Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[Age]

So, why should what you said and wrote here not be taken literally?

Again, I think this is the kind of thing you need to mull over and not see as other people's responsibility to explain to you.

But I do not necessarily see it as 'your responsibility' to back up and support 'your very own statements, views, judgments, beliefs, and/or claims, at all, but others certainly might, for very good reasons. I, however and instead, just question you to see whether you can and will actually back up and support your statements, views, judgments, beliefs, and/or claims, or not. And, the answer to this is fairly obvious by now.

You give the burden of your weaknesses and interests to other people as their burden of proof.

Talk about attempting to twist things around, absolutely, in order for this one to try to 'justify' not being able to just back up and support its very own beliefs and claims here.

To this one, "iwannaplato" not clarifying nor justifying its own positions and beliefs here is all because of 'my supposed weaknesses'.

Look "iwannaplato", I already claimed that what you said can, literally, be taken literally, and be able to be proved absolutely so.

Take responsibility for your weaknesses.

Talk about trying to twist 'the blame' for it just not clarifying or not supporting what it claims here, turning 'the blame' onto 'me', and then trying to 'now' claim that it is 'me' who is somehow not 'taking responsibility' for some weakness that I supposedly have here.

To me, a huge weakness, especially so in a philosophy forum, is believing that one can just freely express their views or beliefs, and then believe that it does not have to back them up and support them in any way at all, and if absolutely anyone even just asks them to, then it the 'other one' who has some imagined, and alluded to only, 'weakness'.

Talk about another example of attempts of pure deception by this one. But, this was the common practice of one who believes that it has power and control over 'others'.

This needs more work than words on a screen.

'What', exactly, needs more work.

Obviously, 'this' does need a lot more work. But, you allude to so many possible things, without actually saying what they are.

Now if you feel the urge to universalize my reaction to you here this is an example of the problem.

you, once more, do not know what the word 'problem' means nor refers to, exactly, in the way that actually works, so I am left, once again, what you mean, exactly.

You are poor at context.

Talk about hypocrisy at the highest level.

Even when I explained, exactly, why what this one said was not meant to be taken literally, but could actually be taken literally, this one is still missing 'the actual context' of what 'my question', which it quoted here, is in relation to, exactly.

I would not say that to everyone: it is not a rule for online discussion forum behavior.

I would not say that to everyone also. But so what, and, who cares?

It is a good question for you to ask, but not to get someone else to give you a verbal answer, but as an area of knowledge you have a weakness in and that you need to explore, and mostly in face to face life with people, perhaps supported by works of the type I have suggested elsewhere.

This one seems to still not yet be able to understand that I have already shown how what it said could be taken literally, and that this is why I asked 'the question', 'Why should what you said and wrote here not be taken literally?'

This one here still seems to believe that what it said could not be taken literally, and so it still seems somewhat in bewilderment that I would ask such as 'the question' that I did here. It seems to be missing context after context in our discussions.

What this one also actually does here is allude to things, like, 'you "age" are poor at context', but very rarely ever gets around to saying nor explaining in relation to 'what', exactly.

And, this, as will come-to-light is because what the actual context, which it perceives, I am poor at recognizing and/or understanding is usually not what my words and questions are even in relation to, exactly. What this one keeps missing here is that it keeps missing the actual context that I am referring and/or alluding to, exactly.

Now, this one could keep presuming and believing that I am missing 'the context' in regards to what it is saying and meaning, but completely misses the Fact that just maybe I saw and recognized 'that context' from the instant I saw and read its words, but then just move on, forward, to highlight and show other things to the readers here.

This in your view, judgment, and belief, correct?

Which, 'we' have already agreed upon and accepted could be Wrong and/or Incorrect, correct?

Not that much of your commmunication is repetition and requests for repetition (when you remember that people have said things). This is part of the reason people think it is possible you are a bot.

So, to this one 'now', 'part of the reason people think it is possible that I am a 'bot' is, supposedly, because 'not that much of my communication is repetition and requests for repetition'.

Or, is it, once again, that it is me who is 'poor' at context and 'need' to mull over this, as well?

Yes, because 'body language' is really, really important when the only thing to look at and/or hear are words alone, right?

Do you see how much you lack patience. The very next sentence addresses this issue,

LOL So, because I replied to a sentence, then, to this one anyway, what this means, absolutely, is that I lack patience.

Why do you not stop and think for a while, or 'mull over things', as some would suggest. Did you not consider, even for a second, that I could have deleted that clarifying question, once I read your next sentence?

I left that sentence there, on purpose.

Do you lack patience and this is why you are not 'mulling over things' here, before you respond?

It is like you want to be the "teacher", and expect everyone just accepts what you have to say and believe what you believe, while 'I' am not worthy of questioning nor challenging you over what you say, believe, and write here.

Oh, and by the way, if you waited to read my reply to your 'very next sentence' instead of being 'so impatient', then you would have seen that I have already addressed the issue that you addressed. As, I instinctively knew 'it', and 'this', was coming anyway.

but you could not resist the change to be critical.

