Let's look at and talk about "age", again.

[Age]

Age was hit as a child because of her/his inability to understand basic human? Would explain a lot..

[Age]

Could have you misinterpreted absolutely anything here or assumed something falsely here?

Could you have written poorly and miscommicated?

I am always doing this. What a Truly stupid question to ask me.

I am here to learn how to communicate better. Or, have you forgotten this "iwannaplato".

And, what this means is that I DO write poorly and do communicate poorly.

Also, why is it so very easy and simple for me to answer, and thus clarify, clarifying questions posed, and asked to me, but you do not answer and clarify clarifying questions asked to you?

No I did not.

You're lying or a very confused person or both.

Or, you really are not seeing or not comprehending the actual words that I use and so you end up saying and writing what I have not actually said and written.

What I have actually written is here for all to 'look at' and 'see'.

So, if you want to prove me Wrong and prove you Right here, then this would be such a Truly simple and easy process for you to do.

Therefore, if you do not prove me Wrong here, and thus you Right here, then this will show and reveal more than what you may well like here.

But I never even say that for that to be saying, or you, you do this.

1) and this sentence is an example of poor communications

Very, very True.

And, which you, also, have provided examples of, as well.

2) you either communicated terribly when you wrote indicating I beat children or you are a liar.

Notice how this one did not included the actual claims that I replied to with the quote of what I said here.

This one does this on purpose, so then it can make the obvious False claim that it is trying and attempting to make here 'now'. Or, this one does not even notice and realize what it does here, and so ends up misleading, accidentally.

And if you read through your responses you evade the issue several times, suddenly bringing up my parents, as if that was relevant to you saying you humans hit children and call it tough love.

Once again, you have completely missed or misunderstood what I was actually saying, writing, and pointing out here. But, this is not an unusual habit of yours "iwannaplato".

Also, it is very easily noticed just how much of your writings are 'about me', and how often you do this, and thus which is absolutely irrelevant to the actual topic of the thread.

Projecting and not moving it forward.

you are beyond a joke "iwannaplato".

you HATE being 'talked about' and 'looked at'. Yet, you have spend much more of your writings talking 'about me' than you have on the actual topic

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.

[Age]

Age was hit as a child because of her/his inability to understand basic human? Would explain a lot..

Who knows, but he has clarified his goal here.

And, going by your past examples "iwannaplato" you probably still do not even know what my goal is here.

Would you like to now show and reveal what you think or believe is my goal here, exactly?

After all you have said and claimed that I have clarified.

What 'I' am actually doing here is using 'you' posters here to show and prove how adult human beings used to think and mis/behave, back in the days when this is being written, to show and prove what to do and what not to do.

Is this 'my goal here', to you "iwannaplato"?

If yes, then you appear to have misread or shown poor comprehension skills, once more.

But, again, 'we' will wait, for you.

Showing and revealing how and why it took you human beings, back then, so long to learn how to just obtain actual clarity, and thus be able to 'see' what the actual Truth is, will reveal and show what not to do in the future.

This was in response to my criticizing his communication. In other words, the goal of his communication is to elicit things from us that demonstrate his ideas about people.

So, once again, this one is showing that instead of seeking out and obtaining actual clarification and thus clarity, first, it will, instead, just make up an assumption, jump to a conclusion, and then believe that its own conclusion is the only true and right one.

What 'we' have here, once again, is an example of what 'not to do'. That is; if 'we' want to live in what 'I' will be talking about, later on.

Such a goal justifies both lying and communicating terribly on the actual topics, posts, other posters, etc. What is elicited that confirms his ideas (confirms them to him at least) is what matters to him.

This one could not be more Wrong, more Inaccurate, and more Incorrect here. And, even it was trying to be.

This one is just proving over and over, again and again, how and why making assumptions and believing things, before actual clarity is obtained, is so absolutely the Wrong thing to do in Life.

Which is utterly instrumental treatment of other people. 'using 'you' posters'

Once again, I choose 'my words' very specifically.

His real message is not for us.

Now this would all depend on who and/or what the 'us' word here is referring to, exactly.

He is trying to demonstrate something here that will help him spread his real message elsewhere.

Wow, FINALLY this one has got something Right.

By the way "iwannaplato" I have specifically said and pointed this out many times already, previously, here. Not that you were expected to see nor notice that I had already.

So, once again, I am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings, somewhere else.

[Age]

Age was hit as a child because of her/his inability to understand basic human? Would explain a lot..

Who knows, but he has clarified his goal here.

What 'I' am actually doing here is using 'you' posters here to show and prove how adult human beings used to think and mis/behave, back in the days when this is being written, to show and prove what to do and what not to do.

Showing and revealing how and why it took you human beings, back then, so long to learn how to just obtain actual clarity, and thus be able to 'see' what the actual Truth is, will reveal and show what not to do in the future.

