Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:53 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:34 am

We all know what happened to "harbal" on here. What happened to "harbal" is, of course, the very thing that happened to "harbal". Thus it was.

Ask a very simple question, get a very stupid response.

That's what it's like asking you a question jackass.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:27 pm Are you capable of recognising the reflection of yourself I've just shown you?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 11:16 pm
Now, if you REALLY WANT others to ACCEPT your CLAIM, here, AS TRUE

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:01 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 11:16 pm
Now, if you REALLY WANT others to ACCEPT your CLAIM, here, AS TRUE

Others already accept it.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:01 am You don't because you cannot reflect on your own behaviour. Everyone who has had the misfortune of speaking with you will know exactly why what I did above is just like crap you do.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 11:16 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:53 pm

Ask a very simple question, get a very stupid response.

That's what it's like asking you a question jackass.

REALLY?

WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY, have you ASKED me A QUESTION? WHAT was the QUESTION, EXACTLY, and, WHAT was my ANSWER/RESPONSE, EXACTLY.

Now, you OBVIOUSLY RESPONDED to MY CLARIFYING QUESTION, with a Truly STUPID RESPONSE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN above, here. So, you can NOT take 'that' back, and 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT in 'the way' that you have, here, is NOT HELPING you AT ALL.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:27 pm Are you capable of recognising the reflection of yourself I've just shown you?

If 'you' REALLY want 'me' to RECOGNIZE A reflection of so-called "myself", then 'you' WILL DO What 'I' ASKED 'you' FOR by PROVIDING WHEN and WHERE I have been ASKED (a) QUESTION/S, AND 'I' RESPONDED AS STUPIDLY AS 'you' OBVIOUSLY HAVE, here. So, 'I', for One, AWAIT 'your PROOF'.

Until then the ONLY Truly STUPID RESPONSE PROVIDED was FROM 'you' above, here.

By the way, making up the CLAIM, ONLY AFTER the STUPIDITY OF your RESPONSE was POINTED OUT, that you only made 'that response' as A REFLECTION OF 'another' is an even MORE STUPID OF A RESPONSE.

'We' ALL KNOW that your response was a Truly STUPID RESPONSE. So, why NOT just ACCEPT it and MOVE ON. WHY 'try to' EXCUSE it and DEFLECT FROM it, and especially SO WITH an ATTEMPTED LIE?

Now, if you REALLY WANT others to ACCEPT your CLAIM, here, AS TRUE, then what you WILL REALLY NEED TO DO is PROVIDE the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF FOR your CLAIM. So, AGAIN, 'we' WAIT.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 11:16 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:53 pm

Ask a very simple question, get a very stupid response.

That's what it's like asking you a question jackass.

REALLY?

WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY, have you ASKED me A QUESTION? WHAT was the QUESTION, EXACTLY, and, WHAT was my ANSWER/RESPONSE, EXACTLY.

Now, you OBVIOUSLY RESPONDED to MY CLARIFYING QUESTION, with a Truly STUPID RESPONSE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN above, here. So, you can NOT take 'that' back, and 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT in 'the way' that you have, here, is NOT HELPING you AT ALL.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:27 pm Are you capable of recognising the reflection of yourself I've just shown you?

If 'you' REALLY want 'me' to RECOGNIZE A reflection of so-called "myself", then 'you' WILL DO What 'I' ASKED 'you' FOR by PROVIDING WHEN and WHERE I have been ASKED (a) QUESTION/S, AND 'I' RESPONDED AS STUPIDLY AS 'you' OBVIOUSLY HAVE, here. So, 'I', for One, AWAIT 'your PROOF'.

Until then the ONLY Truly STUPID RESPONSE PROVIDED was FROM 'you' above, here.

By the way, making up the CLAIM, ONLY AFTER the STUPIDITY OF your RESPONSE was POINTED OUT, that you only made 'that response' as A REFLECTION OF 'another' is an even MORE STUPID OF A RESPONSE.

'We' ALL KNOW that your response was a Truly STUPID RESPONSE. So, why NOT just ACCEPT it and MOVE ON. WHY 'try to' EXCUSE it and DEFLECT FROM it, and especially SO WITH an ATTEMPTED LIE?

Now, if you REALLY WANT others to ACCEPT your CLAIM, here, AS TRUE, then what you WILL REALLY NEED TO DO is PROVIDE the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF FOR your CLAIM. So, AGAIN, 'we' WAIT.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:59 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 8:31 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:04 am

Great. So, you DECIDED TO GO BACK TO WHERE you ONCE WERE.

you DELIBERATELY DECIDED TO 'look at' and 'see' things like HOW you DID when you were a younger child.

And, which MADE you HAPPIER and MORE CONTENT, correct?