Why do you take so much 'to heart', as some of you would say here, "iwannaplato?

Also, I was never so-called 'critical' here. Why did you once again presume and believe things about 'me', which were not even in thought, let alone said nor presented?

While the last is not present online, understanding that words are the tip of the iceberg is so easily grasped when one understands body language.

But words are the 'whole iceberg', as some would say and point out here, when words are all 'we' have, exactly like what 'we' have here, in this forum.

No, words are not the whole iceberg here. Sentences, previous interactions, thread titles and focii, what is not written about and more.

Which, can only be seen, and 'read', by the 'words' alone here. As I just said and showed.

Body language, as I said, is a great way to understand that words are the tip of the ice and this is true even here.

So, this one still believes absolutely, because it previously was believing, absolutely, that 'body language' is a great way to understand that words are the tip of the so-called 'ice', 'now', and that 'this' belief and claim is actually even true here, where only words alone are presented and can be 'read'.

It is like this one actually, believes, absolutely, that human bodies with non functioning eyes are not able to understand, at all, that 'words are the tip of the ice'. (Whatever that is actually meant to be fully meaning, anyway).

It might even now start claiming that it cannot explain what it actually means here, fully, because here it can only use words, alone, and/or that only when one is looking at 'that body', then they could understand what it is fully saying and meaning here.

The GUTOE can be and will be written in 'words alone', and this will provide a full explanation, which includes the full meaning, of all-there-is. It will also be illustrating, drawing, painting, or showing the full Picture of all-there-is, or the 'whole iceberg' if you like "iwannaplato", crystal clearly too.

Well to those who do not have the belief that words, alone, cannot explain and show the full and actual Truth of things to you human beings anyway.

So, how does this relate to your claim above here?

Sure, one could argue that we are just atoms in some complex pattern.

Well one who did try to argue this, really, has really not looked to deep, yet.

But one would hardly understand humans that way.

Yes, arguing for a position, view, or belief and "yourselves", before one obtained the full and accurate knowledge about human beings would hardly come to understand you human beings 'that way'.

Yes, language is simpler than humans,

But you human beings are no more complex than language nor even the most simplest things in the Universe. And, to think or believe that you are, further shows just how egotistical you human beings can be.

but your ridiculous focus on each word is doomed to failure because you are so clueless about context, even the context of online communication.

Really?

And, here it is "iwannaplato" who talks about 'body language' is needed to understand something, which it just made up. It is also "iwannaplato" who cannot 'see' nor 'read' the context of what I have even been saying, showing, and pointing out here. But, it is 'me', again, who is supposedly the 'clueless' one, here.

I strongly recommend you look up the philosophy of internal relations. A word's meaning changes from one sentence to the next, from one specific interation to another.

But they do not, necessarily, 'have to, but they, certainly, can. Or, more correctly, a word itself's meaning does not change, but the meaning you individual human beings individually 'give' meaning, can certainly change. Thus, why I sometimes ask clarifying questions here.

In case some were not yet aware why I do it so regularly.

Yes, defining words can be useful.

Well it was you who just provided the actual reason why knowing 'the definition' one 'has' or 'giving' a word at any particular moment is very, very useful.

If you human beings really do want to come to understand 'each other', and thus ultimately "yourselves", then this is not going to happen by just pre-assuming what 'the other' is saying and meaning. Which by the way is why there is so much squabbling, bickering, 'arguing', fighting, warring, even killing among you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written.

When you come understand what 'the other' is actually meaning, and not just presuming nor believing you do, then this when real understanding can come about, and from True understanding, then 'the whole world', as some might say here, can be shifted, turned around, and even 'turned on its head, as some might also say here, and then the opposite of warring, fighting, and bickering can really Truly start 'to begin'.

But until you learn about context your communication and ability to understand others will be very limited.

Why do you presume or believe that I do not yet fully understand you others, already, let alone presuming or believing that I do not even have the ability to understand you human beings?

Do you have any actual bases for this presumption or beliefs of yours, besides of course other than just your own pre-existing presumptions or beliefs here?

Okay, if you say so.

But what you have said, and written, here still stands for all to look at, and see. And, if you want to believe that your words here could not be taken literally, then all is well and good.

Obviously they could be, but were they taken literally because you have a weakness in communication skills?

But I never, ever took your words literally because of some presumed belief of yours 'weakness in communication skills that I supposedly have'. I took your words literally, for the very reasons that I have already explained, to you.

Did you 'see' the explanation, 'read' it, 'take' it 'into context', and 'understand' it, properly and Correctly, Iwannaplato"?

Or, do you have some sort of 'weakness in communication skills', which is what has allowed you to miss 'the context' of things here, once again?

At not point do you seem to consider this possible.

Once again, you ask a question, posed as a clarifying question, even put a question mark on the end of it, but then instantly answer 'your own question' 'your own self'. If you think a 'rhetorical skill set' will work here for you, then okay, please consider. But, to me, you are just exposing your 'currently' held onto beliefs and presumptions, only.

