Name that fallacy...

[Age]

So I found ken's posts. Are there any particular interactions you had with him there that are especially telling,...

Well, as it pertains to you rightfully chastising Age for calling you an "it", if you want to see where ken (aka, Age) and I got into a debate over his practice of calling a living thing an "it", then start with this two-part post...

viewtopic.php?p=319901#p319901

Then check out this post (in the same thread) where the "it" debate continues...

viewtopic.php?p=320146#p320146

And finally, if you want to see where ken uses the telling (Age-esque) catchphrases: "...the days when this is written..." and "...clarifying questions..." along with the added bonus of him actually making an effort to offer an in-depth explanation of his theory regarding the ontology of the universe (which basically is nothing more than a strange version of "pantheism"), then check out this post...

viewtopic.php?p=320549#p320549

Ken seems a bit more human than Age.

Yes, and that's because ken's (now Age's) pathological obsession of needing to CAPITALIZE most of HIS words hadn't fully KICKED-IN at that time.

Ironically, one of his (or "its") stated goals is to learn how to better communicate with "us humans."

Yet, when pretty much everyone tries to point out to him that his excessive use of CAPITAL LETTERS causes most of "us humans" to ignore his unreadable posts, he simply ignores the complaints, which renders his declared hope of becoming a better communicator meaningless.

Indeed, he cannot seem to get it into his thick skull that his excessive use of CAPITAL LETTERS has an effect on a reader (or at least on me, anyway) that is comparable to that of walking down what should be a smooth path, but instead is covered with rocks and boulders that one must climb over to reach a destination - a destination that, upon closer examination, is a waste of time to pursue.

Now I'm not meaning to be mean-spirited toward a confused and naïve person who is simply expressing his personal views in a very annoying manner, for I too have been known to annoy others with my views, and the over-use of my illustrations.

Nevertheless, I cannot shake the feeling that we are all breaking the cardinal rule of not feeding - if not a troll - then some "thing" that possesses the ability to suck the oxygen out of every thread and conversation it gets involved with as it mercilessly smothers the participants beneath an avalanche of unreadable posts.

Anyway, if you have any doubts about whether or not ken is Age, then check out those links I provided.
_______

WHY would ANY one DOUBT 'this'?

Especially considering what I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN.

[Iwannaplato]

ONCE AGAIN, 'you', "iwannaplato", have MISSED that when one INFORMS 'me' of what SEEMS-LIKE, or APPEARS, TO 'them', then that IS PERFECTLY FINE, ALL RIGHT, and OKAY WITH 'me'.

Same old dominance game. I haven't missed your criterion that you hold other people to. So, that assumption you are showing here is incorrect. Second, notice how Age implies the dominance of his criterion. Then notice that he does not use the Seems-like construction for his beliefs and assertions. Double standard.

But 'you', human beings, OBVIOUSLY HAVE LIMITATIONS, which have EXISTED since 'you', human beings,

And dominance again, beliefs presented not in the seems format. He implicitly distinguishes himself from humans. He does not need to qualify his statements.

This is the context for any interaction with Age.

1) Do as I say, not as I do: double standard:
2) Age does not have the failings of the people he is talking to. This is assumed from the get go.

Dominance-focused, toxic behavior.

[Age]

Anyway, if you have any doubts about whether or not ken is Age, then check out those links I provided.

Thanks for the links. Actually after just a little reading I could tell it was the same person, earlier in a depersonalization process. At the very least, depersonalizing the character Ken--->Age.

WHY would ANY one now be even WONDERING?

I compared the process of communicating with Age with guilt and self-doubt. These are processes with obsessive thoughts that undermine moving forward. Guilt is not regret - where one faces what one has done and is less likely to repeat it. Guilt is just this kind of self-hate that slows the self down'. Like a clog. Self-doubt is not self-care or healthy caution. It's another self-undermining.

Is 'this' WHY 'you' ARE SO SLOWED DOWN and CLOGGED UP here "iwannaplato"?

Communicating with Age is like this, because - ironically given his criticism when someone else is being allusive - he is allusive and creates this never-ending spiralling down in his questions and demands for justification.

