Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be?

[Age]

But, how come 'you' are not included here?

I am included there. See if you can figure out your assumption here. Where might I be in that list?
And then, lack of substance on your part.

you really cannot let go of and get rid of this extremely wrong habit of yours here, can you?

Projection.

Once again, it is always 'my fault'.

Projection.

I agree, it is always 'my fault'. Always has been and always will be.

\]

And, considering that it is 'me' who is continually seeking out, and asking for, clarification, what you ask and write here could very will be absolutely hypocritical.

You do intersperse questions for clarification. 1) these often include assumptions and negative judgments 2) it's not a context where we see who wins via more clairifying questions. There are many other things going on. Also, lack of substance.

Once again you make claims and accusations 'about me' here. But, will you, this time, back these up with absolutely any thing?

It is often to the degree that one wonders if you actually want to communicate or perhaps you just want to 'confirm' your own judgments of people.

See this is, exactly, what this one continually does.

Projection, lack of substance.

LOL If you only knew "iwannaplato".

But people haven't often in real life and online had problems with the way you communicate and to a severe degree. It's other people's fault, not yours.

Just out of curiosity, how do you know what happens outside of this forum regarding 'me'?

I'm sure you'll give us your evaluation if you want to. I didn't use the word 'know'.

Of course you did not. you said, and claimed, 'often in real life', as though you already 'knew'.

LOL The only one here who, continually, states that it is the other's fault 'in communication' here is 'you'.

This is incorrect. I have many kind of interactions, here and elsewhere. You have blamed human beings for the way they behave and communicate, universally, since arriving here. You have made it clear you know everything. That is the context for your communication. While you don't often communicate these beleifs of your directly, they are implicit in the way you communicate. And yes, I used the word 'beliefs'. See my longer response after a quote a few quotes down.

Obviously you missed the context and what was meant. And, why you did is obviously because of what you continually do.

And, in case you have forgotten, I am here to learn how to communicate better,

I do remember you've said that. Your behavior says that is not the main motivation.

Why? What is my behavior here, exactly, to you?

And, are you even aware that 'the example' actually proved the opposite of what you said and claimed, is what is True?

Are you even aware that you are aware of the disagreements we had, but you asked the question for no good reason?

Once more, this one will not just answer and clarify. And, worse still, then asks questions as though its very own made up assumptions are actually already what is true and right.

It wasn't a question, it was an assertion.

So, why write your sentence in the way you did, and with a question mark at the end? Why not just write an assertion instead, only?

For a, supposed, "teacher of the english language", that you cannot tell the actual difference between a question and an assertion could be quite worrying for some. Also, adding an assertion 'into' a question, does not make the sentence an assertion and not a question. But, being a, supposed, "english teacher" you would already understand and know this, right?

It's fine if you want to think of language in your own 'literal' way. I have tried to work with your habits of language, even though you have no noticed that I did this, and when you refer to our interactions it is always in binary terms where I never do a variety things, despite my doing them. One of these things I have done is, for periods, accepted that to communicate with you, one must, use language in an idiosyncratic way and/or take everything 'literally' - which can't actually be done, but one can move in that direaction. That cross-cultural effort has included pretending that a question mark makes a question a question, rather than it communicating something else in total or in the main. Sometimes I don't grant you the authority over languages and don't feel like pretending what you think your are doing is what is happening.

Just out of curiosity, have you forgotten that your assumptions and beliefs here could be partly or absolutely Wrong and Incorrect?

But you have nothing to forget here, because you think you know everything. Which means the your core judgments about me and even down to what I want, cannot be honestly called into question by you. YOu are 100% certain of them. You take pains to get others to admit that they do not consider their beliefs and knowledge 100%, while you yourself think you know everything.

No, I haven't forgotten that about my beliefs and assumptions. My intention is to never respond to that question or related questions again.

Could it related to the need to correct and make negative judgments of humans beings?

But, I have never made a negative judgment of you human beings. As I have clearly informed you of this already.

You have claimed it. I have shown where you did it.

you have never shown where you 'believe', absolutely, that I did it.

Could this relate to what you have experienced in your past.? Is it possible that the spirituality like approach you have relates to your particular neurouniqueness and that other people could have equally valid ways of thinking of identity and healing?

If any one of you human beings had a 'equally valid way' of 'healing', then why are the rest of you not using 'it'?

