Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

[Age]

How quick you forget. you just told 'us' here that 'There's nothing that everyone agrees on'. So, to you, there is absolutely nothing at all that everyone agrees on.

Of course, I remember my position on the matter. You have a different position. What do you think every one agrees on? And could you please support this claim.

But there is absolutely nothing at all that everyone could agree with. you just told 'us' so.

Are you absolutely sure that you are not forgetting here?

Or, could you be telling 'us' lies here?

And is everything that we agree on now and have agreed on true?

Who and/or what is the 'we' word here referring to, exactly?

Every one.

But, once again, you have told 'us' that there is absolutely nothing at all that everyone could agree with. So, why are you, now, claiming and asking about what everyone has now and have agreed with?

If it is an absolute impossibility for everyone to agree on some thing, as you claim it is, then, obviously, there was never a 'time' and never will be a 'time' when everyone could agree on some thing. So, why are you,now, asking the question that you are here?

Aren't there lots of things that we don't agree on that are objectively true?

Again, this all depends on who and/what the 'we' word here is referring to, exactly, and, of course, whatever 'the things' are, exactly.

Every one.

And, what are some of the lots of 'things', that 'we' do not agree on, but which you think or believe are so-called 'objectively true'?

2. What claim do you believe I claimed about you that you do not agree with?

Obviously now, besides this one one once again missing the point and, again, showing that it does absolutely nothing at all in order to try to better understand another, this one's belief here means that its own belief here is False and Wrong anyway.

The part where you claim 'it does nothing at all to try to better understand another.....' I disagree with that claim.

Okay.

What, exactly, did you do, at 'that time' in order to even just try to better understand me?

Does this mean your claim is not objective, given that not every one agrees with it?

Have you yet proven that you are always doing some thing to try to better understand others?

Also, and is already understood by you, there is a difference from what 'could' be agreed with and accept, from what one just 'chooses' to disagree with and/or not accept.

And, if I do not agree with your claims about me, then what does this mean, exactly, to you?

It means you have a different position on that issue.

Okay.

So, 'you' and 'I' might have, and/or hold, different 'positions' here, right?

[Iwannaplato]

But there is absolutely nothing at all that everyone could agree with. you just told 'us' so.

Oh, you agree now. How odd? I thought you had a different view. I was asking about your view.

But, once again, you have told 'us' that there is absolutely nothing at all that everyone could agree with. So, why are you, now, claiming and asking about what everyone has now and have agreed with?

Well, this is a new way to avoid answering about your thoughts and views.

If it is an absolute impossibility for everyone to agree on some thing, as you claim it is, then, obviously, there was never a 'time' and never will be a 'time' when everyone could agree on some thing. So, why are you,now, asking the question that you are here?

It can be called 'finding out what another person thinks is true'. It happens between humans at the time this is being written.

Aren't there lots of things that we don't agree on that are objectively true?

Again, this all depends on who and/what the 'we' word here is referring to, exactly, and, of course, whatever 'the things' are, exactly.

Every one.

And, what are some of the lots of 'things', that 'we' do not agree on, but which you think or believe are so-called 'objectively true'?

Well, I tried to get clarification of your views and specifics. It's cute what you're doing.

2. What claim do you believe I claimed about you that you do not agree with?

Obviously now, besides this one one once again missing the point and, again, showing that it does absolutely nothing at all in order to try to better understand another, this one's belief here means that its own belief here is False and Wrong anyway.

The part where you claim 'it does nothing at all to try to better understand another.....' I disagree with that claim.

Okay.

What, exactly, did you do, at 'that time' in order to even just try to better understand me?

LOL. 1) Present Simple, in a sentence like that, is not about what one did 'at that time'. It means, given the tense, that I do not do it at all, in general. It is about routines. In a sense, though it is called Present Simple, it is about much more than any given time that would be referred to as 'that time'. There are other tenses that can be used to convey 'at that time'. Present Progressive. Perhaps even Present Perfect or Past Simple. But more importantly 2) The point is that I don't agree. So, not everyone agreed with your assertion. So, according to you it is not objective, given what you said was necessary for something to be objective.

Does this mean your claim is not objective, given that not every one agrees with it?

Have you yet proven that you are always doing some thing to try to better understand others?

That doesn't matter as far my not agreeing with you.

Or perhaps you think that, really, I agree with you on all the things you think are objectively true. LOL.

Also, and is already understood by you, there is a difference from what 'could' be agreed with and accept, from what one just 'chooses' to disagree with and/or not accept.

Sure, though you said a number of times that many people will not learn and that you know this. A kind of determinism or fate position. You know that many will not. If this is necessarily the case then they can't. And then of course, perhaps they disagree on good grounds. I've seen that happen here in relation to you many times.

And, if I do not agree with your claims about me, then what does this mean, exactly, to you?

It means you have a different position on that issue.

Okay.

So, 'you' and 'I' might have, and/or hold, different 'positions' here, right?

Clearly.

Again, evasive. I don't know the motives for your way of, for the most part, not clarifying, justifying, explaining......
But if you wonder why, in a given moment, I am not asking you for justification, clarification, etc., it's because of your evasiveness and expectation that others must answer a mass of questions before you explain something (in general).

So, perhaps we'll meet in another thread. Hope springs eternal, it seems, in me, lol, and perhaps I'll try again.

[Age]

But there is absolutely nothing at all that everyone could agree with. you just told 'us' so.

Oh, you agree now.

I only agree that you believe, and have told 'us', that there is nothing that everyone one agrees on here.

Were you presuming something else here?

How odd? I thought you had a different view.

your thoughts and assumptions here are regularly Wrong.

Why would 'now' be any different?

I was asking about your view.

