Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:49 am What I see is you trying to claim that they are not justified, nor self justified, but you being absolutely completely incapable of justifying your own claim here.

And, what I also see very, very clearly is while absolutely no one is showing and proving how they are not justified, this is then just further reinforcing and/or proving that they are actually justified, and completely or self justified.

How odd that you repeat this fallacy. If you had knew this was the case, you wouldn't just keep repeating it. (see the parallel fallacy?)

Obviously, and which you have already fully agreed with and accepted is that you just saying and claiming that they are not justified is not necessarily true nor right, at all.

Ah, you remember that I have said such things. And yet, you keep saying over and over that I consider my assertions absolutely true. Then when it is convenient you suddenly remember what I have said about my assertions.

Also, the 'logical fallacy' that you are 'seeing', and 'believe' exists there, is because you have not yet sought out any clarification and are just looking at my words from one perspective only.

In other words, I was, according to you, behaving just as you often do.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am

And, again, you are absolutely free to think or believe otherwise, but you just saying some thing is, or is not some thing, without proving your claim, is not justifying your own belief and claim.

I see. I wonder if you can see the contradiction.

But, there is no contradiction here because that does not apply to me here.

I know you believe this. If you do something it's fine. If other people do it, it is a problem. What you apply to others does not apply to you, according to you.

Thank you for being clear about this.

And, you would already know this if you had not missed what I have actually said, and meant.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am But you do have a double standard in relation to others.

Once again, 'we' have 'another claim' here.

Now, will you provide actual proof of where 'I', supposedly, do have a double standard in relation to others?

If no, then why not?

Asked and answered in other threads.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am

So, are you going to actually show and prove that they are not justified?
Or, are you going to keep just saying that they are not?

Neither.

So, you are not going to even actually show and prove your claim. Which just further proves what I have been saying and claiming about 'this one' here.

And again with this silliness.

And, hopefully will stop just saying and claiming what you are here. Obviously, if you are not going to prove your claim here, then there is no real point to just keep on saying it.

You don't know that. You don't know what my intention is.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am Yet another false dichotomy.

Yet another claim, without proof.

It's self-evident. I feel bad for you if you can't see it.

So, are you going to actually show and prove that they are not justified? Or, are you going to keep just saying that they are not?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 5:03 am You saying they are self-justified is not really saying much at all.

But, they are justified, and they are self justified by the very words used. If you read it again, or enough times, then you will see how it is self justified.

LOL.

And, to further prove that it is self justified is done by no one being able to show nor prove that they are not justified.

Youlike this fallacy so much you repeat it in the same post. Perhaps you believe that repeatedly making an assertion makes it stronger.

And, you are, obviously, repeating your same claim about some 'fallacy' here.

Exactly.

Perhaps you believe that repeatedly making the same claim makes it somehow true.

I don't, but clearly you do. You notice the problem when I do it - hint, hint about intentions - but not when you do it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 5:03 am

Yes, one, or more, of you human beings could 'see' this. But, why any one of you would even want to, is another thing.

It highlights the pattern in your communication patterns.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am

So, why does having the patterns in my communication patterns highlighted, supposedly, going to achieve, exactly?

Noticed is that no clarity is even attempted to be provided.

Because you are failing to recognize your own patterns, you fail to get clarity.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 5:03 am And,

Thank you for the example of the implicit not quite claim. You'll spend more energy not saying something than actually communicating. Which fits the model of the create more text Age. Now do I think the main goal of Age's is to get people to create more text - unlikely. The secondary gains of considering himself in the position of superiority, however, follow from this tactic.

Okay.

But, obviously, when one does not need to eat meat, then they do not have to kill an animal to eat meat. Which is, also obviously, self justified.

Has someone been telling you that you have to kill animals to get meat when you don't need to eat meat?

Not that I recall. Why do you ask?

Just trying to make sense of what now appears to be a random tangent in what is placed as a response to a quote from my post.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:12 am And, I will keep denying claims about me which are not true.

Who is this me you are referring to?

The one you are making claims about.

The one? You used the word 'me' above, though not like that, but rather without citation marks. What do you mean when you use that word? You don't usually use it. Suddenly, it's there, naked of citation marks. Have you had a breakthrough?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:16 am

And then 'this one' goes and believes, most likely absolutely,

Just keep telling yourself this kind of thing.

So, does this mean that you actually do not absolutely even believe what you are saying and claiming here?