Which, you may well now claim that this is another example of a 'poor reader', of being 'poor at context', or of being a 'weak communicator', without you ever considering that actually you have completely and utterly missed the very reasons why 'your words' could be, literally, again taken literally.

By the way, if I did not already know, exactly, the very reason why I took your words literally, then I would have something, at least, possible 'to consider' here. But, since I do already know, exactly, why I can take your words, in 'that sentence', literally, all is done here. Which at no point you seem to have considered possible here.

Which is, of course, up to you.

Now, you could choose to reconsider things here, and just take an actual 'look over' our discussion here, and at other places, as 'see' if actually it is 'your very own' 'poor reading', 'poor communicating', and 'poor comprehending and understanding' skills, which has been more of an issue here, than your perceived 'it is the others flaws' here belief here.

Which is, of course, up to you.

One day you might start saying and writing here what you actually mean.

See, you really don't understand context. I did way what I meant, but determining what someone means includes noticing context. Others would have, you didn't. We all miss context sometimes, but you have a more severe deficit with it than most, certainly at your IQ level.

This one is so sure of "itself" 'now' that it is even starting to believe that it knows, absolutely, what my iq level is.

Talk about only 'seeing the things', that align with what one is already believing is true. you here "iwannaplato" could not be providing me with a better example of 'confirmation bias' at work, for me to use as direct and prime examples and proof.

Now, you claim, 'See, you really do not understand context'. Have you ever, ever considered that, just maybe, I can see and understand 'the context' but speak and write here to make it appear as I do not, so that you end up saying and writing things that I might want you to? See, how you also do not provide any actual proof of what you actually meant and/or the actual context, and also not provide any actual proof of how I, supposedly, really did not see 'context'? you just say and claim I do not, and then expect everyone else to believe you. Just like a "teachers" and "preachers" do.

Also, if you really did write what you meant, then why was it you who said and wrote: There are many clues in there that this should not be taken literally.?

It seems very hypocritical and/or contradictory to say 'this' as well as say and claim that you did write what you meant. But, then again, you may have, once more, taken out of context what I was saying and meaning, and/or just thought I meant something else, again. Or, you might have just missed what was actually happening and occurring here, this time as well.

To be able to determine what I mean in my words here better from now on "iwannaplato" you will have to notice 'the context', also.

Others would have noticed it here, but you obviously did not, right?

Oh, and by the way, sometimes when one 'sees' the 'weaknesses' or 'deficits', which they say are 'in others', sometimes what can happen is 'a mirror' is being held up to them, unawares, and the 'severe deficiency' that they are 'looking at' and 'seeing', which they actually think or believe is 'in the other' is really more so 'in them'.

But, let 'us' wait, and see.

Unless, of course, you still believe, and so just want to 'look at', all of the 'weaknesses', 'flaws', 'deficiency', and 'severe deficiency' is all 'in me', and so are all 'mine' only.

Which, if you do, then I am very more than willing, and wanting. to.

But, until then, and maybe contrary to what you 'currently' believe is true, some of your words above here could, literally, be taken literally, and also be actually proved irrefutably True, as well.

Those words, however, as you just pointed out are not necessarily the ones you believe could be.

You can try to be right.

In regards to 'what', exactly? Or, just in regards to everything?

You can defend yourself and you ego.

I know I can defend what I write and say here. And, as I continually also say and claim here, I LOVE being questioned and challenged over all of what I say and write here.

I just keep waiting, patiently, for those who are Truly interested in doing so.

You can try to blame me.

But you do not 'try to' blame 'me', you just do it, right "iwannaplato"?

Also, let 'us' 'now' consider what I 'try to' blame 'you' here for, exactly?

Oh, that is right, you said and claimed that; 'There were many clues in what you said that should not be taken literally', and I more or less just said, that your words, literally, could be taken literally, because I could prove them actually irrefutably True.

Now, I wonder what I have been, supposedly, 'trying to' blame 'you' here for, exactly?

Or you could consider that you have a deficit.

Of course I have a deficit. And, the actual clue for the actual deficit, which I knew I had before I even came into this forum, and which I know I still have, is written within the sentence, 'I am here to learn how to communicate better with you human beings'. The actual and irrefutable answer is written 'withing the words', themselves, or 'between the lines', as some might say here, now.

In fact the actual meaningful answers, and solutions, to a lot of what I have been alluding to, and pointing out, here can be 'read, between the lines', again as some might literally 'work out', and be thinking here 'now'.

Up to you, obviously.

But already done.

'We' just wait for you to 'see', if you can see and recognize your own deficits here. That is; if, to you, you have any, or any that you think would need looking at, and over, anyway.

My absolute and irrefutable deficit here I have been very, very clear about, from the outset, and which I have proven absolutely True, hitherto up to this point of, literally, 'these words' and 'this writing'.

[Age]

Well Duh.
HAHAHA.
Spot the American!!
Stop what you are doing.
Consult a dictionary and look up irony..