And, I was pointing out the absolute view, and belief, that you have, and hold, here.

Which, by the way, is blocking you from seeing clearly here.

But, once again, you have told 'us' that there is absolutely nothing at all that everyone could agree with. So, why are you, now, claiming and asking about what everyone has now and have agreed with?

Well, this is a new way to avoid answering about your thoughts and views.

I am also pointing out and showing your inconsistencies and contradictions here

If it is an absolute impossibility for everyone to agree on some thing, as you claim it is, then, obviously, there was never a 'time' and never will be a 'time' when everyone could agree on some thing. So, why are you,now, asking the question that you are here?

It can be called 'finding out what another person thinks is true'. It happens between humans at the time this is being written.

So, by you being inconsistent and contradictory you also believe is another way of finding out what another thinks, right?

Have you ever considered just asking Truly open clarifying questions, without any inconsistencies and contradictions instead?

Aren't there lots of things that we don't agree on that are objectively true?

Again, this all depends on who and/what the 'we' word here is referring to, exactly, and, of course, whatever 'the things' are, exactly.

Every one.

And, what are some of the lots of 'things', that 'we' do not agree on, but which you think or believe are so-called 'objectively true'?

Well, I tried to get clarification of your views and specifics. It's cute what you're doing.

If you say so. But, being inconsistent and/contradictory is not helping you at all here, in trying to get to what 'it' is that you are trying to get to here.

Which, by the way, I have already countered and refuted, previously, throughout this forum.

2. What claim do you believe I claimed about you that you do not agree with?

Obviously now, besides this one one once again missing the point and, again, showing that it does absolutely nothing at all in order to try to better understand another, this one's belief here means that its own belief here is False and Wrong anyway.

The part where you claim 'it does nothing at all to try to better understand another.....' I disagree with that claim.

Okay.

What, exactly, did you do, at 'that time' in order to even just try to better understand me?

LOL. 1) Present Simple, in a sentence like that, is not about what one did 'at that time'. It means, given the tense, that I do not do it at all, in general.

'In general', now there is a claim, and a clear sign of not understanding another.

It is about routines. In a sense, though it is called Present Simple, it is about much more than any given time that would be referred to as 'that time'. There are other tenses that can be used to convey 'at that time'. Present Progressive. Perhaps even Present Perfect or Past Simple. But more importantly 2) The point is that I don't agree.

And, because you do not agree, does that make your views and beliefs here irrefutably True and Right, or even necessarily true and right?

So, not everyone agreed with your assertion.

But, you still do not yet know what my claimed 'assertion' is even in regards to, exactly, yet.

And, once more, this is because you do not seek out actual clarification, first.

Also, there was never any presumption that it would be agreed with by any one, let alone every one, anyway.

Furthermore, if you agreed with it or not has absolutely no bearing at all on what it is that I am actually talking about and referring to here.

So, according to you it is not objective, given what you said was necessary for something to be objective.

Okay.

Does this mean your claim is not objective, given that not every one agrees with it?

Have you yet proven that you are always doing some thing to try to better understand others?

That doesn't matter as far my not agreeing with you.

Why not?

If you are not always doing what it takes to understand me better, then you are, obviously, not always doing some thing to try to better understand me, or others.

So, I am not really sure what it is that you are disagreeing with, exactly, here,

As for 'objectivity', itself, what is 'it', to you, and how is 'it' obtained, exactly?

Or perhaps you think that, really, I agree with you on all the things you think are objectively true. LOL.

This has came from 'way off field', as some.might say here.

But, you do have a tendency to do this, in general, anyway.

Also, and is already understood by you, there is a difference from what 'could' be agreed with and accept, from what one just 'chooses' to disagree with and/or not accept.

Sure, though you said a number of times that many people will not learn and that you know this.

Will you link 'us' readers here to where I have said that, on a number of times.

A kind of determinism or fate position. You know that many will not. If this is necessarily the case then they can't. And then of course, perhaps they disagree on good grounds. I've seen that happen here in relation to you many times

you seem to have gone off on some really 'out there' tangent here, again now..

And, if I do not agree with your claims about me, then what does this mean, exactly, to you?

It means you have a different position on that issue.

Okay.

So, 'you' and 'I' might have, and/or hold, different 'positions' here, right?

Clearly.

So, you do agree with me here, right?

If yes, then do you envision that there is absolutely anyone who would disagree with 'you' and 'I'?

If yes, then who would they be, exactly?

But, if no, then not just there are some things that everyone could agree on, but there are some things that everyone does, actually, agree on, and accept.

Or, do you, steadfastly, still want to believe that there is absolutely nothing at all that everyone agrees on, or could even just agree on?

Again, evasive. I don't know the motives for your way of, for the most part, not clarifying, justifying, explaining......

Have you ever considered the way that you interact?

Could have your working profession affected the way that you interact with others outside of that job of yours?

Could you have obtained an inner belief, along the way, that your role and job is to teach others, things?

But if you wonder why, in a given moment, I am not asking you for justification, clarification, etc., it's because of your evasiveness and expectation that others must answer a mass of questions before you explain something (in general).

But, what I am wanting to explain, and show, here you are doing that for me, and quite nicely I will add

So, perhaps we'll meet in another thread. Hope springs eternal, it seems, in me, lol, and perhaps I'll try again.

you will try 'what' again, exactly?

[Age]

"iwannaplato" appears to have, now, realised that what it was trying to claim as true here is actually a complete and utter Falsehood. Not that from past behaviour "iwannaplato" will ever admit to this.

[Iwannaplato]

"iwannaplato" appears to have, now, realised that what it was trying to claim as true here is actually a complete and utter Falsehood. Not that from past behaviour "iwannaplato" will ever admit to this.