You've gotten answers from to this type of question before and as a general answer regarding all assertions I make. If you can't remember this, given that you got that answer many times, again I suggest you visit a neurologist. If you can remember, but for some reason don't trust the answer you received, you should understand that asking a source you do not trust again, is wasting everyone's time, since you don't trust the source. To put this simply, you're being silly. This time you asserted it was likely - with no good justification. Other times you have simply asserted that I believed things I've said absolutely. And then asked me if it was true. Kinda ass backwards.

And then from my perspective, since you can never admit you have no ground for telling me I believe my assertions absolutely, there's yet another reason not to respond to this silliness other than to point out how ridiculous you are being.

'This ' says and claims things like; 'Ah, he is self-abusive', but then does not even believe it to be true anyway.

As said, you have trouble understanding humor and irony. But then, you know that already. Given I am not necessarily thinking of you as the target audience, you'll understand, then, that it doesn't matter what you know, while pretending you don't.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:21 am

what 'the other' said and claimed, to which then both of them will 'confirm' each other's 'biases'. Even no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect each other's biases, beliefs, and presumptions are, exactly.

I know you have a hard time with irony and humor, but man, what a misread.

Really?

Not that you would ever clarify for the readers here, but what is the, supposed, Correct read, exactly?

LOL, as ironic and as humorous. The clarification was right there. Try reading it again, in context.
I'm not here to hold your hand, especially given how rude and hypocritical you've been for months. 'Readers', lol. Anyone else, if there is anyone else, would likely understand what I was doing in that response to Atla about 'self-abuse.' I'm sure Atla got it. But if not he can ask me. As can all these other 'readers'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:40 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 5:27 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:29 am I think the sweet spot is around what the other person makes one feel. Age repeatedly denies his negative judgments of people, both at the individual level and his generally aimed negative judgments, even when I've quoted him direclty. Nothing is ever what it seems, even when if someone does what Age does, then it can be very negative. But not when he does it.

It's not the content, it's the interpersonal dynamic. The social cluelessness. The rage at not being accepted as what he or she thinks is his due.

Just remember to swallow the red pill: Age is not a 'person', just a part of one. Interpersonal dynamic usually assumes two complete persons.

Ah, he's self-abusive. Thank you.

Not at all, quite the contrary, self-abusiveness usually assumes a complete person but Age isn't one.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 12:51 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:16 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:05 am

All it takes is one call to the right asylum and age loses internet access.

Does this apply to me only, or to some, or to all?

You only dear friend

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 3:56 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:40 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 5:27 pm
Just remember to swallow the red pill: Age is not a 'person', just a part of one. Interpersonal dynamic usually assumes two complete persons.

Ah, he's self-abusive. Thank you.

Not at all, quite the contrary, self-abusiveness usually assumes a complete person but Age isn't one.

An alter?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:49 am What I see is you trying to claim that they are not justified, nor self justified, but you being absolutely completely incapable of justifying your own claim here.

And, what I also see very, very clearly is while absolutely no one is showing and proving how they are not justified, this is then just further reinforcing and/or proving that they are actually justified, and completely or self justified.

How odd that you repeat this fallacy. If you had knew this was the case, you wouldn't just keep repeating it. (see the parallel fallacy?)

And, some are, now, wondering how odd you, still, believe, absolutely, that it is a fallacy.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

Obviously, and which you have already fully agreed with and accepted is that you just saying and claiming that they are not justified is not necessarily true nor right, at all.

Ah, you remember that I have said such things. And yet, you keep saying over and over that I consider my assertions absolutely true. Then when it is convenient you suddenly remember what I have said about my assertions.

At least I have chosen to when announce them, again. Unlike you who pretends to completely forget and to just keep saying what you do.

Now, that you have admitted that you just saying and claiming that it is not justified in no way whatsoever means that it is not justified, then 'the readers' know what the actual Truth here is, exactly.

Then they can 'look back at' 'my words' and 'see' for "themselves" that 'it' is self justified'. you obviously have not yet even attempted to back up and support your claim, so, again, what you have been claiming here is really nothing at all.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

Also, the 'logical fallacy' that you are 'seeing', and 'believe' exists there, is because you have not yet sought out any clarification and are just looking at my words from one perspective only.

In other words, I was, according to you, behaving just as you often do.

Not at all. And for two reasons at least:

1. I was not saying absolutely any thing at all like this, so your claim that 'according to me' could not be more False, more Wrong, more Inaccurate, and more Incorrect.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am

And, again, you are absolutely free to think or believe otherwise, but you just saying some thing is, or is not some thing, without proving your claim, is not justifying your own belief and claim.

