Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

[Age]

So, let's look at this again:

Because so-called "writers", or you 'human beings' if you like, are not worthy of capital letters, at the beginning of individual names, or labels.

you human beings have just done this, mostly unconsciously, because you consider "yourselves" above all other animals, creatures, and things. When obviously you are not.

Age hallucinates a pattern in humans, universalizes it to cover all humans/humans in general, and based on this hallucination psychoanalyzes them.

While you continue to believe this is true, then, obviously, to you this will be, absolutely, true, and you will not see anything else. (Even though you believe otherwise.)

Perhaps someone will feel shame over nothing.

Why would you even begin to start thinking and assuming some thing like this?

Are you under some sort of belief or presumption that 'shame' has any thing at all to do with absolutely any thing that I have written or will write here?

Why call it hallucination? Because when humans do have names for animals, for example, they capitalize the names.

Is that the 'personal' names that you person's/human being's give to non human animals, which some might see as anthropomorphism, itself?

Even scientists, not just pet owners, when studying animals give them names and in notes capitalize the names.

Okay.

Why did you here write, 'even scientists', like so-called "scientists" are 'more than', 'better than', or 'know more than' others, like for example, so-called "pet owners"?

If I talk about a man or a zebra, I capitalize neither. Likewise 'friends' is not capitalized and so on.

Do you 'know' why 'you' do that?

And there are many, many people who do the same thing. Of course we tend not to write letters to animals, most communication is oral or even non-verbal.

He gets to tell us we are not worthy of capital letters.

you appear to say and write this like you believe that you human beings are worthy of a capital letter, above other things.

Is this correct?

Nice.

you also appear to feel and get upset when you are not put above other things, and are referred to as just being on the exact same level as all other things and its in the Universe, like you Truly are.

Clearly someone who has the secret of reducing conflict and bringing peace and harmony to the world.

Why do you resort back down to 'sarcasm'?

Do 'you' believe that 'I' could not possibly already know what you call 'the secret' 'of reducing conflict and bringing about peace and harmony to 'the world'?

[Iwannaplato]

But, this, 'Nature is constrained with civilization', saying

1) that's not a saying
2) I didn't say that and it's not remotely an equivalent to what I said.

is what has led some of you human beings to think or believe that you or what you do is above, beyond, or apart from 'Nature', Itself.

You have a habit of responding to individuals as if what 'some group' might do is relevant. This is a way to confuse a discussion and make deniable accusations. It's a rude habit and it's also one that leads to discussion bogging down.

In any case, this has nothing to do with me.

I was referring to the people who have access to those portions of nature where one can find food without depending on farming.

Is there some thing wrong with farming?

The issue was whether you should given your views think there is. But you stopped exploring openly, so it now seem we won't find out.

And then they have the skills and level of health to forage, hunt, etc. to get enough food to live.

Why do you think or believe that human beings need to hunt food, to live and survive?

I don't. And if you actually read with any care, what I wrote in the last few posts makes this clear. A false belief on your part is presented in that question. And note, even questions can present assertions. Why do you rape? includes an assertion, an assumed position on the truth value of something.

Does doing this mean that one makes choices that lead to the deaths of many animals in order for one to survive one is considering oneself above those animals?

It is this, exact, way and type of questioning that led to a great deal of opposition and conflict, in 'the world', back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

So, you will not answer, despite the importance of the issues.

The answer to your question' here is, 'No'. But, in relation to 'what', exactly, you might completely and utterly misinterpret.

How does making choices that end up killing many animals in order for you to survive not part of considering yourself above those animals? By your response you can help us all avoid misinterpretations.

[Iwannaplato]

While you continue to believe this is true, then, obviously, to you this will be, absolutely, true, and you will not see anything else. (Even though you believe otherwise.)

Just as your beliefs about humans and capital letters will continue to be true as long as you keep those beliefs. A non-statement, non-response, truism. Mystification.

Perhaps someone will feel shame over nothing.

Why would you even begin to start thinking and assuming some thing like this?

Are you under some sort of belief or presumption that 'shame' has any thing at all to do with absolutely any thing that I have written or will write here?

Has something to do with what you've written, sure, that's obvious. That you may not know what you are doing, I do regularly consider.

Why call it hallucination? Because when humans do have names for animals, for example, they capitalize the names.

Is that the 'personal' names that you person's/human being's give to non human animals, which some might see as anthropomorphism, itself?

And given your beliefs of course you immediately respond with the least charitable interpretation. 'some might see'. Can't speak for yourself?

In any case, if you have no experience with people who give names to animals and understand that non-human animals are not the same and human animals, I can only feel sorry for you upon hearing that.

Even scientists, not just pet owners, when studying animals give them names and in notes capitalize the names.

Okay.

Why did you here write, 'even scientists', like so-called "scientists" are 'more than', 'better than', or 'know more than' others, like for example, so-called "pet owners"?

LOL. Quite the opposite. Even they do this. Despite them often having had shortcomings treating the things and life forms they study with respect, they give them names and capitalize the first letters of their names.

Quite the opposite of your weird assumption.

And there are many, many people who do the same thing. Of course we tend not to write letters to animals, most communication is oral or even non-verbal.

He gets to tell us we are not worthy of capital letters.

you appear to say and write this like you believe that you human beings are worthy of a capital letter, above other things.

No, I don't appear that way.

I notice the continued inability on your part to concede an error about anything beyond typos. To the degree that you don't even address the issue or point I raised.

And it is you not I who have used the lower/higher dichotomy and described not wanting to lower yourself to where human beings are. It is you who consider yourself above human beings. Irony.

And of course you can't see how that language of yours is metaphorical either.

you also appear to feel and get upset when you are not put above other things, and are referred to as just being on the exact same level as all other things and its in the Universe, like you Truly are.

I pointed out that you were incorrect.
If one points out that you have factual errors and based your psychoanalysis of human beings based on a falsehood, this confirms for you the falsehood. That's a clever way to avoid conceding something.

Clearly someone who has the secret of reducing conflict and bringing peace and harmony to the world.

Why do you resort back down to 'sarcasm'?

Why did you resort to making stuff up about humans and universalizing it?

A complete non-response. You made up a way to judge humans.

[Age]

But, this, 'Nature is constrained with civilization', saying

1) that's not a saying
2) I didn't say that and it's not remotely an equivalent to what I said.

What I meant to write was;
But, the word, nature, is contrasted with civilization', ...

Is this closer to being an equivalent to what you said?

is what has led some of you human beings to think or believe that you or what you do is above, beyond, or apart from 'Nature', Itself.