I AM ALLUDING PURPOSELY. AS I KEEP REMINDING 'you'.

BUT EVEN 'this' DOES NOT BRING OUT ABSOLUTELY ANY CURIOSITY WITHIN 'you'.

WHICH IS THE VERY 'thing' I HAVE BEEN WANTING TO POINT OUT and SHOW here. That is; 'you', adult human beings, BACK in the days when this was being written, HAD LOST just ABOUT ALL CURIOSITY.

AND, FOR THE EXACT REASONS I AM YET TO EXPLAIN, and SHOW, FULLY.

'your' HELP IN PROVING ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE examples here "iwannaplato" ARE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.

He's imagined the end of this process where we agree on the meaning of all terms and conflicts vanish via some pretty image in his mind.

ONCE MORE that are SO MANY MISINTERPRETATIONS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS, and MISSED 'things' here that TO BEGIN UNRAVELING and REVEALING 'them' would be a WASTE, considering just how STUCK this one IS IN 'its' OWN PRECONCEPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS, and BELIEFS here.

And the negative results of this process have absolutely no effect on his sense that he's found the key to it all.

BUT there IS, ONCE AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY NO NEGATIVE RESULTS here. In Fact 'you' ARE ACTUALLY CAUSING and CREATING A Truly POSITIVE RESULT here, just by 'your' WORDS, ALONE, "iwannaplato".

When you and others have brought up the Ken issue, he has dismissed it. There was no - Yes, I was ken, but.....He just made it seem like you were doing something without any understanding or basis. That's a lie.

Have 'you' READ EVERY 'thing' "iwannaplato"?

If no, then HOW do 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, KNOW what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here IS TRUE?

Along with his persistant claim that he has only one belief. That's also a lie.

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
"iwannaplato".

Will 'you' PROVIDE ANY ACTUAL PROOF FOR 'your' CLAIM here?

OF COURSE "iwannaplato" WILL NOT.

Here we have A PRIME example of BELIEF AT WORK, and the following CONFIRMATION BIAS, which, NATURALLY FOLLOWS.

Of course he could define 'belief' in a way that works for him. But then since he instantly judges others as having beliefs, he applies whatever idiosyncratic definition of belief differently on himself and others.

And, OF COURSE, 'you' have NOT SOUGHT OUT ABSOLUTELY ANY CLARITY NOR CLARIFICATION here.

Thus, ALL OF what "iwannaplato" SAYS and CLAIMS here is based upon ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL other than 'its' OWN ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEFS. Which, OBVIOUSLY, most of SO FAR have been VERY, VERY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect here.

It is typical toxic spiritual leader behavior, everything aimed at gettting dominance over the other and judging the shit out of them if they disallow this.

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

WHERE have I ONCE ATTEMPTED to MANIPULATE ANY one of 'you' TO COME OVER TO "my side" of 'things', as some might say. Or, WHERE HAVE I EVER ATTEMPTED to LOOK LIKE some 'good' or 'liked' one.

I AM CONSISTENTLY POINTING OUT 'your' Wrong DOING, and False AND Wrong CLAIMS, which TURNS 'you' people AGAINST 'me'. Are 'you' REALLY 'trying to' SUGGEST that 'this' IS the so-called 'typical toxic spiritual leader behavior'?

Also, as 'you', adult human beings, ARE CONTINUALLY ABUSING children, and will NOT ADMIT 'this', then 'I' WILL CONTINUE TO JUDGE, and CONTINUE TO POINT this IRREFUTABLE Fact OUT.

Furthermore, I ALWAYS HAVE DOMINANCE OVER 'you', human beings. 'you' are just TO CLOSED and TO Dishonest TO SEE and RECOGNIZE 'this' IRREFUTABLE Fact, AND Truth.

Not that I think he is aware of this stuff.

'This one' IS OBVIOUSLY TO BLIND TO SEE the CONFIRMATION BIAS/ES that 'this one' HAS and IS HOLDING ONTO, and as well as TO BLIND TO SEE the BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS that 'it' CONTINUES TO HOLD VERY FIRMLY ONTO THAT ARE ALSO THE VERY CAUSE OF the False AND Wrong CONFIRMATION BIAS/ES WITH which 'it' PERSISTS WITH.