I see. I wonder if you can see the contradiction.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

But, there is no contradiction here because that does not apply to me here.

I know you believe this.

LOL "Iwannplato" you are so absolutely closed here you have become absolutely stupid. LOL what you say you claim 'you know' here could not be more False, more Wrong, more Inaccurate, and more Incorrect.

But, you will keep believing what you do. So, it does not matter that I could prove you to be absolutely Wrong here, you would, still, never ever believe so I could.

you are 'living proof' of what I will be saying and pointing out about you adult human beings back in the 'olden days'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am If you do something it's fine. If other people do it, it is a problem.

Once more you could not be more Wrong and more Incorrect here.

Once again, for you "iwannaplato" as you appear to be continually missing this absolute Fact, not until clarification is sought for, it is not necessarily going to be provided by me, and, I have never even thought this, let alone said it absolutely anywhere.

And, if you still want to believe I have, then this just shows and provides further proof of just how much one is influenced by their own 'confirmation biases'.

One day you might actually obtain the ability to comprehend and understand this Fact.

Also, even what you wonder and imagine here is absolutely Wrong and Incorrect, in and of itself. But, you are completely incapable of 'seeing' this, at the moment, because, once again, your own made up beliefs will not allow you to 'see' what is actually, and irrefutably, True and Right here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am What you apply to others does not apply to you, according to you.

This is absolutely Wrong and Incorrect, as well.

But, you obviously absolutely believe otherwise.

And while you do you will keep 'imagining' what you are here, and also 'seeing' what you imagine and/or believe is true here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am Thank you for being clear about this.

This 'jumping to a conclusion', based on absolutely nothing at all other than its own biases, beliefs, and presumptions, which by the way some of could not be further from the actual Truth of things, is a very common habit of 'this one'.

And, you would already know this if you had not kept missing what I have actually said, meant, and been pointing out here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am But you do have a double standard in relation to others.

Once again, 'we' have 'another claim' here.

Now, will you provide actual proof of where 'I', supposedly, do have a double standard in relation to others?

If no, then why not?

Asked and answered in other threads.[/quote]

Once again, this is, exactly, what 'the weak' and 'the incapable' can only do.

No actual supporting proof for 'their claim' is provided.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am

So, are you going to actually show and prove that they are not justified?
Or, are you going to keep just saying that they are not?

Neither.

So, you are not going to even actually show and prove your claim. Which just further proves what I have been saying and claiming about 'this one' here.

And again with this silliness.

Once again, 'this one' is further proving absolutely True what I have said and claimed about 'this one'.

And, this is driving 'this one' absolutely crazy and insane 'now'.

As 'it' will start showing more and more, and proving truer and truer.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

And, hopefully will stop just saying and claiming what you are here. Obviously, if you are not going to prove your claim here, then there is no real point to just keep on saying it.

You don't know that. You don't know what my intention is.

But these do not matter.

If you are not going to prove 'your claim' here, then there is just no real point to just keep on repeating 'your claim'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am Yet another false dichotomy.

Yet another claim, without proof.

It's self-evident. I feel bad for you if you can't see it.

you can 'feel' absolutely any way you want to 'for me'. But, absolutely none of that is going to help you prove 'your claim' here True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct.

Also, did trying to claim that 'you' 'felt bad' 'for me' 'help you', in any way, to 'feel superior' 'than me'?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

So, are you going to actually show and prove that they are not justified? Or, are you going to keep just saying that they are not?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 5:03 am You saying they are self-justified is not really saying much at all.

But, they are justified, and they are self justified by the very words used. If you read it again, or enough times, then you will see how it is self justified.

LOL.

And, to further prove that it is self justified is done by no one being able to show nor prove that they are not justified.

Youlike this fallacy so much you repeat it in the same post. Perhaps you believe that repeatedly making an assertion makes it stronger.

And, you are, obviously, repeating your same claim about some 'fallacy' here.

Exactly.

But why?

you have already admitted that 'your claim' that 'it is a fallacy' could be absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

Perhaps you believe that repeatedly making the same claim makes it somehow true.

I don't, but clearly you do.

See how this one, once again, believes some thing, makes a claim about it, as though it is absolutely true, yet besides it could be in fact absolutely False, it is, in fact, absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

So, once more, what it says it 'clearly sees' is all a complete fragment of its own imagination, which was and is, still, being made up because of its pre-existing beliefs and presumptions. Which are also completely made up fabrications that are also absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

This one is getting further and further away from the actual Truth of things. And, completely worse still is it is absolutely believing that its own imaginings are absolutely true and right. As can be clearly seen by 'the words' that it chooses to use and write here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am You notice the problem when I do it - hint, hint about intentions - but not when you do it.