You have a habit of responding to individuals as if what 'some group' might do is relevant.

Okay.

This is a way to confuse a discussion and make deniable accusations.

Is this the 'only reason', to you?

It's a rude habit and it's also one that leads to discussion bogging down.

Why, where was this discussion meant to be heading, exactly?

In any case, this has nothing to do with me.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

I was referring to the people who have access to those portions of nature where one can find food without depending on farming.

Is there some thing wrong with farming?

The issue was whether you should given your views think there is. But you stopped exploring openly, so it now seem we won't find out.

Well when you use words like 'should', especially in relation to me, then there is nothing further to discuss.

And then they have the skills and level of health to forage, hunt, etc. to get enough food to live.

Why do you think or believe that human beings need to hunt food, to live and survive?

I don't. And if you actually read with any care, what I wrote in the last few posts makes this clear. A false belief on your part is presented in that question.

So, why did you use the word 'hunt' in your quoted statement here.

And note, even questions can present assertions.

This is plainly obvious and can be clearly seen throughout this forum, and within your questions here.

Why do you rape? includes an assertion, an assumed position on the truth value of something.

Okay.

Also, why do you, still, believe that I believe what you said and claimed I did here?

Does doing this mean that one makes choices that lead to the deaths of many animals in order for one to survive one is considering oneself above those animals?

It is this, exact, way and type of questioning that led to a great deal of opposition and conflict, in 'the world', back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

So, you will not answer, despite the importance of the issues.

The answer to your question' here is, 'No'. But, in relation to 'what', exactly, you might completely and utterly misinterpret.

How does making choices that end up killing many animals in order for you to survive not part of considering yourself above those animals?

Again, it is this, exactly way and type of questioning, which led to a great deal of opposition and conflict, in 'the world', back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

By your response you can help us all avoid misinterpretations.

And, by just changing the way you question can help, tremendously, in you, people, avoiding misinterpretations, and gaining understanding.

[Age]

While you continue to believe this is true, then, obviously, to you this will be, absolutely, true, and you will not see anything else. (Even though you believe otherwise.)

Just as your beliefs about humans and capital letters will continue to be true as long as you keep those beliefs. A non-statement, non-response, truism. Mystification.

Why do you, still, believe that I believe such a thing as this here

Perhaps someone will feel shame over nothing.

Why would you even begin to start thinking and assuming some thing like this?

Are you under some sort of belief or presumption that 'shame' has any thing at all to do with absolutely any thing that I have written or will write here?

Has something to do with what you've written, sure, that's obvious. [/quote]

Will you provide what that some thing is, exactly, that I have, supposedly, written, which has, supposedly, led you to such a conclusion?

If no, then why not?

That you may not know what you are doing, I do regularly consider.

Do you also consider that I may know, exactly, what I am doing, and actually achieving here, as well?

If no, then why not?

Why call it hallucination? Because when humans do have names for animals, for example, they capitalize the names.

Is that the 'personal' names that you person's/human being's give to non human animals, which some might see as anthropomorphism, itself?

And given your beliefs of course you immediately respond with the least charitable interpretation. 'some might see'. Can't speak for yourself?

Are you aware that you people, back when this was being written, continually 'see' things that are not there because of your 'currently' held beliefs?

In any case, if you have no experience with people who give names to animals and understand that non-human animals are not the same and human animals, I can only feel sorry for you upon hearing that.

Do you 'see' "yourself" as being better or more than other animals?

If yes, then how, why, and in what way, exactly?

But, if no, then what, exactly, do you believe is 'the difference' between you and all of the other animals?

Even scientists, not just pet owners, when studying animals give them names and in notes capitalize the names.

Okay.

Why did you here write, 'even scientists', like so-called "scientists" are 'more than', 'better than', or 'know more than' others, like for example, so-called "pet owners"?

LOL. Quite the opposite. Even they do this. Despite them often having had shortcomings treating the things and life forms they study with respect, they give them names and capitalize the first letters of their names.

Obviously, you have, again, achieved to have completely and utterly missed and/or misunderstood me here, once more.

Quite the opposite of your weird assumption.

What do you even imagine and assume is my so-called 'weird assumption' here, exactly?

And there are many, many people who do the same thing. Of course we tend not to write letters to animals, most communication is oral or even non-verbal.

He gets to tell us we are not worthy of capital letters.

you appear to say and write this like you believe that you human beings are worthy of a capital letter, above other things.

No, I don't appear that way.

LOL

Once again, you completely and utterly write 'backwards' here.

I notice the continued inability on your part to concede an error about anything beyond typos.

LOL

1. I have never ever used the 'typo' excuse here, like you adult human beings do. Unless, of course, you can show and prove otherwise.

2. And, you, once again, keep missing all of the times I have conceded my errors because you believe that I do not.

To the degree that you don't even address the issue or point I raised.

Maybe because you do not stay focused on the actual issues nor points that I have been raising and addressing, here.

A great deal of the issues or points that you raise, in replies to me, has not much or nothing at all to do with what I have actually been actually talking about and meaning. And, again, if you just sought out and obtained actual clarity first, before you made assumptions, and jumped to conclusions, then you would stay with what I am actually saying, and meaning.

And it is you not I who have used the lower/higher dichotomy and described not wanting to lower yourself to where human beings are. It is you who consider yourself above human beings. Irony.

When 'you' are, also, able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly, and Correctly, then 'you' will be closer to 'knowing' how to understand what has been written, said, and meant here, much, much better.

And of course you can't see how that language of yours is metaphorical either.

Which would, conversely, mean that 'you' cannot, yet, 'see' how the language I use is literal, neither.

Or, more to the point, this one here is proving, once again, of how while one is 'believing' some thing, then they are not actually capable of 'see' any thing contrary.

you also appear to feel and get upset when you are not put above other things, and are referred to as just being on the exact same level as all other things and its in the Universe, like you Truly are.

I pointed out that you were incorrect.

Where, when, how, and why, exactly?

And, why do you keep alluding to things, without being specific?

Also, if I am, supposedly, 'incorrect' here, then why do you believe that you are above, or better, than other things, and, how, exactly, do you believe that you are above, or better, than other things.

If one points out that you have factual errors and based your psychoanalysis of human beings based on a falsehood, this confirms for you the falsehood. That's a clever way to avoid conceding something.

LOL When you 'point out' that I have, supposedly, factual errors, then what you usually do is just say things like;
'I pointed out that you were incorrect', without ever actually 'pointing out' where, when, nor how I was, actually, incorrect.