[Age]

Thus, ANOTHER REASON WHY I ONLY HAVE and USE One BELIEF ONLY.

Here are some of your beliefs:

Human beings do not need money to live.
Every adult, human being, is greedy.
Greedy adults are the major cause of pollution.
Pollution leads to the demise of the livable planet earth.
In current times without earth human beings can not continually exist.

Greed helps in causing wars.
Wars cost uncountable horror and terror in some human beings.
Numerous humans are killed in wars.
Human beings murdered in wars have relatives, who mostly want to take revenge, causing more wars, death, or destruction.
Wars cost billions upon billions of dollars. Peace costs nothing.

All human beings are born, relatively, with no thought at all.
All thought comes from a previous experience.
All human behavior comes from a thought.
All human behavior is learned.

Living in peace and harmony is an extremely simple and easy thing to do.
Discovering and learning how to do it can be very easy or very hard.
If, and when, human beings are brought up in a peaceful and harmonious world, then they will just accept that as being the norm/reality.
Most human beings accept that 'the world', the time and era, that they live in is the norm/reality.
The Mind is always open and able to learn any thing. Thoughts, however, can get in the way of the Mind.

Every adult abuses children
All children have been abused.
Dishonesty leads to wrong doing.
Honestly leads to doing what is right.
Dishonesty, child abuse, and greed are wrong and are the three main causes of all wrong doing by all adult human beings.
ALL adult human beings behave wrongly.

There are no world problems.
Human beings are the only ones who create problems.
There is a solution, and an answer, to all problems.
The answers to all meaningful questions in life are very simple, quick, and easy to find.

But 'you' ARE Wrong ON EVERY OCCASION here "iwannaplato"?

I appreciate the question mark here.

MY MISTAKE. I APOLOGIZE.

On some level you are calling for help.

And what do 'you' BELIEVE In regards to, EXACTLY, "iwannaplato"?

No, I am not wrong.

'This one' thinks or BELIEVES that 'it' IS SO GURU or God like that 'it' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' can TELL "another" what "the other" BELIEVES or DOES NOT BELIEVE.

'This one' thinks SO GRANDIOSE of 'its' OWN 'self' that 'it' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' KNOWS 'the ACTUAL thoughts' WITHIN "others".

And, this is done SO BLATANTLY, which makes 'this' FAR, FAR WORSE.

Without hesitation when others assert something you call it a belief and judge/laugh at them, lump them with the people of this time.

1. IF 'they' EXPRESS 'it' AS A BELIEF, then 'I' WILL CALL 'them' OUT on it. 'They' are then COMPLETELY FREE TO SAY if 'it' IS A BELIEF or NOT, AND TO EXPLAIN HOW and WHY 'it' is NOT A BELIEF, if 'they' SAY 'it' IS NOT. Some people have done 'this' VERY SUCCESSFULLY.

2. When 'you' BELIEVE I AM LAUGHING AT 'them', on nearly EVERY OCCASION 'you' ARE Wrong.

3. IF a 'person' IS FROM 'this time', then 'they' ARE OBVIOUSLY 'with the people of this time'.

When you assert things as the case, it is not a belief.

YES, now 'you' ARE UNDERSTANDING.

Now let 'us' SEE HOW LONG 'this thought/view' LASTS FOR.

You do not have one. So, just as many toxic spiritual leaders, you judge yourself and others differently.

Are 'you' here 'TRYING TO' INFER that 'you' do NOT judge "yourself" AND "others" DIFFERENTLY?

Do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' JUDGE 'you' AND "others" EQUALLY?

You do not explain how you are free of beliefs when you make assertions

BECAUSE, ONCE AGAIN, NO one has ASKED 'me' TO.

- perhaps via some idiosyncratic definition of belief

PERHAPS. OR, PERHAPS NOT.

