Name that fallacy...

[Iwannaplato]

1) statement

Obviously how these people interact and what they say/do are going to affect which ones I move toward in that way and which I ignore (as far as their role at teacher, revealer of (supposed) truth. Someone simply claiming to have this knowledge, well, that's a dime a dozen.

2) observation response

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, some one could just COME ALONG, SAY and CLAIM, ' I HAVE and/or KNOW 'the Truth' ', AND JUST MAYBE 'they' ACTUALLY DO.

3) reiteration as response to the above response

Obviously how these people interact and what they say/do are going to affect which ones I move toward in that way and which I ignore (as far as their role at teacher, revealer of (supposed) truth. Someone simply claiming to have this knowledge, well, that's a dime a dozen.

Nothing you've expressed so far has struck me as particularly new or of great insight and, as I've said, I find your patterns often toxic.

BUT WHAT I SAY, AND what ARE PATTERNS, are TWO DIFFERENT 'things'.

Now, if 'you' BELIEVE that I have NOT SAID ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that so-called 'STRUCK' 'you' as so-called 'particularly new', then so be 'it'. 'This' IS PERFECTLY FINE, well WITH 'me'.

Great.

I doubt it in the extreme.

WHY, IN 'the extreme'?

Because of the toxic patterns mainly.[/quote]

WERE 'you' AT ALL AWARE that I WRITE the WAY I DO here FOR A VERY PARTICULAR REASON/LESSON?

Yes.

Either way, I think 'you' WILL BE VERY, VERY SURPRISED WHAT that REASON/LESSON IS FOR, EXACTLY?

You seem unsure, which is I think justified.

Do 'you', currently, HAVE or HOLD SOME PRECONCEIVED IDEA of WHO and/or WHAT could ONLY BE AN 'option'?

I'm not sure what that means.

'you' SAID and CLAIMED that 'I' am NOT the ONLY option, (even IF I am an option), for learning about those things'.

'That QUESTION' IS JUST ASKING whether 'you' have SOME PRECONCEIVED IDEA ABOUT what COULD BE AN 'option'. 'you' have OBVIOUS ALREADY RULED 'me' OUT as being the ONLY 'option', so I WAS, and STILL AM, CURIOS as to whether 'you' have ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEA/S here ABOUT 'options', FROM WHERE 'you' COULD LEARN ABOUT 'these things' here?

I have learned things related to that list, so I have options already that I consider valid and useful. They are not preconceived ideas since they are already realized options. I do have some ideas about some other options that seem worth exploring. You are not one of them. I don't have categorical preconceived notions about options I have or that are out there. The options I value come from a diverse set of categories and I have not decided that this set is now closed to new categories.

Like ALL OF MY QUESTIONS 'they' are NOT TRICK QUESTIONS. And, 'this Truly OPEN QUESTION' INVOLVES JUST and ONLY A 'Yes' OR 'No' ANSWER.

I didn't think they were trick questions.

And then I have options that have been helpful, some for long periods, and without the toxicity.

'you' REALLY WILL NOT EXPLAIN NOR ELABORATE ON 'your' USE OF THE 'toxicity' word here, will 'you'?

I have explained in the specific what I thought some of your toxic patterns are.

BUT 'this' IS NOT WHAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT NOR REFERRING TO.

Yes, I may not perform as you wish, despite knowing what you wish or correctly guessing.

[Age]

How does it do that?

What does the 'it' word REFER TO, EXACTLY?

Also, did 'you' READ the rest of what I WROTE and SAID in that same post?

I did.

Okay, GREAT. Did 'you' COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'it'?

But you only mentioned sense data and that's not really interesting.

Is there ANY OTHER 'data'?

If yes, then WHAT IS 'that', EXACTLY?

How EXACTLY does the brain acquire KNOWLEDGE though?

[/quote]

First 'you' would have to INFORM 'me' of what the 'knowledge' MEANS or REFERS TO, TO 'you'.

But considering the Fact that 'you' would NOT INFORM 'me' of what the 'it' word REFERRED TO BEFORE, I WILL NOT EXPECT 'you' WILL CLARIFY 'things' this time.

Knowledge of something less boring than hot and cold or redness v greenness.

I have NO IDEA what 'this' is REFERRING TO, nor ATTEMPTING TO DEFLECT AWAY TO.

How EXACTLY does the BRAIN get INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE about HATS and CHEESE?

FIRSTLY FROM OTHER 'brains'.

SECONDLY, FROM the ABILITY OF thee Mind, and then FROM the ABILITY OF the brain to be ABLE TO GRASP, and RETAIN, ABSOLUTELY ANY and ALL 'knowledge/information'.

Can 'you' COMPREHEND and/or UNDERSTAND HOW, EXACTLY, 'you' OBTAINED and UNDERSTOOD/UNDERSTAND the words 'hats' and 'cheese' and NOT 'sombreros' and 'suris', for example?

