Philosophical debates

[Age]

Why do some people think or believe that philosophical debates are useful or serve any real purpose?

The same people who think or believe this are also the ones who would tend to 'debate' over what the term 'philosophical debate' even means.

'Debating', to me, is the exact opposite of 'philosophizing'.

One is 'logical reasoning', which brings with it answers and solutions. The other is just picking a side, and fighting for that one side only.

Obviously, one leads to and thus creates a much better world' for everyone. While the other just leads to causing disagreements, and conflict.

For those who do know which one is which, then really?

[Fairy]

Why do some people think or believe that philosophical debates are useful or serve any real purpose?

The same people who think or believe this are also the ones who would tend to 'debate' over what the term 'philosophical debate' even means.

'Debating', to me, is the exact opposite of 'philosophizing'.

One is 'logical reasoning', which brings with it answers and solutions. The other is just picking a side, and fighting for that one side only.

Obviously, one leads to and thus creates a much better world' for everyone. While the other just leads to causing disagreements, and conflict.

For those who do know which one is which, then really?

I think you are probably right. I am inclined to agree with your viewpoint.

What philosophy in particular would you say is the most important that humans ought to understand, that would potentially be most beneficial for humans when it comes to creating a much better world for everyone?

[Age]

Why do some people think or believe that philosophical debates are useful or serve any real purpose?

The same people who think or believe this are also the ones who would tend to 'debate' over what the term 'philosophical debate' even means.

'Debating', to me, is the exact opposite of 'philosophizing'.

One is 'logical reasoning', which brings with it answers and solutions. The other is just picking a side, and fighting for that one side only.

Obviously, one leads to and thus creates a much better world' for everyone. While the other just leads to causing disagreements, and conflict.

For those who do know which one is which, then really?

I think you are probably right. I am inclined to agree with your viewpoint.

What philosophy in particular would you say is the most important that humans ought to understand, that would potentially be most beneficial for humans when it comes to creating a much better world for everyone?

Just be Honest, and just stay Open.

And, continually wanting to keep changing, for the better, helps tremendously also.

Now, when I say 'Honest' and 'Open' I do not mean the 'honesty' and 'openness' that adult human beings talk about, and fool and deceive "themselves" about.

I mean being Truly absolutely Honest, and Truly absolutely Open. Which is nothing like what adult human beings are like, in the days when this is being written.

This might sound 'harsh', but it needed to be said.

Also, to me, the word 'philosophy' means or refers to having a 'love-of-wisdom', which comes from 'learning'. So, I took the word 'philosophy' in your clarifying question and changed it to 'view', instead. Hopefully, you do not care.

[Fairy]

Why do some people think or believe that philosophical debates are useful or serve any real purpose?

The same people who think or believe this are also the ones who would tend to 'debate' over what the term 'philosophical debate' even means.

'Debating', to me, is the exact opposite of 'philosophizing'.

One is 'logical reasoning', which brings with it answers and solutions. The other is just picking a side, and fighting for that one side only.

Obviously, one leads to and thus creates a much better world' for everyone. While the other just leads to causing disagreements, and conflict.

For those who do know which one is which, then really?

I think you are probably right. I am inclined to agree with your viewpoint.

What philosophy in particular would you say is the most important that humans ought to understand, that would potentially be most beneficial for humans when it comes to creating a much better world for everyone?

Just be Honest, and just stay Open.

And, continually wanting to keep changing, for the better, helps tremendously also.

Now, when I say 'Honest' and 'Open' I do not mean the 'honesty' and 'openness' that adult human beings talk about, and fool and deceive "themselves" about.

I mean being Truly absolutely Honest, and Truly absolutely Open. Which is nothing like what adult human beings are like, in the days when this is being written.

This might sound 'harsh', but it needed to be said.

Also, to me, the word 'philosophy' means or refers to having a 'love-of-wisdom', which comes from 'learning'. So, I took the word 'philosophy' in your clarifying question and changed it to 'view', instead. Hopefully, you do not care.

