Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 12:02 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:15 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 3:56 am
Not at all, quite the contrary, self-abusiveness usually assumes a complete person but Age isn't one.

An alter?

No I'm talking about one of the ultimate taboos which we almost never break because the implications can make life not worth living. Most people gleefully don't even realize that there is this taboo.

Not all Homo sapiens can be seen as psychologically human because they are missing core parts of what makes us human. Age isn't human just a dysfunctional part of a human. Age seems to lack the capacity for self-reflection while also having a whole lot of other issues.

This one, still, believes, absolutely, that what is involved in 'self-reflection' is 'seeing' "one's" 'self' in a mirror.

Which is absolutely hilarious when one learns and understand who and what the 'self' is, exactly.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 12:02 am But there is no human psychology without self-reflection.

Words like human, people, person have built in psychological assumptions and the world would be a drastically different place if most people realized that say about 3-5% of Homo sapiens don't actually meet those assumptions, we just project onto them the belief that they do.

The other one on this forum that isn't human is IC (and maybe Skepdick). I see every day that people treat IC like it was human, because they are under the illusion.

So, the one here known as "atla" believes that some of the 'things' that it talks to and responds to here, in a philosophy forum, are not even human beings nor people.

I wonder if anyone asked it, what then are "immanuel can", "age", and, maybe, "skepdick", exactly, if it would then answer, and clarify?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 4:04 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 1:10 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:57 pm
This is the part I never understood, why does Age get so much internet time?

LOL Spoken, exactly, like one who is completely deluded because of its well maintained beliefs.

bet you don't pay the internet bill tho

Was this a very mature and grown up way to respond?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:27 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 12:45 am When some thing actually does happen or occurs, then there is no hallucination. What I said and claimed here can be proved to have happened and occurred. So, once again, there is no hallucination he

Are, at all.

No, you can't prove that your use of 'absolutely' applies here.

Just as expected, you have, again, actually provided another prime example of where and when you say and claim things, from an 'absolute' perspective.

So, thank you for, again, doing what you have done before, and thus you are just repeating what has happened and occurred previously.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:27 am But, please, throw some words at the screen in what you think will be a proof. What is this proof?

LOL Once again, it is 'your own words' that prove my claims here, absolutely, and irrefutably, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

you, literally, saying and writing words like, 'No, you can't prove ...', is you, literally, writing in 'absolute terms'.

So, what is 'this proof' is 'your very words' here, in this reply.

It is like you do not even know when you do it. And, the reason for this is because you believe, and even absolutely, that you do not even do it. Which, literally, makes this even funnier and more humorous to observe here, for all of 'us' to see play out and happen and occur here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 4:33 am

Evasive as usual.

This one, literally, did not see and recognize the absolute irony of quoting not a single word that I have said and written here, and then responding to a very 'evasive quote' with the words, 'Evasive as usual'.

Unless, of course, it was referring to what it continually does here, and which has become another habit of "iwannaplato" here.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 9:58 am Okay. So, you claim that you, absolutely, do not 'absolutely believe' absolutely anything, right?

What, are you six years old trying to trick your parents into letting you smoke?

I said that I claimed what you said I tried to claim. If you can't figure this out you need help. I'm sure you want to discuss something else, now, about that claim, to move away from what I focused on and said.

Why have you put the letters 'lol' after the 'some' word here, twice?

Because your use of 'some' amused me.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:03 pm Funny (new?) habit you have.

What, exactly, is a, supposed, 'funny (new) habit' of mine, 'now'?

Your use of 'some'.

But, I have never ever 'looked down upon' any of you, human beings.

Then you have communicated terribly.

And, this is because I know, exactly, who, and what, you all are, and how, and why, you all think, and do, what you all think, and do.

LOL.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:03 pm I know, I know. That's all false and wrong...to you.

So then why say it, and claim it as though it is true?

Ah, perhaps you read that in haste. I said...to you...at the end of the sentence.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:03 pm But now, at least, you've made it clear why you have to pretend you know all sorts of things.

When did I, supposedly, do this, exactly?

Oh, you've done it a few times. Here for example...

And, this is because I know, exactly, who, and what, you all are, and how, and why, you all think, and do, what you all think, and do.

Unfortunately though for 'this one' its first assumption/s were completely False and Wrong, and therefore the rest of its conclusions are also False, and Wrong, besides being completely moot too.

