TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:51 pmI used my INTUITION to predict that I am in fact missing evidence to make such an accusation but I suspected the evidence was there to be uncovered
You...actually didn't? I mean, that's not all you did; You made up some ridiculous differentiation between 'using and mentioning' words that you didn't actually believe applied to what I was doing.
...Well, you didn't need to be
intellectually dishonest in order to extract the information that I believe what the vast majority of human beings believe - I would have just told you that mental disorders exist, right off the bat, if you had simply asked...though you shouldn't need to do that. You could have just assumed that I think they exist, just as you'd prolly be safe to assume that I think the grass is green. I mean, probably. So it sounds like you went through a hefty number of hoop (or at least you think you did) for me to tell you something that is... very basic information.
However, none of this is to say -
this is at all relevant to the current discussion. It's still not. As I said, you have made a mountain out of a molehill. And in case you
didn't infer from me - I have no plans on debating you on the existence of mental disorders. Not today.
Anyhow, now that I have the evidence - your objection/counter-argument is irrelevant.
That's the thing, though. I actually
don't think my objection
is irrelevant. The point was that you couldn't have inferred what you said could have been from the discussion, and that is still true. And that isn't just me being pedantic about a technicality - this goes into the point about you taking a crumb of information, and blowing it out of proportion, so I still don't want to - or will - talk to you about whether mental disorders actually exist - because that was never relevant to what I said.
So I accused you anyway to rile you up (just like you made an 'insecurity' accusation) . And in the process - you produced the evidence I need to prove my INTUITION right. It's called entrapment.
...Now you're definitely not talking to me like you and I have never talked, before.
Look, John. Sorry if you took anything I've said about you personally; It was just a bit of internet tomfoolery. It was not to be taken seriously, my dude. Not sure if you created another account because you were banned or because of something else. Real shame if it was the former, for as much as you and I disagreed, I definitely think you were entitled to the right to say what you did. I mean, your views on women were...frankly pretty disgusting, and sad. You grossly abused the human language, in a way that made me regret we ever evolved past homo-erectus. But, I probably don't think you should have been banned, if that's what happened.
But hey, this is just me using my highly flawed
abductive reasoning that obviously doesn't work at all. Maybe I'm just being crazy - you have no association with eodnhoj7, and the timed and cordial jump to his defense, possessing a similar speaking manner and demeanor to that of his own (albeit, with a bit of meticulous 'forging' to lower suspicions) appearing at the time of his disappearance, and the
attempt to understand what I do around here even though you've never seen me before - is just a big ol' coincidence. I mean, I could definitely be wrong, here.
"Will the real John Doe please stand up?"
I am merely teaching you about epistemic humility - by turning the tables on you. Having been on the receiving end myself I imagine it feels like shit.
...I mean, I'm willing to let you
believe that was a good attempt at pulling a page out of my book, but I think you already know that it wasn't. It felt very forced and unnatural.
But frankly, I'm willing to throw you bone here; Let's just let bygons be bygons. If you don't want me to reply to you anymore, I'll leave it be.