This was in response to my criticizing his communication. In other words, the goal of his communication is to elicit things from us that demonstrate his ideas about people. Such a goal justifies both lying and communicating terribly on the actual topics, posts, other posters, etc. What is elicited that confirms his ideas (confirms them to him at least) is what matters to him.

Which is utterly instrumental treatment of other people. 'using 'you' posters'

His real message is not for us. He is trying to demonstrate something here that will help him spread his real message elsewhere.

I know that, Age said this many times.

Thank you "atla" for confirming this.

See, here 'we' have a prime example of just how long it takes for these human beings here, when this was being written, to come to the actual Truth of things, when they just presuming or believing things, instead of just seeking out and obtaining and gaining actual clarity, first.

Imagine, if "iwannaplato", just asked 'me', ages ago, clarifying questions in regards to just clarifying what I was saying, and meaning, instead.

How different things would have been here. And, how much simpler, easier, and way, way quicker could have "iwannaplato" come to the 'exact same conclusion'. Which, this time, is, FINALLY, Right, and Correct.

That's why I kept harassing this universal-'I' from the future.

Now, 'we' are back to 'this one', once again, making assumptions, jumping to conclusions, and then believing that their own made up assumptions and conclusions are, absolutely, true, right, and correct, also.

When will these two learn what they are doing is Wrong, here?

[Age]

I know that, Age said this many times. That's why I kept harassing this universal-'I' from the future.

I've noticed that when I push on a point for a while, he starts saying things that make me think 'Ah, now I understand what Atla meant that time.'

If one stays on something for a while he starts revealing things (or just making stuff up rather than admitting anything).

You know those voices in the head that torture some people - call it self-hate, or a toxic conscience, or even the voices schizophrenics are sometimes plagued by - his communication is like that.

One could wonder how much 'projection' is now being displayed here?

[Age]

I know that, Age said this many times. That's why I kept harassing this universal-'I' from the future.

I've noticed that when I push on a point for a while, he starts saying things that make me think 'Ah, now I understand what Atla meant that time.'

If one stays on something for a while he starts revealing things (or just making stuff up rather than admitting anything).

You know those voices in the head that torture some people - call it self-hate, or a toxic conscience, or even the voices schizophrenics are sometimes plagued by - his communication is like that.

Well I think literally believing that you're God (the-universal-self) doesn't usually happen without at least a little schizophrenia..

Okay. But, this then makes one wonder why this would be related to absolutely anything that I have actually said and written here.

[Iwannaplato]

Moved to the thread where the interchange was.

[Age]

Well I think literally believing that you're God (the-universal-self) doesn't usually happen without at least a little schizophrenia..

I wasn't going there. I meant more that if such a voice was regularly experienced, if you couldn't shut it off, it would be schizophrenogenic or toxic in ways that leads to neurosis, depression, self-hate, etc. And of course such a voice thinks it is/or poses as noble. It wouldn't be toxic otherwise.

Once again, it is words, conclusions, and beliefs like these that could make one wonder what has absolutely any of this got to do with absolutely any thing that I have said and written here.

But, without digressing by adding things here, if 'we' just watched and observed what would take place and occur here, 'we' could be watching and observing these 'two' talk about 'me' for pages here.

[Iwannaplato]

post moved to thread with context.

[Iwannaplato]

post moved to thread with wider context for this post.

[Iwannaplato]

post moved to the thread where the context is.

[Age]

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.

Okay. If this is what you want to say and believe is true, then, to you, this must be true.

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.

If you want to claim that much of my own communication is 'non-literal', then shows 'us' that you have the courage, and ability, to back up and support this claim, of yours.

If you ever did this, then this could become very interesting, and very well worthwhile here also.

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.

you appear to be confused, very much, here.

But, this would all be because of 'me', and absolutely nothing at all to do with with the way 'you' think and write here, right?

The latter situation is a global pattern where we are dealing with someone asserting things they do not believe to be true.

So, you do believe what you asserted above here, right?

If, on occasion, I mirror the pattern of your reasoning, this is not a global pattern, but a specific rhetorical instance.

But, I have never ever reasoned, like you so claim 'you patterned'.

To me, you just once again missed what was actually happening and occurring here.

See, you continually miss 'the actual reasoning' I have and use here. But, this is just because you do not seek out 'the actual reasoning'. you, instead, much prefer to assume things first, and then believe your own assumptions are correct. All while never considering that what you are assuming could be so far different from 'the actual reasoning' I have and what I am actually saying and meaning that your own assumptions are sometimes the 'exact opposite' of what I am actually saying, meaning, and even reasoning.

These things you do not ever appear to consider.

And most people would understand the cues.

Just maybe "iwannaplato" I understand the so-called 'cues', exactly or fully, but I prefer to just point out and show the inconsistencies with you human beings, in the days when this is being written, to show and reveal why human beings, back then, took so, so long to also learn, comprehend, and understand the actual Truth of things, in Life.