LOL you more or less just say and write, 'you are incorrect'. And, absolutely laughably, you believe that 'this' is all that is needed.

Clearly someone who has the secret of reducing conflict and bringing peace and harmony to the world.

Why do you resort back down to 'sarcasm'?

Why did you resort to making stuff up about humans and universalizing it?[/quote]

But, I have not. Why do you, again, just say and write things like;
'You made stuff about human beings', without ever being specific what it is, supposedly, in regards to, exactly?

And, without ever having an 'actual discussion'.

Once again, while you keep believing that your own made up presumptions are true, then you will never 'see' what the actual Truth of things is, exactly.

A complete non-response. You made up a way to judge humans.

Okay.

So, 'now', it is, supposedly, 'I' who has 'made up' 'a way' to 'judge' 'you', humans.

[Iwannaplato]

What I meant to write was;
But, the word, nature, is contrasted with civilization', ...

Is this closer to being an equivalent to what you said?

Yes.

is what has led some of you human beings to think or believe that you or what you do is above, beyond, or apart from 'Nature', Itself.

You have a habit of responding to individuals as if what 'some group' might do is relevant.

Okay.

It's actually often not Okay when you do this. Language is not modular. Context affects meaning and very strongly. If someone says something and I respond: some terrorists are very impatient - it's not simply an assertion in midair alone. It implies things. We can assert things without the content being directly in the sentence. If it's relevant to our interaction and perhaps me, than include it and make this clear. If it's not relevant to our interaction, then it should be left out.

This is a way to confuse a discussion and make deniable accusations.

Is this the 'only reason', to you?

It was the important, relevant one that I wanted highlight.

Why, where was this discussion meant to be heading, exactly?

I didn't know and don't know. One can notice something getting bogged down without knowing where the motion was going to take one.

If you say and believe so, then okay.

I don't know if you realize 'If you say so....' conveys skepticism in English at the time this is being written. If we take it literally, then it is a confused sense of causation.

I was referring to the people who have access to those portions of nature where one can find food without depending on farming.

Is there some thing wrong with farming?

The issue was whether you should given your views think there is. But you stopped exploring openly, so it now seem we won't find out.

Well when you use words like 'should', especially in relation to me, then there is nothing further to discuss.

It's really odd you say this since it seems like you go on discussing below. But I'm not sure yet. Let me continue reading and see.

And then they have the skills and level of health to forage, hunt, etc. to get enough food to live.

Why do you think or believe that human beings need to hunt food, to live and survive?

I don't. And if you actually read with any care, what I wrote in the last few posts makes this clear. A false belief on your part is presented in that question.

So, why did you use the word 'hunt' in your quoted statement here.

It's a possible way to get sustenance.

And note, even questions can present assertions.

This is plainly obvious and can be clearly seen throughout this forum, and within your questions here.

My questions are included. So, you're question had a false and wrong assertion in it.

Why do you rape? includes an assertion, an assumed position on the truth value of something.

So, you will not answer, despite the importance of the issues. [/quote]

The answer to your question' here is, 'No'. But, in relation to 'what', exactly, you might completely and utterly misinterpret.

How does making choices that end up killing many animals in order for you to survive not part of considering yourself above those animals? [/quote]

Again, it is this, exactly way and type of questioning, which led to a great deal of opposition and conflict, in 'the world', back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

OK, you don't want to answer. I understand.

It seemed like the discussion continued.

[Iwannaplato]

Why do you, still, believe that I believe such a thing as this here

The quote of yours.

Perhaps someone will feel shame over nothing.

Will you provide what that some thing is, exactly, that I have, supposedly, written, which has, supposedly, led you to such a conclusion?

I already have.

Do you also consider that I may know, exactly, what I am doing, and actually achieving here, as well?

Yes, I have, but that is the vastly less charitable interpretation.

Are you aware that you people, back when this was being written, continually 'see' things that are not there because of your 'currently' held beliefs?

Sure, that happens. I notice it in you, for example. In fact that is precisely what I was focused on here. Other people do it also, myself included. Right now I was focusing on how your beliefs about humans led to the ridiculous psychoanalysis of us using capital letters for our names and supposedly not for animals.

Do you 'see' "yourself" as being better or more than other animals?

If yes, then how, why, and in what way, exactly?

Hey, if don't want to respond to what I pointed out about your incorrect assertions and the psychoanalysis based on it, peachy. But I'm not interested in jumping to something else.

Even scientists, not just pet owners, when studying animals give them names and in notes capitalize the names.

Okay.

Why did you here write, 'even scientists', like so-called "scientists" are 'more than', 'better than', or 'know more than' others, like for example, so-called "pet owners"?

LOL. Quite the opposite. Even they do this. Despite them often having had shortcomings treating the things and life forms they study with respect, they give them names and capitalize the first letters of their names.

Obviously, you have, again, achieved to have completely and utterly missed and/or misunderstood me here, once more.

Nope, it had nothing to them being more than and better than. If you communicated terribly, it's possible then that I misunderstood.

Quite the opposite of your weird assumption.

What do you even imagine and assume is my so-called 'weird assumption' here, exactly?

That I was seeing scientists as more than and better than.

And there are many, many people who do the same thing. Of course we tend not to write letters to animals, most communication is oral or even non-verbal.

He gets to tell us we are not worthy of capital letters.

you appear to say and write this like you believe that you human beings are worthy of a capital letter, above other things.

No, I don't appear that way.

LOL

Once again, you completely and utterly write 'backwards' here.

If you say so, then perhaps you think so.

I notice the continued inability on your part to concede an error about anything beyond typos.

LOL

1. I have never ever used the 'typo' excuse here, like you adult human beings do. Unless, of course, you can show and prove otherwise.

I never thought you did. I have noticed you admit to quoting incorrectly and to typos. You can make an issue out of anything it seems.

2. And, you, once again, keep missing all of the times I have conceded my errors because you believe that I do not.

Errors, sure. On your beliefs, no, I haven't seen it, even in the face of clear evidence. Heck, you can't even admit you have beliefs. You have to call them views, to get around the obvious.

To the degree that you don't even address the issue or point I raised.

Maybe because you do not stay focused on the actual issues nor points that I have been raising and addressing, here.

I love it. You can't even assert the justification. Maybe that's why. It's these quasi responses that don't even take a stand that string out these processes unnecessarily.

A great deal of the issues or points that you raise, in replies to me, has not much or nothing at all to do with what I have actually been actually talking about and meaning.