'you' WILL NEVER LEARN, and KNOW, if CLARIFICATION or CLARIFYING ANSWERS are NEVER SOUGHT OUT.

- and yet you KNOW they are.

EXACTLY, I WILL ADD.

You simply deny that you have any and immediately judge others as having them. That is toxic.

BUT it IS 'them' WHO TELL 'me' that 'they' HAVE BELIEFS.

And, who am 'I' to DISPUTE 'this'?

In fact there ARE SOME of 'you', people, who BELIEVE that 'you', human beings, can NOT even live WITHOUT BELIEFS. So, AGAIN, who am I to SAY and INFORM 'them' that 'they' do NOT have BELIEFS.

[Age]

Earlier you presented this, I believe in a response to seed, without 'From my perspective'. Here you have added it. I pointed out that this interpretation on your part likely shows bias. You dismissed this, but have now added 'from my perspective'.

What do 'you' MEAN that I DISMISSED 'this'?

Considering the Fact that I Correct 'this', the Inaccurate and Incorrect WORDING that I HAD PREVIOUSLY USED, INDICATES and SHOWS that I NOT JUST ADMITTED this Wrong DOING on my part, but ALSO HIGHLIGHTING WHERE I DID Wrong BY THE Correction I HAVE CLEARLY MADE.

But, THEN AGAIN, people DO ONLY SEE what 'they' WANT TO SEE.

Nope.

'Nope', in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

There is no sign you made a connection.

YES THERE IS. AND, 'it' IS EXACTLY WHERE I MADE THE Correction.

Are 'you' here SAYING or SUGGESTION that 'you' even MISSED 'this'?

I brought it up and I was wrong to, according to you and your reaction. But later, with no reference to what happened earlier, you wrote a more cautious version. Ego protective games.

If 'this' is what 'you' SAW and BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, then, by ALL MEANS, CONTINUE ON WITH 'this WAY' of LOOKING, and SEEING 'things', here.

[Iwannaplato]

'This one' thinks or BELIEVES that 'it' IS SO GURU or God like that 'it' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' can TELL "another" what "the other" BELIEVES or DOES NOT BELIEVE

Moving onto your turf. You do that with us. But it's not ok when it comes back towards you. Double standard.

In your previous post, you said I did not provide 'proof'.
1) you're confused about the possibility of providing proof of such things online. Proofs are for things like symbolic logic and math in such a context.
2) I provided evidence, which you have not responded to directly. And this evasion has gone on repeatedly. Gaslighting, double standards, toxic dynamics performed regularly by Age.

[Iwannaplato]

If 'this' is what 'you' SAW and BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, then, by ALL MEANS, CONTINUE ON WITH 'this WAY' of LOOKING, and SEEING 'things', here.

Dominance tactic: giving permission as if that is your role and you are the judge.

[Atla]

Wouldn't surprise if Age turned out to be wheelchair-bound or bed-bound for life. Comes across as someone who can't even go outside and see the real world.

[Iwannaplato]

Wouldn't surprise if Age turned out to be wheelchair-bound or bed-bound for life. Comes across as someone who can't even go outside and see the real world.

I have no idea. I mean, I certainly wouldn't rule that out.

It's been said a number of times but a number of people: it's rather amazing how many guru/radical exception/best philosopher in the world people are drawn to philosophy forums.

[Age]

NO.

BUT BECAUSE there are a FEW WAYS TO LOOK AT and UNDERSTAND 'your QUESTION' here, there IS A HUGE CHANCE that 'you' WILL MISINTERPRET or TAKE OUT OF CONTEXT MY ANSWER here.

An allusive, evasive answer.

OF COURSE 'it' WAS. Were 'you' UNDER SOME SORT OF ILLUSION that 'this' WAS NOT what I WAS DOING.

By the way, did 'you' MISS the REASONS WHY I DID NOT ANSWER 'your' CLARIFYING QUESTION here?

SEE, WHEN one is UNABLE TO EXPLAIN what the words ACTUALLY MEAN, which FITS IN PERFECTLY WITH ALL WORDS and MEANINGS, in the QUESTION/S that 'they' ASK, then what can ALL TO EASILY and SIMPLY FOLLOW, and ALL TO QUICKLY, AS WELL, is just MORE CONFUSION and MISUNDERSTAND ON 'their part'.

