Name that fallacy...

[Age]

Same old dominance game.

AND, 'this' what 'you' ALONE SEE here IS JUST BECAUSE I am JUST EXPRESSING the SAME OLD IRREFUTABLE Truth, which, OBVIOUSLY, DOMINATES OVER ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' ELSE.

You don't see it, but I am hardly alone in noticing your negative patterns.

And 'you' do NOT seem to NOTICE that the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth WILL ALWAYS DOMINATE OVER 'your' VIEWS, and PERSPECTIVES, which are NOT ACTUALLY True AT ALL.

If 'you' WANT TO CALL OUT when the ACTUAL Truth DOMINATES OVER 'your' REFUTABLE truths A GAME, then so be it.

The Truth ALWAYS WINS OUT OVER personal or perceived ONLY truths.

Can 'you' REALLY NOT YET SEE this ANOTHER IRREFUTABLE Fact, AND Truth?

Also, what 'you' PERCEIVE TO BE 'negative' here I KNOW PRODUCES A VERY 'positive' OUTCOME.

[Iwannaplato]

What does the word 'gaslighting' MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, TO 'you', "iwannaplato"?

Ibid. I am done doing work for you.

[Iwannaplato]

And 'you' do NOT seem to NOTICE that the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth WILL ALWAYS DOMINATE OVER 'your' VIEWS, and PERSPECTIVES, which are NOT ACTUALLY True AT ALL.

I appreciate the increased honesty. You see yourself as conveying the irrefutable truth and that this should dominate, will dominate.

which justifies, for you, the double standard and evasion on your part. And, of course, it includes your judgments of the people you will interact with here.

[Age]

BUT, UNLIKE 'you' I CAN back up AND support what I SAY and CLAIM here.

Ah, now for you it is 'back up and support'. With others it is proof, show Age the proof.

What do 'you' MEAN BY the words, 'now for you'?

And, what do 'you' think or BELIEVE I MEAN WITH and BY the words, 'back up and support'?

Were/are 'you' UNDER some sort of ILLUSION/DELUSION that 'those words' would NOT be involved WITH 'proof'?

See, UNLIKE "you' I DO NOT HAVE NOR USE 'evidence' as back up NOR support. I HAVE AND USE ACTUAL PROOF. Which 'you' YET seem to NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE OF.

And then I have given evidence in this recent exchange and before.

'you' HAVE CLAIMED 'you' HAVE. BUT REFUSED TO SHOW NOR LINK 'us' TO ACTUALLY ANY.

Gaslighting on your part notwithstanding.

If 'this' IS what 'you' BELIEVE IS TRUE, the 'this' MUST BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE, right?

[Iwannaplato]

Also, what 'you' PERCEIVE TO BE 'negative' here I KNOW PRODUCES A VERY 'positive' OUTCOME.

In your mind, in your projections into the future. Not here. You have turned away nearly every discussion partner. I know, it is the failure of the humans at the time of this writing.

Oh, my, goodness. Just remembered you saying that you didn't have negative judgments of other humans. Gaslighting, a textbook example. You 'didn't do' what you have done repeatedly. Sigh.

[Iwannaplato]

What do 'you' MEAN BY the words, 'now for you'?

You need a lot of hand holding here. Questions instead of trying to understand yourself. You demand proof. You talk about how you have back up and support. I pointed out several times that proof is off the table, but evidence is possible (and has been presented by me). You say you have back and support - not proof.

Double standard, not even, it seems, consciously noticed by you.

The handholding is over now. I will no longer, in this exchange respond to all your posts. You will get the core message from me. Perhaps as specific to one of the early things you say in each post. And the habit is nearly always present in the first part of your responses.

[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.

And NOT RECOGNIZING what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING here IS 'your role' here.

Well I appreciate the AND at the beginning there, acknowledging the truth of what I said about you. Or, if you didn't mean that with your use of 'And' there was some minor feedback about English usage. Again, I think it would be good for you to try this process in person with people. It is much harder to hide from them and yourself what is really going on. And then if you are correct that is a good and effective process, it can only be more effective when you can see and hear and feel more about the people you are speaking with.

[Age]

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:

WHAT, EXACTLY, has been, SUPPOSEDLY, SAID, A NUMBER OF TIMES, by A NUMBER OF PEOPLE?

In the English language there is a punctuation mark called a colon (:).

Okay, THANK you FOR INFORMING 'me' OF 'this'.