If 'you' can, and DO, then 'you' can, and WILL, BETTER UNDERSTAND, EXACTLY, HOW the brain GETS the information/knowledge that 'it' DOES.

[Age]

1) statement

Obviously how these people interact and what they say/do are going to affect which ones I move toward in that way and which I ignore (as far as their role at teacher, revealer of (supposed) truth. Someone simply claiming to have this knowledge, well, that's a dime a dozen.

2) observation response

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, some one could just COME ALONG, SAY and CLAIM, ' I HAVE and/or KNOW 'the Truth' ', AND JUST MAYBE 'they' ACTUALLY DO.

3) reiteration as response to the above response

Obviously how these people interact and what they say/do are going to affect which ones I move toward in that way and which I ignore (as far as their role at teacher, revealer of (supposed) truth. Someone simply claiming to have this knowledge, well, that's a dime a dozen.

Nothing you've expressed so far has struck me as particularly new or of great insight and, as I've said, I find your patterns often toxic.

BUT WHAT I SAY, AND what ARE PATTERNS, are TWO DIFFERENT 'things'.

Now, if 'you' BELIEVE that I have NOT SAID ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that so-called 'STRUCK' 'you' as so-called 'particularly new', then so be 'it'. 'This' IS PERFECTLY FINE, well WITH 'me'.

Great.

I doubt it in the extreme.

WHY, IN 'the extreme'?

Because of the toxic patterns mainly.

WERE 'you' AT ALL AWARE that I WRITE the WAY I DO here FOR A VERY PARTICULAR REASON/LESSON?

Yes.

Either way, I think 'you' WILL BE VERY, VERY SURPRISED WHAT that REASON/LESSON IS FOR, EXACTLY?

You seem unsure, which is I think justified.

Do 'you', currently, HAVE or HOLD SOME PRECONCEIVED IDEA of WHO and/or WHAT could ONLY BE AN 'option'?

I'm not sure what that means.

'you' SAID and CLAIMED that 'I' am NOT the ONLY option, (even IF I am an option), for learning about those things'.

'That QUESTION' IS JUST ASKING whether 'you' have SOME PRECONCEIVED IDEA ABOUT what COULD BE AN 'option'. 'you' have OBVIOUS ALREADY RULED 'me' OUT as being the ONLY 'option', so I WAS, and STILL AM, CURIOS as to whether 'you' have ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEA/S here ABOUT 'options', FROM WHERE 'you' COULD LEARN ABOUT 'these things' here?

I have learned things related to that list, so I have options already that I consider valid and useful. They are not preconceived ideas since they are already realized options. I do have some ideas about some other options that seem worth exploring. You are not one of them. I don't have categorical preconceived notions about options I have or that are out there. The options I value come from a diverse set of categories and I have not decided that this set is now closed to new categories.

Like ALL OF MY QUESTIONS 'they' are NOT TRICK QUESTIONS. And, 'this Truly OPEN QUESTION' INVOLVES JUST and ONLY A 'Yes' OR 'No' ANSWER.

I didn't think they were trick questions.

And then I have options that have been helpful, some for long periods, and without the toxicity.

'you' REALLY WILL NOT EXPLAIN NOR ELABORATE ON 'your' USE OF THE 'toxicity' word here, will 'you'?

I have explained in the specific what I thought some of your toxic patterns are.

BUT 'this' IS NOT WHAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT NOR REFERRING TO.

You assume that when I do not perform as you wish I do not understand what you wish.
[/quote]

If 'this' IS what 'you' BELIEVE is true, then okay. But please do NOT FORGET that what 'you' BELIEVE is true might NOT be true AT ALL.

[Iwannaplato]

If 'this' IS what 'you' BELIEVE is true, then okay. But please do NOT FORGET that what 'you' BELIEVE is true might NOT be true AT ALL.

I have already stated this a number of times.

[Age]

If 'this' IS what 'you' BELIEVE is true, then okay. But please do NOT FORGET that what 'you' BELIEVE is true might NOT be true AT ALL.

I have already stated this a number of times.

Okay. JUST MAKING SURE.

[Iwannaplato]

If 'this' IS what 'you' BELIEVE is true, then okay. But please do NOT FORGET that what 'you' BELIEVE is true might NOT be true AT ALL.

I have already stated this a number of times.

Okay. JUST MAKING SURE.

So, now you are sure?
Is my saying it twice or thrice the number of times necessary for you to be sure? another total?
And what are you now sure of, now?

[FlashDangerpants]

What does the 'it' word REFER TO, EXACTLY?

Also, did 'you' READ the rest of what I WROTE and SAID in that same post?

I did.

Okay, GREAT. Did 'you' COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'it'?

