Philosophy Now Forum

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 6:22 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 2:06 am As with every so-called 'philosophical discussion' so to with 'morality discussions' finding out what is actually, irrefutably, True and Right is an absolutely Truly simple, easy, and quick process.

Eating meat when necessary for one's survival is perfectly all right, but eating meat when it is not necessary is not all right. Obviously, if one finds or comes across what is called a 'dead animal', which has not been purposely killed by the human animal, then this is all right as well. And, the term 'all right' here means and refers to 'that' what is right by all. Which is also simplified here by the term or word 'Right'.

Eating meat when necessary is what is Right, in Life. Doing so was obviously necessary for human beings survival for millions of years, hitherto when this is being written. Eating meat for and under this situation would obviously not be barbaric at all.

And,

Eating meat when it is not necessary is what is Wrong, in Life. Having to eat meat, in the days when this is being written, is needed only in the very, very rarest of occasions. Eating meat in all other situations could be classed as barbaric. (That is if one wants to use an 'emotional term' to, literally, 'stir up' the emotions in another.)

Now, obviously, any form of hunting, gathering, farming, breeding, and killing of animals for food, which is not necessary for survival, is not 'all right', and thus what is actually Wrong, in Life.

And, if absolutely any one disagrees with this, then let 'us' have an open and honest discussion, here.

A perfectly reasonable and internally logical minority opinion.

Does 'minority' or not have absolutely any bearing at all on the soundness and/or validity of things?

If there is absolutely any thing in what I said and wrote here that you would like to discuss, for or against, then by all means let 'us'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 7:06 am

Eudaimonia23 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 9:56 pm Yes, plants are living organisms but they don't have a central nervous system. They don't experience pain when consumed.

Actually we don't know if they feel pain or not. In Western science it was considered speculative at best and false often that animals felt pain. They were considered machinelike. Slowly over time it was realized/accepted that animals did suffer. There has been a bias towards considering that life forms unlike us do not share traits. This even included other ethnicities within homo sapiens.

Nowadays scientists are realizing that plants communicate, take defensive measure, have neurological like reactions with, yes, our type of nervous system, share resources with other trees for example, when they are in trouble, and exhibit signs of intelligence. This include the possbility that they experience pain,
https://www.livescience.com/plants-sque ... essed.html
https://www.ambius.com/resources/blog/l ... ntelligent
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180968084/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... rhiza.html

Veganism is just about minimizing pain and suffering as much as possible.

Eating plants as opposed to animals is the ethical and compassionate way to go.

I think a case for veganism can be made in that it likely reduces animal suffering and death. But even vegans need to realize that their foods have been made in processes that include, necessarily, the deaths of animals. And if they use digital media devices, they are contributing to animal and human deaths, for example. IOW nearly all humans are deciding to continue living at the expense of the lives of both animals and other humans. They are implicitly placing the value of their life over that of others.

Nice articles!

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 9:55 am I have already talked, in part, about this already.

Not really, no.

So, this one is 'now' implying that it has read every word that I have written in this forum here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am I admitted the effects of my actions and inactions.
You can't manage to admit that your actions and inactions lead to the unnecessary deaths of children and animals.

1. your use of the words 'actions' and 'inactions' means completely different things from how I use those words and what those words mean to me.

2. my actions and inaction directly cause the, obviously, 'unnecessary' deaths of children, who are also animals.

3. So, how 'you' define the words 'actions', 'inaction', 'unnecessary', 'children', and 'animal' here, in just one tiny little sentence, is different to how 'I' define those words. Which here is another prime example of why there is so much bickering, conflict, wars, and even killing for example, in 'the world', in the days when this is being written. No seeking out of clarification was ever made, so no clarification was obviously made. So, then one's own personal views and/or beliefs were expressed as though they were the one and only 'true one'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am Nor can you manage to admit that you are valuing your life above theirs.