Well in my experience of self introspection, it is realised that there is only the absolute self which is perfectly neutral and does not identify with the contents of it's one mind. It already knows who it is, and does not need the sense of separateness to be who it is. It is the One true self that does not need to claim to be anything other than it's absolute self. This absolute self is this self-evident immediate experience of being alive that never experiences not-being. Not-being is never this one's experience. That is the true wisdom of knowing who you are, you are this one, and in that knowing, there is already a peace that passes all understanding, so no need to improve on this state of being, once the real self becomes known to itself, which just so happens to happen all by itself, for itself and to itself alone.

This absolute knowing of itself is the better self. Is what I am saying.

The absolute self has no argument with itself. No problem with itself. It does not need to make compromises with itself. It's already whole, needing and wanting for nothing.

[Age]

I think you are probably right. I am inclined to agree with your viewpoint.

What philosophy in particular would you say is the most important that humans ought to understand, that would potentially be most beneficial for humans when it comes to creating a much better world for everyone?

Just be Honest, and just stay Open.

And, continually wanting to keep changing, for the better, helps tremendously also.

Now, when I say 'Honest' and 'Open' I do not mean the 'honesty' and 'openness' that adult human beings talk about, and fool and deceive "themselves" about.

I mean being Truly absolutely Honest, and Truly absolutely Open. Which is nothing like what adult human beings are like, in the days when this is being written.

This might sound 'harsh', but it needed to be said.

Also, to me, the word 'philosophy' means or refers to having a 'love-of-wisdom', which comes from 'learning'. So, I took the word 'philosophy' in your clarifying question and changed it to 'view', instead. Hopefully, you do not care.

Well in my experience of self introspection, it is realised that there is only the absolute self which is perfectly neutral and does not identify with the contents of it's one mind.

Why do you people who claim things like there is only one, keep talking about different ones, or different things?

How can the 'Self' have Its 'one mind'?

Are you even aware that the word 'its' is referring to 'another thing'?

If you people really want to come here and claim things, then I suggest you actually learn and 'know' what 'it' is that you want to talk about, absolutely fully, before you come here.

It already knows who it is,

But, obviously, It has not yet informed 'you' of what It is, exactly, correct?

and does not need the sense of separateness to be who it is.

'I', the 'Self', has already informed you that there is absolutely nothing that 'needs' the 'sense of separateness' to be who it is.

Will 'I' have to inform 'you' of 'this', again, before 'you' come to 'see', and understand, here?

It is the One true self that does not need to claim to be anything other than it's absolute self.

Which, obviously, 'you', still, have not yet learned what the 'Self' even is, exactly. Which obviously means that the 'Self' does not yet want you to 'know' some things.

Also, and once again, you are using 'dualistic' words and language here.

The 'Self' does not have 'it's absolute self', as you say and claim It does.

This absolute self is this self-evident immediate experience of being alive that never experiences not-being. Not-being is never this one's experience.

Well, obviously, if and when some thing lives eternally, then it is never 'not-being'.

Why do you say of the most obvious things?

That is the true wisdom of knowing who you are, you are this one, and in that knowing, there is already a peace that passes all understanding, so no need to improve on this state of being, once the real self becomes known to itself, which just so happens to happen all by itself, for itself and to itself alone.

Once again, you keep using 'dualistic' words, and 'you' word is probably the word that emphasizes 'dualism' the most.

So, what 'you' are telling 'others' here is that when 'you' and the 'other yous' find out who all of 'you' are, then all of 'you' 'separate ones' are, completely contradictory, 'this one'.

This absolute knowing of itself is the better self. Is what I am saying.

But, you have already informed 'us' here that 'you' do not yet 'know' who the One is, exactly. So, this means that 'you' are, still, some way off knowing the One. After all 'you', still, have to learn and know 'you', the little insignificant and illusory separate one here, first.

The absolute self has no argument with itself. No problem with itself. It does not need to make compromises with itself. It's already whole, needing and wanting for nothing.

[Fairy]

Singing to itself again.

Gooey, I see I am waving to myself again.

[Age]

Singing to itself again.

Gooey, I see I am waving to myself again.

Did I actually say and write 'those words' here?

Or, are you, 'putting words in my mouth' here, as some might say?

