' not just 'properly', but also 'fully', right?

And, not just this you also understand 'emptiness' from, exactly, the exact same way all of the above writers have intended and meant 'emptiness' to mean, and be understood, right?


But none of these so-called 'grand' insights are above the one known here as "atla" because "atla" is above and beyond all others here, and is the one who knows how to see, and read, the True intentions and meanings within all writers, correct "atla"? Well at least from all of the writers mentioned and talked about above here.

Again nothing concrete here,

Yes, you are right, absolutely nothing concrete was even intended.

As can be very clearly seen I just posed, and then asked you, some clarifying questions, which, of course, you failed absolutely to answer any of them.

if you have nothing to contribute and are just here to make random accusations then fuck off.

But, not an accusation was made by me here.

And, let us look at the accusations you have made above here. Yes, absolutely nothing concrete at all. So, as some might say, if you have nothing to contribute, and are here just to make random accusations, so then you should know where to go by now.

Still nothing concrete. If you're just bullshitting and can't write anything concrete then FUCK OFF.

[Iwannaplato]

So far, I have not come across a hardcore philosophical realist or anyone who seriously oppose my views who had not turned nasty, bitchy, insulting, snarky, mocking, throwing pejoratives, angry, - [naturally I will retaliate, avoid or ignore] thus generating hindrances that facilitate a deeper discussion into the issue.

There are two reasons you've gotten this reaction from realists and antirealists and others:
1) Style of posting: you tend not to respond/interact with points made. You tend to repeat your positions. You have said yourself that you see no reason to admit mistakes - significant ones -and you don't. You contradict yourself and you don't admit it. You regularly appeal to authority. You often appeal to your own authority: you say that you have demonstrated things and link to your own threads, threads in which criticism was never responded to well. You conflate criticisms based on what is entailed with strawmen - iow someone points out what is or might be entailed by what you've written and you call it a strawman since you didn't say this.
2) Interpersonal style: you label people. You speak condescendingly about whole categories of people. For example, realists. You psychoanalyze people you disagree with. You tell us that realists, for example, though it is not limited to realists are more likely to be violent, despite having no evidence for this. You think you presented evidence, but in fact you have no idea what would constitute evidence and despite your advocacy of science you seem to have no idea how limiting variables affects the results of experiments and interpretation of data.

So, people are getting arrogance and condescension at the same time as you inadequately respond to their posts.

And now other people are the problem and you are the innocent little victim. Then you will say that you only get insulting when insulted. But this is not true. You repeatedly generalize, even in opening posts about people who have different opinions than you on philosophical issues. You set the tone for the debate.

I'm sure in some instances other people have started the ad hom and insult one, but your utter cluelessness about your own choices is actually kinda hilarious.

[Iwannaplato]

If I believe in some thing [no racism] and do otherwise [acted out racist behavior], then that is wrong and need correction.
In all the views I have expressed here I have not acted otherwise.
If you think so, that is based on your ignorance.
Also it is because I am resisting to trash out [discuss & explain in detail] the issue all the way due to your bitchiness.

Again, you are a poor reader. I used an analogy with racism where one compared words and actions. THEN I added

or, in this case with you, the implications or what is entailed by their beliefs.

So, not actions and words, but what is entailed by your beliefs, conclusions that could be or should be drawn from them.

And this pattern happens again and again.

You don't read carefully and respond not really to the post, but something similar. And that's when you actually respond, rather than merely repeat your positions.

If there is anyone [hardcore p-realist] who will remain amiable in the discussion of opposing views, I don't mind spending time trashing out the issue with them.

As mentioned elsewhere you have started many a fuss via condescension, including in OPs.

So far, I have not come across a hardcore philosophical realist or anyone who seriously oppose my views who had not turned nasty, bitchy, insulting, snarky, mocking, throwing pejoratives, angry, - [naturally I will retaliate, avoid or ignore] thus generating hindrances that facilitate a deeper discussion into the issue.

