Apology to the forum

[Age]

I don't even know where to begin to answer that. Can this be answered in a post shorter than 20 pages?

The continuous destruction of most values has pushed us way beyond the optimal degree of liberalism. Societies are degrading, not functioning optimally, mental health is degrading, narcissism is rampant, entitlement is rampant. People who have standards find it difficult to be happy anymore. Shallowness is rewarded. Societes are overcomplicated with multiple cultures mixed together and also there's animosity towards the other cultures within the society.

This is still too vague to be able to understand what you have in mind. Can you cite a couple of specific examples of each of your main points? Seems like that would be really helpful.

Yet you could tell what Gary was talking about, and tell him that he was mistaken, even though he was even vaguer.

Once again, this one will not just 'clarify', but, instead, will 'try to' turn its inability or unwillingness 'onto the other'.

[Atla]

This is still too vague to be able to understand what you have in mind. Can you cite a couple of specific examples of each of your main points? Seems like that would be really helpful.

Yet you could tell what Gary was talking about, and tell him that he was mistaken, even though he was even vaguer.

Once again, this one will not just 'clarify', but, instead, will 'try to' turn its inability or unwillingness 'onto the other'.

Stop whining when someone won't fall for the games you're trying to play.

[Age]

Yet you could tell what Gary was talking about, and tell him that he was mistaken, even though he was even vaguer.

Once again, this one will not just 'clarify', but, instead, will 'try to' turn its inability or unwillingness 'onto the other'.

Stop whining when someone won't fall for the games you're trying to play.

But, I am not 'whining' at all.

I am just pointing out how you, still, will not just 'clarify' your claims and assertions.

And, once again, why you do not is becoming increasingly clear.

[Flannel Jesus]

Once again, this one will not just 'clarify', but, instead, will 'try to' turn its inability or unwillingness 'onto the other'.

Stop whining when someone won't fall for the games you're trying to play.

But, I am not 'whining' at all.

I am just pointing out how you, still, will not just 'clarify' your claims and assertions.

And, once again, why you do not is becoming increasingly clear.

You are whining.

You don't clarify your claims and assertions when asked.

You're full of doodoo.

[Age]

Stop whining when someone won't fall for the games you're trying to play.

But, I am not 'whining' at all.

I am just pointing out how you, still, will not just 'clarify' your claims and assertions.

And, once again, why you do not is becoming increasingly clear.

You are whining.

Okay. If this is what you want to believe is true, then 'this' has to be true, to you anyway.

You don't clarify your claims and assertions when asked.

LOL It was even you who asked to provide 'some arguments' for my claims and assertions. And, it was you who missed them. And, it has been you who has spent what is seeming like an 'eternity' to point you to where they are, exactly.

In fact, it seems like you do not want to 'even 'see' the clarifications I make for my claims and assertions when asked for.

But, this might just be because of your obviously 'currently' held onto 'belief' that, I do not clarify my claims and assertions, when asked.

Even when you asked me to, and I went and did it, you, still, managed to completely and utterly missed them. Even though others 'saw' them and responded to 'them' nearly straight away.

You're full of doodoo.

What is 'doodoo', exactly?

[Iwannaplato]

If we ask you for justification/an argument/support for one of your assertions, you will often say something along the lines of one cannot convince someone of something while they believe in something. (if you think that paraphrase is unfair...who cares? 1) I'm not necessarily writing with you as the target audience and 2) one could discuss that paraphrase for pages with you and find out your version has no difference from it. Just hoops 3) you have a confused sense of people as these binary beings. 'while they believe' they can't change. Well, duh. But beliefs are not binary. One's believe, when being shown evidence, can weaken. One can begin believing X, while still partly believing Y. Arguments, just like your hallucinated proofs, can change someone' mind. So, really, your response, to avoid justifying your assertions, is a red herring. Or in interpersonal terms, a rationalization for avoiding something.)

ON the other hand, you also ask for justification, evidence, proof. You claim/imply that you could be convinced because you only have one belief. IOW there are no beliefs to be overcome. Of course, you would change your mind in face of proof.

Perfect justification for 'do what I say, not what I do.' Complicated mystification of hypocrisy is all this is.

And, of course, when people do follow you down the rabbit hole in explaining their position, or clarifying, or justifying and answering your questions in the process, this is forgotten later

and you can say idiotic things like someone's fear has absolutely debilitated them or is absolutely debilitating, when in fact they have tried doing it your way with you, have done what you claim they simply cannot.

And when they then draw conclusions about the worth of such things and don't do what you want, your psychoanalsis always, coincidently, benefits, your beliefs. They are afraid and that they didn't do it PROVES, they were wrong.

Mind reading and logical fallacy, nicely combined.

[Age]

If we ask you for justification/an argument/support for one of your assertions, you will often say something along the lines of one cannot convince someone of something while they believe in something.

Did "flannel jesus" ask me for 'some arguments'?