Once again, more presumptions get made, while never once seeking out actual clarification. And, worse still this one's own made up personal presumptions are, once more, believed to be, absolutely, true.

Look "iwannaplato" there is absolutely no use at all in keep repeating that you do not believe things to be true 'absolutely', while still presenting your own assumptions and beliefs as though they are, absolutely, true. The only one you are 'trying to' fool and deceive here is "your" own 'self', as some would say.

There is no use saying and claiming things like, 'Nor can you manage to admit that you are valuing your life above theirs', if you do not not even believe it to be, absolutely, true.

If it may not even be true, then why are you even expressing it.

And, why do 'you' believe that 'I' cannot manage, forever more, to do what you said and claimed here?

Why do 'you' continue to believe that 'you' know more 'about me' than 'I' do?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am You imply that you only eat a necessary amount of meat.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Never once have I ever implied this.

LOL "iwannaplato" you look at and read into 'my words' consistently with a Truly closed view or from an extremely narrowed perspective and field of view of things.

Please do not ever forget "iwannaplato" that what you, or others, infer in what others say and write may well never ever actually be what was implied, intended, nor even meant.

But, then again, maybe you have never ever even thought about nor considered this irrefutable Fact before. Which would explain why you often so Wrong and Incorrect in regards to 'my words' and what is actually being said, and meant.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am However there are many products including food products, that you consume or purchase, that leads to animal and child deaths.

Again, why are you saying, writing, and repeating what is and already was blatantly obvious to every one here?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am Instead of posting here as much as you do, for example, you could research things like where the cotton in your clothes comes from.

What for?

Maybe instead of responding to things, which were never even 'there', you could become more open and 'see' what is and was actually being said, and meant.

If fact if you stopped making Wrong assumptions on, what you only imagine was being inferred, then you would not say and write a far amount less than what you do here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am You could have not purchased digital media devices. You could only buy ecological food. And so on. If you take an honest look at what you do each day, there are ways you could have prioritized your life and research to minimize the amount of deaths your life contributes to.

Why do you say and write this as though you actually do it?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am Further your continued existence leads to the death or more than one animal and one child. Thus you value your live, we'll call it Ken's body, over the lives of animals and children.

Why call some thing what it is not?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am In dealings with other people you have generalized negatively (you know, about human beings, in the way you deny and gaslight that you do), but you yourself tacitly value your life, just as they do, over the lives and animals and children. So, what this entails is both arrogance and you putting yourself in the role of the shamer, the guilt in others creator.

Once again, if you see or feel 'shame' or 'guilt', then that has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I have meant and intended.

But, if you are feeling 'shame' or 'guilt', then this is a sign of what what is going on within 'that body'. Now, why do you envision those emotions are 'rising up' within 'that body' for?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am You don't notice this.

Obviously, no one 'knows' the emotions that 'rise' in 'that body', that is; until you express those emotions through 'mis/behaviors' or through words. Like you have here for 'us' now.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am I am sure that your cleverness aimed at mental gymnastics, will manage to create for you a way to view this as if it doesn't apply to you, just as you will continue to apply it to other people, never noticing the hypocrisy.

Talk about you providing a prime example here of what was referred as 'mental gymnastics', back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

you go off on so many different tangents, which a lot of have absolutely nothing at all to do with what I have actually been saying, writing, and meaning. And, once again, you have done the exact same thing here.

I can only try to suggest to you again "iwannaplato" to read only just the actual words I say and write here and do not assume absolutely any thing. If you did, then you would be so Wrong, as often as you are.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am Just to let you know: this will not fool me not will it fool some percentage of the people who see such BS from you. It may fool some, and it will likely fool you.

And, as 'we' all already 'know', what you presume or believe I am saying and meaning here may well not even be true or even close to being true anyway.