So is it due to poor education?

Is 'what' do to so-called 'poor education'?

or is there something else cultural in the American mind that makes them blind to irony?

'We' are not blind to 'irony', 'we' just question why some of you do what you do.

I think I can see the answer here.
Probably attention span more than anything.
I'm going to suggest a poor diet, compounded by a poor education.

Okay. But in the meanwhile, let 'us' not forget that this one claims, absolutely, that God does not exist, but then goes on to point out and claim that God does 'this' and/or God does not do 'that'.

[Iwannaplato]

But I do not necessarily see it as 'your responsibility' to back up and support 'your very own statements, views, judgments, beliefs, and/or claims, at all, but others certainly might, for very good reasons. I, however and instead, just question you to see whether you can and will actually back up and support your statements, views, judgments, beliefs, and/or claims, or not. And, the answer to this is fairly obvious by now.

Again shifting responsibility. If you have nothing to go on that fits my claim. If there is nothing in your neurological history that fits my claim. If you haven't gotten similar responses from a number of people. If you can't see a connection between your focus on individual words and a problem understanding context. If none of this makes you interested in exploring this for yourself, fine. Obviously there are things that back up the claim and unless you want to pretend you were born a few moments ago you are aware of these things. If none of them lead you to take responsibility on your own, thats' fine with me. Precisely as I said: because it is your loss.

To this one, "iwannaplato" not clarifying nor justifying its own positions and beliefs here is all because of 'my supposed weaknesses'.

No, there are a variety of reasons. I have mentioned these in other interactions, which, by the way, is one of the reasons. YOu don't remember things, often convenient things that allow you to insult me in the same ways and accuse me of things in the same ways before. For example....

Look "iwannaplato", I already claimed that what you said can, literally, be taken literally, and be able to be proved absolutely so.

That is a lie. I never said anything I have said I could prove absolutely. And when asked a number of times, I directly and clearly stated that I didn't believe such things, nor have I said that. You are a liar.

So, here you are lying. Another reason I don't perform for you.

I'm not going to pretend you're an honest person, Ken. I'm not going to pretend you're not a hypocrite. I'm not going to pretend your are transcendent or that you understand context as well as other people.

That seems to be the role you've picked out for yourself. You'll need to find someone else to enable you.

[Age]

And 'this' coming from one who claims that God does not even exist.

Well Duh.
HAHAHA.
Spot the American!!
Stop what you are doing.
Consult a dictionary and look up irony..

So is it due to poor education? or is there something else cultural in the American mind that makes them blind to irony?

How ironic, I've just been trying to help Age understand that he is a terrible reader of context.

What you mostly just say is 'age is a terrible reader of context', but when I ask 'when' and/or in regards to 'what', exactly, this one, once again, completely and utterly fails to provide anything.

One more, this one does not even recognize when it fails not just terribly, but also absolutely, 'reading context' and 'comprehending and understanding'. Especially in regards to what it believes I am 'terrible at' is really its own beliefs deceiving and fooling into 'seeing' things, which were not even there.

As I can, once again, prove absolutely and irrefutably True, and Right.

But, please absolute no one here take 'my word' for this, and so do not test nor try me on this, just accept "iwannaplato's" words, as it has been tricked into believing what is claims "itself".

Even when one can show very clear examples of where he misses contextual clues, he will try to blame it on the other person.

I will put it to you again "iwannaplato", if you 'now' want to seriously claim that you can show 'very clear examples' of where I, supposedly, 'miss contextual clues', then I challenge you to show them 'here, now', and I also challenge you to 'stay around' and discuss them.

Do you accept these challenges here?

But I'm sure you're not optimistic he's going to admit he has anything to learn about context, such as irony.

Once again, for the 'deaf' and 'blind' here, I am the one who has already admitted, from the outset, that 'I am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better with you human beings', which, for those who can 'read context', entails and thus means that I have more to learn in regards to context, irony, and everything else to do with communicating with you human beings, here.

Now, for those who are blinded by their own 'current' beliefs and who are thus 'running on', for lack of better wording, 'confirmation biases', admitting that I have more to learn here, does not mean one or all of you can just say and write, 'You are poor at context', and that 'that' alone is enough and sufficient, and from then on believe that 'I am poor at context', without providing absolutely anything backing up and supporting this, and with not even providing the actual 'thing', which I am supposedly 'poor' 'at context' in, exactly. As doing so is a True sign of one who is very delusional.

[Iwannaplato]

What you mostly just say is 'age is a terrible reader of context', but when I ask 'when' and/or in regards to 'what', exactly, this one, once again, completely and utterly fails to provide anything.

That's a lie. I specifically gave a example. And Sculptor, in some amazing coincidence, right, pointed out an example. So, here you are lying again.

You simply cannot admit things. You could even admit the examples and deny the pattern. But you are unwilling to do even that minimal bit of honest reflection.

You are a liar.