Oh, and by the way, if one wanted to have the type of discussions like the way you want to and are showing here, then one could just go to any other forum on the internet without having to go to a 'philosophy forum' of all places, as well as could go to just about anywhere on the earth to have those 'very old type of discussions'.

Do you ever wonder why 'the discussions', in so-called 'philosophical topics or questions' have not really got anywhere in the past centuries and/or even millennia?

The answer, by the way, was and is very easy and simple to find and arrive at.

Why would they? Because they have some degree of perspective on their own communication.

But, to 'you', 'I' do not have any degree of perspective on my own communication, right?

So, when it is mirrored, they notice that it is mirroring.

But, you never actually 'mirrored' 'my communication'. you only 'mirrored' what you believed what 'my communication'.

you did this because you have not yet learned how to communicate 'with I' Correctly. you, still, believe that it is up to 'the other' to communicate 'to you' what it is that you do not yet understand and know.

you also have not yet learned how to be humble, how to ask for clarification, nor how to even back up, support, and clarifying your very own held onto beliefs and positions.

They may not agree. They may think I have mirrored poorly. But they get it.

Why did you assume, conclude, and believe that 'I did not get it', from the outset?

Why did you never consider that 'I got it', but I am just pointing out and revealing other things, which people like you had not considered before?

Of course, instances of miscommunication happen.

But, I have never seen you once admit that you have any miscommunication anywhere here.

Have you ever had any instances of miscommunication, 'with me', that was your fault "iwannaplato"?

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.

Yes, 'we' know. you have said and pointed out that you have noticed this on many, many occasions.

I have also pointed out that 'confirmation bias' is common habit of yours "iwannaplato".

This kinds of limitations are often batched together in some people.

Okay.

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.

1. Are you absolutely sure I have asserted it a few times? Because I have only asserted it once, only.

2. If it was a confused interpretation, then is that solely 'my fault', only?

This makes one wonder if this one has noticed that when 'I' have a 'confused interpretation', then it is always 'my fault', and, when 'this one' has a 'confused interpretation', then it is always 'my fault', again, as always.

But, then again, 'this one' never has a 'confused interpretation'. See, 'this one' always has the 'True and Right interpretation'. And, for proof of this one just has to ask, or listen, to 'this one' here.

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.

So, once again, 'this one' takes positions, asserts, believes, and/or claims things, which it does not even agree with.

Therefore, once more, I suggest you start just expressing what you mean only, and mean what you do express here, especially considering that this here is a 'philosophy forum'.

Out of curiosity, what do you think a 'philosophy forum' or 'philosophical discussions' are about and for, exactly?

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.

So, this one here is now trying to justify it, literally, writing and using words so that what is read does not mean what it actually says, or even actually means.

There is no wonder why these human beings took so long, back then, to also come to find and see what the actual Truth of things are, exactly.

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.

So, what you are, literally, saying and meaning here is that what you say and mean here is not, literally, what is said and written here, right?

And, that doing this is perfectly acceptable and even appropriate, in general, in the days when this is being written, right?

It has hidden skewed perspectives or tropes built out of the way we humans experience.

That you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, are skewed in the way you experience or 'see' things is very obvious.

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.

So, even though you appear to know this, you, still, do what will cause 'more confusion', or 'less clarity'.

And, this one is, still, trying to 'justify' doing this here, in a philosophy forum.

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.

It is good that all of 'my faults' are all fitting perfectly together with what you 'currently' and previously already believed was true 'about me'.

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.

See, how this one absolutely believes things here, and then 'sees', exactly, what confirms its beliefs.

It seems extremely likely you have some communication and interpersonal deficits, more extreme than in most people.

Okay.

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.

It is Truly amazing that this one cannot see what it is actually doing here.

Now see if you can manage to understand if I was actually, flat asserting you are a pedophile.

'I' hope 'you' were.

Well that is, exactly, what 'you' said, claimed, and asserted here.

Well this is what can be clearly seen above here.

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.

What do you mean by 'nearly everything'?

Are you still under the 'distorted belief' that 'I" believe some things here?

Oh, you do not need to answer this clarifying question, as your words above show, exactly, what you believe is true.

IOW they are not beliefs, but mere views.

If you say so.

But, then again, this could be irony, sarcasm, or even not what you actually mean, right?

[Iwannaplato]

Post moved to the thread with the context.

[Wizard22]

"Let's look at and talk about "age", again."

No thanks, I'll pass. AgeGPT still has a question to answer...

[Age]

"Let's look at and talk about "age", again."

No thanks, I'll pass. AgeGPT still has a question to answer...

Something has to exist before it could answer.

Were you not yet aware of this irrefutable Fact "wizard22"?