So, the validity is shown by the rest all using it. By that criterion, your approach is not valid.

None of you would yet know.

Again, I am only here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings, first.

[Age]

But, according to "immanuel can" 'all' have sinned and are fallen. Which means that 'all' are torture for all time.

Well, in his truly horrible view if you do certain things he considers make you a proper Christian and God's grace may grant you avoidance of permanent torture.

It is truly amazing how popular some version of his toxic view has been.

One the reason why some views become popular, no matter how False and Wrong the view is, is also become known by you human beings, then you will stop believing, having, and share those False or Wrong 'popular views'. Like, for example, there are 'many minds', and, that the 'Universe began and is expanding'.

[Age]

Man didn't choose his nature,

Actually, he did. He was created innocent but free. He used his freedom to fall. So now he has a fallen nature. That's the Genesis picture.

Only a fool would consider Genesis a factual account of anything.

But, 'genesis' is just 'a story' about how through evolution all things are created.

And, every thing is created, and evolves, right?

It couldn't be any clearer that I have made a choice, so your continual reminders that I have one are obviously not necessary.

Well, it's hard to understand, then, why you mentioned God at all...you don't believe in Him.

Because I live among people who do believe in him, and what they believe about him might have implications for me, so I would prefer them not to believe anything too stupid.

Even if I believed in God, I would disagree with that.

And you're free to be wrong.

I know, but I exercised my freedom to be right on this occasion.

I accept being held to account for anything I've done wrong,

By whom?

By those who have been hurt by my wrong doing, and by myself, for not living up to the standards I expect of myself, or at least should expect.

If you don't believe that harming other people is wrong in its own right, it means you are deficient in common human decency.

Explain that. Given that you believe in moral subjectivism, how can anything be "wrong in its own right"?

Like I said, if you don't understand, it means you are deficient in common human decency, in which case an explanation would make no sense to you.

No it isn't.

And yet, you'll find that it is.

No I won't.

Although I do think "sin" is a stupid word, along with "evil", I do believe in right and wrong,..

Well, you've already said elsewhere that they have no objective reality, so it's hard to see how you manage that.

I believe in right and wrong because I experience them as subjective perceptions.

[Iwannaplato]

I agree, it is always 'my fault'. Always has been and always will be.

I haven't asserted this. If that is what you mean in your non-literal response - good for you.

Once again you make claims and accusations 'about me' here. But, will you, this time, back these up with absolutely any thing?

I have pointed out assumptions and negative judgments in assertions you have made in other posts.

Of course you did not. you said, and claimed, 'often in real life', as though you already 'knew'.

I expressed my belief which I consider justified. I'll use know, if I think it's appropriate. Unlike you, I don't think I know everything.

Obviously you missed the context and what was meant. And, why you did is obviously because of what you continually do.

Assertion, no justification, no explanation.

Why? What is my behavior here, exactly, to you?

I have pointed this out numerous times,in response to specific examples.

Are you even aware that you are aware of the disagreements we had, but you asked the question for no good reason?

Once more, this one will not just answer and clarify. And, worse still, then asks questions as though its very own made up assumptions are actually already what is true and right.

It wasn't a question, it was an assertion.

So, why write your sentence in the way you did, and with a question mark at the end? Why not just write an assertion instead, only?

I was referring to what I wrote before the question.

For a, supposed, "teacher of the english language", that you cannot tell the actual difference between a question and an assertion could be quite worrying for some.

And again with the sort-of not taken responsibility for pseudoassertion. Pretty much everything we do here is worrying to some. I have pointed out before how pointless such a statement is. In fact, it seems like the sort of thing you'd point out to others, what I just pointed out here.

[s]Just out of curiosity, have you forgotten that your assumptions and beliefs here could be partly or absolutely Wrong and Incorrect?[/s]

]But you have nothing to forget here, because you think you know everything. Which means the your core judgments about me and even down to what I want, cannot be honestly called into question by you. YOu are 100% certain of them. You take pains to get others to admit that they do not consider their beliefs and knowledge 100%, while you yourself think you know everything.

No, I haven't forgotten that about my beliefs and assumptions. My intention is to never respond to that question or related questions again.

Could it related to the need to correct and make negative judgments of humans beings?

But, I have never made a negative judgment of you human beings. As I have clearly informed you of this already.