You may think others are as bad at reading how emotions are affecting the way you respond. You may think because there are only words on a screen it is easy for you to hide what is actually happening when you meet resistance to your fantasies about yourself and your abuse of others. But you're wrong. Your long term inability to not read context well gives you a false impression of what you can hide.

AGain, I think it showed startling maturity that you could change your typography after Alta invested (albeit a lot of) posts in mirroring you. Kudos.

Perhaps there is something else that your think you must hold on to that needs to change.

If you don't want to explore this yourself with the evidence you have from life as Ken and the failure to communicate well with people online, again, that's fine with me.

I certainly justify things with people online, but not when they repeated lie, forget and regularly display hypocrisy.

Your gaslighting won't work here, Ken.

[Age]

So, once again, 'we' have another here, and this one again, who says and claims things, based off of a....

The only person who loses when you play the 'if you can't prove it' game is you, in this case.

Why do you say and claim this "iwannaplato"?

It is like you have been so indoctrinated that you want to pass on the exact same indoctrination, as it was passed on and into 'you', exactly. The whole while completely oblivious to what is actually happening and occurring.

Now, you want to make the claim that, 'If you cannot prove your claims, which is what 'philosophical discussions' used to involve, then somehow 'I' lose something here, then do you have the courage to back up and support this claim?

If yes, then great. What, exactly, do you believe I could and would lose here?

But if no, then it was not too unexpected.

If you don't have a problem with context, then you can easily ignore me.

Once again, some of your words do not make sense relative to the rest of your sentence.

If you do have that problem, then somehow hinging dealing with it on my ability to prove it online...that's your loss.

But why would you even begin to presume or believe this?

you showing that you cannot even provide the actual 'thing', which you claim I am 'poor at context' in regards to, exactly, shows and proves, itself, that you are certainly not so-called 'winning' anything here. Let alone even moving onto you trying to back up and support your claim with actual proof.

Ken has issues that relate to this. And Age, flowing as he does from Ken, has 'inherited' them.

But "iwannaplato" will never ever say or tell absolutely anyone what 'the issues' are, nor what 'the context' is, which I, supposedly and allegedly, have, and are 'poor at'.

This one believes because it has obtained more power of you readers here that you should all just accept and believe what it says and claims, and that none of you have any right to question its authority here.

You have claimed that your purpose in coming here is to learn how to communicate better.

And, you have reminded the readers here, thankfully, a few times already.

Well, that seems limited to specific definitions of words.

Why do things seems this way to you here?

That you might have more complicated, intimate problem that will require some real work...off the table.

you do not even have a clue as to what I even said and actually meant here "iwannaplato". Although you obviously believe that you absolutely do.

Again, your loss.

Again, 'what', exactly, do you think I could or would lose here.

Nothing you have said so far as even been close.

And yeah, it's probably just a coincidence that within a few minutes two people have noticed the issue and that others in a small forum have also noticed it.

But I could never ever have written in absolutely any way that could influence you people to respond in the ways that you do, right "iwannaplato"?

Also, both of you here could not have even missed something, nor ever 'taken anything out of context', in what I have said and written here, correct?

Yup, only other people have issues they need to work on.

Well this is, exactly, the way you are coming across here, in this forum, "iwannaplato".

Maybe this has something to with believing that it is this ones job or role in Life to teach others, only. 'We' will have to wait, to see.

It's always other people's core problems because you have transcended these things.

Again, your use of some words do not work in relation to the sentence itself.

[Age]

Well Duh.
HAHAHA.
Spot the American!!
Stop what you are doing.
Consult a dictionary and look up irony..

So is it due to poor education? or is there something else cultural in the American mind that makes them blind to irony?

How ironic, I've just been trying to help Age understand that he is a terrible reader of context.
Even when one can show very clear examples of where he misses contextual clues, he will try to blame it on the other person.
But I'm sure you're not optimistic he's going to admit he has anything to learn about context, such as irony.

LOL.
Yes. Let's put it this way. I'll not be holding my breath whilst waiting for him to get it.
He'll just be asking me why I would ever want to hold my breath!!

Well this is Truly absurd thing to assume. But considering it claims that God does not exist while at the same time claiming God does somethings, but not others, as well.

[Age]

So, once again, 'we' have another here, and this one again, who says and claims things, based off of a....

You have claimed that your purpose in coming here is to learn how to communicate better.

If this is the case: you have to be open to understanding.
From what I can see here is that you are not

Will you list these things/s, which you presume I am not open to understanding here, exactly?

If yes, then great.

But if no, then why not?

[Iwannaplato]

No, Age. You'll either mull this over on your own or you won't. You have enough to start and it's your life.

[Sculptor]

Is 'what' do to so-called 'poor education'?


'We' are not blind to 'irony', 'we' just question why some of you do what you do.

I think I can see the answer here.
Probably attention span more than anything.
I'm going to suggest a poor diet, compounded by a poor education.

Okay. But in the meanwhile, let 'us' not forget that this one claims, absolutely, that God does not exist, but then goes on to point out and claim that God does 'this' and/or God does not do 'that'.