AGAIN, ALL younger children just ACCEPT and LIVE BY and WITH whatever they HAVE. (I have Corrected what I SAID and WROTE previously so that what WAS ACTUALLY MEANT IS and BECOMES CLEARER.

I don't know. I don't remember a time when I wasn't aware of the fact that my brother and parents could see. If there was ever such a time then I was so young that I have no memory of it at all.

And, OBVIOUSLY, at those times that you were NOT aware of the fact that others around you could see, and you could not, I could just about GUARANTEE 100% that you just ACCEPT and just LIVED WITH what 'you' had.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 2:14 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:57 pm

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 12:18 pm
This is completely false.

All young children, infants specifically, cry and bawl their eyes out because they do NOT accept what they have. They always want more.

I was a real terror for that sort of thing, when I was little.

Thankfully, I grew out of it.

Will you PROVIDE ANY examples?

Where you crying or bawling your eyes out BECAUSE you could NOT see, for example?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 12:15 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 3:31 am

Just out of curiosity do you feel 'sorry' for those who have been 'echolocation disable' since birth and/or do you 'look for' things/qualities in others to make up for 'their lack of this ability'?


And, so if you, 'magically', were just ABLE TO SEE do you think that you would be able to tell 'a tree' is 'a tree', and if yes, then do you also think you would be able to distinguish ('that shape' of) 'a tree' from (the shape of) 'a chair', just by 'sight' alone?

I try not to feel sorry for people who can't echolocate, as no one with any sort of disability wants to be felt sorry for. Having said that, I don't always succeed in not feeling sorry for people, for whatever reason, and I'm fully aware of how lucky and privileged I've been in life.

Thank you for clarifying how lucky and privileged you have been in Life, and thank you for clarifying the absolute absurdity to 'feeling sorry' for those who are just born 'the way' that they are.

ALL young children just ACCEPT and LIVE BY and WITH whatever they HAVE.

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:52 am No, I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference between things just by sight alone, without practice.

Thank you for clarifying.

Do you really think that the 'mental map of shapes', which you have already formed, would not help you to distinguish, nor help you to tell the difference, between things, just by sight alone?

And, how long or how much actual practice do you envision you would need before you could, for example, tell the difference between the two things 'chair' and 'tree'?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 12:57 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 am

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:52 am as no one with any sort of disability wants to be felt sorry for. Having said that, I don't always succeed in not feeling sorry for people, for whatever reason, and I'm fully aware of how lucky and privileged I've been in life.

I apologize. I don't know if my comments came off as me feeling "sorry" for you or not.

Well considering that the ACTUAL WORDS that you SAID and WROTE, TO "maia", were, 'I'm sorry to hear that you have been blind since birth', how do you think THOSE WORDS would have 'come off', EXACTLY?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 am
Conversation is probably not my strong suit.

I see you 'conversing' 'perfectly fine' "gary childress". It is just a shame that 'the words', and 'the language', that was getting USED, (taught AND learned) in the days when this is being written, was just SO OLD, OUTDATED, and INHERENTLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 am I was more admiring the way you conduct yourself on the forum and that you conduct yourself well in spite of perhaps not being as privileged in some ways as some of us are.

Yes 'we' could CLEARLY SEE what you were ADMIRING. What just FEELS COMPLETELY Wrong, well to some of 'us' anyway, is COMPARING 'the way' one conducts "them" 'self' WITH a missing physical sense.

I, for One, am COMPLETELY UNSURE how just not having a physical sense would IMPACT one's ABILITY to ' conduct "them" 'self' '.

you are OBVIOUSLY NOT PRIVILEGED in 'the way' as some of 'us' are, in that you are MISSING a 'physical sense', but what, EXACTLY, has 'this' got to do with 'the way' that you CONDUCT "yourself", or not?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 am That seems admirable to me.

Would you, REALLY, WANT others to 'admire' you, FOR you just 'being you', ONLY?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 am I find your posts much more rational and thoughtful than my own posts for sure. I think it shows that we can still nurture the humanity in us in spite of what may seem like setbacks or obstacles that others don't have.

Do you see that the physical DISABILITY that you were born with as A 'setback' OR 'obstacle'?

If yes, then HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

But, if no, then WHY NOT?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 am (And maybe me viewing it as a setback or obstacle is incorrect.)

YES IT IS, and VERY MUCH SO.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 am However, I understand the desire not to be felt "sorry" for. That is also an admirable trait.

"gary childress" do you, REALLY, WANT others to feel SORRY, FOR you?

'We' can ALL see that you come, here, WANTING some sort of 'sympathy'. But, in the DEEPEST PART OF 'you', OR, at the VERY HEART OF the REAL Self, do you, REALLY, WANT others FEELING SORRY, FOR 'you'?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 am It was not the intention of my post, however, as I say, I struggle with conversation sometimes.