Nope. The reason I decided to stop here, in this thread, was explained in my previous post, both in my reactions to your evasiveness and in the summation. I certainly could have laid it out more clearly. What I experienced as your game playing and evasiveness led to my lack of interest, again, in this thread with communicating with you. Notice that you mind read my reasons for stopping. Notice that your mind reading interpretation is convenient for you and your beliefs. Yes, you used the word 'appear', but it's still a story you tell yourself and any readers and one that matches your desires.

Not that from past behaviour "iwannaplato" will ever admit to this.

this is a poor sentence because of the kind of causation it implies. This sentence.....
"Given his past behavior, I don't think he will ever admit this."
indicates a causation that makes sense. My past behavior is what you are basing your view on.


Given your past behavior, Age, I don't think you can admit you are wrong about any of the views you hold dear.
And these include accusations and judgments made about people in general, in the time this is being written, and the individuals you aim your judgments at. And when you have met more than a little resistance from a poster here, given your past behavior, there seems to be a pattern of digging your heels in even more.
Given your past behavior, Age, I don't think you will stop being evasive and giving other people (or trying to) most of the responsibility for clarifying and assertion. Which in turn means that they are given (or 'you try to give them') most of the burden of justification. One you never accept even when presenting your own ideas directly, which you did for a short period when you started a few threads. Even in those threads interlocutors were then requested over and over to explain their objections, as an avoidance of you actually justifying your assertions. A pattern you seem to find evasive when the shoe is on the other foot.
It would be lovely if you met someone else who had the same style of interaction you have but made other assertions, ones that did not match your views. The endless attempts to shift the burden of justification would be hilarious AND it would occupy you, yes, endlessly.

I am not and it. Here's a little Martin Buber for ya....

"When I confront a human being as my Thou and speak the basic word I-Thou to him, then he is no thing among things nor does he consist of things."

"In the I-It relationship, the I is experienced as an individual subject that uses objects.'

"I-It is the world of experience and use. It is composed of things of use, but also of things that are only experienced and evaluated."

"In the relation of I to It the object is experienced and used. The primary word I-Thou can only be spoken with the whole being."

My sense is that in life away from computer interactions and in relation to others in real world interactions, others have noted and instrumental, I-It, aspect to how how relate to others. That there are social limitations in your style of interaction and this has been noticed and communicated to you. Perhaps by some people who could not do this in a loving way. You can of course focus on the epistemology of my assertion. But you yourself have memories and can silently check to see if this is true. If you want to relay your generalized and individual judgments of nearly everyone at the time this is being written, expect to find them coming back at you.

I don't accept being referred to as 'it' which I have told you before in at least one other thread.

I have doubts about you changing some of your core views about people in the near future. I have doubts you will stop thinking that you can treat people like 'its'. And I think your self-image as not being like most people, whom you negatively judge, and having a role that would surprise me (and presumably others) in what is coming adds to the schema in your head that allows this I-It kind of relation.

But despite all those doubts, I do not consider you an it. And I can feel sympathy for what has driven you to treat people this way and have the negative views you have of most humans at the time this is being written. I don't think you're an it. You're human. A living and potentially changing living being. I feel no urge to dehumanize you, however annoying your human foibles are.

I am sure you think I don't understand your motivations for using the 'it' and the schema it is a part of. You're likely wrong about that.

Perhaps in future interactions you'll avoid referring to me as 'it', just as a mere gesture of kindness or respect, even if you think deep down you are addressing an it or might be. Perhaps not.

To be clear: I am discontinuing the discussion in this thread, for the second time, this time because you were evasive. And while I found your new to me way of being evasive amusing, it still indicated to me, given your past behavior, that you will not be forthcoming.

Obviously your free to project your fantasies onto my choice, but it just makes you look like you have little self-knowledge. The word 'appear' doesn't eliminate this. And the second part of your fantasy even lacked that qualification.

There is the limited interpretation one could make of...

If a person then does not get exactly right what is being taught to them, then somehow that person has become or supposedly stupid, dumb, not smart or one of the many other put-down names.

or the spirit of it, which would then include not just those put-downs but the ones you have used in relation to most people at the time this is being written and, for example, calling people 'it'. It also goes beyond simply learning when being taught but into the general understanding that intimacy and connection requires a mutual process, not one where primarily one side must justify nearly everything, while the other side need not.
Status and dehumanization can be implicit in the dynamic, even when not explicitly stated.
Communication is not just words, even in an online forum.

[Age]

"iwannaplato" appears to have, now, realised that what it was trying to claim as true here is actually a complete and utter Falsehood. Not that from past behaviour "iwannaplato" will ever admit to this.

Nope.

What are you 'Noping' to here, exactly? I did make more that one point.

The reason I decided to stop here, in this thread, was explained in my previous post, both in my reactions to your evasiveness and in the summation.

Once again, I was never being evasive. Obviously, to answer your question/s Accurately,Correctly, and thus properly I needed to obtain clarifications from you, which, by the way, you have, still, yet to clarify.

Also, you see to have completely and utterly missed the main point I made here. Which was because you have further refused to clarify your position, after I responded to that post if yours, you are signally that you will not admit that I have actually proved the claim I made, which also completely refuted the claim you made.

If you do not want to admit this, then that is all well and good. That it was you who ended up proving my claim True is just the way things occured.

Also, is it, to you, not somewhat very contradictory and hypocritical to respond 'now', by explaining that the reason you 'stopped' you explained, previously?

I certainly could have laid it out more clearly. What I experienced as your game playing and evasiveness led to my lack of interest, again, in this thread with communicating with you.

Yet, here you are, once again, communicating with me, when you think it will suit you.