You are just continuing to dig yourself into a hole

[Sculptor]

How ironic, I've just been trying to help Age understand that he is a terrible reader of context.
Even when one can show very clear examples of where he misses contextual clues, he will try to blame it on the other person.
But I'm sure you're not optimistic he's going to admit he has anything to learn about context, such as irony.

LOL.
Yes. Let's put it this way. I'll not be holding my breath whilst waiting for him to get it.
He'll just be asking me why I would ever want to hold my breath!!

Well this is Truly absurd thing to assume. But considering it claims that God does not exist while at the same time claiming God does somethings, but not others, as well.

Keep digging.

[Sculptor]

So, once again, 'we' have another here, and this one again, who says and claims things, based off of a....

If this is the case: you have to be open to understanding.
From what I can see here is that you are not

Will you list these things/s, which you presume I am not open to understanding here, exactly?

If yes, then great.

But if no, then why not?

No since you are not open it would not matter were I to list them.

[Age]

But I do not necessarily see it as 'your responsibility' to back up and support 'your very own statements, views, judgments, beliefs, and/or claims, at all, but others certainly might, for very good reasons. I, however and instead, just question you to see whether you can and will actually back up and support your statements, views, judgments, beliefs, and/or claims, or not. And, the answer to this is fairly obvious by now.

Again shifting responsibility. If you have nothing to go on that fits my claim.

What are you on about here now?

If you claim 'about me' does not fit in with what I actually am or what I am actually doing, then I am not 'shifting responsibility' at all. I am just Correcting your Incorrect views or beliefs.

I 'went on' to what was the actual Truth, which just happen to not 'fit your claim' here, again.

Once again, it is like you believe that your own beliefs are what is absolutely and irrefutably True, which absolutely and totally absurd and ridiculous considering that your most of views, judgments, and claims here are, as usual, 'about me'.

If there is nothing in your neurological history that fits my claim.

Your claim about my lack of ability to communicate, fits your claim.

But, most if not all of the rest of your claims are based on your own already obtained presumptions and beliefs.

Also, and by the way, some of what you perceive and presume I am 'poor' at, because of my lack of ability to communicate, is just down and out False and Wrong, Which I have already pointed out and shown here.

you seem to be under some sort of illusion that you role and job here is to point out 'other's deficiencies, while completely ignoring your own, and also completely ignoring the actual issues your own deficiencies are causing and creating here

If you haven't gotten similar responses from a number of people.

Back in the 'olden days' nearly everyone 'saw' and said that the sun revolved around the earth, while there was one only saying that, no, actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun. But, because all of their already obtained and pre-existing beliefs and presumptions, all of those people were just remaining 'blind' and 'deaf' to what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly.

As I have been pointing out and showing here, this was still happening and was still continuing in the 'olden days' also when this was being written.

If you can't see a connection between your focus on individual words and a problem understanding context.

But I do not have a so-called 'problem' understanding context. you just believe I do, which then effects the way you look at what I say and write here. When then causes you to see False and Wrong things, and conclude False and Wrong things, which is just 'confirmation bias', and then when you believe that your own conclusions, which were and are just based upon your own previous beliefs and presumptions just leaving you further and further behind here.

And, the actual thing that you keep Truly missing here is that I can and will prove what I say and claim is and has been actually happening here. Whereas, when you say and claim that I am 'poor at context', and I ask you to explain in regards to 'what', exactly, and then explain what, exactly, you believe I have, supposedly, not understood, you provide absolutely nothing at all. Or, if you provide something, then what you provide does not align with my actual views nor with what I have actually said and meant. Once again, you keep missing this.

By the way, If I choose to write and reply when I do, I will.

If you cannot keep up with the context.
If you cannot comprehend and understand what has been and is actually happening and occurring here.
Ir you cannot look at, and see, things from a more open perspective.
If none of this makes you more curious and/or more interested in exploring and learning things here, for you, then fine.

If none of this makes you interested in exploring this for yourself, fine.

But you seem to be under some sort of delusion that I have not been exploring things here.

What you seem to be missing, again and also, I have been exploring this, and just maybe I have explored things here far more and seeing them far more 'deeply' and far more clearer then you could even imagine, at the moment.

But, to you this could not even be a possibility, correct?

Obviously there are things that back up the claim and unless you want to pretend you were born a few moments ago you are aware of these things.

What you keep missing is what you claim backs up those other claims has already been refuted, countered, or shown where and why they are False and/or Wrong.

If none of them lead you to take responsibility on your own, thats' fine with me.

But as I have alluded to I am not losing absolutely nothing at all here. As there is nothing I could lose.

Also, and by the way, who is the one who has actually been 'accepting and taking responsibility' here, for what they have actually done, and not just what they have been Falsely accused can be clearly seen and proved True above here.

Precisely as I said: because it is your loss.

Also, and as I had already informed you, the more you carry on, the way you have been, then the more you are backing up and proving what I have said and claimed and what I am, still yet, to say and claim, and point out and show here.