It IS, and WAS, ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that you HAD and HAVE NO ILL INTENTION, AT ALL. But, UNFORTUNATELY, you are just USING 'the words' IN 'the way' that you have 'grown up' WITH and have 'lived' WITH, but which some of are VERY, VERY Wrong.

By the way "gary childress" you NEVER come across as having an 'ill-willed attitude' towards absolutely ANY one. Now, 'this attitude', of yours, IS one that would be BEST 'admired' BY absolutely EVERY one'.

BUT, just NOT wanting to be felt 'sorry for' is certainly NOT an 'attitude' that one would want to be admired for.

If absolutely ANY one WANTS TO BE 'felt sorry for', then 'that one' NEEDS to take a GOOD HARD LOOK AT "them" 'self', and what IS HAPPENING around 'them'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 am To put a little more context to my post, I had just been on the ChatGPT website prior, asking ChatGPT how I could help make the world a better place and be a better person in my online presence and "practicing kindness" came up as one of the ways I could improve my online presence.

WHY just 'practice' 'BEING KIND'? WHY NOT JUST BE 'KIND', ALWAYS?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 am So when I saw your post, I was trying to form a kind response. But kindness takes some practice for me. (I'm usually very negative.)

you were CERTAINLY NOT trying to be UNKIND, and have NEVER come across as being an 'unkind person' to me, EVER. But what IS NEEDED IS JUST EMPATHY. Which is, more or less, just you FINDING OUT ABOUT 'them', FIRST, and then by JUST 'doing onto them, as you would done onto you', but ONLY AFTER 'putting "yourself" in their shoes', FIRST, as some might say, here.

That is; you may well have 'grown up' WANTING 'sympathy' and others 'FEELING SORRY FOR you'. However, others may NOT WANT 'that' AT ALL, and the BEST WAY to KNOW, FOR SURE, what others REALLY WANT is to SEEK OUT and OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, BEFOREHAND.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:19 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:01 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 11:16 pm
Now, if you REALLY WANT others to ACCEPT your CLAIM, here, AS TRUE

Others already accept it.

Okay, if this is what you REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, then this is PERFECTLY FINE and OKAY, WITH me.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:01 am You don't because you cannot reflect on your own behaviour. Everyone who has had the misfortune of speaking with you will know exactly why what I did above is just like crap you do.

See, how 'this one' MAKES CLAIMS, but WHEN QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED OVER its CLAIMS it 'TRIES TO' HIDE, ONCE AGAIN, and WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY PROOF AT ALL. Because it, LITERALLY, has NO PROOF AT ALL.

For surely if it did have PROOF, then it WOULD PROVIDE it.

LOOK "flannel jesus" if you have ABSOLUTELY ANY PROOF AT ALL that 'I' do 'just like the crap that you did', then PROVIDE it. REMEMBER you are in a 'philosophy forum' WHERE what you SAY and CLAIM is OPEN or be QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED, and WHERE when one MAKES A CLAIM or PRESENTS VIEWS there is AN EXPECTATION that 'that one' WILL PROVIDE what is NECESSARY to back up and support 'their CLAIM' and/or 'their VIEW'.

"flannel jesus" just PROVIDED another Truly STUPID RESPONSE. END OF STORY.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:19 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:01 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 11:16 pm
Now, if you REALLY WANT others to ACCEPT your CLAIM, here, AS TRUE

Others already accept it.

Okay, if this is what you REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, then this is PERFECTLY FINE and OKAY, WITH me.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:01 am You don't because you cannot reflect on your own behaviour. Everyone who has had the misfortune of speaking with you will know exactly why what I did above is just like crap you do.

See, how 'this one' MAKES CLAIMS, but WHEN QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED OVER its CLAIMS it 'TRIES TO' HIDE, ONCE AGAIN, and WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY PROOF AT ALL. Because it, LITERALLY, has NO PROOF AT ALL.

For surely if it did have PROOF, then it WOULD PROVIDE it.

LOOK "flannel jesus" if you have ABSOLUTELY ANY PROOF AT ALL that 'I' do 'just like the crap that you did', then PROVIDE it. REMEMBER you are in a 'philosophy forum' WHERE what you SAY and CLAIM is OPEN or be QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED, and WHERE when one MAKES A CLAIM or PRESENTS VIEWS there is AN EXPECTATION that 'that one' WILL PROVIDE what is NECESSARY to back up and support 'their CLAIM' and/or 'their VIEW'.

"flannel jesus" just PROVIDED another Truly STUPID RESPONSE. END OF STORY.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 11:16 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:53 pm

Ask a very simple question, get a very stupid response.

That's what it's like asking you a question jackass.

REALLY?

WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY, have you ASKED me A QUESTION? WHAT was the QUESTION, EXACTLY, and, WHAT was my ANSWER/RESPONSE, EXACTLY.