You have claimed it. I have shown where you did it.[/quote]

you have never shown where you 'believe', absolutely, that I did it.

Oh, my goodness. Take a look at that ridiculous assertion. where I 'believe' absolutely. But perhaps this wasn't worded the way you intended.

Could this relate to what you have experienced in your past.? Is it possible that the spirituality like approach you have relates to your particular neurouniqueness and that other people could have equally valid ways of thinking of identity and healing?

If any one of you human beings had a 'equally valid way' of 'healing', then why are the rest of you not using 'it'?

So, the validity is shown by the rest all using it. By that criterion, your approach is not valid.

None of you would yet know.

By your criterion, your approach is not valid.

Again, I am only here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings, first.

Well, I can see you willing to learn about certain phrases and constructions, typos also. You did manage to stop much of the hard to read formatting. Kudos for those changes.

But you have seemed utterly resistant to considering the criticisms I have had regarding the general way you communicate. And I have given specific examples, and even alternative ways of communicating. I have justified my choices and you surely have noticed how most people react not mainly to the content of your communication but to the way you communicate and what you expect to others to do and not do for communication to be effective. If your way of communicating was effective with others, even a small group, peachy, but generally speaking, at least here, it leads to people dismissing you, mainly, or getting into arguments with you and openly telling you they find the process irritating or pointless.

Whatever you think of my way of responding to you and what you write, I actually did put in a lot of time over these months of interacting, pointing out things that I think are problematic about the way you communicate. Given the context where let's say 95 percent of your dialogues either get quickly broken off by the other people or they think you are nuts or intolerable, I would think you might have considered taking my critique and suggestions more seriously. But that phase where I considered that possible has passed. I am not saying it is impossible, but my working hypothesis is that part of problem here is that while you say you are just here to learn how to communicate better, you are, in addition trying out the first steps with people of what you consider to be the healing process. This includes clarification, asking questions, and being open. IOW you are ALSO trying out the healing process to see what happens.

And it's not leading to discussions where people take you seriously. As I have said, many of your ideas are held by other people and they have managed to communicate these ideas in ways that are vastly more effective. I consider it likely that if you had taken me more seriously in my critiques, suggestions and examples of problems and solutions, you would be better able to communicate with people. But after being on the receiving end of you generalized judgments of human beings at this time and specific assumptions and views, of what it must mean if I do X or don't do Y, of sometimes being called 'it', other times referred to as this one and facing an unjustified assumption about me, I stopped considering it likely or even possible you would change your approach any time soon. You can't even respond to preferencs people have. Hey, I don't like being referred to as it...and so Age just keeps doing it. Hey, stop telling me I never do X, when I have clearly done X....Age keeps on saying never and always where there is evidence in posts he has read these are not the case.

Age: tells me he is here to learn how to communicate better. I am sure there is some truth in this. But there are other things going on and some of them are not pretty. And if you want to ask what I am referring to, I have told you many times with specific examples.

The whole never seeming to remember what I wrote, what you wrote. The whole repeatedly asking me if I cannot possibly wrong, even after I say that I'll let you know if I start thinking, like you do, that I know everything period, is rude. Hence the strikethroughs above.

You have presented it as if you have been judged and made assumptions about, so I even went back to your early posts and showed you where you started making judgment of individuals and people in general. No effect or acknowledgement.

You've wasted a lot of potentially learning how to communicate better. I have come back after breaks but I have broken off permanently with people. So far, after decades in some cases, not changing my mind. Your loss.

If I only knew???? If you only knew.

Yet another silly conversational tic on your part.

[Age]

I agree, it is always 'my fault'. Always has been and always will be.

I haven't asserted this. If that is what you mean in your non-literal response - good for you.

Once again you make claims and accusations 'about me' here. But, will you, this time, back these up with absolutely any thing?

I have pointed out assumptions and negative judgments in assertions you have made in other posts.

Of course you did not. you said, and claimed, 'often in real life', as though you already 'knew'.

I expressed my belief which I consider justified. I'll use know, if I think it's appropriate. Unlike you, I don't think I know everything.

Obviously you missed the context and what was meant. And, why you did is obviously because of what you continually do.

Assertion, no justification, no explanation.

Why? What is my behavior here, exactly, to you?

I have pointed this out numerous times,in response to specific examples.

Are you even aware that you are aware of the disagreements we had, but you asked the question for no good reason?