Also, let 'us' not completely forget that you, once more, after I specifically asked you to clarify what it is that you believe I am losing here, and losing in regards to 'what', exactly, you provided absolutely nothing, once again. you just keep repeating your same claims over and over again, as though what you claim is absolutely and irrefutably true, and that any seeking out of clarification or challenging of you is completely unnecessary.

you are so deluded here "iwannaplato" by your own personal belief-system you actually believe that because you just say and claim things here, then others will know what you are referring to, exactly.

And, I keep proving this absolutely True, by just asking you to clarify your beliefs and/or by just asking you to back up and support your beliefs.

To this one, "iwannaplato" not clarifying nor justifying its own positions and beliefs here is all because of 'my supposed weaknesses'.

No, there are a variety of reasons. I have mentioned these in other interactions, which, by the way, is one of the reasons. YOu don't remember things, often convenient things that allow you to insult me in the same ways and accuse me of things in the same ways before.

Just so you become aware, if you come to a philosophy forum of all places and you do not clarify nor back up and support your own beliefs and claims, then I am not the one so-called losing absolutely anything here at all.

I, in fact, am actually garnishing more and more proofs for what I am saying and claiming.

For example....

Look "iwannaplato", I already claimed that what you said can, literally, be taken literally, and be able to be proved absolutely so.

That is a lie. I never said anything I have said I could prove absolutely.

This is another prime example of where and when you keep missing what is actually happening and going on here.

I never ever even alluded to that you could prove anything here, let alone prove anything absolutely. I was referring to 'me' and 'me' alone here.

For one who keeps claiming that it is 'I' who is 'poor at context'. you continually missing 'context' is Truly hypocrisy at its 'best', and an absolute 'contradiction' in terms.

I never lied here at all. you just 'saw' and 'believe' I did. Once again, because of your pre-existing beliefs and presumptions are not allowing you to 'look at' and 'see' things absolutely clearly here.

And when asked a number of times, I directly and clearly stated that I didn't believe such things, nor have I said that. You are a liar.

This here is a prime example of 'confirmation bias' in extreme.

Again, I never said that you said 'that'.

Also, what can be very clearly seen happening many, many times here is that these people would continually use words like 'this', 'that', 'it', but very, very rarely ever clarify what they are referring to, exactly, even when specifically asked for clarification.

So, here you are lying. Another reason I don't perform for you.

But, here I was not lying at all. Because I never ever even thought what you believed here, let alone ever alluding to nor saying what you believed I did.

I'm not going to pretend you're an honest person, Ken.

Please do not "iwannaplato".

Please keep believing that I am a dishonest person.

your proceeding views and beliefs will come in Truly 'handy' for me.

I'm not going to pretend you're not a hypocrite.

Again, please do not, and please keep believing what you 'currently' do here. your proceeding 'confirmation biases', again, will come in Truly 'handy' for me.

I'm not going to pretend your are transcendent or that you understand context as well as other people.

Please feel free to believe absolutely anything you like "iwannaplato". It is has not stopped you in the past, so do not allow absolutely anything to stop you doing it in the future neither.

Also, why you are still presuming or believing absolutely regarding absolutely 'transcendent' here only you know for sure why.

I have never used that word here nor referred to 'that word'. But, because one other person used that word, and what was said and claimed resonated with one of your own personal beliefs or presumptions, you jumped onto this word, and have been 'running with' it and stuck with it, still.

But, please keep believing that that word has absolutely something to do with what I have actually been saying and claiming here, so you will keep 'seeing' that word within my writings and words here.

That seems to be the role you've picked out for yourself.

Again, the word 'that' is used here, once more, as though others automatically know what you are thinking and referring to, exactly.

What, exactly, seems to you to be 'the role' that I have picked out for me,

You'll need to find someone else to enable you.

But I have never needed any of you human beings to so-call 'enable' Me.

In fact the exact opposite might be said and argued for here.

But, again, 'we' will just have to wait, to see.

[Age]

What you mostly just say is 'age is a terrible reader of context', but when I ask 'when' and/or in regards to 'what', exactly, this one, once again, completely and utterly fails to provide anything.

That's a lie. I specifically gave a example. And Sculptor, in some amazing coincidence, right, pointed out an example. So, here you are lying again.

But what both of your two failed, absolutely, to comprehend and realize is that the so-called 'specific example' and the so-called 'example' was not what I actually missed nor took out of context. What you two failed to see here is that you both took my replies 'out of context'. Now, this could be because you are both what you call 'poor of context' or for some other reason.

So, now claiming that what I said is a 'lie' needs to be backed up and supported with actual proof. Or, do you believe that you can just come here and claim things about others, without you having to proof said claim or accusation?

You simply cannot admit things.

you simply cannot see things, although I keep pointing them out to you. Like, for example, what you claimed I lied about here you 'took out of context' and/or misunderstood.