If yes, then what happened?

And, coming from 'you' about 'me', allegedly and supposedly, often saying some thing, when you rarely, if ever, clarify when I ask you do, is somewhat very hypocritical, correct?

Not that you will ever answer this clarifying question, also.

Also, ii it an irrefutable Fact that while one is believing some thing is true, then it is an impossibility to convince, and/or proof to, them of some thing contrary, anyway. As has been proved True countless times throughout human history.

And, if absolutely any one would like to challenge me on this, then please so do.

(if you think that paraphrase is unfair...who cares? 1) I'm not necessarily writing with you as the target audience and 2) one could discuss that paraphrase for pages with you and find out your version has no difference from it. Just hoops 3) you have a confused sense of people as these binary beings. 'while they believe' they can't change. Well, duh. But beliefs are not binary. One's believe, when being shown evidence, can weaken. One can begin believing X, while still partly believing Y. Arguments, just like your hallucinated proofs, can change someone' mind. So, really, your response, to avoid justifying your assertions, is a red herring. Or in interpersonal terms, a rationalization for avoiding something.)

There are just way to many Falsities in here for me to even want to start Correctly now.

Also, if you really do Truly believe that I avoid justifying my assertions, then go ahead and pick absolute any one of my assertions, of your choosing, and let 'us' if I really do avoid them, like you say and 'clam' I do here.

And, if you do not pick an assertion of mine, then what are 'we' to take away from this?

your very own 'avoidance' tactics, of your own assertions "iwannaplato"?

Or, something else?

Again, not that you will respond and clarify. Because if you did, you know that you would only end up coming across hypocritical, and contradictory.

ON the other hand, you also ask for justification, evidence, proof.

Once again, you are Wrong here.

I have never ever asked for 'evidence'. Which would be plainly obvious if one had just taken 'the time' to read, comprehend, and understand what I have actually written, said, and meant here.

You claim/imply that you could be convinced because you only have one belief

Once more, you are Wrong here.

It is like just about every other sentence you are Wrong in regards to 'my words' and 'to me'.

I have never ever claimed I could be 'convinced'. Full stop.

Again, if you had taken 'the time' to actually, read, comprehend, and understand what I have actually written, said, and meant in this forum, then you would already 'know' my views on 'convincing' and on 'evidence'.

Once again, you really do miss a lot of what I say, and actually mean, here.

. IOW there are no beliefs to be overcome. Of course, you would change your mind in face of proof.

Once again, you are Wrong here.

And, once more, if you had, actually, taken 'the time' to actually, read, comprehend, and understand what I have actually written, said, and meant in this forum, then you would already 'know' my views on the words 'your mind'. And, if you, still, do not, then really?

Perfect justification for 'do what I say, not what I do.' Complicated mystification of hypocrisy is all this is.

Talk about one baffling "itself", to 'no end'.

[ThinkOfOne]

I don't even know where to begin to answer that. Can this be answered in a post shorter than 20 pages?

The continuous destruction of most values has pushed us way beyond the optimal degree of liberalism. Societies are degrading, not functioning optimally, mental health is degrading, narcissism is rampant, entitlement is rampant. People who have standards find it difficult to be happy anymore. Shallowness is rewarded. Societes are overcomplicated with multiple cultures mixed together and also there's animosity towards the other cultures within the society.

This is still too vague to be able to understand what you have in mind. Can you cite a couple of specific examples of each of your main points? Seems like that would be really helpful.

Yet you could tell what Gary was talking about, and tell him that he was mistaken, even though he was even vaguer.

Over time, I've read enough of Gary's posts to understand his POV in general. That is not the case for your posts. It's not as if you're being asked to write "20 pages". Just a couple of specific examples of each of your main points.

[Atla]

This is still too vague to be able to understand what you have in mind. Can you cite a couple of specific examples of each of your main points? Seems like that would be really helpful.

Yet you could tell what Gary was talking about, and tell him that he was mistaken, even though he was even vaguer.

Over time, I've read enough of Gary's posts to understand his POV in general. That is not the case for your posts. It's not as if you're being asked to write "20 pages". Just a couple of specific examples of each of your main points.

That's too much for me, pick a point.

[Flannel Jesus]

This is still too vague to be able to understand what you have in mind. Can you cite a couple of specific examples of each of your main points? Seems like that would be really helpful.

Yet you could tell what Gary was talking about, and tell him that he was mistaken, even though he was even vaguer.

Once again, this one will not just 'clarify', but, instead, will 'try to' turn its inability or unwillingness 'onto the other'.

He's just like you!

[ThinkOfOne]

Yet you could tell what Gary was talking about, and tell him that he was mistaken, even though he was even vaguer.

Over time, I've read enough of Gary's posts to understand his POV in general. That is not the case for your posts. It's not as if you're being asked to write "20 pages". Just a couple of specific examples of each of your main points.