[Iwannaplato]

Obviously, one leads to and thus creates a much better world' for everyone. While the other just leads to causing disagreements, and conflict.

It's great to see how "age's" approach has not led to disagreement and conflict in these forums since his arrival.

[Fairy]

Obviously, one leads to and thus creates a much better world' for everyone. While the other just leads to causing disagreements, and conflict.

It's great to see how "age's" approach has not led to disagreement and conflict in these forums since his arrival.

Oh the sweet irony.

[Age]

Obviously, one leads to and thus creates a much better world' for everyone. While the other just leads to causing disagreements, and conflict.

It's great to see how "age's" approach has not led to disagreement and conflict in these forums since his arrival.

It is not surprising at all that this is what this one sees, only here.

The only conflict here is caused by your beliefs and that you like trying to use 'me' so that you can try to look better 'yourself", in front of others.

If you adult human beings do things, or did things 'back then: and I want to point this out, in order to show how to change for the better, and how this change is, really, a very simple and very easy thing to do, then go along with it, or challenge 'me' on the actual words that I use. But, to be persistently wanting to keep 'looking' 'at me', while continually trying to 'attack me:, 'ridicule me', and/or 'humiliate me' will obviously only increase disagreements and conflict, instead of increasing honesty, openness, learning, wisdom, nor peace and harmony.

The choice is yours now "iwannaplato'.

[Iwannaplato]

Obviously, one leads to and thus creates a much better world' for everyone. While the other just leads to causing disagreements, and conflict.

It's great to see how "age's" approach has not led to disagreement and conflict in these forums since his arrival.

It is not surprising here that this sees 'this' only here.

Hey, I just agreed with you. And what a strange thing to say. I see many things here.

The only conflict is caused by your beliefs and that you like trying to use 'me' so that you can try to look better 'yourself" in front of others.

You're still not a good mind reader at all. But your approach definitely does not lead to disagreement. One can look at any thread you have participated in that see that it doesn't lead to this. One can see the enormous difference between when you engage with people and when two human beings at the time this is being written engage with each other. Your approach is clearly more effective when communicating with us. There are so many less disagreements with your posts and observations. You aren't condescending and you don't have a lot of negative judgments of humans. You hold yourself to the same standard you hold others. Anyone reacting to your posts and approach negatively is hallucinating and you have nothing to adjust about your approach and attitudes. Which is why it is working so well.

If you adult human beings do things, or did things 'back then: and I want to point this out, in order to show how to change for the better is, really, a very simple and very easy thing to do, then go along with it, or challenge 'me' on the actual words that I use. But, persistently wanting to keep 'looking' 'at me', while continually trying to 'attack me:, 'ridicule me', and/or 'humiliate me' will obviously only increase disagreements and conflict, instead of increasing honesty, openness, learning, wisdom, nor peace and harmony.

More mind reading. You're so good at the approach mentioned above, I can only say that your mind reading attempts are best left unmade. One immediately starts thinking you are projecting what you generally imply rather than say directly, though you do this also. And since all condescending people with a lot of judgments and attitudes that lead to conflict are aware of this, you can't be one of these people. Because you aren't aware of it.

The choice is yours now "iwannaplato'.

The choices are ours.

[Age]

Obviously, one leads to and thus creates a much better world' for everyone. While the other just leads to causing disagreements, and conflict.

It's great to see how "age's" approach has not led to disagreement and conflict in these forums since his arrival.

It is not surprising here that this sees 'this' only here.

Hey, I just agreed with you.

So, you agreed with me that it is you and the way that you communicate here, which is what is causing disagreements and conflicts here, right?

But, if this is not what you are agreeing with me here on, then what are you agreeing with me here on, in regards to, exactly?

And what a strange thing to say. I see many things here.

Did I, actually, say this, in what you quoted me here saying?

If yes, then where and when, exactly?

Just maybe 'it is strange', solely based on the Fact that it was a 'strange' thing for you to 'see', and/or 'imagine'?

The only conflict is caused by your beliefs and that you like trying to use 'me' so that you can try to look better 'yourself" in front of others.