Look "iwannaplato" if you do not want to be OPEN and Honest when I point out that your belief and claim is absolutely Wrong, when everyone agrees on some thing, and respond to that, then so be it. But, choosing to respond to me 'now' just shows how little faith and belief you have in your own claims here .

Notice that you mind read my reasons for stopping.

you are being so foolish here, once again.

Notice how you are, again, assuming that I was thinking some thing/s.

Also, you are missing the actual point of why I am pointing out why you did not respond here. This is because you are way too busy making assumptions and presumptions 'about me' and/or what I was doing.

Once more I will suggest that if, and when, you stop doing that, then you will be able to keep up and understand far more here

Notice that your mind reading interpretation is convenient for you and your beliefs.

Which are 'what', exactly?

What are my, supposed, interpretations and beliefs here?

Not that you will ever answer, because you will only end up proving your claim here False and Wrong.

This one appears to not even slightly recognise and see that it is doing, exactly, what it claims I am doing.

But, let 'us' see if it actually knows what it claims here. So far it is way off and completely Wrong.

Yes, you used the word 'appear', but it's still a story you tell yourself and any readers and one that matches your desires.

Now, what are my supposed desires?

Not that you will ever answer, because if you did you would only end up proving your claim here False and Wrong.

you have so many interpretations 'of me' here, but let 'us' see if any of them are even close to being Correct.

Not that from past behaviour "iwannaplato" will ever admit to this.

this is a poor sentence because of the kind of causation it implies. This sentence.....
"Given his past behavior, I don't think he will ever admit this."
indicates a causation that makes sense. My past behavior is what you are basing your view on.

Obviously. And you keep proving True my views here.

Given your past behavior, Age, I don't think you can admit you are wrong about any of the views you hold dear.

Like which ones, exactly?

What I think that will be found here is that you do not yet even know what my views are, exactly. Let alone you being able to show and prove where my actual views are wrong.

Obviously you will have to show what my views are, exactly, and then prove how they are wrong, for me to be able to admit that they are.

But, you continually fail to just even show what my views are, correctly.

So, until you 'step up', as some would say, what you are saying here is nothing at all, really.

Also, why only the ones you say and claim that I hold dearly'?

And these include accusations and judgments made about people in general, in the time this is being written, and the individuals you aim your judgments at.

Could you get more loose, careless, or vague here?

Provide actual and precise claims 'about me', then 'we' have at least some thing to 'look at', discuss, and make findings from.

And when you have met more than a little resistance from a poster here, given your past behavior, there seems to be a pattern of digging your heels in even more.

Did the one who claimed that the earth revolves around the sun 'dig their heels in', when their was resistance from others?

There is absolutely nothing wrong at all in 'sticking to what one knows is irrefutably and probably True', from those of you who want to resist.

Given your past behavior, Age, I don't think you will stop being evasive and giving other people (or trying to) most of the responsibility for clarifying and assertion.

Do you actually believe that you are not responsible to back up and support the claims that you make here?

I, by the way, just back up, support, and prove my claims in a different way than you adult human beings do. Like, for example, how I proved True my claim above here, by and through you 'iwannaplato".

See, actually it was 'you' who refuted your own claim here, and consequently proved my claim absolutely True.

Which in turn means that they are given (or 'you try to give them') most of the burden of justification.

Well, everytime you claim things like, for example, 'There is nothing that every one will agree on'.
then do you really expect that the burden of justification is not upon you?

One you never accept even when presenting your own ideas directly, which you did for a short period when you started a few threads.

you, really, still, have absolutely no clue nor idea how I proved True the claims I present here.

Once again, I do this 'through' you posters here. So, and obviously, if you posters stop responding, the ability for me to prove my claims irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct also ceases.

For example, if you did not respond here, now, then I would not have been able to show and prove how you countered and refuted your own claim, "yourself", which in, in turn, it was you who has also proved my claim absolutely True and Right

Even in those threads interlocutors were then requested over and over to explain their objections, as an avoidance of you actually justifying your assertions.

Once more, I use you posters here to prove my claims True.

See, if any one of you has an 'objection', or claim, then, once again, I will suggest that you have the actual proof for your claim and/or objection before you make your objection/claim public, here.

I can, and will, prove absolutely every claim I make here True, and if I cannot, then I will just admit where I was wrong.

A pattern you seem to find evasive when the shoe is on the other foot.

There is a saying, 'the pit calling the kettle Black's.

It would be lovely if you met someone else who had the same style of interaction you have but made other assertions, ones that did not match your views.

It would be more than just lovely.

'We' would both be using each other to prove "ourselves" Correct.

And, the actual Truth of things would be presented far more quickly, far more easily, and far more simply. In fact, if and when 'we' are to meet, then the actual Truth of things will be presented, relatively, almost immediately for you human beings.

The endless attempts to shift the burden of justification would be hilarious AND it would occupy you, yes, endlessly.

Obviously, you, once again, have a very closed and very narrowed view of things here, as well.

There is not much at all that you are open to, is there?

I am not and it. Here's a little Martin Buber for ya....

"When I confront a human being as my Thou and speak the basic word I-Thou to him, then he is no thing among things nor does he consist of things."

"In the I-It relationship, the I is experienced as an individual subject that uses objects.'

"I-It is the world of experience and use. It is composed of things of use, but also of things that are only experienced and evaluated."

"In the relation of I to It the object is experienced and used. The primary word I-Thou can only be spoken with the whole being."

My sense is that in life away from computer interactions and in relation to others in real world interactions, others have noted and instrumental, I-It, aspect to how how relate to others.

Once again "iwannaplato" your own made up and constructed beliefs, which you hold onto very dearly and closely, are narrowing you to the extend of you being absolutely closed off to anything else. As you are very clearly showing here.

