Eating Meat is Barbaric

[Iwannaplato]

I think the sweet spot is around what the other person makes one feel. Age repeatedly denies his negative judgments of people, both at the individual level and his generally aimed negative judgments, even when I've quoted him direclty. Nothing is ever what it seems, even when if someone does what Age does, then it can be very negative. But not when he does it.

It's not the content, it's the interpersonal dynamic. The social cluelessness. The rage at not being accepted as what he or she thinks is his due.

Just remember to swallow the red pill: Age is not a 'person', just a part of one. Interpersonal dynamic usually assumes two complete persons.

Ah, he's self-abusive. Thank you.

[Age]

Well, obviously, if you disagree with things here as being 'justified', then just show and prove how they are 'not justified'.

In this case I was saying they were not self-justified. But nice onus shift attempt.

Oh but they are self-justified, and your inability to show that they are not justified is further proving of just how much they are self justified.

And, again, you are absolutely free to think or believe otherwise, but you just saying some thing is, or is not some thing, without proving your claim, is not justifying your own belief and claim.

So, are you going to actually show and prove that they are not justified? Or, are you going to keep just saying that they are not?

you just saying or claiming that they are 'not justified' is, really, not saying much at all, and, literally, not proving nor 'justifying' your claim or nothing at all.

You saying they are self-justified is not really saying much at all.

But, they are justified, and they are self justified by the very words used. If you read it again, or enough times, then you will see how it is self justified.

And, to further prove that it is self justified is done by no one being able to show nor prove that they are not justified.

Yes, one, or more, of you human beings could 'see' this. But, why any one of you would even want to, is another thing.

It highlights the pattern in your communication patterns.

So, why does having the patterns in my communication patterns highlighted, supposedly, going to achieve, exactly?

Common Age Tactics:
endless clarification question
requests for justification met with clarification questions
attempts to shame people into doing what he wants - often beginning with 'This one'

Once again;

What one 'sees' or 'believes' is always not necessarily true.

Which, of course, applies to your self-evaluation as well.

But, my self-evaluation has been proved, irrefutably, already.

And,

When one 'sees' some thing in another, then this may well be just a 'reflection' of "oneself".

Thank you for the example of the implicit not quite claim. You'll spend more energy not saying something than actually communicating. Which fits the model of the create more text Age. Now do I think the main goal of Age's is to get people to create more text - unlikely. The secondary gains of considering himself in the position of superiority, however, follow from this tactic.

Okay.

But, obviously, when one does not need to eat meat, then they do not have to kill an animal to eat meat. Which is, also obviously, self justified.

[henry quirk]

40F62EF3-BA2C-40A2-903B-4219AA20B38B.jpeg

[Age]

I guess I can sum up my approach as "perfect is the enemy of better". I'm satisfied with "better" since I've seen so much "no improvement ".

Okay.

But, and just so you are fully aware, I have absolutely no idea nor clue at all as to what you are even talking about and referring to here?

So, would you like to elaborate and clarify here now?

The current situation is: a spectrum of agribusiness practices from small family free range ranching on the "better" side and industrial feed lots (cowschwitz) on the "worse" side.

On the better or worse "side" of what, exactly?

Your (more drastic) solution is shut them all down and veganism goes from 1% of the population to 100% of the population.

But I have never ever proposed 'any solution' for any thing here at all.

Also, what did you envision was 'the problem', exactly, anyway, from which you then, supposedly, 'saw' 'my' so-called 'more drastic solution'?

And, why did you even 'see' 'drastic' here in relation to, exactly?

That would be a "perfect" solution to the problem of domesticated animal suffering.

Are you implying here that you would like, or would prefer, to keep domesticated 'animal suffering' continuing?

My (less drastic) solution is either shut down or change industrial feed lots, while keeping and even expanding small, free range ranching operations.

Okay. But why do you want to keep 'this' happening?

Veganism would probably change from 1% to 5% of the population,

Why would this, probably, happen?

meat consumption would decrease per person as the cost of meat products would reflect the real costs of more humane ranching.

What does money or cost have to do with absolutely any thing that I have said and pointed out here?

This isn't a "perfect" solution to domesticated animal suffering, but would be "better" than the current situation.

Obviously, if the human caused suffering of just one animal were to be prevented, even for just one second, then this would be 'better' than the 'current situation'.