You're still not a good mind reader at all.

Okay, if you believe this is true, then it must be true, to you.

Will you inform the readers here now od what a so-called 'mindreader' even is, exactly?

If no, then why not?

But your approach definitely does not lead to disagreement. One can look at any thread you have participated in that see that it doesn't lead to this. One can see the enormous difference between when you engage with people and when two human beings at the time this is being written engage with each other.

Yes, and can clearly see that you human beings have not, for thousands upon thousands of years, hitherto when this is being written have not made any real progress not advancement in your ability to find answers and the Truth in regards to the Truly meaningful or what are referred to as 'age old questions'.

In fact, what appears to be taking place is that you human beings were seemingly in an increasing conflict and disagreement and bickering and fighting more, over time, over completely trivial opposing views and beliefs, instead of coming to agreements, and to peace and harmony.

Your approach is clearly more effective when communicating with us. There are so many less disagreements with your posts and observations. You aren't condescending and you don't have a lot of negative judgments of humans. You hold yourself to the same standard you hold others. Anyone reacting to your posts and approach negatively is hallucinating and you have nothing to adjust about your approach and attitudes. Which is why it is working so well.

This one, still, after all of this time appears to not have 'stopped' and 'considered' that what it presumes and believes I am doing might actually not be true, and instead keeps insisting that it is me who is not seeing what it believes I am doing here.

If you adult human beings do things, or did things 'back then: and I want to point this out, in order to show how to change for the better is, really, a very simple and very easy thing to do, then go along with it, or challenge 'me' on the actual words that I use. But, persistently wanting to keep 'looking' 'at me', while continually trying to 'attack me:, 'ridicule me', and/or 'humiliate me' will obviously only increase disagreements and conflict, instead of increasing honesty, openness, learning, wisdom, nor peace and harmony.

More mind reading.

This appears to be your only 'come back', now, when you have nothing else to say that could actually counter or refute what I say.

You're so good at the approach mentioned above, I can only say that your mind reading attempts are best left unmade.

I will suggest that you define what 'the mind' is, exactly, and then income the readers of how 'mind reading' actually happens, that is; if you believe it can happens, or if you believe that mind reading cannot happen, then I form the readers of this belief of yours as well, before you speak of 'mind reading: again.

One immediately starts thinking you are projecting what you generally imply rather than say directly, though you do this also. And since all condescending people with a lot of judgments and attitudes that lead to conflict are aware of this, you can't be one of these people. Because you aren't aware of it.

Okay, if this what you personally believe 'about me', personally, the I will leave 'you' to keep trying to 'attack me', 'humiliate me', and/or 'ridicule me'.

As 'you' continually trying to do so is showing and revealing far more 'about the true you: that it is 'about me'.

The choice is yours now "iwannaplato'.

The choices are ours.

But, I have never even thought let alone ever begun to attempt to 'attack you', 'ridicule you', nor 'humiliate you', like 'you' try to do 'to me'.

See, 'i' fully understand who and what 'you' are, exactly. So, 'I' would never do these things 'to you' nor 'another' ever.

[Iwannaplato]

So, you agreed with me that it is you and the way that you communicate here, which is what is causing disagreements and conflicts here, right?

Did you say that? Does this one really think that the conflicts in this one's threads are all caused by me, even when I am not participating in those dialogues? Or does he think that I am all the other posters who he is in dialogue with?

And what a strange thing to say. I see many things here.

Did I, actually, say this, in what you quoted me here saying?

If yes, then where and when, exactly?

You said

It is not surprising here that this sees 'this' only here.

Which I quoted in the previous post.

The only conflict is caused by your beliefs and that you like trying to use 'me' so that you can try to look better 'yourself" in front of others.

You're still not a good mind reader at all.

Okay, if you believe this is true, then it must be true, to you.

Will you inform the readers here now od what a so-called 'mindreader' even is, exactly?

A mind reader is someone who either can or claims to or thinks they can read the thoughts of other people.

But your approach definitely does not lead to disagreement. One can look at any thread you have participated in that see that it doesn't lead to this. One can see the enormous difference between when you engage with people and when two human beings at the time this is being written engage with each other.