Once more, this one will not just answer and clarify. And, worse still, then asks questions as though its very own made up assumptions are actually already what is true and right.

It wasn't a question, it was an assertion.

So, why write your sentence in the way you did, and with a question mark at the end? Why not just write an assertion instead, only?

I was referring to what I wrote before the question.

For a, supposed, "teacher of the english language", that you cannot tell the actual difference between a question and an assertion could be quite worrying for some.

And again with the sort-of not taken responsibility for pseudoassertion. Pretty much everything we do here is worrying to some. I have pointed out before how pointless such a statement is. In fact, it seems like the sort of thing you'd point out to others, what I just pointed out here.

[s]Just out of curiosity, have you forgotten that your assumptions and beliefs here could be partly or absolutely Wrong and Incorrect?[/s]

]But you have nothing to forget here, because you think you know everything. Which means the your core judgments about me and even down to what I want, cannot be honestly called into question by you. YOu are 100% certain of them. You take pains to get others to admit that they do not consider their beliefs and knowledge 100%, while you yourself think you know everything.

No, I haven't forgotten that about my beliefs and assumptions. My intention is to never respond to that question or related questions again.

Could it related to the need to correct and make negative judgments of humans beings?

But, I have never made a negative judgment of you human beings. As I have clearly informed you of this already.

You have claimed it. I have shown where you did it.

you have never shown where you 'believe', absolutely, that I did it.

Oh, my goodness. Take a look at that ridiculous assertion. where I 'believe' absolutely. But perhaps this wasn't worded the way you intended.

Could this relate to what you have experienced in your past.? Is it possible that the spirituality like approach you have relates to your particular neurouniqueness and that other people could have equally valid ways of thinking of identity and healing?

If any one of you human beings had a 'equally valid way' of 'healing', then why are the rest of you not using 'it'?

So, the validity is shown by the rest all using it. By that criterion, your approach is not valid.

None of you would yet know.

By your criterion, your approach is not valid.

Again, I am only here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings, first.

Well, I can see you willing to learn about certain phrases and constructions, typos also. You did manage to stop much of the hard to read formatting. Kudos for those changes.

But you have seemed utterly resistant to considering the criticisms I have had regarding the general way you communicate. And I have given specific examples, and even alternative ways of communicating. I have justified my choices and you surely have noticed how most people react not mainly to the content of your communication but to the way you communicate and what you expect to others to do and not do for communication to be effective. If your way of communicating was effective with others, even a small group, peachy, but generally speaking, at least here, it leads to people dismissing you, mainly, or getting into arguments with you and openly telling you they find the process irritating or pointless.

Whatever you think of my way of responding to you and what you write, I actually did put in a lot of time over these months of interacting, pointing out things that I think are problematic about the way you communicate. Given the context where let's say 95 percent of your dialogues either get quickly broken off by the other people or they think you are nuts or intolerable, I would think you might have considered taking my critique and suggestions more seriously. But that phase where I considered that possible has passed. I am not saying it is impossible, but my working hypothesis is that part of problem here is that while you say you are just here to learn how to communicate better, you are, in addition trying out the first steps with people of what you consider to be the healing process. This includes clarification, asking questions, and being open. IOW you are ALSO trying out the healing process to see what happens.

And it's not leading to discussions where people take you seriously. As I have said, many of your ideas are held by other people and they have managed to communicate these ideas in ways that are vastly more effective. I consider it likely that if you had taken me more seriously in my critiques, suggestions and examples of problems and solutions, you would be better able to communicate with people. But after being on the receiving end of you generalized judgments of human beings at this time and specific assumptions and views, of what it must mean if I do X or don't do Y, of sometimes being called 'it', other times referred to as this one and facing an unjustified assumption about me, I stopped considering it likely or even possible you would change your approach any time soon. You can't even respond to preferencs people have. Hey, I don't like being referred to as it...and so Age just keeps doing it. Hey, stop telling me I never do X, when I have clearly done X....Age keeps on saying never and always where there is evidence in posts he has read these are not the case.

Age: tells me he is here to learn how to communicate better. I am sure there is some truth in this. But there are other things going on and some of them are not pretty. And if you want to ask what I am referring to, I have told you many times with specific examples.