But you only mentioned sense data and that's not really interesting.

Is there ANY OTHER 'data'?

If yes, then WHAT IS 'that', EXACTLY?

How EXACTLY does the brain acquire KNOWLEDGE though?

First 'you' would have to INFORM 'me' of what the 'knowledge' MEANS or REFERS TO, TO 'you'.

But considering the Fact that 'you' would NOT INFORM 'me' of what the 'it' word REFERRED TO BEFORE, I WILL NOT EXPECT 'you' WILL CLARIFY 'things' this time.

Knowledge of something less boring than hot and cold or redness v greenness.

I have NO IDEA what 'this' is REFERRING TO, nor ATTEMPTING TO DEFLECT AWAY TO.

How EXACTLY does the BRAIN get INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE about HATS and CHEESE?

FIRSTLY FROM OTHER 'brains'.

SECONDLY, FROM the ABILITY OF thee Mind, and then FROM the ABILITY OF the brain to be ABLE TO GRASP, and RETAIN, ABSOLUTELY ANY and ALL 'knowledge/information'.

Can 'you' COMPREHEND and/or UNDERSTAND HOW, EXACTLY, 'you' OBTAINED and UNDERSTOOD/UNDERSTAND the words 'hats' and 'cheese' and NOT 'sombreros' and 'suris', for example?

If 'you' can, and DO, then 'you' can, and WILL, BETTER UNDERSTAND, EXACTLY, HOW the brain GETS the information/knowledge that 'it' DOES.

None of that tells us "HOW the Mind AND the brain WORK, EXACTLY". It's inexact, and it doesn't tell us how anything works at all.

[Age]

I have already stated this a number of times.

Okay. JUST MAKING SURE.

So, now you are sure?

As far as one could be, in this kind of situation.

Is my saying it twice or thrice the number of times necessary for you to be sure? another total?

This would all depend on the ACTUAL words that 'you' are going to SAY, WRITE, and USE here.

And what are you now sure of, now?

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

[Age]

I did.

Okay, GREAT. Did 'you' COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'it'?

But you only mentioned sense data and that's not really interesting.

Is there ANY OTHER 'data'?

If yes, then WHAT IS 'that', EXACTLY?

How EXACTLY does the brain acquire KNOWLEDGE though?

First 'you' would have to INFORM 'me' of what the 'knowledge' MEANS or REFERS TO, TO 'you'.

But considering the Fact that 'you' would NOT INFORM 'me' of what the 'it' word REFERRED TO BEFORE, I WILL NOT EXPECT 'you' WILL CLARIFY 'things' this time.

Knowledge of something less boring than hot and cold or redness v greenness.

I have NO IDEA what 'this' is REFERRING TO, nor ATTEMPTING TO DEFLECT AWAY TO.

How EXACTLY does the BRAIN get INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE about HATS and CHEESE?

FIRSTLY FROM OTHER 'brains'.

SECONDLY, FROM the ABILITY OF thee Mind, and then FROM the ABILITY OF the brain to be ABLE TO GRASP, and RETAIN, ABSOLUTELY ANY and ALL 'knowledge/information'.

Can 'you' COMPREHEND and/or UNDERSTAND HOW, EXACTLY, 'you' OBTAINED and UNDERSTOOD/UNDERSTAND the words 'hats' and 'cheese' and NOT 'sombreros' and 'suris', for example?

If 'you' can, and DO, then 'you' can, and WILL, BETTER UNDERSTAND, EXACTLY, HOW the brain GETS the information/knowledge that 'it' DOES.

None of that tells us "HOW the Mind AND the brain WORK, EXACTLY". It's inexact, and it doesn't tell us how anything works at all.

Okay. If 'you' can NOT YET WORK OUT, FULLY, nor even ANY 'thing' ABOUT HOW the Mind and the brain WORK, EXACTLY, here, now, from what 'you' have so far been INFORMED OF, then 'this' IS TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE.

So, now if the one here known as "flashdangerpants" NEEDS MORE, then what would and DOES "flashdangerpants" NEED here, EXACTLY?

Also, and by the way, who and/or what does the 'us' word in 'your sentence' REFER TO, EXACTLY?

[Iwannaplato]

Okay. JUST MAKING SURE.

So, now you are sure?

As far as one could be, in this kind of situation.

Is my saying it twice or thrice the number of times necessary for you to be sure? another total?

This would all depend on the ACTUAL words that 'you' are going to SAY, WRITE, and USE here.

And what are you now sure of, now?

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

Okay. JUST MAKING SURE.

[Age]

So, now you are sure?

As far as one could be, in this kind of situation.

Is my saying it twice or thrice the number of times necessary for you to be sure? another total?

This would all depend on the ACTUAL words that 'you' are going to SAY, WRITE, and USE here.

And what are you now sure of, now?

