Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 4:39 pm
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 4:09 pm
...
If you actually want me to read what you write, you need to get to the point and not expect me to meander down the nonsensical and disturbed pathways that you like to create and follow... because I'm not going to invest my energy in any of that. You're the only one who cares about it if you can't make it more relevant AND interesting to anyone who isn't a follower and doesn't have soupy gravy for brains.
Good to know. I’ll just skip the reasoning, skip the relevance of cause and effect, skip any relevant background, and jump straight to the conclusion.
I'll just make declarations from on high ... what folks customarily call,
belief as in,
"I believe this, and I believe that."
Then, you can do the ad hom thing based on what you make up about my pronouncements, or you can simply say many people believe many things because without evidence, reasoning, or a trail of causation, all beliefs pretty much are the same, and there is no good or bad.
For instance, in the Clancy case, the ex-mother did a very bad thing, and her punishment should be equitable according to the laws of that land. You may agree or disagree, and that's wonderful. My reasons and explanations not necessary, you can make some up. You can even erroneously say that I'm condemning women, and then condemn me.
In that way, dialogue can ensue.
You can say, "You said this."
And I can say, "No, I did not."
And you can say, "Yes, you did."
And I can say, "No, I did not."
There are variations.
I could say, "You misunderstand."
And you could say, "No, you misunderstand."
And so on.
The first one to not quit, wins.