After all, and as you have openly admitted, what you have inferred here, partly or fully, from the very beginning, could be completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect anyway. Which would mean that all or part of the rest of what you have said and written could just be completely moot anyway.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am Any unsease or anger you feel reading this is something you should investigate rather than 'coming up with' a clever response, one that allows you to feel smug and superior to me and/or others yet again.

LOL But not even one tiny itsy-bitsy bit of unease nor anger arose nor was felt. So, again, your assumption was completely and utterly Wrong, and Incorrect, from the beginning, and so the rest here was completely moot as well.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:18 am And notice that feeling of smugness also. You many not have realized what it was.

The 'smugness', if any, would come from just how Wrong you continually are here, again because you assume before you clarify, and from knowing that I have suggested to you, too many times to bother counting, to not making any assumptions before you seek out and obtain actual clarification first.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:42 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:57 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 11:44 am Nor does this stuff. Couldn't manage to be honest about something so simple, could ya?
But, maybe your target audience won't see through your B.S.

Look at these last two posts here. These people do not quote a single word that I have said and written here, but then write 'this stuff'.

Literally, absolutely nothing is provided, and then both say and claim, 'this stuff does not work'.

Incorrect. I have told you before, and clearly, that if you click on the arrow, in this case next to you name, this leads to the post in question.

When and where have you, supposedly, told me this before, exactly?

And, it is never up to the reader to 'go back' and 'find' what the words 'this stuff' actually is referring to, exactly.

For the obvious reason that the reader could get 'mistaken'.

If you actually believe that it is the readers responsibility to go and find what the writer is actually referring to when it writes 'this stuff', then you are "yourself" very sadly mistaken. And, do not be at all surprised why a lot of what have been writing here does get so 'mistaken'.

If the writer cannot or does not want to be absolutely clear in what it presents, then do not expect the reader to ever be clear on what is being written, and meant.

Obviously, if you knew this stuff, already, then you would not write so elusive as the way you obviously do.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:42 am In case you don't understand the phrase 'this stuff':

'this stuff' refers to your writing contained in the linked post. ''Stuff' can refer to any collection, group, grouping of items often in the same 'space' or space.

And, 'this stuff' is obviously Wrong and Incorrect here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:42 am I am letting you know something about how your writing in that post does not affect me.

But yet 'it' actually 'affected' you enough to cause and make you respond and to write stuff down here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:42 am I don't know if you are conscious of the various things you are doing, but I am formally, if bluntly, letting you know what you are doing will not work on me.

So, what 'I' am doing is, supposedly, not working 'on you'. Okay. But, then one could wonder if you even know what stuff I am actually doing. And, obviously, if you are not absolutely fully conscious of what 'I' am actually doing here, then you, obviously, would not know if what 'I' am doing is or is not affecting you, and thus 'you' would not actually know if 'I' have had an effect on 'you', or not.

Although, what the actual irrefutable Truth is here, exactly, is already known, fully, well by some of 'us' anyway.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:42 am However it may work on your target audience or on others who are not necessarily your target audience.

So, 'I' have not had an effect on 'you', at all, here right?

If yes, then what this one has been saying and writing here has been solely on its own volition, which would mean that what I have been saying and writing and will be saying and writing about how the Mind and the brain actually work, and which 'the proof' for, which this one has been and will be providing was not influenced by 'me' in absolutely anyway at all.

Which makes what I want to show, and prove, through the posters here, in this forum, even more substantial.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:42 am And, to use you as a role model for the creation of useless sentences......

Some people might say that you are conveniently obtuse and not infrequently.

And, if you believe that 'your sentence' here about others might say that 'I' am 'conveniently obtuse and not infrequently' is, or is the creation of, a useless sentence, then okay.

But some might 'now' be thinking about how much 'your' own 'current' personal opinion of 'me' is and was just the result or 'your' previously already obtained beliefs, 'about me'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:18 pm

Eudaimonia23 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 8:31 pm As rational beings, we have the ability to shape our world. If you are okay with animal cruelty and don't want to do your part to eliminate it, then you are partakers of darkness and savagery.