And, it seems, never to do with your own, then, confused use of language. It is always other people's responsibility.

You wrote about human beings and their capitalizing the first letter of their names in the context of what they supposedly don't do in relation to animals. This was an incorrect assertion on your part You can't admit this or even address the point I raised. You won't even address the point I raised.

Instead, here, you now just make a generalized denial. What I said has nothing to do with what you are actually talking about - despite the quote. No explanation of what you actually meant.

And, again, if you just sought out and obtained actual clarity first, before you made assumptions, and jumped to conclusions, then you would stay with what I am actually saying, and meaning.

As if I haven't tried that and been told I should just know: absolute. As if many times I have tried this I did not end up being handed responsibility to explain all sorts of things before you could answer. In other words, as if you don't keep, even when you get clarifying questions, putting most of the onus of explanation on the other person. As if you haven't told me how to phrase a question and when I phrase it the way you have asked me, you have then told me you can't or won't answer it now.

As if there were not other ways human beings, those you consider lower than you, navigate communication more elegantly and effectively often, than you do. If you think this means I don't notice problems with human communication, not much I can to about that.

You instill little trust that doing things your way leads anywhere. If you have found people who do trust you, great. If not, perhaps you have something to learn rather than blaming others.

Or, more to the point, this one here is proving, once again, of how while one is 'believing' some thing, then they are not actually capable of 'see' any thing contrary.

Yes, you are proving that about yourself.

Where, when, how, and why, exactly?

And, why do you keep alluding to things, without being specific?

Great strategy. You don't respond directly to points made. Then later when this is pointed out, you ask for the person to repeat points they already made. If they don't repeat what they have already said but refer to it, you say there are alluding to things and not being specific, despite they're having been specific earlier in the discussion. This is obvious to the reader, but I really do wonder if you have short-term to long-term memory transfer problems. Or it's a lack of care. But in any case I'm no longer going to cater to what you can't remember about your own posts or what I write.

Also, if I am, supposedly, 'incorrect' here, then why do you believe that you are above, or better, than other things, and, how, exactly, do you believe that you are above, or better, than other things.

That makes absolutely no sense.

LOL When you 'point out' that I have, supposedly, factual errors, then what you usually do is just say things like;
'I pointed out that you were incorrect', without ever actually 'pointing out' where, when, nor how I was, actually, incorrect.

I did that after the quote. I was specific in what way it was incorrect and gave counterevidence to your false claim.

If this was an early interaction with you, Age, I go back and do it again for you. Because I'd have some trust that this would take the conversation one step along.

But that is not my experience with you. I have no trust for you on such things.

LOL you more or less just say and write, 'you are incorrect'. And, absolutely laughably, you believe that 'this' is all that is needed.

Nope, just refusing to repeat myself and represent the same arguments and evidence that you opted not to respond to.

But that's convenient story you made up. If it soothes you, perhaps that the best thing for you.

[Age]

What I meant to write was;
But, the word, nature, is contrasted with civilization', ...

Is this closer to being an equivalent to what you said?

Yes.

is what has led some of you human beings to think or believe that you or what you do is above, beyond, or apart from 'Nature', Itself.

You have a habit of responding to individuals as if what 'some group' might do is relevant.

Okay.

It's actually often not Okay when you do this.

It is, supposedly, actually often 'not okay' with who and/or what, exactly?

Language is not modular.

Okay, but this could be interpreted as being contradictory to what you have previously said here.

Context affects meaning and very strongly.

Okay.

If someone says something and I respond: some terrorists are very impatient - it's not simply an assertion in midair alone.

Yes, I agree that some of the "american forces/terrorists" are very impatient.

It implies things.

Okay.

We can assert things without the content being directly in the sentence.

Okay.

If it's relevant to our interaction and perhaps me, than include it and make this clear.

But, how do 'I' know what is 'relevant' to 'you'? And, also obviously what you might see as 'relevant' to 'our interaction' I might not, and vice-versa.

If it's not relevant to our interaction, then it should be left out.

Like, for example, a lot of this post of yours here, and, come to think of it, like a lot of your posts 'about me' here?

This is a way to confuse a discussion and make deniable accusations.

Is this the 'only reason', to you?

It was the important, relevant one that I wanted highlight.

Even though it could be completely and utterly False and Wrong, right?

And, by the way, it was not relevant to our previous interaction.

So, should it have been left out?

Why, where was this discussion meant to be heading, exactly?

I didn't know and don't know. One can notice something getting bogged down without knowing where the motion was going to take one.

Like, for example, right here, and, right now?

If you say and believe so, then okay.

I don't know if you realize 'If you say so....' conveys skepticism in English at the time this is being written. If we take it literally, then it is a confused sense of causation.

Why? What, exactly, is confusing you here?

I was referring to the people who have access to those portions of nature where one can find food without depending on farming.

Is there some thing wrong with farming?

The issue was whether you should given your views think there is. But you stopped exploring openly, so it now seem we won't find out.

Well when you use words like 'should', especially in relation to me, then there is nothing further to discuss.

It's really odd you say this since it seems like you go on discussing below. But I'm not sure yet. Let me continue reading and see.

And then they have the skills and level of health to forage, hunt, etc. to get enough food to live.

Why do you think or believe that human beings need to hunt food, to live and survive?

I don't. And if you actually read with any care, what I wrote in the last few posts makes this clear. A false belief on your part is presented in that question.

So, why did you use the word 'hunt' in your quoted statement here.

It's a possible way to get sustenance.

The words, 'to get enough food to live', could be interpreted as 'a necessary way', in relation to what you wrote and mentioned. But, if you meant those words only in the sense of 'a possible way', then okay.

And note, even questions can present assertions.

This is plainly obvious and can be clearly seen throughout this forum, and within your questions here.

My questions are included. So, you're question had a false and wrong assertion in it.

What or which question of mine are you referring to here, exactly?

And, are you absolutely sure you are what is called an "english teacher"?

Why do you rape? includes an assertion, an assumed position on the truth value of something.

So, you will not answer, despite the importance of the issues.

The answer to your question' here is, 'No'. But, in relation to 'what', exactly, you might completely and utterly misinterpret.

How does making choices that end up killing many animals in order for you to survive not part of considering yourself above those animals?

Again, it is this, exactly way and type of questioning, which led to a great deal of opposition and conflict, in 'the world', back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

OK, you don't want to answer. I understand.[/quote]

LOL
LOL
LOL

Even when I use and write the words:
'The answer to your question here is, ...

you, still, manage to miss it, completely.

It seemed like the discussion continued.