But, why even cause any suffering at all?

What would be the actual purpose of doing so?

The third alternative is what's happening right now, "no improvement", ie the status quo.

Thank you for elaborating, and clarifying, here.

[Age]

I think if the meat on the bone is still alive whilst you are chewing on it, is a tad barbaric.

Okay.

Are 'we' to take that you also think the killing of an animal, so that you can then chew on the meat of that bone, is not a 'tad' barbaric, to you, exactly?

[Age]

All it takes is one call to the right asylum and age loses internet access.

Does this apply to me only, or to some, or to all?

[Age]

All it takes is one call to the right asylum and age loses internet access.

Let me respond aslant. Back when I lived in the US and had just returned from abroad, I was wandering an East Coast city in the middle of the night because there were no busses yet to where I needed to go. I bumped into this woman who started telling me about the conspiracy regarding Johnny Weismuller - you know, one of the early Tarzans. Because of my life story and then also curiosity, I am never thrown off by strange or unique ideas of any kind. So, I just started asking her questions. I didn't even understand what she was on about for quite a while. Now after a while I realized that, despite her excellent hygiene, clear language, noticing well things I had said, etc., she was probably schizophrenic. She loved me. Of course, I treated her very kindly and listened carefully. Patterns she probably didn't experience so often. On the other hand, I wondered what this said about me. Not necessarily negative. I do want to treat unique and fringe ideas with respect, and also the people who bear them, I want to treat with respect - as long as they are respectful, which she definitely was. In part because I have found real value in some fringe ideas.

On the other hand, in the process of trying to understand some people with fringe ideas - or even some abusive patterns in romantic relationships - I have withheld, way too long reactions like yours above. Where is the sweet spot?

I think the sweet spot is around what the other person makes one feel. Age repeatedly denies his negative judgments of people,

And, I will keep denying claims about me which are not true.

This one actually believes that through 'words alone' it knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what another is saying, meaning, intending, and feeling. Which is about the most stupidest and idiotic thing a person could ever do.

This one actually believes, again absolutely, that what it claims 'about another' is irrefutably true, and that if the other denies 'the claims', then 'they' are wrong and/or do not know what they are talking about. And, what makes this even more laughable and ludicrous is that 'this one' has never ever actually met 'the other', 'in person' so to speak. All 'this one' has to go on are words printed on a screen alone. Yet 'it' still wants to believe, absolutely, that 'it' knows 'the other', perfectly.

Once again, "iwannaplato", and for the others who are Truly slow at learning, just because a claim is made about another this will never mean that the claim made is actually true, right, accurate, nor correct.

Until you provide actual proof that I have made a so-called 'negative judgment' of you people, then I will keep denying your, obviously, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect claim here. And, if any one wants to know and why "iwannaplato's" claim here is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, then you 'should' already know what to do.

both at the individual level and his generally aimed negative judgments, even when I've quoted him direclty.

Again, just saying that 'they' are 'negative judgments' never ever means that they actually are. Also, just quoting 'my words' directly never ever means that you yet know what was actually meant and/nor intended. And, you never, really, seeking out to obtain any clarification only means that you are far more likely to never ever learn, comprehend, and understand what was actually meant, and intended.

But, please keep believing, and claiming, what you are here because, once more, you are actually proving True what I will be saying, and showing, here.

Nothing is ever what it seems, even when if someone does what Age does, then it can be very negative. But not when he does it.

If this is what you keep 'believing' is true, then this is, exactly, what you will keep 'seeing'. And, thus keep 'reconfirming', to "yourself", is true.

But, again, please keep on with this habit of yours, as you are doing, exactly, what I have been saying and pointing out about you people used to do, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

It's not the content, it's the interpersonal dynamic. The social cluelessness. The rage at not being accepted as what he or she thinks is his due.

And, what is 'that' now, which you are presuming 'is due'?

you make up so many assumptions, which you then believe are true, and so you have so many presumptions about all sorts of things here, that trying to keep up with all of them and trying to get to just clarify what they are, exactly, let alone trying to get you to justify them is one very long drawn out task.

By the way, are you sure that you would not like to just start a whole other thread 'about me', or maybe even a whole website just 'about me', instead of turning other people's threads about completely 'other things' than 'just me' 'into me'?