Obviously, you will have to 'look at' this, first, 'mull over it', somewhat, and then either refute it with actual proof, just admit it, or do what you normally do and just ignore it completely, and refuse to even considering it, let alone every admit to the Truth that this is what you have been doing here.

And, because you already obtained beliefs will just not allow to look and see things past those beliefs.

You could even admit the examples and deny the pattern. But you are unwilling to do even that minimal bit of honest reflection.

Because, once again, the accusations and claims are False and Wrong, as I have already partly proved absolutely True.

you just will not even admit this, and are just denying it outright.

You are a liar.

If you say and believe so, then this is exactly what I am, to you.

Which is perfectly fine, with me. As this example itself will prove absolutely True what I will be saying and claiming about how the Mind and the brain actually work.

You may think others are as bad at reading how emotions are affecting the way you respond.

you may also, but so what?

You may think because there are only words on a screen it is easy for you to hide what is actually happening when you meet resistance to your fantasies about yourself and your abuse of others.

Not that you will ever clarify, but what do you believe are 'you fantasies' about some so-called "yourself" in regards to 'me', exactly?

As for your other belief and claim here, how do you propose I have, reportedly, abused others here?

you continue to make more and more judgmental views about 'me', based on your 'currently' held onto beliefs and presumptions. But, show 'us' if you can, what actually backs up and supports your beliefs and claims here. And, if you do not, then they will exist within imagination, alone.

But you're wrong.

See, how quickly because this one was already believing something was true, (which there is no actual proof for anyway), concluded from and through False 'confirmation biases' that the previous and 'currently' held onto belief is absolutely true, then it makes more presumptions, which although are actually False this one still believes them to be true, and then, without absolutely no proof at all and while believing that it never has to do absolutely anything at all to actually check and test if its own presumption and beliefs are actually true or not, just jumps to yet another conclusion that, 'you're wrong'. When it then decides on its own self to believe that new conclusion absolutely true and right as well.

Your long term inability to not read context well gives you a false impression of what you can hide.

Look at how much time and effort this one puts into continually judging 'me' post after post after post.

Lest 'us' not forget that this one said and claimed:

Oh, good. Even if I don't know what the objective morals are, it is soothing to know someone [God] does (someone other than VA). And,
There are many clues in there that this should not be taken literally.

I then just asked, for clarification, 'Why should what you said and wrote here not be taken literally?

I know I can prove absolutely that what is said and claimed is absolutely True, even if this one wants to continue believing absolutely otherwise.

AGain, I think it showed startling maturity that you could change your typography after Alta invested (albeit a lot of) posts in mirroring you. Kudos.

Even though I went and specifically informed this one that this never ever actually happened, because either this one, once again, missed this, which would not be very surprising at all, or because this one, once again, just believes that its own presumption and beliefs are irrefutably true this one still goes on like it really, really did happen, which would not be very surprising at all either.

This one is so absolutely blind, or it just repeats its own lies to see what 'reaction' will ensue.

Perhaps there is something else that your think you must hold on to that needs to change.

What are you even on about and referring to here, exactly?

If you don't want to explore this yourself with the evidence you have from life as Ken and the failure to communicate well with people online, again, that's fine with me.

What does 'you have from life as Ken' even mean?

This one has become so delusional here it has started talking to numerous different identities.

It is like this one believes that absolutely everyone has only ever used one 'username' for every online interaction that if one uses two, then there 'must be' to two different identities here, now.

For anyone who knows "iwannaplato" in other online forums, does it use the exact same 'username' in those forums?

And, for anyone else who knows "iwannaplato" on any sources within the internet does "iwannaplato" go under the exact same 'username' of "iwannaplato" as well?

I certainly justify things with people online, but not when they repeated lie, forget and regularly display hypocrisy.

Okay, so now instead of just actually 'taking responsibility' for "itself" here, the reasons that it does not 'justify', does not prove, and does not back up and support its positions, views, beliefs, presumptions, nor claims and accusations made at 'me' here, is because of 'me', again, because I, supposedly, do not do something and, supposedly do do other things.

Yet, this one is still not recognizing and seeing that what it claims and accuses 'me' of doing or not doing here exists within "itself" alone. And, until it proves its claims and accusations made against 'me', then they do not stand, makes it even far more hypocritical to also use those unsubstantiated beliefs, claims, and accusations as an 'excuse' for not doing what a Truly 'responsible person' would do, and especially would do in a philosophy forum.

Your gaslighting won't work here, Ken.

If this is what you want to absolutely believe is what I am doing here, then that is perfectly fine with me.

Just remember, others are seeing the exact opposite here. As they see that it is you trying to do this with 'me', but the only real victims, which you are 'gaslighting' here, is "yourself", and some others.

[Age]

No, Age. You'll either mull this over on your own or you won't. You have enough to start and it's your life.

Yes "iwannaplato" you will either mull this over on your own or you will not. Which so far is fairly obvious, well to most here anyway. And, you have enough to start, and it is your life. Which, both of, are also just as fairly obvious as the other one was.

So, this makes some wonder, What is this one really meaning or wanting here?