This one makes so many presumptions and judgements of others that this even extends to this one making them in regards to what writers do outside of them writing.

Are you even able to just stop 'looking at', judging, and/or making accusations of others?

Are you at all able to just 'look at' the words alone, and only, and just respond to them alone, and only? Or, is this not possible, to you?

That there are social limitations in your style of interaction and this has been noticed and communicated to you.

Who cares?

I interact the way I want to.

There are social limitations in your style if interaction, and this has been noticed as is being communicated to you. So, what are you going to do about this, now?

Perhaps by some people who could not do this in a loving way. You can of course focus on the epistemology of my assertion.

I have already proved your assertion False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, you can focus on the Fact that it was through you' and your own self-refutation of your own assertion, which proved my assertion here.

Will you focus on this Fact?

If no, then why not?

But you yourself have memories and can silently check to see if this is true. If you want to relay your generalized and individual judgments of nearly everyone at the time this is being written, expect to find them coming back at you.

you can resist, and brings things back, but if you cannot stand behind, back up, and support your accusations, claims, or assertions, then so be it.

What will happen, happens.

I don't accept being referred to as 'it' which I have told you before in at least one other thread.

If you accept it or not is of no real concern to me.

Now, why does the one known as "iwannaplato" not want to accept it as an 'it'?

What is the 'logical reason' for this, exactly?

Maybe you believe that 'you' are, somehow, better than other 'its/things', and so are neither an 'it' nor a 'thing', is this true?

I have doubts about you changing some of your core views about people in the near future.

Who cares what you 'doubt'?

What you 'doubt' does not necessarily align with what is actually True. Also, many probably 'doubted' that the one who had the 'core view' that the earth revolves the sun was also going to change that core view, in the future also.

Why would anyone want to change a 'core view', which they know is provably True, and/or the actual Truth of things anyway?

Oh, and by the way, what do you even believe are my precise 'core views' of you people, which you doubt about me changing, in the near future?

Show the readers here that you are at least capable of clarifying just this one thing here.

I have doubts you will stop thinking that you can treat people like 'its'.

So, what are 'its', to you, and why are you people not 'its', to you, exactly?

Let 'us' see if you will clarify anything here.

And I think your self-image as not being like most people, whom you negatively judge, and having a role that would surprise me (and presumably others) in what is coming adds to the schema in your head that allows this I-It kind of relation.

Okay.

But despite all those doubts, I do not consider you an it.

I could not care one iota if 'you' did, especially considering what the actual irrefutable Truth is here.

And I can feel sympathy for what has driven you to treat people this way and have the negative views you have of most humans at the time this is being written.

See, how you continually keep presuming and imagining things here?

Are you even aware that your presumptions and imagining could be absolutely completely False and Wrong?

Do you also have sympathy for what has driven you to treat others the way that you do and have the negative views you have of some?

Or, do 'you' only have that, for 'me' only here?

And, remember to feel free to answer these clarifying questions, which I pose, and ask you here.

I don't think you're an it. You're human. A living and potentially changing living being. I feel no urge to dehumanize you, however annoying your human foibles are.

What do you envision and perceive are my so-called 'human foibles', exactly?

I am sure you think I don't understand your motivations for using the 'it' and the schema it is a part of. You're likely wrong about that.

you, really, do spend a lot of your time here trying to imagine and presume things here 'about me'.

Why are you 'sure' I think that you do not understand my motivations for using the 'it' word, and the schema it is a part of?

Is it possible that what you are 'sure' if her could be wrong?

And, for 'us' to find out if you, really, do know what my motivation for using the 'it' word here, and the schema it is a part of, can be found out and verified, irrefutably, by you just informing 'us' of what my motivations are, exactly, for using the 'it' word, and for the schema it is a part of.

Will you do this? Have you got the courage to even begin to do this?

Also, before we can even progress to finding out if your claim that I am likely wrong about 'that' is even true and right, you will first have to prove that 'that' is even true.

Are you capable of doing this?

Perhaps in future interactions you'll avoid referring to me as 'it', just as a mere gesture of kindness or respect, even if you think deep down you are addressing an it or might be. Perhaps not.

Are you, really, that lacking in self-confidence and/or self-esteem here?

Also, when you can, also, answer the question, 'Who am 'I'? as well, the 'you' will, also, understand things much better, here.

To be clear: I am discontinuing the discussion in this thread, for the second time, this time because you were evasive.

you have, on quite a few occasions in this thread, 'threatened' to 'end discussions with me', but on each occasion you have failed.

Also, want to leave 'this time, now's, after I refuted your claim, absolutely, is of no suprise at all. This is, generally, when you do want to 'end discussions', with me

And while I found your new to me way of being evasive amusing, it still indicated to me, given your past behavior, that you will not be forthcoming.

Are you brave enough to list here what you claim I have been evasive in regards to, exactly? Or, do you, still, just want to make accusations, and then run away, again?

Obviously your free to project your fantasies onto my choice, but it just makes you look like you have little self-knowledge. The word 'appear' doesn't eliminate this. And the second part of your fantasy even lacked that qualification.

Could you be falsely imagining and fantasizing here? Or, is this not a possibility, in your own little world view here?

There is the limited interpretation one could make of...

If a person then does not get exactly right what is being taught to them, then somehow that person has become or supposedly stupid, dumb, not smart or one of the many other put-down names.

or the spirit of it, which would then include not just those put-downs but the ones you have used in relation to most people at the time this is being written and, for example, calling people 'it'.

This here is another prime example of how this one's own interpretations, imaginations, and presumptions are completely and utterly False and Wrong.

But, this is the result when one does not seek out and obtain clarification, and instead just relies on its own presumptions and beliefs.