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

Okay. JUST MAKING SURE.

The ABSOLUTE FEAR WITHIN 'this one' of JUST ANSWERING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ASKED TO 'it', that 'it' WILL BE JUDGED, IN SOMEWAY, (like HOW 'it' JUDGES "others"), MUST BE SO STRONG, and A ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE and TERRIFYING 'thing' TO LIVE WITH, especially considering JUST HOW OBVIOUSLY DEBILITATING that FEAR REALLY IS, TO 'this one' here.

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, GREAT. Did 'you' COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'it'?



Is there ANY OTHER 'data'?

If yes, then WHAT IS 'that', EXACTLY?



First 'you' would have to INFORM 'me' of what the 'knowledge' MEANS or REFERS TO, TO 'you'.

But considering the Fact that 'you' would NOT INFORM 'me' of what the 'it' word REFERRED TO BEFORE, I WILL NOT EXPECT 'you' WILL CLARIFY 'things' this time.


I have NO IDEA what 'this' is REFERRING TO, nor ATTEMPTING TO DEFLECT AWAY TO.


FIRSTLY FROM OTHER 'brains'.

SECONDLY, FROM the ABILITY OF thee Mind, and then FROM the ABILITY OF the brain to be ABLE TO GRASP, and RETAIN, ABSOLUTELY ANY and ALL 'knowledge/information'.

Can 'you' COMPREHEND and/or UNDERSTAND HOW, EXACTLY, 'you' OBTAINED and UNDERSTOOD/UNDERSTAND the words 'hats' and 'cheese' and NOT 'sombreros' and 'suris', for example?

If 'you' can, and DO, then 'you' can, and WILL, BETTER UNDERSTAND, EXACTLY, HOW the brain GETS the information/knowledge that 'it' DOES.

None of that tells us "HOW the Mind AND the brain WORK, EXACTLY". It's inexact, and it doesn't tell us how anything works at all.

Okay. If 'you' can NOT YET WORK OUT, FULLY, nor even ANY 'thing' ABOUT HOW the Mind and the brain WORK, EXACTLY, here, now, from what 'you' have so far been INFORMED OF, then 'this' IS TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE.

So, now if the one here known as "flashdangerpants" NEEDS MORE, then what would and DOES "flashdangerpants" NEED here, EXACTLY?

Also, and by the way, who and/or what does the 'us' word in 'your sentence' REFER TO, EXACTLY?

tells us "HOW the Mind AND the brain WORK, EXACTLY"

[seeds]

None of that tells us "HOW the Mind AND the brain WORK, EXACTLY". It's inexact, and it doesn't tell us how anything works at all.

Okay. If 'you' can NOT YET WORK OUT, FULLY, nor even ANY 'thing' ABOUT HOW the Mind and the brain WORK, EXACTLY, here, now, from what 'you' have so far been INFORMED OF, then 'this' IS TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE.

So, now if the one here known as "flashdangerpants" NEEDS MORE, then what would and DOES "flashdangerpants" NEED here, EXACTLY?

Also, and by the way, who and/or what does the 'us' word in 'your sentence' REFER TO, EXACTLY?

tells us "HOW the Mind AND the brain WORK, EXACTLY"

Ah, is this the ol' Captain Kirk versus the android ploy? - https://youtu.be/QqCiw0wD44U
_______

[Lacewing]

blah, BLAH, blah

tells us "HOW the Mind AND the brain WORK, EXACTLY"

Ah, is this the ol' Captain Kirk versus the android ploy?

Here's some more brilliant strategy from Captain Kirk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw3zzMWOIvk

[Iwannaplato]

As far as one could be, in this kind of situation.



This would all depend on the ACTUAL words that 'you' are going to SAY, WRITE, and USE here.


In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

Okay. JUST MAKING SURE.

The ABSOLUTE FEAR WITHIN 'this one' of JUST ANSWERING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ASKED TO 'it', that 'it' WILL BE JUDGED, IN SOMEWAY, (like HOW 'it' JUDGES "others"), MUST BE SO STRONG, and A ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE and TERRIFYING 'thing' TO LIVE WITH, especially considering JUST HOW OBVIOUSLY DEBILITATING that FEAR REALLY IS, TO 'this one' here.

What a mass of judments and beliefs not at all justified.
I wrote:
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 1:47 pm
And what are you now sure of, now?
You asked;

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

And so, in response, I quote when you had said the phrase that prompted my question.

Okay. JUST MAKING SURE.

There, in the post my post had been focused on when I asked, you are saying you are making sure. So, I asked what are you now sure of. Me asking a clarifying question about what this meant.

If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine of course.

But just so you know, I already know your judgements and the bile that you feel in relation to people who don't do what you want. So, you don't have to keep repeating it.

But if you need to express it, I suppose that might be good for you, even if it is misaimed.