The whole never seeming to remember what I wrote, what you wrote. The whole repeatedly asking me if I cannot possibly wrong, even after I say that I'll let you know if I start thinking, like you do, that I know everything period, is rude. Hence the strikethroughs above.

You have presented it as if you have been judged and made assumptions about, so I even went back to your early posts and showed you where you started making judgment of individuals and people in general. No effect or acknowledgement.

You've wasted a lot of potentially learning how to communicate better. I have come back after breaks but I have broken off permanently with people. So far, after decades in some cases, not changing my mind. Your loss.

If I only knew???? If you only knew.

Yet another silly conversational tic on your part.

Just more of the same habitual way/s of this one

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, basically, I am doing something "sinful" just by existing? It seems that no matter what we do, we are "sinners", but we are not entitled to be told what our "sin" is, or what is so dreadful about it. How can anybody accept that? We were talking about Stalin not long back, well that was precisely his approach to dominating the masses.

The route through your dilemma, though I know this is all just a pass-time and you love jibber-jabber, is to understand the Christian picture within the first century context. That is, how a wide group of Mediterranean peoples, all different and distinct in their myths, saw the World: what, why, how it is and what is needed and demanded in that World.

The Christian vision is a selection, a blending, an amalgamation of numerous explanatory strains. But certainly Platonic morality and ethics — a substantial monument to European thought — is a primary influence or model.

The Christian picture is a model through which metaphysical ideas and values are expressed. But note that for average people they will only accept the model as true if it is actually real. To live the Christian metaphysical picture is real in the sense that it is effective and transformative, but it (the picture) is a semblance. A simulacra in a sense.

For most, seeing it that way destroys the possibility of faith (cf Iambiguous). And they fall away from the metaphysical imperatives as a result. And what do they fall into? Realism? Not so. But that is another topic.

Immanuel is the absolute worst apologist for the values of Christianity. He does tremendous harm because he is locked into a Bible literalism expressed through a Dispensationalist, Evangelical model. It captures him.

[Harbal]

Actually, he did. He was created innocent but free. He used his freedom to fall. So now he has a fallen nature. That's the Genesis picture.

Only a fool would consider Genesis a factual account of anything.

But, 'genesis' is just 'a story' about how through evolution all things are created.

Yes, it is just a story, but not about evolution, as I understand it. Some people believe it is a literal account of how the world and everything in it came into being, and IC seems to be one of those people.

And, every thing is created, and evolves, right?

I don't know exactly what you mean, so I don't know.

Well, it's hard to understand, then, why you mentioned God at all...you don't believe in Him.

Because I live among people who do believe in him, and what they believe about him might have implications for me, so I would prefer them not to believe anything too stupid.

And you're free to be wrong.

I know, but I exercised my freedom to be right on this occasion.

By whom?

By those who have been hurt by my wrong doing, and by myself, for not living up to the standards I expect of myself, or at least should expect.

Explain that. Given that you believe in moral subjectivism, how can anything be "wrong in its own right"?

Like I said, if you don't understand, it means you are deficient in common human decency, in which case an explanation would make no sense to you.

And yet, you'll find that it is.

No I won't.

Well, you've already said elsewhere that they have no objective reality, so it's hard to see how you manage that.

I believe in right and wrong because I experience them as subjective perceptions.

Why did you quote all the above, but with no comment about any of it?

[henry quirk]

if henry challenges me

There'd be no point.

[Harbal]

if henry challenges me

There'd be no point.

Considering our apparent inability to understand each other, you are probably right.

[Age]

Again, I am only here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings, first.

Well, I can see you willing to learn about certain phrases and constructions, typos also. You did manage to stop much of the hard to read formatting. Kudos for those changes.

Why did you use the 'You did manage to ...' words here?

What are you trying to imply here, exactly?

But you have seemed utterly resistant to considering the criticisms I have had regarding the general way you communicate.

Simply because 'your criticisms' are not helping 'me'.

I use the 'general way I communicate' for specific and purposes reasons. And, I certainly do not have to change them because of one of you, or a few of you, or even all of you want me to or expect me to.

And I have given specific examples, and even alternative ways of communicating.

you can say and claim this.

And, considering 'the way' that you actually mis/communicate here I will wait for better advice, thanks.

I have justified my choices and you surely have noticed how most people react not mainly to the content of your communication but to the way you communicate and what you expect to others to do and not do for communication to be effective.

