What do you think ? 💭

[Age]

likewise
and pass it on to Age.

Why did 'you' say to pass it on to 'me' for, exactly?

She understood.

Once more 'this one' will not 'just clarify'.

[Age]

So, once again, what 'we' can clearly see here is another excuse for not just clarifying.

I don't need, nor did I give, an excuse for not clarifying to you what I said to someone else.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that you did not give an excuse above, here?

But please prove that it was an excuse.

By 'trying to justify' for not doing some thing then an excuse is being made.

Are you trying to justify why you did not clarify some thing, for me?

[Age]

Why 'this one' continues to presume, and believe, true, what is absolutely not, is already fully known, and understood.

Nothing of substance here.

Except, of course, that it is now, very clear, that you continue to presume, and believe, some thing is true, which is absolutely not true, at all.

Also, and by the way, finding out that I fully know why you, continually, believe things to be true, which are absolutely not true at all, some find very substantial.

[Age]

Do you understand the reference? Do you know who I was quoting here? Do you notice when you assume things?

Once again, what do you assume, or believe, I have assumed absolutely anywhere here?

I will give you this whole forum for you to pick from to find those items when you believe I have assumed some thing.

All I ask is that you just be very, very specific about what 'it' is, exactly, that you believe I have assumed.

If you do not, now, do this, then why not?

By the way, yes, and, yes for the other two

Great, you understood the reference and whom I was quoting. It seems like you understood, then, my intention in saying it. I am glad you found it funny, since it was, in part, meant to be funny.

Did you respond 'Haha 'born like this' when it was used by someone else?

No.

If not, why not?

Because it was not as absurd and ridiculous as yours.

You clearly knew what I was referring to, so you must have read it?

If you say so.

Also, why did you not provide here just one example where you believe I have assumed some thing?

[Age]

Nice vague reference: 'that'. Some might say you don't notice when you do things you are critical of others for doing.

I have been doing this very thing many, many times.

And, doing it at times while also pointing out that you have absolutely no clue as to what I am talking about.

I have also done this many times in direct response to when you have done it, but you appeared to have never recognised nor noticed it. Well at least you have never picked up on it and responded it before.

Oh, yes, I truly believe you only started doing this in reaction to me. It didn't happen with some regularity in response to others and not intentionally. I am convinced.

If this is what you believe is true and are convinced of, then okay.

[Age]

Will you please explain to me, and to the readers here, how you are 'seeing', and more so 'seeing' on a second time of looking, the word 'anywhere', anywhere in that sentence?

Yup, that was a typo on my part.

So, the same 'typo' twice, and on the second reading as well.

But in the orginal sentence you mean 'any more' didn't you.

Not before I look into this further.

Two words. Not 'anymore'. You used 'anymore' and that makes the sentence incorrect and confusing.

How, exactly, does that make the sentence incorrect, and confusing to you?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 5:21 am
I wonder if 'this one' could focus on, 'look at', and 'judge me' anymore here. While all the time completely neglecting to 'look at' its own doings and habits, here.

Did you really mean to use 'anymore* or did you mean 'any more', two words?

I.have not yet looked into how they are different. So, at the moment, I do not yet know what the actual difference is between the two.

In any case with anymore it makes no sense.

If you say so, then okay.

So, I meant any more, instead of anymore.

Also, is.there a difference between everything and every thing?

If yes, then how, exactly?

[Age]

And, what is so-called 'genuine love', exactly?

I don't see any reason to discuss this with you.

Is this also not an excuse for just not clarifying?

But I have a suggestion. If you responded to that quote that Fairy had in her post, I might see a way to have a discussion with you of the issues it raises. Then I can see your thoughts and potentially feelings as you can see mine above.
Here's the quote, should you have any interest:

Fairy quoted: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 3:37 pm
''Love is anxiety. Attachment is suffering. Life is suffering. Relationships are two insecure individuals that use and tolerate each other for their own selfish needs and wants all for the fear of being alone. They are all toxic on some level and narcissistically controlled by one. This is not love and this is no way to live but most and many do out of fear. All relationships are full of lies, deceit and manipulative manipulation due to hate which comes from fear. Everything we do is out of fear. If everyone truly knew what everyone was thinking then no one would have any friends and relationships would not be a thing. Fantasies are cheating. Everyone has fantasies. Trust no one ever.''