Now, you OBVIOUSLY RESPONDED to MY CLARIFYING QUESTION, with a Truly STUPID RESPONSE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN above, here. So, you can NOT take 'that' back, and 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT in 'the way' that you have, here, is NOT HELPING you AT ALL.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:27 pm Are you capable of recognising the reflection of yourself I've just shown you?

If 'you' REALLY want 'me' to RECOGNIZE A reflection of so-called "myself", then 'you' WILL DO What 'I' ASKED 'you' FOR by PROVIDING WHEN and WHERE I have been ASKED (a) QUESTION/S, AND 'I' RESPONDED AS STUPIDLY AS 'you' OBVIOUSLY HAVE, here. So, 'I', for One, AWAIT 'your PROOF'.

Until then the ONLY Truly STUPID RESPONSE PROVIDED was FROM 'you' above, here.

By the way, making up the CLAIM, ONLY AFTER the STUPIDITY OF your RESPONSE was POINTED OUT, that you only made 'that response' as A REFLECTION OF 'another' is an even MORE STUPID OF A RESPONSE.

'We' ALL KNOW that your response was a Truly STUPID RESPONSE. So, why NOT just ACCEPT it and MOVE ON. WHY 'try to' EXCUSE it and DEFLECT FROM it, and especially SO WITH an ATTEMPTED LIE?

Now, if you REALLY WANT others to ACCEPT your CLAIM, here, AS TRUE, then what you WILL REALLY NEED TO DO is PROVIDE the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF FOR your CLAIM. So, AGAIN, 'we' WAIT.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:19 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:01 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 11:16 pm
Now, if you REALLY WANT others to ACCEPT your CLAIM, here, AS TRUE

Others already accept it.

Okay, if this is what you REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, then this is PERFECTLY FINE and OKAY, WITH me.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:01 am You don't because you cannot reflect on your own behaviour. Everyone who has had the misfortune of speaking with you will know exactly why what I did above is just like crap you do.

See, how 'this one' MAKES CLAIMS, but WHEN QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED OVER its CLAIMS it 'TRIES TO' HIDE, ONCE AGAIN, and WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY PROOF AT ALL. Because it, LITERALLY, has NO PROOF AT ALL.

For surely if it did have PROOF, then it WOULD PROVIDE it.

LOOK "flannel jesus" if you have ABSOLUTELY ANY PROOF AT ALL that 'I' do 'just like the crap that you did', then PROVIDE it. REMEMBER you are in a 'philosophy forum' WHERE what you SAY and CLAIM is OPEN or be QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED, and WHERE when one MAKES A CLAIM or PRESENTS VIEWS there is AN EXPECTATION that 'that one' WILL PROVIDE what is NECESSARY to back up and support 'their CLAIM' and/or 'their VIEW'.

"flannel jesus" just PROVIDED another Truly STUPID RESPONSE. END OF STORY.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 11:16 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:53 pm

Ask a very simple question, get a very stupid response.

That's what it's like asking you a question jackass.

REALLY?

WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY, have you ASKED me A QUESTION? WHAT was the QUESTION, EXACTLY, and, WHAT was my ANSWER/RESPONSE, EXACTLY.

Now, you OBVIOUSLY RESPONDED to MY CLARIFYING QUESTION, with a Truly STUPID RESPONSE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN above, here. So, you can NOT take 'that' back, and 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT in 'the way' that you have, here, is NOT HELPING you AT ALL.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 2:27 pm Are you capable of recognising the reflection of yourself I've just shown you?

If 'you' REALLY want 'me' to RECOGNIZE A reflection of so-called "myself", then 'you' WILL DO What 'I' ASKED 'you' FOR by PROVIDING WHEN and WHERE I have been ASKED (a) QUESTION/S, AND 'I' RESPONDED AS STUPIDLY AS 'you' OBVIOUSLY HAVE, here. So, 'I', for One, AWAIT 'your PROOF'.

Until then the ONLY Truly STUPID RESPONSE PROVIDED was FROM 'you' above, here.

By the way, making up the CLAIM, ONLY AFTER the STUPIDITY OF your RESPONSE was POINTED OUT, that you only made 'that response' as A REFLECTION OF 'another' is an even MORE STUPID OF A RESPONSE.

'We' ALL KNOW that your response was a Truly STUPID RESPONSE. So, why NOT just ACCEPT it and MOVE ON. WHY 'try to' EXCUSE it and DEFLECT FROM it, and especially SO WITH an ATTEMPTED LIE?

Now, if you REALLY WANT others to ACCEPT your CLAIM, here, AS TRUE, then what you WILL REALLY NEED TO DO is PROVIDE the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF FOR your CLAIM. So, AGAIN, 'we' WAIT.