As 'you' have OBVIOUSLY BEEN SHOWING and REVEALING here.

If I am allusive, it is a problem and gets judged by Age.

I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED TO 'you', that 'your allusiveness' is NOT A so-called 'problem', AND, OF COURSE 'you' doing 'this' I JUDGE on what 'you' ACTUALLY DO. Which is MAKE an ACCUSATION or CLAIM ABOUT "another" but NOT ACTUALLY PROVIDED A DEFINITE EXPLANATION NOR EXAMPLE OF WHAT 'it' IS, EXACTLY.

Which IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY DIFFERENT FORM OF being ALLUSIVE.

If Age is allusive it is fine.

ON the RARE OCCASIONS WHEN I DO 'it' I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY I DO 'it'.

'you' DO 'it' just about EVERY time 'you' ACCUSE 'me' of some 'thing'.

BESIDES the Fact that WHEN 'you' do 'it' IS AT VERY DECEIVING TIMES. ACCUSING "others" OF 'things' BUT NEVER ACTUALLY DEFINING 'those things', is VERY, VERY DECEIVING and CONNIVING. Whereas, NOT ANSWERING 'Yes' OR 'No' to A LEADING QUESTION, which was ASKED WITH VERY Wrong INTERPRETATIONS OF WORDS, is ANOTHER CASE all together.

Although 'you', "iwannaplato", ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to LOOK AT, VIEW, AND BELIEF DIFFERENTLY here, AS ALWAYS.

If other people are less than completely open and honest, this is a problem according to Age and they are judged.

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY Wrong here "iwannaplato". AND, ONCE AGAIN, NOT FOR THE REASONS 'you' ARE now IMAGINING.

If Age is less than fully open and candid, this is justified, and generally justified allusively, if at all.

'you' could NOT BE MORE Wrong, ONCE MORE, here "iwannaplato". AND, for the VERY REASONS that I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED, and WRITTEN, above here.

Toxic would be spiritual leader patterns.

People brought up Age and you wrote in response as if there was nothing to what they said. This was a lie by omission, evasion and implication.

AND 'this' IS OBVIOUSLY ONE WAY TO LOOK AT, and SEE, 'things' here.

[Age]

WHEN, and IF, 'you' ALSO COME-TO-KNOW the proper AND Correct ACTUAL ANSWER TO the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' Then 'you' TOO WILL ALSO SEE, and UNDERSTAND, EXACTLY HOW 'I' AM OUTSIDE the category of human beings/s.

I believe, though I may be wrong, that you are sincere here.

WHEN do 'you' ENVISION, IMAGINE, or BELIEVE that 'I' have NOT been 'sincere' here?

Unfortunately for this belief, I have seen enough evasions, double standards, judgments and confusion on your part to find you human.

Is it AT ALL POSSIBLE that ANY or ALL of the so-called and named 'evasions', 'double standards', 'judgments', and/or 'confusion on my part', (which OBVIOUSLY what 'you', human beings, DO and HAVE), which 'you' SEE IN 'my writings' COULD BE False OR Wrong?

Or, is 'this' NOT POSSIBLE, TO 'you'?

Which is not an insult, that last, however much you may view humans as something not to be.

What are 'you' ON ABOUT here "iwannaplato"?

1. What 'you' SAY could NEVER be SEEN nor CONSIDERED a so-called 'insult'.

2. 'you', human beings, are A Truly NORMAL and NATURAL PART of the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS OF COMING-TO-KNOW thy Self. SAYING and/or PRESUMING that 'you', human beings, are NOT some 'thing' TO BE, goes AGAINST EVERY part of MY KNOWING, and EVEN EVERY PART OF MY THINKING.

3. 'you', "iwannaplato", REALLY DO COME UP WITH SOME OF THE MOST 'OUT-THERE' and STRANGEST False AND Wrong CONCLUSIONS, some times.

