Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 6:16 am
Oh, so you are a pedophile and a terrorist who hits and kills children. Prove that you are not these things.
But, to 'you', 'I' am all of these things.
'you' just said and asserted so "yourself".
And, you have said that if one does not believe in what they say and assert, then they are a liar, or words to that effect.
You have a very limited understanding of human communication. You have trouble with what you class as non-literal, while at the same time not understanding that much of your own communication (and everyone's) is non-literal. Here you have trouble understanding the difference between when someone shows, via individual statements, what someone else is doing - A reductio ad absurdum - and a claim that nearly all of your statements/assertions are merely views not beliefs. The latter situation is a global pattern where we are dealing with someone asserting things they do not believe to be true. If, on occasion, I mirror the pattern of your reasoning, this is not a global pattern, but a specific rhetorical instance. And most people would understand the cues. Why would they? Because they have some degree of perspective on their own communication. So, when it is mirrored, they notice that it is mirroring. They may not agree. They may think I have mirrored poorly. But they get it. Of course, instances of miscommunication happen. But I have noticed that you are in general unable to pick up cue related to irony, sarcasm, this kind of mirroring and then also lack perspective on what you are doing. This kinds of limitations are often batched together in some people.
The other possibility is that you are playing limited all the time. Which fits to a degree with your instrumental view of interpersonal reactions here.
So, that last sentence of yours
And, you have said that if one does not believe in what they say and assert, then they are a liar, or words to that effect.
was a confused interpretation. But since you've now asserted it a few times, I decided to clarify.
It's one thing, say, to meet a person and they, eventually, tell you:
Nearly everything I assert or tell you is a view not something I believe is true.
It is another thing to meet someone who tells you that on occasion they will present things in an ironic or sarcastic way, where they do not believe in the assertion. And this will happen directly after something they find silly. Further that given there is mirroring in these moments, those particular assertions will, for most readers, be clearly intended to be taken as positions I do not agree with.
That is an option language offers. Language also offers the use of metaphors and other tropes. These also have clues that they are not meant literally, but rather to elicit a wide ranges of effects.
Often philosophy, where you incorrectly think such language is inappropriate in general - obviously it can be distasteful to you or not - has to deal with dead metaphors, where we think we are communicating literally, but actually the language is not literal. It has hidden skewed perspectives or tropes built out of the way we humans experience.
Online, of course, picking up cues is harder than in face to face discussion, where there are even more cues to place these different kinds of communication in their categories. I certainly understand people not getting the occasional ironic statement or mirrored sarcasm.
But when there is a regular patter and even a philosophy based on the inability to notice these things, it is a different situation. It fits also with the lack of fundamental collaboration in your communication.
Of course, now that it's clear that you are here to elicit confirmation of your negative beliefs about the people of this time, who knows what you know or not. It seems extremely likely you have some communication and interpersonal deficits, more extreme than in most people. And you certainly cannot prove you lack these - just to mirror the idiot way you respond to people. You aim a judgment at them. They deny it. You expect proof. Now that idiotic pattern shouldn't be present in philosophical context, but you're hardly alone in putting out that idiotic pattern.
Now see if you can manage to understand if I was actually, flat asserting you are a pedophile.
See, if you can understand how the criticism is different given that you have claimed that nearly everything you assert here you don't believe. IOW they are not beliefs, but mere views.