I wished this kind but damaged woman well. She was kind, I was kind. She kept me company for a long promenade through a sleeping city and it was interesting.

Who cares?

Do you think, or believe, eating meat is barbaric, or not?

Later, much later, when the internet was available, I tried to find out if there was anything to here JW conspiracy. He died at 79. I couldn't find any even fringe nutcase believers in a conspiracy. I doubt she's still with us, but I hope she's ok or even doing well.

Okay. But, so what?

[Iwannaplato]

Oh but they are self-justified, and your inability to show that they are not justified is further proving of just how much they are self justified.

You still don't see the logical fallacy in this type of assertion.

And, again, you are absolutely free to think or believe otherwise, but you just saying some thing is, or is not some thing, without proving your claim, is not justifying your own belief and claim.

I see. I wonder if you can see the contradiction. But you do have a double standard in relation to others.

So, are you going to actually show and prove that they are not justified? Or, are you going to keep just saying that they are not?

Neither. Yet another false dichotomy.

you just saying or claiming that they are 'not justified' is, really, not saying much at all, and, literally, not proving nor 'justifying' your claim or nothing at all.

You saying they are self-justified is not really saying much at all.

But, they are justified, and they are self justified by the very words used. If you read it again, or enough times, then you will see how it is self justified.

LOL.

And, to further prove that it is self justified is done by no one being able to show nor prove that they are not justified.

Youlike this fallacy so much you repeat it in the same post. Perhaps you believe that repeatedly making an assertion makes it stronger.

Yes, one, or more, of you human beings could 'see' this. But, why any one of you would even want to, is another thing.

It highlights the pattern in your communication patterns.

So, why does having the patterns in my communication patterns highlighted, supposedly, going to achieve, exactly?

Common Age Tactics:
endless clarification question
requests for justification met with clarification questions
attempts to shame people into doing what he wants - often beginning with 'This one'

Once again;

What one 'sees' or 'believes' is always not necessarily true.

Which, of course, applies to your self-evaluation as well.

But, my self-evaluation has been proved, irrefutably, already.

That's just silly. But entertaining.

And,

When one 'sees' some thing in another, then this may well be just a 'reflection' of "oneself".

Thank you for the example of the implicit not quite claim. You'll spend more energy not saying something than actually communicating. Which fits the model of the create more text Age. Now do I think the main goal of Age's is to get people to create more text - unlikely. The secondary gains of considering himself in the position of superiority, however, follow from this tactic.

Okay.

But, obviously, when one does not need to eat meat, then they do not have to kill an animal to eat meat. Which is, also obviously, self justified.

Has someone been telling you that you have to kill animals to get meat when you don't need to eat meat?

[Age]

I think the sweet spot is around what the other person makes one feel. Age repeatedly denies his negative judgments of people, both at the individual level and his generally aimed negative judgments, even when I've quoted him direclty. Nothing is ever what it seems, even when if someone does what Age does, then it can be very negative. But not when he does it.

It's not the content, it's the interpersonal dynamic. The social cluelessness. The rage at not being accepted as what he or she thinks is his due.

Just remember to swallow the red pill: Age is not a 'person', just a part of one.

See, again, even just a very small thing like this, 'this one' could not get Right, and Accurate.

Interpersonal dynamic usually assumes two complete persons.

And, then because it was so Wrong in its first assumption, it then goes off in some Truly off tangent way.

[Age]

I think the sweet spot is around what the other person makes one feel. Age repeatedly denies his negative judgments of people, both at the individual level and his generally aimed negative judgments, even when I've quoted him direclty. Nothing is ever what it seems, even when if someone does what Age does, then it can be very negative. But not when he does it.

It's not the content, it's the interpersonal dynamic. The social cluelessness. The rage at not being accepted as what he or she thinks is his due.

Just remember to swallow the red pill: Age is not a 'person', just a part of one. Interpersonal dynamic usually assumes two complete persons.

Ah, he's self-abusive. Thank you.

And then 'this one' goes and believes, most likely absolutely, what 'the other' said and claimed, to which then both of them will 'confirm' each other's 'biases'. Even no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect each other's biases, beliefs, and presumptions are, exactly.

[Iwannaplato]

And, I will keep denying claims about me which are not true.

Who is this me you are referring to?

This one actually believes that through 'words alone' it knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what another is saying

Well obviously through words alone in an online forum I can know without a shadow of a doubt what you are saying. but more importantly ....