You initiate a pattern toxic to humans.

FROM 'your perspective', RIGHT?

I know how ego-dystonic this would be for you to notice.

OKAY. BUT, did 'you' CLARIFY WHAT 'ego-dystonic' even IS, MEANS, or REFERS TO, TO 'you', BEFORE, WHEN I ASKED 'you' TO CLARIFY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

AND, if no, then WILL 'you' DO 'it' now?

But I am not going to pretend otherwise just because they way you will deny this is so utterly predictable.

ONCE AGAIN, 'this one' MAKES AN ACCUSATION and CLAIM ABOUT 'me' BUT NEVER ACTUALLY DIVULGES what the ACCUSATION/CLAIM IS IN REGARDS TO, EXACTLY.

Also, ARE 'you' SOME KIND OF GURU or God to KNOW what IS and what IS NOT so-called 'utterly predictable', IN THE FUTURE?

[Iwannaplato]

It's a shame that you can't take what I wrote to heart, but I am not surprised that you can't do this.

The mind often wants a wall of word, a proof, as you put it, when in fact, when challenged at a fundamental level, intuition is necessary.

It is so easy for the thinky, verbal mind to dismiss and demand and avoid fear.

[Age]

How UNINTERESTED and INCURIOUS 'you' ARE.

Because you cannot see the toxicity involved in communicating with someone who has very negative judgments of the humans of this time,

What are 'you' ON ABOUT AGAIN here "iwannaplato"?

1. I DO NOT HAVE 'negative' NOR 'positive' judgments OF 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written. I just SAY what 'you' DO, FROM my perspective. IF what I SAY 'you' DO, IS so-called 'negative' TO 'you', then IF 'I' WAS 'you', then 'I' would QUESTION, 'WHY do 'I' FIND that comment/remark/judgment 'negative'.

2. If 'you' can NOT JUST ACCEPT and/or ADMIT that the Wrong that 'you' OBVIOUSLY DO IS Wrong, then so be it. NO one is FORCING 'you' TO COMMUNICATE WITH 'Me' here.

3. If being JUDGED JUST ON what 'you' DO ALONE, 'you' WANT TO THEN USE AS AN EXCUSE FOR NOT being INTERESTED and CURIOS, ON what 'I' AM ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING, then so be it. Just be FOREWARNED that what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, will NEVER BE REVEALED, TO 'you' anyway.

4. What the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth here IS, EXACTLY, is just ABOUT the VERY OPPOSITE of what 'you' HAVE BEEN PRESUMING, and ASSUMING.

who laughs at people when they don't meet his standards and who judges others through double standards, you only see your questions and the conversation at the level of exchange of information.

ONCE AGAIN, could 'your' OWN PERSONAL VIEWS and PERCEPTIONS here BE Wrong?

Or, is 'this' NOT POSSIBLE, TO 'you', and FROM 'your perspective' of 'things' here?

Despite your implicit (and explicit) claims here of transcendence and also when you were Ken, you are quite clueless about what is happening in an interpersonal dynamic.

IF 'this' IS what 'you' BELIEVE IS TRUE, then so be it.

Also, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'you' have NEVER EXPRESSED what 'you' PERCEIVE TO BE HAPPENING here, in 'your' so-called 'interpersonal dynamic' NEITHER.

FURTHERMORE, and JUST MAYBE it IS 'you', "iwannaplato", who ACTUALLY IS NOT EXACTLY SURE what IS HAPPENING, and OCCURRING, here.

For example, I MAY WELL BE MAKING 'you' PERCEIVE, and/or SEE, SOME 'things' here, which REALLY IS NOT HAPPENING, NOR OCCURRING. So, THEN I COULD USE 'your' VERY OWN PERCEPTIONS and WORDS here, in A WAY that BENEFITS 'I', (which REMEMBER 'you' STILL DO NOT KNOW what that word and letter REFERS TO, EXACTLY).

You may have a couple of insights and you can focus on those now to protect your ego, but the fact is you try to set up a toxic dynamic with others - which is why the process has the precise level of success it has: noll.