Yes, and can clearly see that you human beings have not, for thousands upon thousands of years, hitherto when this is being written have not made any real progress not advancement in your ability to find answers and the Truth in regards to the Truly meaningful or what are referred to as 'age old questions'.

Dear me, still trying to mind read.

In fact, what appears to be taking place is that you human beings were seemingly in an increasing conflict and disagreement and bickering and fighting more, over time, over completely trivial opposing views and beliefs, instead of coming to agreements, and to peace and harmony.

I wonder if this one can notice that it is choosing part of what is happening and considering it is the whole. A pattern that then becomes a confirmation bias or was one from the start.

Your approach is clearly more effective when communicating with us. There are so many less disagreements with your posts and observations. You aren't condescending and you don't have a lot of negative judgments of humans. You hold yourself to the same standard you hold others. Anyone reacting to your posts and approach negatively is hallucinating and you have nothing to adjust about your approach and attitudes. Which is why it is working so well.

This one, still, after all of this time appears to not have 'stopped' and 'considered' that what it presumes and believes I am doing might actually not be true, and instead keeps insisting that it is me who is not seeing what it believes I am doing here.

This one, still, after ll this time, appears to not have 'stopped' and 'considered' that it has nothing to learn from the human beings at the time this is being written about some core problems this one has both with communication, this one's attitudes and even the content of what he wants to communication. Further this one seems to have a limited way of learning from others and can only, for example, imagine that certain behaviors are intended to ridicule when this is not necessarily the case.

This one has not stopped or 'stopped', considered or 'considered'.

If other human beings do not do what it considers the only way to do things, here, it responds with negative judgments and labels.

If you adult human beings do things, or did things 'back then: and I want to point this out, in order to show how to change for the better is, really, a very simple and very easy thing to do, then go along with it, or challenge 'me' on the actual words that I use. But, persistently wanting to keep 'looking' 'at me', while continually trying to 'attack me:, 'ridicule me', and/or 'humiliate me' will obviously only increase disagreements and conflict, instead of increasing honesty, openness, learning, wisdom, nor peace and harmony.

More mind reading.

This appears to be your only 'come back', now, when you have nothing else to say that could actually counter or refute what I say.

This one, still, after all of this time appears to not have 'stopped' and 'considered' that what it presumes and believes I am doing might actually not be true, and instead keeps insisting that it is me who is not seeing what it believes I am doing here.[/quote]This one, still, after ll this time, appears to not have 'stopped' and 'considered' that it has nothing to learn from the human beings at the time this is being written about some core problems this one has both with communication, this one's attitudes and even the content of what he wants to communication. Further this one seems to have a limited way of learning from others and can only, for example, imagine that certain behaviors are intended as 'come backs' when this is not necessarily the case. And further happens to be false.

This one has not stopped or 'stopped', considered or 'considered'.

If other human beings do not do what it considers the only way to do things, here, it responds with negative judgments and labels.

You're so good at the approach mentioned above, I can only say that your mind reading attempts are best left unmade.

I will suggest that you define what 'the mind' is, exactly, and then income the readers of how 'mind reading' actually happens, that is; if you believe it can happens, or if you believe that mind reading cannot happen, then I form the readers of this belief of yours as well, before you speak of 'mind reading: again.

This one seems to think there is only one appropriate process of interaction and not coincidentally it is the one he wants others to engage in. This one only notices when people do not engage in this one's process and has not noticed the consequences when some people have engaged in that process.

This one has not exactly defined this one's terms, but this does not stop this one from continuing to engage people using those terms.

Okay, if this what you personally believe 'about me', personally, the I will leave 'you' to keep trying to 'attack me', 'humiliate me', and/or 'ridicule me'.

Poor mind reading.

As 'you' continually trying to do so is showing and revealing far more 'about the true you: that it is 'about me'.

The choice is yours now "iwannaplato'.

The choices are ours.

But, I have never even thought let alone ever begun to attempt to 'attack you', 'ridicule you', nor 'humiliate you', like 'you' try to do 'to me'.