, meaning, intending, and feeling. Which is about the most stupidest and idiotic thing a person could ever do.

...why do you do all of thisy, if you think it is stupid. You've attributed all sorts of things to me based on words, things I haven't said. You've done the same about others. Are you aware how often you attribute your own behavior to others? it's really rather amazing.

This one actually believes, again absolutely, that what it claims 'about another' is irrefutably true,

A perfect example of you doing what you just said was stupid.

I truly recommend you try the whole one true mind persona socratic process with people face to face in off-screen life. It's much harder to miss even your own hypocrisy.

[Iwannaplato]

Just remember to swallow the red pill: Age is not a 'person', just a part of one. Interpersonal dynamic usually assumes two complete persons.

Ah, he's self-abusive. Thank you.

And then 'this one' goes and believes, most likely absolutely,

Just keep telling yourself this kind of thing.

what 'the other' said and claimed, to which then both of them will 'confirm' each other's 'biases'. Even no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect each other's biases, beliefs, and presumptions are, exactly.

I know you have a hard time with irony and humor, but man, what a misread.

[Age]

Oh but they are self-justified, and your inability to show that they are not justified is further proving of just how much they are self justified.

You still don't see the logical fallacy in this type of assertion.

What I see is you trying to claim that they are not justified, nor self justified, but you being absolutely completely incapable of justifying your own claim here.

And, what I also see very, very clearly is while absolutely no one is showing and proving how they are not justified, this is then just further reinforcing and/or proving that they are actually justified, and completely or self justified.

Obviously, and which you have already fully agreed with and accepted is that you just saying and claiming that they are not justified is not necessarily true nor right, at all.

Also, the 'logical fallacy' that you are 'seeing', and 'believe' exists there, is because you have not yet sought out any clarification and are just looking at my words from one perspective only. Thus you are missing things here. But, this is a very common habit of yours anyway. As can be clearly seen throughout your writings and views here.

And, again, you are absolutely free to think or believe otherwise, but you just saying some thing is, or is not some thing, without proving your claim, is not justifying your own belief and claim.

I see. I wonder if you can see the contradiction.

But, there is no contradiction here because that does not apply to me here.

And, you would already know this if you had not missed what I have actually said, and meant.

But you do have a double standard in relation to others.

Once again, 'we' have 'another claim' here.

Now, will you provide actual proof of where 'I', supposedly, do have a double standard in relation to others?

If no, then why not?

So, are you going to actually show and prove that they are not justified?
Or, are you going to keep just saying that they are not?

Neither.

So, you are not going to even actually show and prove your claim. Which just further proves what I have been saying and claiming about 'this one' here.

And, hopefully will stop just saying and claiming what you are here. Obviously, if you are not going to prove your claim here, then there is no real point to just keep on saying it.

Yet another false dichotomy.

Yet another claim, without proof.

Will you explain why you believe what you claim and believe here?

you just saying or claiming that they are 'not justified' is, really, not saying much at all, and, literally, not proving nor 'justifying' your claim or nothing at all.

You saying they are self-justified is not really saying much at all.

But, they are justified, and they are self justified by the very words used. If you read it again, or enough times, then you will see how it is self justified.

LOL.

And, to further prove that it is self justified is done by no one being able to show nor prove that they are not justified.

Youlike this fallacy so much you repeat it in the same post. Perhaps you believe that repeatedly making an assertion makes it stronger.

And, you are, obviously, repeating your same claim about some 'fallacy' here.

Perhaps you believe that repeatedly making the same claim makes it somehow true.

Also, if an assertion can be proved to be True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, then it can. So, just repeating the same assertion, which can be proved True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct does not make it stronger. The proof that it is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct makes it as strong as it can be.

Yes, one, or more, of you human beings could 'see' this. But, why any one of you would even want to, is another thing.

It highlights the pattern in your communication patterns.

So, why does having the patterns in my communication patterns highlighted, supposedly, going to achieve, exactly?

Noticed is that no clarity is even attempted to be provided.

Common Age Tactics:
endless clarification question
requests for justification met with clarification questions
attempts to shame people into doing what he wants - often beginning with 'This one'

Once again;

What one 'sees' or 'believes' is always not necessarily true.

Which, of course, applies to your self-evaluation as well.