That you, supposedly, 'justified' your choices is 'one thing', which a full stop would have been better. Then your next claim here is 'another thing', which would have been much better expressed if expressed separately.

If your way of communicating was effective with others, even a small group, peachy, but generally speaking, at least here, it leads to people dismissing you, mainly, or getting into arguments with you and openly telling you they find the process irritating or pointless.

And, you seem to keep forgetting, or not able to comprehend and understand, that you people are not, necessarily, my targeted audience.

Just so this becomes absolutely clear, for even someone like you "iwannaplato", I am not here to, necessarily, be understood by you posters here.

I am here 'to learn' how-to communicate better, with you human beings. Which means, I am not necessarily here to be understood by you ones here.

Whatever you think of my way of responding to you and what you write, I actually did put in a lot of time over these months of interacting, pointing out things that I think are problematic about the way you communicate.

Well, from my perspective, you have not done a good job of that, at all.

Given the context where let's say 95 percent of your dialogues either get quickly broken off by the other people or they think you are nuts or intolerable, I would think you might have considered taking my critique and suggestions more seriously.

The one who stated and claimed, 'That actually the sun does not revolve around the earth', other people thought of as nuts and/or intolerable, as well.

The masses do not like to be informed of things, which go completely against the 'popular belief'. So, me being called nuts, intolerable, or absolutely any other thing imaginable does not effect me at all.

But that phase where I considered that possible has passed. I am not saying it is impossible, but my working hypothesis is that part of problem here is that while you say you are just here to learn how to communicate better, you are, in addition trying out the first steps with people of what you consider to be the healing process. This includes clarification, asking questions, and being open. IOW you are ALSO trying out the healing process to see what happens.

If you assume and believe so. But, 'we' have already gone through the process of you admitting that what you assume and/or believe could be partly or fully False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

And, obviously, your assumptions and beliefs here are absolutely no different, in this regard.

Some of the readers could now be wondering why you keep making up assumptions and believing things, especially when you already know that they could be False and Wrong anyway.

And it's not leading to discussions where people take you seriously.

Who cares?

I certainly do not.

And, from what has been and is being observed among you posters here, a lot of you do not take each other seriously at all anyway. In fact, and removing me from the equation, is there absolutely any one here that takes each and everyone else seriously?

What you posters here are showing, and revealing, with actual written down proof, is just how you adult human beings have been reacting and responding to each other for hundreds and thousands of years, hither to when this is being written.

And, look at 'where' that has actually gotten you human beings.

Just maybe it is you adult human beings who need to change 'the way' you communicate with each other. And, not actually 'me' at all, really.

Have you, ever, considered this?

As I have said, many of your ideas are held by other people and they have managed to communicate these ideas in ways that are vastly more effective.

So, then there is nothing to disagree with me on those things, right?

I consider it likely that if you had taken me more seriously in my critiques, suggestions and examples of problems and solutions, you would be better able to communicate with people.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This coming from one who, "itself", is not 'taken seriously' here by others, and has yet to express a different or new idea and view and have it accepted and agreed with. In fact, from a Truly objective viewpoint, you seem to be having more or less the exact same troubles or issues that I have, and you are trying so hard to have 'effective communication' with the posters here.

But after being on the receiving end of you generalized judgments of human beings at this time and specific assumptions and views, of what it must mean if I do X or don't do Y, of sometimes being called 'it', other times referred to as this one and facing an unjustified assumption about me, I stopped considering it likely or even possible you would change your approach any time soon.

Yet here you are, still, trying and/or expecting 'me' to change 'my ways' here.

You can't even respond to preferencs people have. Hey, I don't like being referred to as it...and so Age just keeps doing it.

Considering what you do here, and especially so after you acknowledged that you do it purposely, then you could not be my hypocritical here now.

Hey, stop telling me I never do X, when I have clearly done X....Age keeps on saying never and always where there is evidence in posts he has read these are not the case.

But, which you will never ever point to nor link to, directly, nor even copy and paste.

Age: tells me he is here to learn how to communicate better. I am sure there is some truth in this. But there are other things going on and some of them are not pretty.

And, once again, you cleared this up, exactly.

For those who are unaware, this is what was called 'sarcasm', back in those 'olden days' when this was being written.

See, this one continually, out of habit, only 'alludes' to things, but very rarely, if ever, actually points things out directly and clarifies things.