This is correct those are not the words I would use for the approaches you have to conveying your negative judgments of the people of this time in general, of which I am one or at me in specific, because you are not conscious enough of what you are doing. Attributing them to me is poor mind reading.

See, 'i' fully understand who and what 'you' are, exactly. So, 'I' would never do these things 'to you' nor 'another' ever.

I understand that your conscious intentions seem wholly positive to you.

[Age]

So, you agreed with me that it is you and the way that you communicate here, which is what is causing disagreements and conflicts here, right?

Did you say that?

What is the word 'that' here referring to, exactly?

Obviously, I said that, what I did.

Does this one really think that the conflicts in this one's threads are all caused by me, even when I am not participating in those dialogues?

No. What a Truly stupid and idiotic question to pose, and ask here.

Or does he think that I am all the other posters who he is in dialogue with?

Another Truly stupid and idiotic question here.

And what a strange thing to say. I see many things here.

Did I, actually, say this, in what you quoted me here saying?

If yes, then where and when, exactly?

You said

It is not surprising here that this sees 'this' only here.

Which I quoted in the previous post.

So, instead of just being OPEN and Honest here, by just answering and clarifying by saying, 'No, you did did not actually say what I just claimed you did', you instead go on and write what you did, in an attempt to deflect, once again, in the hope that no one will notice and see just how often you are Wrong here.

Obviously I did not say what you claim was a strange thing to say. So, if I never said that, then either someone else said that, or this one is seeing or imagining things that are not even here.

And, if this is the case, then this happened and occurred for the reasons I have already provided here.

The only conflict is caused by your beliefs and that you like trying to use 'me' so that you can try to look better 'yourself" in front of others.

You're still not a good mind reader at all.

Okay, if you believe this is true, then it must be true, to you.

Will you inform the readers here now od what a so-called 'mindreader' even is, exactly?

A mind reader is someone who either can or claims to or thinks they can read the thoughts of other people.

So, in other words, what you essentially actually mean is a 'thought reader'?

Are 'you' a 'thought reader "iwannaplato"?

If yes, then can you do it, or do you just claim to be able to?

And, if you actually can do it, then are you a so-called good 'thought reader'?

But your approach definitely does not lead to disagreement. One can look at any thread you have participated in that see that it doesn't lead to this. One can see the enormous difference between when you engage with people and when two human beings at the time this is being written engage with each other.

Yes, and can clearly see that you human beings have not, for thousands upon thousands of years, hitherto when this is being written have not made any real progress not advancement in your ability to find answers and the Truth in regards to the Truly meaningful or what are referred to as 'age old questions'.

Dear me, still trying to mind read.

What do you keep saying, claiming and believing this to be true?

One only has to look at the proof to see and know what the actual Truth is..

In fact, what appears to be taking place is that you human beings were seemingly in an increasing conflict and disagreement and bickering and fighting more, over time, over completely trivial opposing views and beliefs, instead of coming to agreements, and to peace and harmony.

I wonder if this one can notice that it is choosing part of what is happening and considering it is the whole. A pattern that then becomes a confirmation bias or was one from the start.

So, either, on the whole, in the days when this is being, you human beings are living in peace and harmony, or, you are not.

And, if you are not, then what can be clearly seen, recognized, known, and proved is that you human beings, in the days when this is being written, are living far more disagreeing, bickering, and fighting, and warring thank you were, previously.

So, even though I was actually looking at and talking about 'the whole', this one assumed, concluded, and believed the exact opposite. As it usually does.

Your approach is clearly more effective when communicating with us. There are so many less disagreements with your posts and observations. You aren't condescending and you don't have a lot of negative judgments of humans. You hold yourself to the same standard you hold others. Anyone reacting to your posts and approach negatively is hallucinating and you have nothing to adjust about your approach and attitudes. Which is why it is working so well.

This one, still, after all of this time appears to not have 'stopped' and 'considered' that what it presumes and believes I am doing might actually not be true, and instead keeps insisting that it is me who is not seeing what it believes I am doing here.