Okay.

Did you notice what part/s of a discussion ends, and what part/s continue, when you use the 'should' word in relation to 'me'?

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, but this could be interpreted as being contradictory to what you have previously said here.

Great idea. We'll have a discussion about how it could be interpreted. We won't take a next step based on how you interpret it. We won't see in this response the reasons you think it could be interpreted that way.

The next step you thought to take was to tell me how something could be interpreted. No mention of how you see this being possible. No mention of whether you even do interpret it that way.

I don't know your intent, but what it does is stretch out the process.

A great use of the passive voice.

And lo, we can just play tennis with 'this could be interpreted as.....' 'Ah well, you saying that it could be interpreted as X, could be interpreted as ......' Two non-perspectives not saying anything.

A single instance of this kind of thing wouldn't mean much, but so much of how you communicate is like this.

[Walker]

soon exhaling will be a crime against the planet

believe the environmentalist's lies

-Imp

Moral superiority through superior consumption.

[Age]

Why do you, still, believe that I believe such a thing as this here

The quote of yours.

Even though I have told you what the actual Truth is?

Are you, still, not yet aware what the actual Truth is here?

Perhaps someone will feel shame over nothing.

Will you provide what that some thing is, exactly, that I have, supposedly, written, which has, supposedly, led you to such a conclusion?

I already have.

Once again, instead of just doing it, you make the claim that it exists, but provide no actual proof of, at all.

Do you also consider that I may know, exactly, what I am doing, and actually achieving here, as well?

Yes, I have, but that is the vastly less charitable interpretation.

And, on what sort of authority have 'you' 'given' "yourself" to even be able to 'give charity' here?

Are you aware that you people, back when this was being written, continually 'see' things that are not there because of your 'currently' held beliefs?

Sure, that happens.

Great, could this actually be happening and occurring to 'you', here?

Or, is this not a possibility in 'your world', and 'perspective'?

I notice it in you, for example.

LOL

So, 'you', supposedly and allegedly, notice some thing 'in me' even considering what you have been informed of and told about.

Now, here is a prime example of, exactly, what I was just talking about and referring to here.

In fact that is precisely what I was focused on here.

Well considering that what you 'precisely focus on here' is an absolute impossibility, that 'you' continue to notice and 'see' things, which not just do not exist, but could not possibly exist, proves my point about how often you, people, back when this was being written, would 'see' things, or would 'not see' things, because of your 'currently' held onto beliefs.

Other people do it also, myself included.

I 'know'. This is very obvious, and can be clearly seen throughout your writings, here.

Right now I was focusing on how your beliefs about humans led to the ridiculous psychoanalysis of us using capital letters for our names and supposedly not for animals.

But, it was only 'you' who brought this up.

Also, you have, once again, completely and utterly missed what is absolutely glaringly obvious to 'us' here.

Do you 'see' "yourself" as being better or more than other animals?

If yes, then how, why, and in what way, exactly?

Hey, if don't want to respond to what I pointed out about your incorrect assertions and the psychoanalysis based on it, peachy.

See how this one, continually, tries to deflect, and to deceive, here. Again, this is a prime example of what the word 'devil' is and was referring to, exactly, in the bible.

Also, and again, just because you 'see' and/or say that I am incorrect, does not necessarily mean that I am, at all.

Only if, and when, you are more specific, provide actual clarity, and then 'we' have a Truly fully open and honest discussion, then, and only then, will your claim about 'my assertions' being 'incorrect' will either come-to-light, or not.

After all, I could also, like you, just say;

'your assertions are incorrect', and, 'you do not want to respond to what I pointed out about your incorrect assertions'.

Now, if you are brave enough and willing to provide what is, supposedly, 'my, actual, assertion', which you say and claim is incorrect, exactly how 'you see' it, here, then 'we' will have some thing to 'look at' and 'discuss'. But, from what I have gathered so far, you do not even have 'my assertion', itself, 'correct', So, just maybe, it is 'your own interpretation' of 'my assertion', which is what is actually 'incorrect' here.

But I'm not interested in jumping to something else.

Even though you keep 'jumping to' other things.

Even scientists, not just pet owners, when studying animals give them names and in notes capitalize the names.

Okay.

Why did you here write, 'even scientists', like so-called "scientists" are 'more than', 'better than', or 'know more than' others, like for example, so-called "pet owners"?

LOL. Quite the opposite. Even they do this. Despite them often having had shortcomings treating the things and life forms they study with respect, they give them names and capitalize the first letters of their names.

Obviously, you have, again, achieved to have completely and utterly missed and/or misunderstood me here, once more.

Nope, it had nothing to them being more than and better than. If you communicated terribly, it's possible then that I misunderstood.

Once again, it is 'me' who is 'the one' who 'communicates terribly' here.

Quite the opposite of your weird assumption.

What do you even imagine and assume is my so-called 'weird assumption' here, exactly?

That I was seeing scientists as more than and better than.

But, I never 'saw' what you just said and claimed I did, here.

you are, consistently, 'seeing' things here, which are not, and, again, because of your continual assumptions, and beliefs, here.

Also, you are, consistently, 'missing', or 'not seeing', things here, as well, for the exact same reason.

And there are many, many people who do the same thing. Of course we tend not to write letters to animals, most communication is oral or even non-verbal.

He gets to tell us we are not worthy of capital letters.

you appear to say and write this like you believe that you human beings are worthy of a capital letter, above other things.

No, I don't appear that way.

LOL

Once again, you completely and utterly write 'backwards' here.

If you say so, then perhaps you think so.

I notice the continued inability on your part to concede an error about anything beyond typos.

LOL

1. I have never ever used the 'typo' excuse here, like you adult human beings do. Unless, of course, you can show and prove otherwise.

I never thought you did. I have noticed you admit to quoting incorrectly and to typos.

Once again, for those of you, like "iwannaplato", who are DEAF and BLIND, I have never used the 'typo' excuse, like you adult human beings do, in the days when this is being written.

So, HOW could you 'notice' some thing when I never do it, "iwannaplato".

Again, here is another prime example of this one 'seeing' things, which are not here, because of its 'currently' held onto 'belief'.

You can make an issue out of anything it seems.

LOL One just has to 'take a look at' what you are actually doing here, exactly.

2. And, you, once again, keep missing all of the times I have conceded my errors because you believe that I do not.

Errors, sure. On your beliefs, no, I haven't seen it, even in the face of clear evidence.

LOL Again, this one, actually, 'believes' that it knows 'the thinking' that is actually going on within others.