It also goes beyond simply learning when being taught but into the general understanding that intimacy and connection requires a mutual process, not one where primarily one side must justify nearly everything, while the other side need not.
Status and dehumanization can be implicit in the dynamic, even when not explicitly stated.
Communication is not just words, even in an online forum.

This one is more bamboozled and delusional here than I first thought.

Look, the main point in my last response, which this very lengthy response of yours here was directed at, is that by your own self-admission you admitted that there are things that everyone could agree with. And, your own words you have acknowledged one thing that just not everyone could agree with but that everyone does actually agree on.

So, you have refuted your own assertion and have also proved my claim, for me.

[Iwannaplato]

Look, the main point in my last response, which this very lengthy response of yours here was directed at,

No, my lengthy response was primarily directed at you as a participant here.

is that by your own self-admission you admitted that there are things that everyone could agree with.

No, I didn't.

And, your own words you have acknowledged one thing that just not everyone could agree with but that everyone does actually agree on.

Nope.

So, you have refuted your own assertion and have also proved my claim, for me.

This is another example of your not understanding the rules of logic. You are incorrect about what I did. But even if I did contradict myself and assert that there are things that everyone can agree on, that does PROVE your claim. You are conflating me contradiction my claim, with me PROVING your claim.

One can contradict oneself or even give seeming support to the position someone else has, without proving their position.

You are often claiming things like this: that you proved X. That someone else proved your point correct. When often at best, they contradicted themselves, or unintentionally said something that supports your post. Or in situations where you decide that no one has argued against you well enough according to your own estimation. You then announce you have proven it.

This is a basic logic error, conflating all sorts of things with proof. You could be wrong. I then disagree with you but in the process contradict my position. I can contradict my position, which is in disagreement with yours, or even state your position, and you could still be wrong.

I would suggest you read more carefully when people argue with each other here. I'm sure you'll notice, after a while, situations where one side points out correctly the other has contradicted himself or herself, and/or given support to the other person's position, without this PROVING the other person correct.

I wonder if you are or will be some day actually able to see how much this post and the previous one can help you. And not in the sense that it confirms your negative judgments of humans and me, etc.

[Iwannaplato]

A little more help.

"iwannaplato" appears to have, now, realised that what it was trying to claim as true here is actually a complete and utter Falsehood. Not that from past behaviour "iwannaplato" will ever admit to this.

Nope.

What are you 'Noping' to here, exactly? I did make more that one point.

The original text.

Nope. The reason I decided to stop here, in this thread, was explained in my previous post, both in my reactions to your evasiveness and in the summation. I certainly could have laid it out more clearly. What I experienced as your game playing and evasiveness led to my lack of interest, again, in this thread with communicating with you. Notice that you mind read my reasons for stopping. Notice that your mind reading interpretation is convenient for you and your beliefs. Yes, you used the word 'appear', but it's still a story you tell yourself and any readers and one that matches your desires.

You read one word 'nope' and waste both my time and yours by immediately asking a question. Communication, generally, and certainly most posts here, is not a series of independent assertions. To understand one sentence you may very well need to read the next. And further sentences may also influence meaning. But as part of you mass of questions urge, you see a fragmented interaction. This is connected to what I said a couple of posts earlier about your not really understanding communication in the ways many other people do, including many of the posters here.

And I don't see your mass of questions urge as consciously intended to give other people the onus - it may be conscious - but that seems less likely. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. But it is convenient and implicitly places yourself above others. They must go through hoops that you do not need to and in fact avoid. If they ask questions, you ask questions about their questions? If you ask questions and they don't answer them, despite your own habit of doing that, they are showing that they actually agree with you or that you have refuted their position or some other closely related mind-reading-like conclusion on your part. People often do things, believing their conscious motives are the main ones, that are convenient.

You use proof, prove and irrefutable in, well, ludicrous and amusing ways.

[Age]

Look, the main point in my last response, which this very lengthy response of yours here was directed at,

No, my lengthy response was primarily directed at you as a participant here.

Oh, so you even openly admit that you do not direct your views and responses to 'the actual words', which are before you here, and that you prefer to direct your views and replies 'at me', the writer, instead.

is that by your own self-admission you admitted that there are things that everyone could agree with.

No, I didn't.

Obviously not directly.

However, if you were Truly open and honest, and not being evasive, then you would have to admit that everyone could, and would, agree on some things.

See, through the actual clarifying question, which I posed, and asked you here, you have no other choice. Except, of course, you can choose to run away here and ignore this, like you are and want to.

And, your own words you have acknowledged one thing that just not everyone could agree with but that everyone does actually agree on.

Nope.

See, what I know are 'the words' that are existing within, which you cannot refute. Although you may refuse to say and write them here.

If you, ever, answered my clarifying question above here that I posed to you, openly and honestly, then, through your own words, you would refute your, previous, claim, and acknowledge my claim as being True.

However, I cannot stop you from 'running away' and from 'not answering'.

So, you have refuted your own assertion and have also proved my claim, for me.

This is another example of your not understanding the rules of logic. .

If only you knew just how funny you are coming across here.

You are incorrect about what I did. But even if I did contradict myself and assert that there are things that everyone can agree on, that does PROVE your claim..

Why?

What do you even think many claim is here?

You are conflating me contradiction my claim, with me PROVING your claim. .

you are missing what is going on here.

One can contradict oneself or even give seeming support to the position someone else has, without proving their position..

Yes very, very True.

If you were, however, ever open and honest here, then something else will occur, and happen.

You are often claiming things like this: that you proved X. That someone else proved your point correct. When often at best, they contradicted themselves, or unintentionally said something that supports your post. Or in situations where you decide that no one has argued against you well enough according to your own estimation. You then announce you have proven it..