This one, still, after ll this time, appears to not have 'stopped' and 'considered' that it has nothing to learn from the human beings at the time this is being written about some core problems this one has both with communication, this one's attitudes and even the content of what he wants to communication. Further this one seems to have a limited way of learning from others and can only, for example, imagine that certain behaviors are intended to ridicule when this is not necessarily the case.

But, you do, ever so hard, try to ridicule and humiliate 'me' here. As can be clearly seen just here, once again.

This one has not stopped or 'stopped', considered or 'considered'.

Here is another one of this one's absolutist claims.

If other human beings do not do what it considers the only way to do things, here, it responds with negative judgments and labels.

Here is another example of this one just alluding to some thing, and then claiming that I do that. But, when I ask it to clarify, exactly, what it is I am, allegedly and supposedly, doing, exactly, it will not say so. As this one will prove me True, again, here.

If you adult human beings do things, or did things 'back then: and I want to point this out, in order to show how to change for the better is, really, a very simple and very easy thing to do, then go along with it, or challenge 'me' on the actual words that I use. But, persistently wanting to keep 'looking' 'at me', while continually trying to 'attack me:, 'ridicule me', and/or 'humiliate me' will obviously only increase disagreements and conflict, instead of increasing honesty, openness, learning, wisdom, nor peace and harmony.

More mind reading.

This appears to be your only 'come back', now, when you have nothing else to say that could actually counter or refute what I say.

This one, still, after all of this time appears to not have 'stopped' and 'considered' that what it presumes and believes I am doing might actually not be true, and instead keeps insisting that it is me who is not seeing what it believes I am doing here.

This one, still, after ll this time, appears to not have 'stopped' and 'considered' that it has nothing to learn from the human beings at the time this is being written about some core problems this one has both with communication, this one's attitudes and even the content of what he wants to communication. Further this one seems to have a limited way of learning from others and can only, for example, imagine that certain behaviors are intended as 'come backs' when this is not necessarily the case. And further happens to be false.

This one has not stopped or 'stopped', considered or 'considered'.

If other human beings do not do what it considers the only way to do things, here, it responds with negative judgments and labels.

You're so good at the approach mentioned above, I can only say that your mind reading attempts are best left unmade.

I will suggest that you define what 'the mind' is, exactly, and then income the readers of how 'mind reading' actually happens, that is; if you believe it can happens, or if you believe that mind reading cannot happen, then I form the readers of this belief of yours as well, before you speak of 'mind reading: again.

This one seems to think there is only one appropriate process of interaction and not coincidentally it is the one he wants others to engage in. This one only notices when people do not engage in this one's process and has not noticed the consequences when some people have engaged in that process.

This one has not exactly defined this one's terms, but this does not stop this one from continuing to engage people using those terms.

Okay, if this what you personally believe 'about me', personally, the I will leave 'you' to keep trying to 'attack me', 'humiliate me', and/or 'ridicule me'.

Poor mind reading.

As 'you' continually trying to do so is showing and revealing far more 'about the true you: that it is 'about me'.

The choice is yours now "iwannaplato'.

The choices are ours.

But, I have never even thought let alone ever begun to attempt to 'attack you', 'ridicule you', nor 'humiliate you', like 'you' try to do 'to me'.

This is correct those are not the words I would use for the approaches you have to conveying your negative judgments of the people of this time in general, of which I am one or at me in specific, because you are not conscious enough of what you are doing. Attributing them to me is poor mind reading.[/quote]

This one is getting more and more lost and confused as 'we' move along here.

But at least you did not try to claim that you do not try to attack, ridicule, and humiliate me here.

See, 'i' fully understand who and what 'you' are, exactly. So, 'I' would never do these things 'to you' nor 'another' ever.

I understand that your conscious intentions seem wholly positive to you.

Even here you could not be more Wrong and Incorrect.

Just like I do not do 'debate', I also do not do 'negativity', nor do I do 'positivity'.

[Flannel Jesus]

So, you agreed with me that it is you and the way that you communicate here, which is what is causing disagreements and conflicts here, right?

Did you say that?

What is the word 'that' here referring to, exactly?

Humorous that people would ask, in the days that this was written, what the word "that" is referring to exactly.