If you ever want to get into a discussion about 'beliefs' "iwannaplato", and about how because you 'believe' that you 'have to believe' things does not mean at all that I do believe things, then let me know, and then 'we' can discuss. Until then, 'I' leave 'you' in and with your 'currently' held on 'belief/s' here.

Heck, you can't even admit you have beliefs.

LOL you are being like the "prosecutor" now, when claiming the "defendent" will not even admit to having done what it is accused of doing.

If the "defendant" has NOT done the thing it is being accused of, then WHY would it even admit to have done it?

There is absolutely NO logical nor rational reason in the whole Universe why the "defendant" would admit to having done some thing that it has not.

And, for you to 'sit here' and say and claim that I 'cannot even admit that I have beliefs', when I do not, places you in the absolute illogical and irrational side of things here, all the while you are trying to deceive the readers that I cannot admit to some thing.

You have to call them views, to get around the obvious.

LOL Because you, still, have never even begun to have 'a discussion' and seek out clarity, you, still, have absolutely no idea nor clue what is actually happening and occurring here.

I do not call 'beliefs' 'views' at all. In fact I have said and written the exact opposite. And, for the reasons I have already provided and given here.

To the degree that you don't even address the issue or point I raised.

Maybe because you do not stay focused on the actual issues nor points that I have been raising and addressing, here.

I love it. You can't even assert the justification.

How 'mature' is it in a philosophy forum, of all places, to just say;

'You can't even assert the justification'?

Maybe that's why. It's these quasi responses that don't even take a stand that string out these processes unnecessarily.

And, what do you think the readers are 'seeing' in 'your words and writings' here, exactly, "iwannaplato"?

A great deal of the issues or points that you raise, in replies to me, has not much or nothing at all to do with what I have actually been actually talking about and meaning.

And, it seems, never to do with your own, then, confused use of language. It is always other people's responsibility.

1. I just, sometimes, point out when you keep missing, misinterpreting, and/or misunderstanding what I say, write, and mean here. And, obviously, I have never ever said that this one anyone else's responsibility, than mine, alone. So, where you are getting, 'it is, always, other people's responsibility comes from your Incorrect and/or distorted presumptions, and beliefs, once more.

2. 'you' accusing 'me' of 'blaming others', for a lack in communication here, in a sentence directly after 'you', once again, 'blame me' for 'confused use of language', could not be more hypocritical.

You wrote about human beings and their capitalizing the first letter of their names in the context of what they supposedly don't do in relation to animals.

But, I wrote absolutely nothing about what you started talking about in capitalizing or not capitalizing other animals. you brought up and introduced 'this idea'.

And, you did this, to try to prove some point, which, by the way, was so far off track from what I was actually talking about, and meaning, it was funny to observe and watch 'play out' so far 'off field'.

This was an incorrect assertion on your part

LOL Once again, because 'that incorrect assertion' belonged in your imagination and presumptions only.

You can't admit this or even address the point I raised.

BECAUSE I never brought up 'the point you raised'.

you brought up 'that point' that 'you raised' because you assumed that 'that' was what I was talking about and referring to, which I was not, and you 'raised it' also because you 'believed' that it would, absolutely, counter and refute what I was talking about, that is; 'my assertion'.

Look, and I will repeat, you will have to get 'my assertion' absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, before you even begin to start to 'try' any thing here.

And, the only way you will ever achieve this is through 'clarification', alone.

Again, 'your assumptions, and beliefs' are only leading you completely and utterly astray here "iwannaplato"

You won't even address the point I raised.

BECAUSE it had and has absolutely nothing to do with what I was actually talking about, and meaning.

Instead, here, you now just make a generalized denial.

I am, literally, ALLOWED to 'deny' absolutely ANY thing that I am accused of, and, especially so, when I have not done 'that', said 'that', nor even thought 'that'.

What I said has nothing to do with what you are actually talking about - despite the quote. No explanation of what you actually meant.

And, once more, I 'wait' for those who seek out what I, actually, meant, or mean, here. I am, certainly, not under any obligation at all to explain to you, people, who do not seek out explanations from me. And, I also, and obviously, do not, yet, know what you people here, actually, think or believe 'I meant' if and when you never inform me.

Also, and once more, I purposely do not just explain things to you people here, in the days when this is being written, to show and reveal to my 'intended audience' how people in those 'olden days' would just about never seek out, actual, 'clarification' and would much prefer to just keep on making up more and more assumptions. It is like you expect 'me' to 'know' what part/s of what I say and write here that you, individually, are not quite 100% sure of, and to then explain 'that part/s' for you all, individually. Just so you become fully aware "iwannaplato" the part/s of what I say and write here that you miss, misinterpret, and/or misunderstand another may not, at all, and vice-versa. So, it is only when 'you' tell and inform 'me' of what 'it' is, exactly, that you are 'not yet getting', fully, then, and only then, I can start explaining for 'you'.

Furthermore, in case you are also unaware of this, every one of you human beings can learn and understand the exact same thing in a multitude of many different ways. So, what was understood the first time by one of you, might take one or two other ways to be 'explained' before 'it' is understood, to some other, but might take many, many ways to be 'explained' to even others before 'it' is understood.

So, what is 'it' that you want 'explained' to you here "iwannaplato"?

That is if you will ever 'clarify' this here.

And, again, if you just sought out and obtained actual clarity first, before you made assumptions, and jumped to conclusions, then you would stay with what I am actually saying, and meaning.

As if I haven't tried that and been told I should just know: absolute.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Let 'us' readers can find and 'see' where and when I have, supposedly, ever said and written absolutely any thing like this in this forum.

Also, I have already pointed out and shown that 'your type of questioning' appears to have a very insincere and goal orientated ulterior motive.

See, what is blatantly obvious, well to me anyway, is that your types of questions are not asked openly to obtain actual clarity about what I am actually saying and meaning, but rather they are intended to try to find some way of countering or refuting my assertions and claims here.

As if many times I have tried this I did not end up being handed responsibility to explain all sorts of things before you could answer. In other words, as if you don't keep, even when you get clarifying questions, putting most of the onus of explanation on the other person. As if you haven't told me how to phrase a question and when I phrase it the way you have asked me, you have then told me you can't or won't answer it now.

Could it be a possibility that you have 'seen' more in, or 'read' more into, 'my actual words' than what is, really, in them?

Could you have an, under-lying, belief, with-in 'you', which will not allow you to believe some things here?

As if there were not other ways human beings, those you consider lower than you, navigate communication more elegantly and effectively often, than you do.