Most people know it's wrong, they just don't care -- they don't want to give up on the taste of savory meat.

I know meat tastes good, but animal lives matter more than my personal taste.

Sometimes, in order to create a better world, we have to make sacrifices.

If there is a God or gods, then I imagine they will judge us on how we responded to this situation.

But regardless of reward or punishment, we should do the right thing, the compassionate thing.

I know it's wrong.

This 'knowing' of what is Wrong, and what is Right, in Life, is, as I keep reminding, 'deep down' within every body, instinctively known, but just unconsciously, and not yet consciously, by just about every one of you human beings, in the days when this is being written.

But, like all knowledge it, eventually, comes to be 'consciously known.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:18 pm I care that it's wrong.

This exact same 'care', and 'caring', is also 'deep down' within every human being. you adult human beings, however, in the days when this is being written, have just 'learned' how to override 'this caring' by your very Wrong, and very Incorrect, 'teachings'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:18 pm However, meat is more satisfying to me than vegetables

Only because you have been brought up with Wrong, and Incorrect, 'teachings'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:18 pm and I don't like being miserable.

Are you absolutely sure that you do not like being 'miserable' "gary childress"?

The way that you come across here could be considered that you do enjoy, or somewhat like, 'being miserable'.

Not that 'deep down' you do like 'being miserable', but that it has become a habit of yours 'currently' to 'be miserable. This is because you found 'comfort/sympathy', from others, in past experiences, when you came across as 'being miserable', to them.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:18 pm It's either live as evil or not live out of kindness to other living beings and my programming routine won't allow me to self-destruct.

There is not a living thing that has a 'self-destruct' program built within them. Unless, of course, they have a 'programming routine' to have created, or pro-created, some thing prior, first.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:53 pm

Eudaimonia23 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 1:10 pm

Any person who believes himself civilized should take no part in the savagery of the animal slaughterhouse industry.

Barbarians do not participate in the "animal slaughterhouse industry".

So, what do so-called "barbarians" actually do then, instead?

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:53 pm That industry is endemic to civilization.

To which 'civilization', supposedly?

And, what 'you', that is; one who has been brought up in a very specific so-called 'civilization', perceive and call is 'endemic' to 'civilization', itself, is a prime example of just how Truly closed some people had actually become.

Define 'civilization'.

And, then describe what is actually, and exactly, so-called and so-claimed 'endemic' to 'that definition'.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:53 pm The notion that civilization promotes moral behavior is, I think, incorrect.

you human beings 'promote' things by what you say and do. And, it could be said and argued, how 'a civilization' is is because of what you human beings say, and do do.

So, you human beings, and maybe so civilizations as well, 'could' promote what is loosely called 'moral behavior', just as much as 'moral behavior' is not promoted by human beings and/or civilizations.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:53 pm Eating meat is barbaric (i.e. practiced by uncivilized barbarians) but the industrialization of meat production is, by definition, a product of civilzation.

You should be more careful in expressing your prejudices. They seem to contradict your thesis.

Would it be Wrong to suggest that absolutely every one is 'more careful' in expressing 'their prejudices'?

And, would it not be more Correct to suggest that absolutely every one is 'more careful' to not have absolutely any 'prejudices' at all, first?

double post

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 1:49 am When and where have you, supposedly, told me this before, exactly?

You are such a pretentious ass with such a poor memory.
viewtopic.php?p=684319#p684319

For the obvious reason that the reader could get 'mistaken'.

I hate to tell you this Age, but you manage to be mistaken when you are quoted specifically. More importantly, as I have now indicated twice already, it was everything you said in that post that I was including in 'this stuff.'

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 1:23 am Look "iwannaplato" there is absolutely no use at all in keep repeating that you do not believe things to be true 'absolutely', while still presenting your own assumptions and beliefs as though they are, absolutely, true. The only one you are 'trying to' fool and deceive here is "your" own 'self', as some would say.