When one knows some thing has already been proved True, like for example, that the earth revolves around the sun, then that one 'knowing' that they have already proved the same thing, through the words that they have been expressing, but which others are 'resisting' to hear, and refusing to acknowledge and accept, then that does not mean that that one has not yet proved that thing.

This is a basic logic error, conflating all sorts of things with proof. .

Which is, exactly, what you and others have been doing here, as well as confusing and conflating what I have been actually saying, and pointing out, here.

You could be wrong..

Obviously when I am not right.

And, are you even aware that you come across here as though you are not wrong?

I then disagree with you but in the process contradict my position. I can contradict my position, which is in disagreement with yours, or even state your position, and you could still be wrong..

Maybe. But, then again I may not be.

Only when you prove that I am, then that is when I am. If, however, I know that I am not wrong, then I am not wrong .
Why does this appear so hard for you to comprehend and understand?

I would suggest you read more carefully when people argue with each other here..

Okay.

I'm sure you'll notice, after a while, situations where one side points out correctly the other has contradicted himself or herself, and/or given support to the other person's position, without this PROVING the other person correct..

Why do you think or believe that this 'proving' happens all the time, a lot, or even regularly?

Look, if you were just completely open and honest here, then you will contradict and/or refute your own claim here, which, in turn, will prove my claim here True.

Remember, the one that you claimed could not ever be true.

I wonder if you are or will be some day actually able to see how much this post and the previous one can help you. .

you, really, cannot loose your belief that you are "the teacher" here, and that others are "the students".

Do not forget that it is you who is contradicting and refuting your own claims here.

Just maybe one day you will see from posts here that you, really, did, and still do, have so much more to learn, comprehend, and understand here before you even begin to start 'teaching' others.

And not in the sense that it confirms your negative judgments of humans and me, etc.

Do you believe that you are not conveying and sharing your own personal negative views of others here?

[Age]

A little more help.

"iwannaplato" appears to have, now, realised that what it was trying to claim as true here is actually a complete and utter Falsehood. Not that from past behaviour "iwannaplato" will ever admit to this.

Nope.

What are you 'Noping' to here, exactly? I did make more that one point.

The original text.

Nope. The reason I decided to stop here, in this thread, was explained in my previous post, both in my reactions to your evasiveness and in the summation. I certainly could have laid it out more clearly. What I experienced as your game playing and evasiveness led to my lack of interest, again, in this thread with communicating with you. Notice that you mind read my reasons for stopping. Notice that your mind reading interpretation is convenient for you and your beliefs. Yes, you used the word 'appear', but it's still a story you tell yourself and any readers and one that matches your desires.

You read one word 'nope' and waste both my time and yours by immediately asking a question.

But, I never 'waste my time' at all here.

I am here to learn how to prove my claims irrefutably true.

One of them is that because you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, only on the very rarest of occasions, seek out, and obtain actual clarification from each other, and that this is one reason why you adult human beings, in these days, still, are so very far off from gaining 'understanding' of human beings, each other, and even 'you', individually.

you consistently keep proving how you think or believe that 'clarifying: is a 'waste if time'.

This, your refusal to obtain and give clarity here is proving my claim further and further true. So, again, I am not 'wasting my time' at all here.

Communication, generally, and certainly most posts here, is not a series of independent assertions. To understand one sentence you may very well need to read the next. And further sentences may also influence meaning. But as part of you mass of questions urge, you see a fragmented interaction. This is connected to what I said a couple of posts earlier about your not really understanding communication in the ways many other people do, including many of the posters here.

Please do not forget that it is you human beings, in the days when this is being written, who are the one who are looking for and, still, seeking answers in Life.

How you communicate, or more correctly miscommunicate, with each other is a big part of why there is, still, so much misunderstanding and confliction among you adult human beings.

Also, and again something that you have never considered, partly because of your belief that your role and job on Life is to 'teach' others, is that just maybe I understand the communication between you human beings far better than you, personally, and/or you, human beings, do.

Maybe one day you will just stop and consider this. But, then again, maybe you never will.

And I don't see your mass of questions urge as consciously intended to give other people the onus - it may be conscious - but that seems less likely. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

you can 'give' whatever you like, for all I care, but o do what I am doing here for a very specific reason. Which the way you are you will never ever be able to find out and know.

Look, let 'us' not forget that if you were an open and honest person, then you would have to admit and accept that what you have claimed in opposition of my claim is just False and Wrong. But, you will not be this type of person here. That 'ego' will just not allow 'you' to be here.

And, if 'you' ever were, then you would start seeing and learning just how inefficient your way of communicating here really is.

But it is convenient and implicitly places yourself above others. They must go through hoops that you do not need to and in fact avoid.

But, you will not even 'ser up the hoops', as you call it, because to you doing so is just a 'waste of time'.

Look, if you cannot back up and support your claims, when you are questioned and challenged, then so be it, And, if you find questioning and challenging me, and/or others, is a 'waste of time', then so be it, also.

Also, I have never ever avoided any so-called 'hoop' here, and instead you people here just 'give up' "yourselves". Mostly because you people do not yet even know what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly. So, you do not know how to question nor challenge properly, and Correctly.

What you people here do instead is express your own positions or beliefs, which oppose the other, and then just try to defend them, but very, very unsuccessfully on just about every occasion. As I continually point out and show here. Just like I did above with you "iwannaplato".

I claimed some thing. you did not know how to question nor challenge my claim, properly and Correctly, so instead you just expressed your own personal opposing belief. you were trying to lead the conversation in one direction, in the hope that 'that' would prove me wrong, but as I have already said I have already refuted 'that' already in this forum, previously, but you persisted. And, in doing so, and if you were an open and honest person, then would have shone a direct light upon how your belief is obviously False and Wrong, and how my claim has always been irrefutably True and Right.