This one appears to be going more insane 'now'.

This one also, still, has absolutely no idea nor clue as to what 'a problem' even is to me. Even though I have informed it of such a number of times, already.

Also, this one, still, has not yet comprehended and understood the difference between what I have actually said and pointed out here from what it is actually doing here.

Furthermore, it actually believes that it is going to achieve some thing, without even realizing that I have already covered this posts back, previously.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 5:03 am

Yes, one, or more, of you human beings could 'see' this. But, why any one of you would even want to, is another thing.

It highlights the pattern in your communication patterns.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am

So, why does having the patterns in my communication patterns highlighted, supposedly, going to achieve, exactly?

Noticed is that no clarity is even attempted to be provided.

Because you are failing to recognize your own patterns, you fail to get clarity.

But, I only fail to get clarity, because people like you, just fail to provide clarity, in response to the actual clarifying question I pose, and ask, here.

It is like this one actually believes that it is 'my fault' for just posing and asking clarifying questions, which in turn are not clarified.

Would you like to clarify to the readers here why you believe it is 'my fault' why my clarifying questions do not get answered, and thus clarity is provided?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:12 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 5:03 am And,

Thank you for the example of the implicit not quite claim. You'll spend more energy not saying something than actually communicating. Which fits the model of the create more text Age. Now do I think the main goal of Age's is to get people to create more text - unlikely. The secondary gains of considering himself in the position of superiority, however, follow from this tactic.

Okay.

But, obviously, when one does not need to eat meat, then they do not have to kill an animal to eat meat. Which is, also obviously, self justified.

Has someone been telling you that you have to kill animals to get meat when you don't need to eat meat?

Not that I recall. Why do you ask?

Just trying to make sense of what now appears to be a random tangent in what is placed as a response to a quote from my post.

Okay.

Did you make sense?

Or, are you, still, lost and confused here?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:41 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:12 am And, I will keep denying claims about me which are not true.

Who is this me you are referring to?

The one you are making claims about.

Do 'you' even know 'the one' that 'you' are making claims about?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:41 am

The one you are making claims about.

The one? You used the word 'me' above, though not like that, but rather without citation marks. What do you mean when you use that word?

More or less what 'you' mean when you use that word.

What do 'you' mean when 'you' use that word?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:41 am You don't usually use it. Suddenly, it's there, naked of citation marks.

There are lots of words that I, also, do not usually use.

And, what do you mean by 'suddenly'? 'Suddenly' in relation to 'what', exactly?

Also, do you even know why I use, what you call and label, citation marks?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:41 am Have you had a breakthrough?

In regards, or in relation, to 'what', exactly?

And, what are you even referring to, exactly, anyway?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:16 am

And then 'this one' goes and believes, most likely absolutely,

Just keep telling yourself this kind of thing.

When 'your words' keep pointing to this, then I will keep informing, or reminding, the readers here how 'you' present 'your words' here.

Which, again, is just more and further things that I can prove to be absolutely True, as well.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am

So, does this mean that you actually do not absolutely even believe what you are saying and claiming here?

You've gotten answers from to this type of question before and as a general answer regarding all assertions I make. If you can't remember this, given that you got that answer many times, again I suggest you visit a neurologist.

And, once again, this one fails, absolutely, to be open, honest, clear, and direct.

This one has proven "itself", once more, to be sneaky, hiding, deceitful, and very, very allusive.

Which makes some wonder what this one, really, has to hide and keep secret here.

Now, obviously you have claimed that you 'must' believe what you do when you assert things here. you have also tried to claim that though you 'believe' what you assert you also do not 'absolutely believe' what you assert.

Which just makes some wonder why you cannot be 'absolutely sure' of what 'you believe', and, why would you even begin to 'believe' any thing when it could be just completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect anyway?

Although 'the answers' to these are already known, absolutely, by some of 'us' here, some are, still, wondering why you, still, cannot yet 'see' and 'comprehend' the absolute ridiculousness of what you do here?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am If you can remember, but for some reason don't trust the answer you received, you should understand that asking a source you do not trust again, is wasting everyone's time, since you don't trust the source.

Well since this is not applicable at all, it is just another moot thing you are trying to make here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am To put this simply, you're being silly.

If you say and believe so, then I am, to you.