But, my self-evaluation has been proved, irrefutably, already.

That's just silly. But entertaining.

And, what you just claimed here could be more silly, and more entertaining, to some.

And,

When one 'sees' some thing in another, then this may well be just a 'reflection' of "oneself".

Thank you for the example of the implicit not quite claim. You'll spend more energy not saying something than actually communicating. Which fits the model of the create more text Age. Now do I think the main goal of Age's is to get people to create more text - unlikely. The secondary gains of considering himself in the position of superiority, however, follow from this tactic.

Okay.

But, obviously, when one does not need to eat meat, then they do not have to kill an animal to eat meat. Which is, also obviously, self justified.

Has someone been telling you that you have to kill animals to get meat when you don't need to eat meat?

Not that I recall. Why do you ask?

And, is this some thing that you would and/or do tell others?

Also, notice and see how, again, what I have said and claimed here is self justified, but which this one believes is not?

[Age]

And, I will keep denying claims about me which are not true.

Who is this me you are referring to?

The one you are making claims about.

Who are you making claims about here?

This one actually believes that through 'words alone' it knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what another is saying

Well obviously through words alone in an online forum I can know without a shadow of a doubt what you are saying. but more importantly ....

That you have left out, and thus missed, the words 'meaning', 'intending', and 'feeling' here has not gone unnoticed at all. So, obviously all you have is 'words', alone. But, why do you believe that you can 'know', for sure, what you claim about 'another' through just 'words', alone?

, meaning, intending, and feeling. Which is about the most stupidest and idiotic thing a person could ever do.

...why do you do all of thisy, if you think it is stupid. [/quote]

Do all of what supposedly, exactly?

And, it is what you are 'trying to' do, which is what I say and claim is stupid. Obviously, not some other thing, which you are assuming or imagining here.

You've attributed all sorts of things to me based on words, things I haven't said.

Of which, and as I have repeatedly informed you, I can prove to be True.

There is a huge difference here. I know you, still, have not yet recognized and noticed 'this difference'. But, it is here, for all to 'look at' and 'see'. See, I can back up and support my claims with irrefutable proof. Whereas, you obviously could not here.

You've done the same about others.

Again, I can back up and support, with proof.

Are you aware how often you attribute your own behavior to others?

Are you aware that what you are imagining, assuming, presuming, or even believing here could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect?

Every time I ask you, you say you are already aware of this Fact. But, you then continue to make further imaginings, assumptions, presumptions, and hold beliefs, which you present as being true, but may well not be at all. And, you will never ever know, for sure, until you obtain actual clarity first.

Now, provide examples of when you imagine, presume, assume, or believe that I am, supposedly, attributing my own behavior to others. And, if you ever do this, (not that I am expecting that you ever would), then 'we' will have at least some thing to 'look at', and 'discuss'.

Until then whatever 'it' is that you are talking about and referring to here for all 'we' know could be existing solely in 'your own imaginings', only.

it's really rather amazing.

Yes. How often you make claims, which are only ever 'alluded' to as well, Truly is really amazing.

It also makes 'us' wonder if you will ever provide any actual proof for the claims you make 'about me' here.

This one actually believes, again absolutely, that what it claims 'about another' is irrefutably true,

A perfect example of you doing what you just said was stupid.

When did I ever say that 'that' is stupid.

And again, unlike you I can back up and support my claim with actual proof.

I truly recommend you try the whole one true mind persona socratic process with people face to face in off-screen life. It's much harder to miss even your own hypocrisy.

Again, 'what hypocrisy'?

Just making a claim that 'it' is there, again, does not mean that 'it' is. Once more, for all 'we' know it could all be existing in the imaginings within 'you' here.

[Age]

Ah, he's self-abusive. Thank you.

And then 'this one' goes and believes, most likely absolutely,

Just keep telling yourself this kind of thing.

So, does this mean that you actually do not absolutely even believe what you are saying and claiming here?

'This one' says and claims things like; 'Ah, he is self-abusive', but then does not even believe it to be true anyway.

what 'the other' said and claimed, to which then both of them will 'confirm' each other's 'biases'. Even no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect each other's biases, beliefs, and presumptions are, exactly.

I know you have a hard time with irony and humor, but man, what a misread.

Really?

Not that you would ever clarify for the readers here, but what is the, supposed, Correct read, exactly?