See, even here 'you' have 'read' 'into' 'my words' things that are and were not even there. But, because you 'believe', absolutely, that 'the way' 'you read' and 'you see' things here is 'the true and right way', then you are not open to even considering even if you just could be wrong, let alone just how wrong you actually are.

If you think this means I don't notice problems with human communication, not much I can to about that.

See, here is another prime example of you making another assumption, which has taken you completely and utterly 'off track'.

Why did you even begin to presume that I would think such a thing as this?

After all you have, specifically, informed me that you 'know' that you have so-called 'problems' in human communication, "yourself". So, obviously, you would notice 'problems' in what you call 'human communication'.

You instill little trust that doing things your way leads anywhere.

Good.

One of the biggest things I am wanting you posters here to reveal, through your writings, is just how much you would just not 'look at' 'my words' alone, and only, just like adult populations before did not. Which is why it took human beings so, so very long to find out and discover the Truths in, and of, Life, Itself, Which are what leads you human beings to living in peace and harmony with one another, as One.

Just maybe 'my way' here, with you people, here, will 'instill' to do what is actually Right, in Life, literally, once, and for all.

If you have found people who do trust you, great.

Again, you speak of or about me outside of this forum, as though this has absolutely any thing at all to do with the 'actual words' that I use, say, and write, here.

If not, perhaps you have something to learn rather than blaming others.

Name one thing that I have 'blamed' absolutely any one on.

As far as I recall 'I' am the only one in this forum who has come here 'to learn' how to communicate better. So, as far as I am aware that IS an 'admittance' of not being able to communicate as well as possible, with a subtle assertion of if that is any miscommunication here, then this is 'my fault' and 'my fault' alone.

Remember "iwannaplato" 'I' am here to learn how to communicate with 'you', human beings, better.

Or, more to the point, this one here is proving, once again, of how while one is 'believing' some thing, then they are not actually capable of 'see' any thing contrary.

Yes, you are proving that about yourself.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And, what is 'this belief' or 'beliefs' that I, actually, have, which you are 'seeing', and 'believing', here, "iwannaplato"?

Also, it is great to see that you also fully recognize and acknowledge how it is 'beliefs', themselves, what is actually stopping and preventing people from 'seeing' any thing other than what they 'currently' believe.

Where, when, how, and why, exactly?

And, why do you keep alluding to things, without being specific?

Great strategy. You don't respond directly to points made.

BECAUSE some of those so-called 'points' are so outlandish or so 'out there' I do not even know where to begin to respond. For example, quite a few of 'the points' that 'you raise' here "iwannaplato".

Some of 'those points', and especially some of 'your questions', are obviously based on nothing more than your own assumptions, and have absolutely nothing at all to with what I have said, written, and meant here, I, seriously, do not even know how to begin to respond to them.

Then later when this is pointed out, you ask for the person to repeat points they already made.

To show that even 'the person' will not 'repeat the points' because even they, themselves, cannot keep up and follow 'the own points', fully. This is because some of 'those points' are just so absurd or ludicrous, or they just have nothing at all to do with what I have actually meant, and 'the realization' of this sometimes 'comes-to-light' when they are challenged to 'repeat' 'their own points'.

If they don't repeat what they have already said but refer to it, you say there are alluding to things and not being specific, despite they're having been specific earlier in the discussion.

Yes, this is what I have said. So, you have, at least, got this part right and correct.

This is obvious to the reader, but I really do wonder if you have short-term to long-term memory transfer problems.

Wonder all you like.

I wonder how 'perfect' any of your human being's memories actually are.

Or it's a lack of care.

Or, it is a way of challenging.

See, if one, really, is absolutely sure of 'their claim' or 'assertion', then they have no fear, worry, nor concern of just 're-repeating' over and over again.

But in any case I'm no longer going to cater to what you can't remember about your own posts or what I write.

Okay. But, then again, you do have a tendency to 'run away', or 'leave', when you do not end up actually refuting me, and/or when you get challenged and questioned too much for your liking.

Also, if I am, supposedly, 'incorrect' here, then why do you believe that you are above, or better, than other things, and, how, exactly, do you believe that you are above, or better, than other things.

That makes absolutely no sense.

From 'your perspective'. But, then again, 'you' could be 'reading' 'me' 'wrong' here, right?

But, then again, from 'your perspective' it is my 'confused use of language' that always is the cause of any issue here in communication, correct?

LOL When you 'point out' that I have, supposedly, factual errors, then what you usually do is just say things like;
'I pointed out that you were incorrect', without ever actually 'pointing out' where, when, nor how I was, actually, incorrect.

I did that after the quote. I was specific in what way it was incorrect and gave counterevidence to your false claim.

See, even here you are doing the exact same thing I just said and wrote.

Instead of just saying, 'I did that', without:

1. Even saying what 'that' is, exactly.

2. Just providing the actual 'thing'.

Again, you have just alluded to some 'thing'.

If this was an early interaction with you, Age, I go back and do it again for you.

Talk about 'blaming' or 'excusing'.

Because I'd have some trust that this would take the conversation one step along.

But that is not my experience with you. I have no trust for you on such things.

But, if it is you who will just keep 'alluding' instead of being 'specific', then how will you even 'know' that 'doing this' will or will not take the conversation one step along.

Also, remember, that you want 'the conversation' to end up at one particular point, and place.

Even though you may well say and claim otherwise.

LOL you more or less just say and write, 'you are incorrect'. And, absolutely laughably, you believe that 'this' is all that is needed.

Nope, just refusing to repeat myself and represent the same arguments and evidence that you opted not to respond to.

But, I respond to just about every thing you say and write here. As is evidenced and proved by 'my writings' above here, in this forum.

But that's convenient story you made up.

And, LOL you 'just refusing to repeat "yourself" and represent the same, so-called, arguments' is, obviously, very, very 'convenient', for you.

If it soothes you, perhaps that the best thing for you.

If you do not want to repeat 'your assertions', 'beliefs', or 'assumptions', for whatever reason, it so-calls 'soothes' you, or because you, actually, have no faith nor belief in their truthfulness or rightness, then that is okay, with me.

[Age]

Okay, but this could be interpreted as being contradictory to what you have previously said here.

Great idea. We'll have a discussion about how it could be interpreted. We won't take a next step based on how you interpret it.

Why would 'we', or others, 'waste time' doing such a thing?

Obviously, 'my interpretation' could be partly or fully False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Whereas, 'your interpretation' could never ever be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, nor Incorrect. For the obviously absolute reasons.