If you already directly responded to quote, let me know and I'll read your response to it.

The same goes for the other questions you asked in response to my response to that quote and Fairy asking me about it. If you'd like to give your reactions to that post, I might see a way to have a discussion I would find useful.

So, once again, 'this one' says things and/or claims things here, but will not just clarify its views and positions nor what it says and claims when I just ask it to.

[Age]

Anyway, there is, really, only 'I' that exists, although there are, obviously, things called 'human beings' who believe that they are 'I's'.

'Those ones' do not have nor hold the status that 'I' do, and thus are, really, only 'i's, or 'you', instead.

[Iwannaplato]

And, what is so-called 'genuine love', exactly?

I don't see any reason to discuss this with you.

Is this also not an excuse for just not clarifying?

No, it's not that.

So, once again, 'this one' says things and/or claims things here, but will not just clarify its views and positions nor what it says and claims when I just ask it to.

I would prefer to have a balanced interaction with Age, where instead of endlessly meeting his requests for clarification and never quite finding out much at all about his positions, ideas, feelings, knowledge on the topic, I do find out these things and we can compare. My experience of Age is that his patterns of communication lead to me producing a lot and having everything questioned, and even my requests for clarification, require clarification on my part. During this process Age often respond to me and others in the 3rd person. For example, comments beginning with 'This one....'. It seems his intention is not to be rude, but given he has said that actually he may not even be interesting in communcating with us, given that we may not even be his target audience, the process seems a little parasitic. So, I think a solution for me would be if Age responded directly to the topic and we both have some context for the other person's thoughts, positions, emotions, knowledge of the topic, for that discussion.

Obviously this preference may not suit Age and the choice is up to him.

[Iwannaplato]

Why 'this one' continues to presume, and believe, true, what is absolutely not, is already fully known, and understood.

Nothing of substance here.

Except, of course, that it is now, very clear, that you continue to presume, and believe, some thing is true, which is absolutely not true, at all.

You've stated that, yes. But you haven't demonstrated that. So, when you use the vague 'that it is now very clear' without mentioning to whom it is clear, your post is misleading at best.

[Iwannaplato]

So, I meant any more, instead of anymore.

Fine.

[Iwannaplato]

If this is what you believe is true and are convinced of, then okay.

It was ironic.

[Iwannaplato]

Once again, what do you assume, or believe, I have assumed absolutely anywhere here?

I will give you this whole forum for you to pick from to find those items when you believe I have assumed some thing.

All I ask is that you just be very, very specific about what 'it' is, exactly, that you believe I have assumed.

If you do not, now, do this, then why not?

By the way, yes, and, yes for the other two

Great, you understood the reference and whom I was quoting. It seems like you understood, then, my intention in saying it. I am glad you found it funny, since it was, in part, meant to be funny.

Did you respond 'Haha 'born like this' when it was used by someone else?

No.

If not, why not?

Because it was not as absurd and ridiculous as yours.

So, Fairy's use of it was ridiculous and absurd, but not as much as mine. Fine. And why was the first use not as ridiculous and absurd? What do you think my intention was when I used it? What did it mean when I used it?

You clearly knew what I was referring to, so you must have read it?

If you say so.

Also, why did you not provide here just one example where you believe I have assumed some thing?
[/quote]I've done that in the past. It was a waste of time.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, since I never made that claim, what you say and claim here is, also, completely moot.

Great, so I was not neglecting to look.

you said that when you do your so-called 'shit' that you get so-called 'called out on your shit'. So, I just asked you politely, and curiously, how often both of these things happen, for clarification sake only.

Your wording was certainly neutral. If you were to go into your ideas, feelings, thoughts, knowledge, regarding such things, my reaction would be different. I noticed what you chose to focus on and have a history with how you interact with me.

Nothing more, and, nothing less.

So, any thing presumed otherwise is all just moot.