When you have that in the middle of the sentence what comes after is often an example of what has gone before in the same sentence. Above for reasons known only to yourself, you decided to take away what came after the colon.

AND the VERY REASON WHY WILL REMAIN UNKNOWN TO 'you'. That is; OF COURSE CLARIFICATION and CLARITY IS SOUGHT.

This allowed you to ask a question. Which is part of a pattern where you produce a stream of questions rather than in a more complex way interact with your fellow humans.

AND the REASON I DO NOT MAKE ANY 'thing' MORE COMPLEX IS BECAUSE 'you', human beings, ARE the ONLY 'things' that MAKE MORE COMPLEX 'that', which IS ESSENTIALLY NOT COMPLEX AT ALL and which NEVER NEEDS TO BE MADE 'MORE COMPLEX' NEITHER.

Part of the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are STILL SO LOST and CONFUSED, in the days when this is being written, IS BECAUSE 'you' make what IS ESSENTIALLY Truly SIMPLE and EASY, COMPLEX and HARD, or DIFFICULT. INCLUDING 'your' OWN communications WITH "one another".

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED Truth throughout 'this forum'.

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.

So, "atla" INFORMS 'you' that 'it' would NOT be surprised if 'i' turned out to be wheelchair-bound or bed-bound for life, AND, that 'i' comes across, to 'it', as someone who can't even go outside and see the real world.

And, your RESPONSE and REPLY IS: it IS rather amazing how many guru/radical exception/best philospher in the word, people, are drawn to philosophy forums.

Now, if I were to ASK 'you', 'What has 'your reply' GOT TO DO WITH what "atla" ACTUALLY SAID and CLAIMED?' Then would doing so just be A WASTE?

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.A dash of evidence in this post, as part of a pattern of me giving a lot of evidence...and you responding with habit.

Thank you FOR 'now' PROVIDING SOME 'evidence'.

It IS TRULY AMAZING HOW WHEN 'things' ARE PROVIDED, then 'this' HELPS IN 'us' ACTUALLY HAVING SOME 'thing' TO LOOK AT, SEE, AND DISCUSS.

[Age]

me: The river of questions continues.

AND 'they' WILL. For the REASONS I ALREADY EXPRESSED and EXPLAINED here.

I have no doubt you are content to continue a river of evasions and questions.

AND, 'you' OBVIOUSLY ARE CONTENT CONTINUING AS 'you' ARE here, now.

My hope is that you actually spend time using your intuition and mulling before reacting with habit.

Okay.

Is 'this' LIKE the DOMINANCE and PERMISSION GIVEN ATTITUDE, which 'you' JUDGED 'me' ON, PREVIOUSLY?

[Iwannaplato]

AND the REASON I DO NOT MAKE ANY 'thing' MORE COMPLEX IS BECAUSE 'you', human beings, ARE the ONLY 'things' that MAKE MORE COMPLEX 'that', which IS ESSENTIALLY NOT COMPLEX AT ALL and which NEVER NEEDS TO BE MADE 'MORE COMPLEX' NEITHER..

Thank you for presenting one of your many judgments of humans at the time of this writing.
That you even asked me for proof that you have these judgments and communicate them was silly (and gaslighting).
The complexity of you spending even a few seconds mulling something rather than the simplcity of your asking questions as your main tool leads to other people bearing a burden you seem to think you do not have.

[Iwannaplato]

AND, 'you' OBVIOUSLY ARE CONTENT CONTINUING AS 'you' ARE here, now.

Yes. If you continue the same toxic patterns, yes.

[Age]

What does the word 'gaslighting' MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, TO 'you', "iwannaplato"?

Ibid. I am done doing work for you.

ONCE AGAIN, WHEN CHALLENGED and/or JUST ASKED FOR CLARITY, "another one" RUNS AWAY.

ALSO, did 'this one' REALLY EXPECT "another one" TO KNOW, EXACTLY, HOW 'it' DEFINES and/or SEES 'things'?

It is like 'this one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'its' OWN, personal, VIEWS and PERSPECTIVES OF 'things' are the ONLY ones, which "others" SHOULD, ALREADY, KNOW, and BE AWARE OF.

It is ALSO like 'this one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that there IS ONE SOURCE where ALL can GO TO, WHERE 'they' WOULD FIND the One AND ONLY DEFINITION/MEANING OF 'things'.