WHY do 'you' CONTINUALLY PERCEIVE that 'your' OWN PERCEIVED 'level of success' IS THE ONE I LOOK AT and ARE USING here?

BUT I AM NOT JUST 'trying to' SET UP A 'toxic dynamic' WITH 'you', posters, here. I have DONE 'this', and VERY SUCCESSFULLY I will add.

I AM ALSO DOING 'this' FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON. Which WILL, and DID, BENEFIT EVERY ONE.

I HAVE SET MY GOAL here. AND, 'you' HAVE ALREADY HELPED TREMENDOUSLY here.

I understand that it doesn't seem like it to you.

BUT I JUST AGREED WITH 'you'. So, WHY would 'you' BE PRESUMING such A 'thing' AS 'this', especially WHEN 'you' did NOT WAIT FOR MY REPLY?

But I went vastly more into your beliefs, ideas and needs for this process than you did in relation to me.

Okay, if 'you' SAY SO.

I met judgments of me in most steps and no interest in showing the slightest cross cultural or interpersonal respect on your side.

The process is a direct parallel to other kinds of toxic interpersonal dynamics with toxic spiritual leaders and narcissists.

I am sure you think you mean well. But really, you have no respect for other people, unless they meet your demands.

AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT 'you' ARE and HAVE MADE ANOTHER ACCUSATION AND CLAIM here ABOUT 'me', WILL 'you', THIS TIME, EXPLAIN TO 'us' what 'these CLAIMED 'demands' of MINE SUPPOSEDLY ARE, EXACTLY?

Or, are 'you' going to IGNORE this CLARIFYING QUESTION, ALSO?

Can 'you' REALLY NOT NOTICE HOW MANY TIMES 'you' ACCUSE 'me' OF 'things' BUT NEVER SHINE A LIGHT, as some might say, ON WHAT 'the thing' IS EXACTLY?

Even AFTER I POLITELY ASKED 'you' TO REFRAIN FROM DOING 'this' 'you', OBVIOUSLY, KEEP DOING 'this VERY thing'.

And this is the context within which your communication, the details of it, take place. And the reason you meet no success with your key to the solution of all problems?

BUT 'you' do NOT YET KNOW just ABOUT ANY 'thing' of the so-called solution here.

'you', OBVIOUSLY, just PICKED UP ON 'one thing', and have RUN WITH 'that', as some might say, ALONE.

There is A GREAT DEAL that 'you' HAVE MISSED, ARE MISSING, and ARE YET TO BE MADE AWARE OF here "iwannaplato".

It's because at root people feel the disrespect and hatred in the process.

And, is what 'you', people, ALWAYS 'feel' ALWAYS Correct, AND Accurate?

Are 'you' even YET AWARE that 'emotions' ALSO PLAY IN WITH 'confirmation biases' AS WELL.

Unfortunately there are people who will fall for this.

Okay.

[Iwannaplato]

WHEN do 'you' ENVISION, IMAGINE, or BELIEVE that 'I' have NOT been 'sincere' here?

The river of questions continues. I say that my sense is that you are sincere and you ask me when I think you weren't.

This process goes on and on with its implied assumptions.

Is it AT ALL POSSIBLE that ANY or ALL of the so-called and named 'evasions', 'double standards', 'judgments', and/or 'confusion on my part', (which OBVIOUSLY what 'you', human beings, DO and HAVE), which 'you' SEE IN 'my writings' COULD BE False OR Wrong?

Is it possible that always reacting with questions might be also a defense mechanism? Is it possible that I have noticed something fundamental about how you approach and interact with people that is problematic?

If yes, then given how fundamental the criticism is that I have aimed at you, it might take time and mulling and feeling into for you to understand it.

If no, well that fits with the double standards.

[Iwannaplato]

Because you cannot see the toxicity involved in communicating with someone who has very negative judgments of the humans of this time,

What are 'you' ON ABOUT AGAIN here "iwannaplato"?

1. I DO NOT HAVE 'negative' NOR 'positive' judgments OF 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written.[/quote]This is gaslighting. You have expressed judgments of the people at the time this has been written again and again.