And has been pointed out, it seems impossible for you to consider that you set things in motion and that your own way of posting might lead to the responses you get. I am sure some people, which I have said in posts going back in time, have started with you. But you aim generalities at everyone and are often condescending merely because people disagree.

Mull that over. Or go through life have the same pattern with a wide range of people and blame them and avoid growing as a person.

It's your loss, not mine.

[Age]

Again nothing concrete here,

Yes, you are right, absolutely nothing concrete was even intended.

As can be very clearly seen I just posed, and then asked you, some clarifying questions, which, of course, you failed absolutely to answer any of them.

if you have nothing to contribute and are just here to make random accusations then fuck off.

But, not an accusation was made by me here.

And, let us look at the accusations you have made above here. Yes, absolutely nothing concrete at all. So, as some might say, if you have nothing to contribute, and are here just to make random accusations, so then you should know where to go by now.

Still nothing concrete. If you're just bullshitting and can't write anything concrete then FUCK OFF.

Here we can clearly see another attempt from this one in trying to deflect away from the fact that it believes that it knows, absolutely, the intended meanings within other writer' words while the posters here, who just have different views or versions, are absolutely wrong or incorrect.

Although it is entertaining to continuously see this one trying to attempt to squirm out of its obviously impossible predicament here, what is Truly funny to observe is some of the things that it claims, and then. even funnier still is watching this one not even being able to actually back up and support its claims.

[Atla]

Yes, you are right, absolutely nothing concrete was even intended.

As can be very clearly seen I just posed, and then asked you, some clarifying questions, which, of course, you failed absolutely to answer any of them.



But, not an accusation was made by me here.

And, let us look at the accusations you have made above here. Yes, absolutely nothing concrete at all. So, as some might say, if you have nothing to contribute, and are here just to make random accusations, so then you should know where to go by now.

Still nothing concrete. If you're just bullshitting and can't write anything concrete then FUCK OFF.

Here we can clearly see another attempt from this one in trying to deflect away from the fact that it believes that it knows, absolutely, the intended meanings within other writer' words while the posters here, who just have different views or versions, are absolutely wrong or incorrect.

Although it is entertaining to continuously see this one trying to attempt to squirm out of its obviously impossible predicament here, what is Truly funny to observe is some of the things that it claims, and then. even funnier still is watching this one not even being able to actually back up and support its claims.

I never said any of that, which is why you couldn't quote me. Not only doesn't Age have anything concrete and philosophical, Age is merely resorting to condescending lies, accusations. Someone who possesses some semblance of human dignity wouldn't stoop so low.

[Age]

Still nothing concrete. If you're just bullshitting and can't write anything concrete then FUCK OFF.

Here we can clearly see another attempt from this one in trying to deflect away from the fact that it believes that it knows, absolutely, the intended meanings within other writer' words while the posters here, who just have different views or versions, are absolutely wrong or incorrect.

Although it is entertaining to continuously see this one trying to attempt to squirm out of its obviously impossible predicament here, what is Truly funny to observe is some of the things that it claims, and then. even funnier still is watching this one not even being able to actually back up and support its claims.

I never said any of that, which is why you couldn't quote me.

Not that you will clarify anyway but what do you now believe you did not say any of, exactly?

Because obviously you did say any, and even all, of that.

Not only doesn't Age have anything concrete

Once again I never intended to provide anything concrete, as I have already informed the readers. But you probably missed this as well.

and philosophical,

And what does that word even mean to you 'atla", not that you would ever enlighten 'us'.

Age is merely resorting to condescending lies, accusations.

And once more this one just alludes to some thing/s, with accusations, but never actually provides any thing, which in one sense could be described and defined as the ultimate form of deception and trying to deceive and fool.

Someone who possesses some semblance of human dignity wouldn't stoop so low.

Okay, if you say so.