Seemingly only when others presume, but not when you presume.

Why on earth would I discuss something like this with you?

Because you brought it up and raised it in an open public forum.

That's faulty logic. It was not a PM, since I am happy to discuss the issue with many, but not all people. With you I would be more open to a discussion if you presented your own responses to those things. With others, I'd be happy. My reactions are affected by what I have experienced with things and people.

I said 'Why on earth would I discuss something like this with you?'
You responded:

Because you brought it up and raised it in an open public forum.

So the reason I would discuss it with you is because I brought it up and raised it in an open public forum, according to you.

First, that's confused. Closer might something like: I thought you would discuss something like this with me because it is in a public forum. I can understand you thinking that, even if it is incorrect.

My point was that I have explained a number of times how I experience your attitude towards human beings and given examples of things you have said about humans. This topic is even more personal, so why on earth would I want to discuss such a thing with you?

Which is not the same questions as 'Why did it seem like I was open to discussing it with everyone?'

In fact, I'm not. Though this could change if you were generous on the same personal level about the same issues.

Once again I will suggest that if some one does not have the actual irrefutable proof of or for some thing that they raise and claim here, or do not want to just clarify what they say and claim here, then just do not say and write in a public forum, and especially more so in a philosophy forum of all places

I was discussing my relationship with my wife. I was talking about her calling me on my shit and that I appreciated that.

That is what you were questioning me about.

And you think I need to provide irrefutable proof about such things?

What are you talking about?

To me this is so interpersonally confused and categorically confused. And it shows precisely why I wouldn't want to discuss personal matters with you. With Fairy, yes. She is generous about explaining such things, the raw interpersonal side of life. If you were willing to go into such things I might have a different reaction. If you don't understood why this explanation of what you just assume everyone should do, to the point of stating it in the imperative, my sense that you are not someone for me to discuss this with, is even more obvious.

Why do some the people here, in these days when this is being written find this so hard or to complete to comprehend and understand?

Perhaps it is you who are severely clueless on certain issues.

Simply because someone discusses something in a public forum does not entail that they everyone who responds is an appropriate discussion partner for them.

Once again I will suggest that if some one does not have the actual irrefutable proof of or for some thing that they raise and claim here, or do not want to just clarify what they say and claim here, then just do not say and write in a public forum, and especially more so in a philosophy forum of all places

To provide irrefutable proof that my wife calls me on my shit....what - I put up video cameras and online live feeds? Yes, I made claims about my relationship and of course you were utterly within your rights to ask. But you have shown behavior here and a lack of understanding here about certain things that leads me to not want to answer your questions and discuss my personal life with you. There are others here I would, should they be interested.

[Age]

And, what is so-called 'genuine love', exactly?

I don't see any reason to discuss this with you.

Is this also not an excuse for just not clarifying?

No, it's not that.

So, once again, 'this one' says things and/or claims things here, but will not just clarify its views and positions nor what it says and claims when I just ask it to.

I would prefer to have a balanced interaction with Age, where instead of endlessly meeting his requests for clarification and never quite finding out much at all about his positions, ideas, feelings, knowledge on the topic, I do find out these things and we can compare.

I would prefer you did not miss, and did understand, my views and ideas, but 'we' cannot always get what 'we' prefer, correct?

My experience of Age is that his patterns of communication lead to me producing a lot and having everything questioned, and even my requests for clarification, require clarification on my part. During this process Age often respond to me and others in the 3rd person. For example, comments beginning with 'This one....'. It seems his intention is not to be rude, but given he has said that actually he may not even be interesting in communcating with us,

Once again, I have never said this. But this does not stop 'this one' from presuming or believing otherwise.

given that we may not even be his target audience, the process seems a little parasitic.

Yet 'you' are , still, here.

So, I think a solution for me would be if Age responded directly to the topic and we both have some context for the other person's thoughts, positions, emotions, knowledge of the topic, for that discussion.

I have already done this.

So, 'we' now await to see if "iwannaplato" can do the same.

Obviously this preference may not suit Age and the choice is up to him.

And, obviously, the choice is up to "iwannaplato"