And if you want to ask what I am referring to, I have told you many times with specific examples.

See, it just did the exact same thing again, now.

The whole never seeming to remember what I wrote, what you wrote. The whole repeatedly asking me if I cannot possibly wrong, even after I say that I'll let you know if I start thinking, like you do, that I know everything period, is rude. Hence the strikethroughs above.

And, 'the excuses' continue.

You have presented it as if you have been judged and made assumptions about, so I even went back to your early posts and showed you where you started making judgment of individuals and people in general. No effect or acknowledgement.

You've wasted a lot of potentially learning how to communicate better.

LOL

This one would not have a clue what I am learning, or not learning, here, in this forum.

This one actually believes that if I do not change 'my way of communicating', when it wants or expects me to, then I am not learning, what it is thinking it is teaching.

While this one continues to keep assuming and believing what it has been and is here, then it will never ever discover and learn how, nor what, I am actually learning here, and from these posters here.

See, if one has a new or new/er idea, then how to learn how to express it to absolutely every human being, forever more, then the best way to learn how-to is to express that/those idea/s to a group of so-called "philosophers", because are they not meant to be the ones to question and/or challenge all views and ideas, until the actual Truth, of things, comes-to-light?

I have come back after breaks but I have broken off permanently with people. So far, after decades in some cases, not changing my mind. Your loss.

This sounds like this one actually believes that it is 'superior' to, or has some sort of 'superiority' over, others.

Which is absolutely Truly laughable.

If I only knew???? If you only knew.

If only I knew 'what', exactly, "iwannaplato"?

Yet another silly conversational tic on your part.

Why?

you do not even know what I was talking about and referring to, exactly?

[Age]

Only a fool would consider Genesis a factual account of anything.

But, 'genesis' is just 'a story' about how through evolution all things are created.

Yes, it is just a story, but not about evolution, as I understand it.

This is because you have only ever been shown, and taught, the misinterpreted version.

Some people believe it is a literal account of how the world and everything in it came into being, and IC seems to be one of those people.

And, anyone only has to ask a question or two to those ones like "immanuel can" to find out and realize that they have absolutely nothing at all of absolutely any actual substance at all that they are basing 'their beliefs' up on.

So, I just leave these ones 'with their own made up beliefs'. They, obviously, cannot back up and support 'their beliefs'. As "immanuel can" has proved absolutely True multiple times over in this forum.

And, every thing is created, and evolves, right?

I don't know exactly what you mean, so I don't know.

Okay. But absolutely every thing was created, and evolves, creating other things. Besides, of course, the Universe, Itself, which was not created.

And, until one informs me of some thing that was not created, and/or does not evolve, then I, literally, stand corrected, or what I say, stands, until corrected.

Can you think of absolutely any thing that was not created, and/or does not evolve?

Because I live among people who do believe in him, and what they believe about him might have implications for me, so I would prefer them not to believe anything too stupid.

I know, but I exercised my freedom to be right on this occasion.

By those who have been hurt by my wrong doing, and by myself, for not living up to the standards I expect of myself, or at least should expect.

Like I said, if you don't understand, it means you are deficient in common human decency, in which case an explanation would make no sense to you.

No I won't.

I believe in right and wrong because I experience them as subjective perceptions.

Why did you quote all the above, but with no comment about any of it?

I do this with some posts. I just 'hit' the quote button, and then just respond to parts of the post, and then just 'hit' the submit button.

I have no real reason 'why' I do this. Other than maybe because I just do not want to respond to absolutely every thing in a post.

[Iwannaplato]

Just more of the same habitual way/s of this one

Again, I appreciate the concision.

[Harbal]

But, 'genesis' is just 'a story' about how through evolution all things are created.

Yes, it is just a story, but not about evolution, as I understand it.

This is because you have only ever been shown, and taught, the misinterpreted version.

If you say so, but I'm not really interested in what the story is about, so it doesn't really matter.

Why did you quote all the above, but with no comment about any of it?

I do this with some posts. I just 'hit' the quote button, and then just respond to parts of the post, and then just 'hit' the submit button.

I have no real reason 'why' I do this. Other than maybe because I just do not want to respond to absolutely every thing in a post.

Well it causes confusion, if you are interested, or at least it causes me confusion.

[Iwannaplato]

Why did you use the 'You did manage to ...' words here? What are you trying to imply here, exactly?