But the hypocrisy and contradiction here is absolutely blinding. Well to some of 'us' anyway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So far, I have not come across a hardcore philosophical realist or anyone who seriously oppose my views who had not turned nasty, bitchy, insulting, snarky, mocking, throwing pejoratives, angry, - [naturally I will retaliate, avoid or ignore] thus generating hindrances that facilitate a deeper discussion into the issue.

There are two reasons you've gotten this reaction from realists and antirealists and others:
1) Style of posting: you tend not to respond/interact with points made. You tend to repeat your positions. You have said yourself that you see no reason to admit mistakes - significant ones -and you don't. You contradict yourself and you don't admit it. You regularly appeal to authority. You often appeal to your own authority: you say that you have demonstrated things and link to your own threads, threads in which criticism was never responded to well. You conflate criticisms based on what is entailed with strawmen - iow someone points out what is or might be entailed by what you've written and you call it a strawman since you didn't say this.
2) Interpersonal style: you label people. You speak condescendingly about whole categories of people. For example, realists. You psychoanalyze people you disagree with. You tell us that realists, for example, though it is not limited to realists are more likely to be violent, despite having no evidence for this. You think you presented evidence, but in fact you have no idea what would constitute evidence and despite your advocacy of science you seem to have no idea how limiting variables affects the results of experiments and interpretation of data.

So, people are getting arrogance and condescension at the same time as you inadequately respond to their posts.

And now other people are the problem and you are the innocent little victim. Then you will say that you only get insulting when insulted. But this is not true. You repeatedly generalize, even in opening posts about people who have different opinions than you on philosophical issues. You set the tone for the debate.

I'm sure in some instances other people have started the ad hom and insult one, but your utter cluelessness about your own choices is actually kinda hilarious.

Wrong?
You are making the wrong inference from the discussions and posts here where the majority are hardcore realists or theists.
Those agreeing with my views [fully or partly] are rare; I do not have any 'personal' issues with them, e.g. Angelo Cannatta.
viewtopic.php?p=682840#p682840
It is the same in all the Philosophical Forums I have participated in.

The most I have started with what opposing p-realists do not like is, when I highlighted to them [as necessary] that their views are shallow and narrow and such need to deep deeper into the issue. I don't see this is an insult.
Anything more serious than the above is only when they counter with personal insults and I retaliated.

There is solid evidence from the first post I started in PN, show me one case where I have started the insults unilaterally and not on a tit-for-tat basis?

[Atla]

Here we can clearly see another attempt from this one in trying to deflect away from the fact that it believes that it knows, absolutely, the intended meanings within other writer' words while the posters here, who just have different views or versions, are absolutely wrong or incorrect.

Although it is entertaining to continuously see this one trying to attempt to squirm out of its obviously impossible predicament here, what is Truly funny to observe is some of the things that it claims, and then. even funnier still is watching this one not even being able to actually back up and support its claims.

I never said any of that, which is why you couldn't quote me.

Not that you will clarify anyway but what do you now believe you did not say any of, exactly?

Because obviously you did say any, and even all, of that.

Not only doesn't Age have anything concrete

Once again I never intended to provide anything concrete, as I have already informed the readers. But you probably missed this as well.

and philosophical,

And what does that word even mean to you 'atla", not that you would ever enlighten 'us'.

Age is merely resorting to condescending lies, accusations.

And once more this one just alludes to some thing/s, with accusations, but never actually provides any thing, which in one sense could be described and defined as the ultimate form of deception and trying to deceive and fool.

Someone who possesses some semblance of human dignity wouldn't stoop so low.

Okay, if you say so.

But the hypocrisy and contradiction here is absolutely blinding. Well to some of 'us' anyway.

Complete failure from Age as usual. Yes the hypocrisy and contradiction is absolutely blinding but not on my part, but on the part of the one that pretends to be GOD and places itself above all of us, but can't even understand the most obvious context or deliberately chooses not to, can't say anything relevant, ends up flinging lies and accusations. GOD can't even tie its shoes apparently.