That's too much for me, pick a point.

Thought that you might be able to articulate what you have in mind. Perhaps even be able to make a well-reasoned case for it. Evidently that's "too much for [you]". Having had spot-checked some of your recent posts, this doesn't come as a complete surprise. Some can do no better than parrot things they've heard or read.

[Atla]

Over time, I've read enough of Gary's posts to understand his POV in general. That is not the case for your posts. It's not as if you're being asked to write "20 pages". Just a couple of specific examples of each of your main points.

That's too much for me, pick a point.

Thought that you might be able to articulate what you have in mind. Perhaps even be able to make a well-reasoned case for it. Evidently that's "too much for [you]". Having had spot-checked some of your recent posts, this doesn't come as a complete surprise. Some can do no better than parrot things they've heard or read.

The topic is too big (wonder why you don't know this). I repeat, pick an aspect I listed, and I'll try to explain why I think that in the context of that aspect, the line should be drawn somewhere and why I think we are already beyond that line. And then you can explain why you disagree.

[Iwannaplato]

If we ask you for justification/an argument/support for one of your assertions, you will often say something along the lines of one cannot convince someone of something while they believe in something.

Did "flannel jesus" ask me for 'some arguments'?

If yes, then what happened?

I believe I already told you what I thought happened.

And, coming from 'you' about 'me', allegedly and supposedly, often saying some thing, when you rarely, if ever, clarify when I ask you do, is somewhat very hypocritical, correct?

No. 1) I have clarified things with you and still do on occasion, but my experiences of what happens when I do clarify things has been unpleasant. And I have detailed why with examples in the past. 2) It's not the same thing. Am I telling you you should clarify? No. What I was saying that when you did what he asked, it wasn't in a direct response to his post. So, he gets no notification. If I was wrong about that fine. But I did not just enter and say you damn well should clarify or the like. So, you're mixing issues.

Not that you will ever answer this clarifying question, also.

Just did. Incorrect belief on your part.

Also, ii it an irrefutable Fact that while one is believing some thing is true, then it is an impossibility to convince, and/or proof to, them of some thing contrary, anyway. As has been proved True countless times throughout human history.

And, if absolutely any one would like to challenge me on this, then please so do.

I already did. And in fact have done it before. Not that that truism is refutable, but that it is irrelevant. It is framing the situation in an unreal way.

Enough on this issue.

[ThinkOfOne]

That's too much for me, pick a point.

Thought that you might be able to articulate what you have in mind. Perhaps even be able to make a well-reasoned case for it. Evidently that's "too much for [you]". Having had spot-checked some of your recent posts, this doesn't come as a complete surprise. Some can do no better than parrot things they've heard or read.

The topic is too big (wonder why you don't know this). I repeat, pick an aspect I listed, and I'll try to explain why I think that in the context of that aspect, the line should be drawn somewhere and why I think we are already beyond that line. And then you can explain why you disagree.

Quite frankly, anyone having a solid understanding of this topic and reasonably good writing skills should be able to succinctly articulate what they have in mind. Evidently you are unable to do so. Like I wrote earlier, it doesn't come as a complete surprise having spot-checked some of your posts. NONE seemed to have much in the way of substance.

[Flannel Jesus]

Good news, you're wrong once again. Liberty, fraternity, equality, toleration are indeed good, but in moderation, within reasonable constraints. The line must always be drawn. But what is happening nowadays in the world is just madness.

But what is happening nowadays in the world is just madness.

What do you have in mind when you say "madness"?

I don't even know where to begin to answer that. Can this be answered in a post shorter than 20 pages?

The continuous destruction of most values has pushed us way beyond the optimal degree of liberalism. Societies are degrading, not functioning optimally, mental health is degrading, narcissism is rampant, entitlement is rampant. People who have standards find it difficult to be happy anymore. Shallowness is rewarded. Societes are overcomplicated with multiple cultures mixed together and also there's animosity towards the other cultures within the society.

The kind of thing he's looking for, Atla, and what I would be looking for if I was interested in your thoughts here, is

"The continuous destruction of most values" - what values?

"Mental health is degrading" - evidence?

"narcissism is rampant, entitlement is rampant" - evidence? I mean you're probably right, but if I wanted to know what you're thinking about it, like that guy you're talking to, I'd like to know why you think this is the case.

"People who have standards find it difficult to be happy anymore" - evidence?

"Shallowness is rewarded" - do you have examples?

I think he's right, you've kind of just thrown a bunch of big broad ideas out there, but they're too open to interpretation. Two entirely different people could agree that values have been destroyed, but think the exact opposite about which values are destroyed - you're saying stuff so broadly that anybody with just about any set of beliefs could agree with it. Like a horoscope. It's a choose-your-own-adventure set of statements - however you want it to be true, that's how it's true!

If I was curious what you think about this, I'd want you to move it away from the horoscope nature and get specific too, it's a reasonable request.