If they ask questions, you ask questions about their questions?

Why did you put a question mark at the end of your claim here?

If you ask questions and they don't answer them, despite your own habit of doing that,

But I do not have a habit of doing what you now claim here. As can be proved True by my replies here throughout this forum.

they are showing that they actually agree with you or that you have refuted their position or some other closely related mind-reading-like conclusion on your part.

If this is what you want to claim here, then so be it, but I do not agree with you that when you posters here do not answer my questions posed, and asked, for clarification, then this means that they actually agree with me. I am not sure why you see and say and claim this here.

As for the rest of the ending of your claim here, then this is again just a result of your own imaginings and presumptions.

People often do things, believing their conscious motives are the main ones, that are convenient.

Okay

You use proof, prove and irrefutable in, well, ludicrous and amusing ways.

If one was to ever delve into, discuss, and clarify my actual views, then what might be found is the complete opposite of what this one imagines and believes here.

Also, let 'us' not forget that my claim here has already been proved True, and that your expressed opposing belief and claim has already been proved False.

And, this is without even moving onto how 'objectivity' is even actually found, and obtained

[LuckyR]

When every one can agree with and accept 'it'.

I don't disagree. Therefore it doesn't exist, right?

Did you mean you do disagree?

Either way the answer will be, 'No'.

I meant what I wrote: I don't disagree with your definition of universal.

No, it doesn't exist?

[Age]

I don't disagree. Therefore it doesn't exist, right?

Did you mean you do disagree?

Either way the answer will be, 'No'.

I meant what I wrote: I don't disagree with your definition of universal.

No, it doesn't exist?

Are you asking me a question here, or are you making a claim/statement, with a question mark added, maybe accidentally or not?

Also, you asked me, 'Therefore, it does not exist, right?'

I answered, 'No', which ultimately means, to me, that 'it does exist'. Just in case you were not sure.

But, what is also obvious here is that what you are referring to and perceiving as 'it' might be some thing that I have yet to consider or just be some thing completely different to what I am considering.

[LuckyR]

Did you mean you do disagree?

Either way the answer will be, 'No'.

I meant what I wrote: I don't disagree with your definition of universal.

No, it doesn't exist?

Are you asking me a question here, or are you making a claim/statement, with a question mark added, maybe accidentally or not?

Also, you asked me, 'Therefore, it does not exist, right?'

I answered, 'No', which ultimately means, to me, that 'it does exist'. Just in case you were not sure.

But, what is also obvious here is that what you are referring to and perceiving as 'it' might be some thing that I have yet to consider or just be some thing completely different to what I am considering.

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you have any examples of an "existing" moral concept that "every one can agree with and accept"?

[Age]

I meant what I wrote: I don't disagree with your definition of universal.

No, it doesn't exist?

Are you asking me a question here, or are you making a claim/statement, with a question mark added, maybe accidentally or not?

Also, you asked me, 'Therefore, it does not exist, right?'

I answered, 'No', which ultimately means, to me, that 'it does exist'. Just in case you were not sure.

But, what is also obvious here is that what you are referring to and perceiving as 'it' might be some thing that I have yet to consider or just be some thing completely different to what I am considering.

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you have any examples of an "existing" moral concept that "every one can agree with and accept"?

Yes, but by 'existing' this could be a point of contention here.

See, to me, there is an already 'existing knowing' within every human being.
However, this already existing 'knowing' is, still only, 'unconsciously known' by most human beings, in the days when this is being written.
Human beings can only 'know' some thing 'consciously' after they have learned/experienced that thing.
So, if one has not, yet, experienced, nor learned, a 'moral concept' they may not 'consciously know' it, but 'deep down's, as it is sometimes referred to, they 'know' it, unconsciously.

For example, every human being knows it is Wrong to kill animals, when it is unnecessary to. (But, if someone thinks or believes that it is okay or all right to kill animals, then please speak up and tell 'us' how and/or why it is.)

Therefore, what this means is that every one 'knows', unconsciously, that it is a 'morally Wrong concept' to eat animals. Although, and obviously, lots of human beings in the days when this is being written will try to 'justify' and/or 'rationalize' otherwise. And, if absolutely anyone would like to try to, then let us have a full, open, and honest discussion here.

There are, by the way, other examples of moral concepts that 'every one can, and do, agree with and accept'..

[duanewilliams]

Driving a fossil-fuelled car (or even just turning on the engine) causes harms of many different kinds. It pollutes the air, exacerbating symptoms of cardiovascular diseases and releasing carcinogens; it intensifies greenhouse effects, such as climate change; it increases the risk of killing, injuring, and maiming people; it reduces the public space available for other uses; it generates noise pollution and stress; it maintains sedentary lifestyles; and so on.

The author claims that driving a fossil-fueled car causes harms, but provides no evidence to support that claim. While it is likely true that the total pollution of all the cars being driven these days causes the kinds of harm the author mentions, it seems to me unlikely that driving any particular car causes any of those harms. Suppose there were just one car being driven worldwide. Would its contribution to global warming be a cause for concern? No. Would it cause diseases in people? No. Would it produce dangerous noise pollution? No. And so on. The kinds of harms caused by a culture of driving large numbers of fossil-fueled cars are not harms that can be attributed to a single person taking their car for an unnecessary spin.

It may be immoral, for the kinds of reasons mentioned by the author, for a society nowadays to support a transportation system based on fossil-fueled cars, but that doesn't support the conclusion that it's immoral for an individual to get in their car and go to a movie, because it's unlikely that an individual's contribution is itself causing any harm.