However, others are seeing, simply, how I am showing and pointing out that you speak and write here as though some of 'your claims' are absolutely true.

When, obviously, even you admit that 'your own claims' could, actually be completely false.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am This time you asserted it was likely - with no good justification. Other times you have simply asserted that I believed things I've said absolutely. And then asked me if it was true. Kinda ass backwards.

Okay. But 'your fear' and thus 'inability' to actually answer and clarify 'the questions' I pose, and ask, you here are what is being 'brought-to-light'.

Which may well be what I wanted to show, and reveal, here, that is; that people like you, from back in the 'olden days' would very commonly have these things, and thus is why they did not, and could not, just be open and honest, 'back then'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am And then from my perspective, since you can never admit you have no ground for telling me I believe my assertions absolutely,

But, I have lots of so-called 'grounds', examples, and thus proof. So, why do you believe otherwise?

Also, why do you believe you can know 'the future' forever more here?

Furthermore, 'your own words and writings' here show, and reveal, what you think, believe, or absolutely believe, is true.

So, 'my grounds', and 'proof', are 'your words', alone. And, 'this' is all I actually only need.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am there's yet another reason not to respond to this silliness other than to point out how ridiculous you are being.

LOL Do you actually believe that 'you' just saying that, ' 'I' am being ridiculous ' or that my questions to you are 'silliness', is 'you', actually, 'pointing out' how, supposedly, ridiculous I am being?

LOL "iwannaplato". I have already had you show, reveal, and point out how you are not even, absolutely, 'sure' of your very own beliefs, and that even when you believe some thing is true, you do not even know if it is true or not anyway.

So, there is no wonder why you call 'this silliness', that is; me having already gotten 'you' to reveal more about 'you' than you would like.

you do not like that 'the readers' become fully aware that whatever you believe and assert here could actually be completely False and Wrong anyway.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am

'This ' says and claims things like; 'Ah, he is self-abusive', but then does not even believe it to be true anyway.

As said, you have trouble understanding humor and irony.

And, if I asked you to explain to 'the readers' here where, and what, exactly, was the, supposed, 'humor' and 'irony' here, then would you?

If no, then why not?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am But then, you know that already. Given I am not necessarily thinking of you as the target audience, you'll understand, then, that it doesn't matter what you know, while pretending you don't.

Okay, if you say and believe so. But, in all honesty, this all sounds very confusing and perplexing.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 1:21 am

what 'the other' said and claimed, to which then both of them will 'confirm' each other's 'biases'. Even no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect each other's biases, beliefs, and presumptions are, exactly.

I know you have a hard time with irony and humor, but man, what a misread.

Really?

Not that you would ever clarify for the readers here, but what is the, supposed, Correct read, exactly?

LOL, as ironic and as humorous. The clarification was right there. Try reading it again, in context.

See how 'this one', really, is absolutely 'scared' and 'afraid' to just 'clarify'.

It is like it is absolutely 'petrified' that if it ever did 'clarify', then it could be shown where, exactly, it is Wrong, and Incorrect. So, instead of ever allowing the possibility of this ever happening, it would much prefer to never clarify any of its claims here, in this forum, and especially in regards 'with me'.

Only on the very, very rarest of occasions 'this one' will ever actually clarify. As it keeps further proving absolutely True here, as 'we' so-call 'proceed' and 'move along', here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am I'm not here to hold your hand, especially given how rude and hypocritical you've been for months.

Just saying and claiming that 'I' am rude and hypocritical never means that 'I' actually am. As you will, readily, admit.

So, until you actually prove that I have been, what you are saying and claiming here could also be absolutely False and Wrong, as well.

And, LOL if you think just being open and honest by just answering and clarifying open clarifying question asked to you in regards to your accusations and/or claims is so-called 'holding my hand', then you, really, do have a very skewed and distorted take and/or view on Life, and living, Itself.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:49 am 'Readers', lol. Anyone else, if there is anyone else, would likely understand what I was doing in that response to Atla about 'self-abuse.' I'm sure Atla got it. But if not he can ask me. As can all these other 'readers'.

But, LOL, as I have been pointing out and showing here, throughout this forum, you posters here, in the days when is was being written, do not have a tendency to ask Truly open questions, just for clarity sake. And, this is because you are all too busy having already picked "a side" of a particular topic, and spend most of 'your time' trying to fight or argue for that "one side" of things.

LOL As you posters here have been clearly showing, and revealing, you are far more interested in getting your own views and beliefs across 'to others' than you ever are about even just 'trying to' understand 'the other' and/or 'the other's perspective of things'.