Would 'this one' EVEN YET BE AWARE that 'its' OBVIOUSLY OWN PERSONAL DEFINITION/MEANING IS DIFFERENT THAN "others" ARE?

[Age]

And 'you' do NOT seem to NOTICE that the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth WILL ALWAYS DOMINATE OVER 'your' VIEWS, and PERSPECTIVES, which are NOT ACTUALLY True AT ALL.

I appreciate the increased honesty.

ONCE AGAIN, A CLAIM and ACCUSATION, WITHOUT ANY 'thing' backing up AND supporting SAID CLAIM and ACCUSATION.

When have, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT been TOTALLY Honest here "iwannaplato"?

You see yourself as conveying the irrefutable truth and that this should dominate, will dominate.

OF COURSE WHEN I AM CONVEYING the IRREFUTABLE Truth, I SEE that 'I' AM CONVEYING the IRREFUTABLE Truth, and that 'this' WILL, and OBVIOUSLY SHOULD, DOMINATE.

HOW COULD 'I' NOT SEE 'this'?

which justifies, for you, the double standard and evasion on your part.

IF 'you' SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

And, of course, it includes your judgments of the people you will interact with here.

If 'you' SAY SO.

[Age]

Also, what 'you' PERCEIVE TO BE 'negative' here I KNOW PRODUCES A VERY 'positive' OUTCOME.

In your mind,

How MANY TIMES do 'you' HAVE TO BE INFORMED that SAYING, 'your mind', IS AN OXY-MORON and A Self-REFUTING expression.

Now, I COULD CHALLENGE and QUESTION 'you' OVER 'this', which IF 'you' WERE EVER Truly OPEN and Honest WOULD PROVE, IRREFUTABLY, what I SAY and CLAIM here, BUT DOING SO WOULD JUST BE ANOTHER WASTE.

in your projections into the future. Not here.

ONCE AGAIN, 'your' OWN personal PRESUMPTIONS and PRECONCEPTIONS ARE LEADING 'you' COMPLETELY ASTRAY here.

You have turned away nearly every discussion partner.

DOING SO, as I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED, is FOR THE BENEFIT OF MY TARGET AUDIENCE.

I know, it is the failure of the humans at the time of this writing.

IF 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, KNOW 'this', then 'you' WOULD ALSO KNOW WHO and WHAT NEEDS CHANGING, here.

Oh, my, goodness. Just remembered you saying that you didn't have negative judgments of other humans. Gaslighting, a textbook example.

CAN 'you', "iwannaplato", REALLY NOT SEE that it WAS 'you', ALONE, who SAID and CLAIMED that; 'it is the failure of the humans at the time of this writing', AND that I HAVE NEVER even THOUGHT 'this', let alone SAID 'this' ANYWAY.

Now, as 'you' may well have POINTED OUT ABSOLUTELY Correctly, AND Right, what just HAPPENED and OCCURRED IS a called 'textbook example' OF what is sometimes REFERRED TO AS 'gaslighting'.

You 'didn't do' what you have done repeatedly. Sigh.

If 'you' SAY and BELIEVE SO, the 'it' MUST BE TRUE, TO 'you'.

[Iwannaplato]

Ibid. I am done doing work for you.

ONCE AGAIN, WHEN CHALLENGED and/or JUST ASKED FOR CLARITY, "another one" RUNS AWAY.

Now if someone had interpreted your words like this, you would have gone off on one of your mini-rants about people making assumptions, etc.

I said. I am done doing work for you. In the context where I had suggested that you are capable of finding meanings for things like this on your own.

You didn't ask what 'Ibid' means, so you either know, but assumed things anyway, or didn't know and...assumed things anyway. Welcome to the human race that you look down on.

Further, you might want to consider all the judgments and assumptions in your use of 'runs away' when you aim it at others. Many have quite honestly said they find your way of communicating irritating, frustrating, etc.

Yet, when they disengage, you mind read that they are running away. Rather than, say, choosing to stop communicating with a person how irritates them. A negative judgment of them based on, in part, on your negative judgments of human beings at this time.

No, it can't possibly be that there is anything problematic with your communication or the implicit and explicit judgments of people that make them stop communicating with you. No, the only possibility, for you, is that they are running away, with all the judgments implied by that.

Toxic communication. Double standards. Gaslighting.

and note: I'm not bothered that you misunderstood. It was poor reading, etc. It's in the context of the way you react to other people and your implicit and recently explicitly claimed transcendence that it is problematic.