So, why waste 'time' here, at all?

We won't see in this response the reasons you think it could be interpreted that way.

The next step you thought to take was to tell me how something could be interpreted. No mention of how you see this being possible. No mention of whether you even do interpret it that way.

I don't know your intent, but what it does is stretch out the process.

A great use of the passive voice.

And lo, we can just play tennis with 'this could be interpreted as.....'

Considering that it was of no actual importance to me, other than to just express how it could be interpreted in a completely contradictory way to what you have previously said, then why would I bother mentioning any more.

Obviously, for any one who was in any way curios or interested, then they would have, or still will, show that they are. Then, obviously, those ones who are Truly curios or interested will 'come-to-know', exactly, how and why what you said there could be interpreted in a completely contradictory way from what you have previously said and mentioned here.

'Ah well, you saying that it could be interpreted as X, could be interpreted as ......' Two non-perspectives not saying anything.

And, you not showing nor revealing any, actual, curiosity nor interest here will leave 'not knowing' any thing here, really.

A single instance of this kind of thing wouldn't mean much, but so much of how you communicate is like this.

And, all of these words written here by you leading to no actual 'step' forward.

Imagine if you replaced all of these words with just a very simple Truly open clarifying question, or two, and how much 'further along' 'we' would have been, already?

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, but this could be interpreted as being contradictory to what you have previously said here.

Great idea. We'll have a discussion about how it could be interpreted. We won't take a next step based on how you interpret it.

Why would 'we', or others, 'waste time' doing such a thing?

Exactly, so why start such idiocy?

Obviously, 'my interpretation' could be partly or fully False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

You didn't give your interpretation. You said this could be interpreted as......etc.

Whereas, 'your interpretation' could never ever be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, nor Incorrect. For the obviously absolute reasons.

I never asserted that, nor do I believe it. I have a number of times asserted my fallibity. But more importantly......

You're missing the point of the idiocy of your statement. It doesn't matter what my attitude towards my interpretation in regard to the idiocy of saying....

This could be interpreted as.....etc.

It does nothing.

Things can be interpreted in a million ways, including terribly, insanely and then the more mundane level, simply incorrectly. So, saying it could be is only useful information to someone who is not aware of such things.

A: Your statement can be interpreted as advocating for child abuse.
B: Do you interpret it that way?
A: No.
B: Then why the hell bring it up.

or
A: Your statement can be interpreted as advocating for child abuse.
B: Do you interpret it that way?
A: Yes
B: Then why don't you say that and then explain why.

We won't see in this response the reasons you think it could be interpreted that way.

The next step you thought to take was to tell me how something could be interpreted. No mention of how you see this being possible. No mention of whether you even do interpret it that way.

I don't know your intent, but what it does is stretch out the process.

A great use of the passive voice.

And lo, we can just play tennis with 'this could be interpreted as.....'

Considering that it was of no actual importance to me, other than to just express how it could be interpreted in a completely contradictory way to what you have previously said, then why would I bother mentioning any more.

Well, perhaps you don't realize that people can interpret things in all sorts of ways from the idiotic to the accurate.

And, you not showing nor revealing any, actual, curiosity nor interest here will leave 'not knowing' any thing here, really.

Oh, I learned something about how you managed not to learn how to improve your communication.

A single instance of this kind of thing wouldn't mean much, but so much of how you communicate is like this.

And, all of these words written here by you leading to no actual 'step' forward.

Au contraire. This time I understood why that statement was so idiotic. Other times there was just a sense that you were not communicating well.

Imagine if you replaced all of these words with just a very simple Truly open clarifying question, or two, and how much 'further along' 'we' would have been, already?

Yes, if I don't do what you want me to do, I haven't taken a step forward, in your mind. You don't understand how solipsistic you are being here.

[Age]

Okay, but this could be interpreted as being contradictory to what you have previously said here.

Great idea. We'll have a discussion about how it could be interpreted. We won't take a next step based on how you interpret it.

Why would 'we', or others, 'waste time' doing such a thing?

Exactly, so why start such idiocy?

Obviously, 'my interpretation' could be partly or fully False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

You didn't give your interpretation. You said this could be interpreted as......etc.

Whereas, 'your interpretation' could never ever be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, nor Incorrect. For the obviously absolute reasons.

I never asserted that, nor do I believe it. I have a number of times asserted my fallibity. But more importantly......

You're missing the point of the idiocy of your statement. It doesn't matter what my attitude towards my interpretation in regard to the idiocy of saying....

This could be interpreted as.....etc.

It does nothing.

Things can be interpreted in a million ways, including terribly, insanely and then the more mundane level, simply incorrectly. So, saying it could be is only useful information to someone who is not aware of such things.

A: Your statement can be interpreted as advocating for child abuse.
B: Do you interpret it that way?
A: No.
B: Then why the hell bring it up.

or
A: Your statement can be interpreted as advocating for child abuse.
B: Do you interpret it that way?
A: Yes
B: Then why don't you say that and then explain why.

We won't see in this response the reasons you think it could be interpreted that way.

The next step you thought to take was to tell me how something could be interpreted. No mention of how you see this being possible. No mention of whether you even do interpret it that way.

I don't know your intent, but what it does is stretch out the process.

A great use of the passive voice.

And lo, we can just play tennis with 'this could be interpreted as.....'

Considering that it was of no actual importance to me, other than to just express how it could be interpreted in a completely contradictory way to what you have previously said, then why would I bother mentioning any more.

Well, perhaps you don't realize that people can interpret things in all sorts of ways from the idiotic to the accurate.

And, you not showing nor revealing any, actual, curiosity nor interest here will leave 'not knowing' any thing here, really.

Oh, I learned something about how you managed not to learn how to improve your communication.

A single instance of this kind of thing wouldn't mean much, but so much of how you communicate is like this.

And, all of these words written here by you leading to no actual 'step' forward.

Au contraire. This time I understood why that statement was so idiotic. Other times there was just a sense that you were not communicating well.

Imagine if you replaced all of these words with just a very simple Truly open clarifying question, or two, and how much 'further along' 'we' would have been, already?

Yes, if I don't do what you want me to do, I haven't taken a step forward, in your mind. You don't understand how solipsistic you are being here.

Once again those words of yours here could not be more Wrong nor more further from what the actual Truth is, exactly.

[Iwannaplato]

Once again those words of yours here could not be more Wrong nor more further from what the actual Truth is, exactly.

Once again those words of yours here could not be more Wrong nor more further from what the actual Truth is, exactly.
+ no substance.