And, are you 'absolutely sure' "atla" so-called 'got it'? Or, just 'sure'?

And, what is the actual difference between being 'absolutely sure' of some thing, and, being just 'sure' of some thing?

Also, if you are 'sure' "atla" so-called 'got it', then why would you wonder, if "atla" did not 'get it'?

To me, you really do appear to do some of the strangest things ever. Like, for example,

you, supposedly, do not believe absolutely any thing, absolutely.

you believe things to be true, which might well be not even true at all. And,

you are 'sure' of things, which you, actually, are 'not sure' of.

By the way, if you would not clarify, for me, then would you if "atla" or if other readers asked you?

If yes, then why would you do it 'for them' but not 'for me'?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 6:07 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 12:51 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 9:16 am

All it takes is one call to the right asylum and age loses internet access.

Does this apply to me only, or to some, or to all?

You only dear friend

So, well to "flannel jesus" anyway, there is absolutely no one that it would take just one call to a so-called 'right asylum' for anyone else to lose 'internet access'.

Apparently 'this scenario' could only ever happen 'to me', and 'to me', alone.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 3:33 pm And, some are, now, wondering how odd you, still, believe, absolutely, that it is a fallacy.

Back to your hallucination-based adverb. Your beliefs are showing.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 2:38 am

Obviously, and which you have already fully agreed with and accepted is that you just saying and claiming that they are not justified is not necessarily true nor right, at all.

Ah, you remember that I have said such things. And yet, you keep saying over and over that I consider my assertions absolutely true. Then when it is convenient you suddenly remember what I have said about my assertions.

At least I have chosen to when announce them, again. Unlike you who pretends to completely forget and to just keep saying what you do.

That made no sense. I think it is false, but it doesn't rise to a clear thought.

Now, that you have admitted that you just saying and claiming that it is not justified in no way whatsoever means that it is not justified, then 'the readers' know what the actual Truth here is, exactly.

You falsely reworded what I said and yet again use this fallacy. Further, you haven't admitted you were wrong that I believe things I write absolutely, but nevertheless write, now, since it is convenient as if you accept what goes against your assertions.

This is really base lack of integrity.

Then they can 'look back at' 'my words' and 'see' for "themselves" that 'it' is self justified'. you obviously have not yet even attempted to back up and support your claim, so, again, what you have been claiming here is really nothing at all.

The level of back up claims I need to match in your claim that your statements are self-justified has been matched. Consider all my assertions self-justified. LOL

you can 'feel' absolutely any way you want to 'for me'.

You say this kind of thing a lot. I'm not sure if you are aware but telling me I can do things that even morons would realize I can feel shows a basic lack of understanding not only of your readers but of reality. Unless you mean you grant me this ability. That would be even more embarrassing.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:23 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 6:07 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 12:51 am

Does this apply to me only, or to some, or to all?

You only dear friend

So, well to "flannel jesus" anyway, there is absolutely no one that it would take just one call to a so-called 'right asylum' for anyone else to lose 'internet access'.

Apparently 'this scenario' could only ever happen 'to me', and 'to me', alone.

You kinda mangled your sentence but I think you get the gist.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:47 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:23 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 6:07 am

You only dear friend

So, well to "flannel jesus" anyway, there is absolutely no one that it would take just one call to a so-called 'right asylum' for anyone else to lose 'internet access'.

Apparently 'this scenario' could only ever happen 'to me', and 'to me', alone.

You kinda mangled your sentence but I think you get the gist.

This is the part I never understood, why does Age get so much internet time?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:57 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:47 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:23 pm

So, well to "flannel jesus" anyway, there is absolutely no one that it would take just one call to a so-called 'right asylum' for anyone else to lose 'internet access'.

Apparently 'this scenario' could only ever happen 'to me', and 'to me', alone.

You kinda mangled your sentence but I think you get the gist.

This is the part I never understood, why does Age get so much internet time?

Maybe he wins wagers against the other patients, they bet internet time on major political events. Age is from the future so it's an easy win for him. His latest big win is riots in England.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 5:01 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:57 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:47 pm

You kinda mangled your sentence but I think you get the gist.

This is the part I never understood, why does Age get so much internet time?

Maybe he wins wagers against the other patients, they bet internet time on major political events. Age is from the future so it's an easy win for him. His latest big win is riots in England.

Maybe asylums wouldn't take her and she lives with her parents and at least she doesn't bother them as much when she's on the net.