Well, for example, with the formatting - frequent capilization of all letters - this was pointed out as a problem for a long time by a pretty large number of people, for a small forum. This met resistance, and then you changed. Manage to covers the range of efforts you get to improvement. I wouldn't say I was implying anything but rather saying it.

But you have seemed utterly resistant to considering the criticisms I have had regarding the general way you communicate.

Simply because 'your criticisms' are not helping 'me'.

I understood this was your position.

I use the 'general way I communicate' for specific and purposes reasons. And, I certainly do not have to change them because of one of you, or a few of you, or even all of you want me to or expect me to.

Obviously.

And I have given specific examples, and even alternative ways of communicating.

you can say and claim this.

And, considering 'the way' that you actually mis/communicate here I will wait for better advice, thanks.

You're welcome.

I have justified my choices and you surely have noticed how most people react not mainly to the content of your communication but to the way you communicate and what you expect to others to do and not do for communication to be effective.

That you, supposedly, 'justified' your choices is 'one thing', which a full stop would have been better.

I don't understand that sentence, even trying a few different meanings of 'full stop.'

Then your next claim here is 'another thing', which would have been much better expressed if expressed separately.

Perhaps you're giving me grammar advice here, such as to avoid using more than one 'and' the way I did. That's good advice, if that's what you meant.

If your way of communicating was effective with others, even a small group, peachy, but generally speaking, at least here, it leads to people dismissing you, mainly, or getting into arguments with you and openly telling you they find the process irritating or pointless.

And, you seem to keep forgetting, or not able to comprehend and understand, that you people are not, necessarily, my targeted audience.

I remember that. But you said I

am here 'to learn' how-to communicate better, with you human beings.

So, this point of yours was stupid.

Just so this becomes absolutely clear, for even someone like you "iwannaplato", I am not here to, necessarily, be understood by you posters here.

Ah, you don't consider having people understand you part of communicating well or better. This explains a lot.

I am here 'to learn' how-to communicate better, with you human beings. Which means, I am not necessarily here to be understood by you ones here.

What a stupid way to learn how to communicate better with us human being, not being interested in being understood and not caring about the problems that arise in that very communication you want to get better at. But it's your life.

The one who stated and claimed, 'That actually the sun does not revolve around the earth', other people thought of as nuts and/or intolerable, as well.

Notice that you are talking about content and I made it clear that I was talking about form. That the problems arise in relation to the way you communicate.

The masses do not like to be informed of things, which go completely against the 'popular belief'. So, me being called nuts, intolerable, or absolutely any other thing imaginable does not effect me at all.

I certaintly agree that many valuable ideas are reacted to this way. But that has little to do with my point. As you yourself said, you are first looking to improve your communication and human beings don't really know what your healing approach is. You just recently said this. So, they are not reacting negatively to your message, yet, but rather your approach to communication. But you don't care because people here aren't your target audience. Which is a stupid way to proceed. Since you consider our reactions to your approach of no relevance they you are not learning how to communicate with any target audience that is not us.

This is where you end up when you contort yourself to avoid things.

[Immanuel Can]

I accept being held to account for anything I've done wrong,

By whom?

By those who have been hurt by my wrong doing, and by myself, for not living up to the standards I expect of myself, or at least should expect.

If you don't believe that harming other people is wrong in its own right, it means you are deficient in common human decency.

Explain that. Given that you believe in moral subjectivism, how can anything be "wrong in its own right"?

Like I said, if you don't understand,

What I'm thinking is that, in this case, it seems you don't understand your own idea. If something is not objective, it is entirely optional whether one chooses to believe in it or not, and one is no worse or better for believing it or not. So there is no such thing as "subjective human decency." The very word "decency" implies an objective, common standard by which "decent" can be assessessed...and you don't believe anything can ever be objectively "decent," so far as I can tell.

I believe in right and wrong because I experience them as subjective perceptions.

A "subjective perception" not only has no obligatory weight for anybody else, it doesn't even have any for you. Because it will change as often and with as little resistance as your own "subjective" feelings change. And there's no objective anything to resist that.

Interesting, isn't it, how even the most ardently theoretical subjectivist can't keep faith with his own theory? They all lapse into moral condemnations, approvals, justifications, criticisms, and whatnot, just as soon as they've finished asserting that they believe in subjectivism. You're being an illustration of that very point, right now.