Hypocrite. When others assert things without qualification, you tell them their believe absolutely. When you assert without qualification, you don't even consider this the expression of a belief, let alone an absolute one. Further, you've indicated that you know everything or are on the way to and this is easy for you. So, what we have here is not only hypocrisy but also projection: you see others doing what you are doing and judge them negatively for supposedly being like, it turns out, you.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 11:48 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 6:22 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 2:06 am As with every so-called 'philosophical discussion' so to with 'morality discussions' finding out what is actually, irrefutably, True and Right is an absolutely Truly simple, easy, and quick process.

Eating meat when necessary for one's survival is perfectly all right, but eating meat when it is not necessary is not all right. Obviously, if one finds or comes across what is called a 'dead animal', which has not been purposely killed by the human animal, then this is all right as well. And, the term 'all right' here means and refers to 'that' what is right by all. Which is also simplified here by the term or word 'Right'.

Eating meat when necessary is what is Right, in Life. Doing so was obviously necessary for human beings survival for millions of years, hitherto when this is being written. Eating meat for and under this situation would obviously not be barbaric at all.

And,

Eating meat when it is not necessary is what is Wrong, in Life. Having to eat meat, in the days when this is being written, is needed only in the very, very rarest of occasions. Eating meat in all other situations could be classed as barbaric. (That is if one wants to use an 'emotional term' to, literally, 'stir up' the emotions in another.)

Now, obviously, any form of hunting, gathering, farming, breeding, and killing of animals for food, which is not necessary for survival, is not 'all right', and thus what is actually Wrong, in Life.

And, if absolutely any one disagrees with this, then let 'us' have an open and honest discussion, here.

A perfectly reasonable and internally logical minority opinion.

Does 'minority' or not have absolutely any bearing at all on the soundness and/or validity of things?

If there is absolutely any thing in what I said and wrote here that you would like to discuss, for or against, then by all means let 'us'.

You missed it. The key word in my comment wasn't "minority", it was "opinion".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:13 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 1:49 am When and where have you, supposedly, told me this before, exactly?

You are such a pretentious ass

If 'you' say, and believe so.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:13 am with such a poor memory.

But, 'your memory' is 'rich', right?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:13 am viewtopic.php?p=684319#p684319

So, 'we' are, now again, back to what part, and/or what 'stuff', in this post are you even referring to, exactly?

After you describe 'that', if you ever do, then I might be closer to working out when you have, supposedly, told me 'this' before?

Also, I noticed you have, once again, made a Truly False and Wrong presumption, once more, and, again, because you failed, absolutely, in seeking out and obtaining any actual clarity and clarification, firstly. But, this is just a habit of yours, which you appear to not be able to 'shake', at all, as some would say.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:13 am

For the obvious reason that the reader could get 'mistaken'.

I hate to tell you this Age, but you manage to be mistaken when you are quoted specifically.

Okay. If you say and believe so, then it must be so, right?

Would you like to provide actual examples here? Or, once again, you would like the readers to also, like you do, just presume 'we' know what you are even talking about, exactly?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:13 am More importantly, as I have now indicated twice already, it was everything you said in that post that I was including in 'this stuff.'

So, absolutely every thing I said and wrote in 'that post' was, again, some thing that you have alluded to, and/or still are just 'alluding' to, correct?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:57 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 1:23 am Look "iwannaplato" there is absolutely no use at all in keep repeating that you do not believe things to be true 'absolutely', while still presenting your own assumptions and beliefs as though they are, absolutely, true. The only one you are 'trying to' fool and deceive here is "your" own 'self', as some would say.

Hypocrite. When others assert things without qualification, you tell them their believe absolutely.

Yes, and this is because of the very words that they, and you, use. Which cannot be refuted, by the way.

So, if you are game enough and would like to present absolutely any example here, then 'we' have some thing to, at least, look at, and discuss. Until then 'we', obviously, have nothing to 'look at', nor 'discuss'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:57 am When you assert without qualification, you don't even consider this the expression of a belief, let alone an absolute one.

Obviously, if I am expressing some thing and I am not believing it, then this is not the expression of a belief, let alone could even be an expression of a so-called 'absolute belief'.

Now, you have already informed 'us' that if one expresses some thing without belief, then they are insane or that this is just lunacy, or some thing similar to this. So, what this means is that the things that you express here are what you believe is true. And, from the way you write here it can be clearly seen whether you believe some thing to be 'absolutely true', or not.

Just saying that you do not believe absolutely any thing, absolutely, when you write contradictory, or hypocritically.

Obviously, I do not tell you, nor others, that you believe, absolutely, in regards to absolutely every thing, for the very reason that you do not. I only tell you, and/or others, only when you are.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:57 am Further, you've indicated that you know everything or are on the way to and this is easy for you.

LOL I have never ever 'indicated' this at all. That is; from the perspective of things that you have and are holding here. And, if I recall correctly, I have already informed you of this. But, you might have forgotten, missed, or misunderstood this, as well.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:57 am So, what we have here is not only hypocrisy but also projection:

And, once again, you have missed and/or misinterpreted things, which have led you to presume or belief further misinterpreted things, which then means what has followed has just been moot, once again.

So, once again, I will suggest to you that if you seek out and obtain actual clarity, before you go assuming things, and believing that your own assumptions are true, right, accurate, and/or correct, and before you even begin to start responding, then you will not be as Wrong, and as mistaken, as often, as you are here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:57 am you see others doing what you are doing and judge them negatively for supposedly being like, it turns out, you.

But, how can I be, supposedly, doing what 'you' human beings do here, when it is 'you' who believe things, while 'I' do not?

And, once again, for 'you', again, "iwannaplato", 'I' do not 'judge' others, 'negatively', like 'you' human beings do. So, again, 'I' cannot be doing what 'you' human beings do.

Again, I suggest you keep up with what is actually happening and occurring here. And, the best and simplest, easiest, and quickest way for you to do, and accomplish, this is to just stop making up assumptions, and just start seeking out and obtaining actual clarification/s firstly.

Why do you not just give it a try here, in this thread, and just see what actually happens and occurs?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 11:48 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 6:22 am

A perfectly reasonable and internally logical minority opinion.

Does 'minority' or not have absolutely any bearing at all on the soundness and/or validity of things?

If there is absolutely any thing in what I said and wrote here that you would like to discuss, for or against, then by all means let 'us'.

You missed it. The key word in my comment wasn't "minority", it was "opinion".

But I did not miss what you call and claim here is the 'key word'.

I was only curious and interested in the 'minority' word, and in regards if 'that word' had any actual bearing at all on the soundness and/or validity of things, to you, or not.

And, by the way, I am, still, curios, and interested.

I just now wait to see if you actually answer and clarify this.

Also, if you want to 'look at' the 'opinion' word as being the so-called 'key word', then, obviously, that was 'the opinion' of 'one only', and so an, obvious, minority', but, again, if there was absolutely any thing in what I said and wrote, there, that you agreed with, or disagreed with, then by all means lets.

See, what you said and wrote is very ambiguous, and so it is impossible to 'discuss' without you first clarifying what you Truly meant.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 8:57 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:13 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 1:49 am When and where have you, supposedly, told me this before, exactly?

You are such a pretentious ass

If 'you' say, and believe so.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:13 am with such a poor memory.

But, 'your memory' is 'rich', right?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:13 am viewtopic.php?p=684319#p684319

So, 'we' are, now again, back to what part, and/or what 'stuff', in this post are you even referring to, exactly?

If you actually looked at the linked post and can't figure that out, there's no point in me trying to help you more with your request/question.