Oh, what a surprise, you disagree when I disagree with you and you find a convoluted way of saying this.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:03 pm

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?

Yup, no response to the justification for what I pointed out. Evasive. Some will see this and think less of you. (thanks for the funny silly habit of using in the ways you did in this response; of course, it's far more likely there is a real 'some' reacting like I do to you, than that you are part of some 'some')

Obviously 'you' have a very different definition of and for the 'some' word than 'I' do. But, you will not let this distract from your belief that how you respond is true and correct, but which on a lot of occasions was not even in relation to what I was talking about and meaning.

Also, would you like to clarify in regards to what, supposed, 'justification', exactly, which you are referring to here, which you also, supposedly, pointed out?

If no, then why not?

Because I am not your caretaker. Because you either don't read well or just assume that I should hand feed you food that is on your plate when you are sitting there supposedly with a knowledge of everything I do and why. You have this overarching complete knowledge of me, but you can't even figure out anything in context. And you seem blissfully ignorant of this.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:21 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 4:33 am

Evasive as usual.

This one, literally, did not see and recognize the absolute irony of quoting not a single word that I have said and written here, and then responding to a very 'evasive quote' with the words, 'Evasive as usual'.

Unless, of course, it was referring to what it continually does here, and which has become another habit of "iwannaplato" here.

Obviously this one cannot use context to understand communication. Could be connected to what come across as memory issues.
If you communicated differently you'd get a more thorough point by point explanation. But you have communicated the say you do and that post I linked to was evasive on your part.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:45 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 12:53 am It is like some of you posters here are so frustrated because I have, once again, said and proposed some thing here, in this 'eating meat' thread, which has not yet been refuted by any of you, once more, and which is also just self justified, and this 'frustration' is really 'niggling' away at you so you come up with these absolutely ridiculous claims like only one call, to the 'right place/people', and "age" will lose its internet access. But, this also could not happen to absolutely anyone else.

It may be 'like' that in the sense that we don't do certain things, but it's really poor mind-reading otherwise.

you have used the words 'mind-reading' a few times now. So, what is 'mind-reading', exactly?

How does it work, exactly?

What is 'good' 'mind-reading', and, what is 'poor' 'mind-reading', exactly?

And, of course, you do not do certain things. However, you, obviously, do do some certain things. As I have pointed out and showed here.

Now, is your own 'mind-reading' 'good' or 'poor', exactly? you have proved, absolutely, that 'your fortune telling' has been absolutely Wrong, and Inaccurate.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:27 am You have a number of habits that make you a terrible interlocutor:

Yet, here you are, still, conversing 'with me'.

you continually claim that I am a 'poor communicator' and a 'terrible interlocutor' but you just keep on responding 'to me'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:27 am you allude, often, where others would give information
you simply state that something is false, with no justification and also no saying what is true or happening, slowing the whole process down
you end up not giving information, even if one patiently wades through the above and what I mention below
you respond to questions with questions instead of answers - what other people say always requires clarification, but you respond to questions with questions, often, so in the end other people are always in the position of justifying and clarifying. If they decide to not accept this imbalance, you judge them for it, often referring to them in the 3rd person, sometimes referring to them as 'it', sometimes including general negative judgments of people at the time this is being written.

And here 'we' have, another, prime example of what 'these ones' would do, back in those very 'olden days', when this was being written, and which explains why for thousands upon thousands of years these human beings were, still, bickering, fighting, and arguing over the exact same things.

They 'loved' to 'look at' and 'judge' others, without even recognizing and noticing that what 'they' would accuse others of and judge them on were some of the exact same things that they were doing "themselves". Which explains, exactly, why it took 'these human beings' so, so long to 'catch up' and learn, discover, and understand what 'we' all already know, and fully understand.

This thread, for example, was started in regards to the one who started it believing that eating meat is barbaric, and which further discussions on whether eating meat is what is Right, or Wrong, in Life, could have continued on, until actual irrefutable clarity is obtained, but, instead, and as can be clearly seen, this thread is 'now', again, 'about me'. Well this is what some posters here have turned this thread into, and about.

So, like with a lot of what are called 'philosophical discussions', what is 'meant' to be discussed is not, and what commonly ensues is those in the discussions just 'looking at' and 'talking about' 'others'. Thus, why these human beings, back then, took so, so long to catch up and find out, for sure, what is actually True, and Right, in Life.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:27 am That's a partial list of your behaviors as an conversation partner.

Okay.

Lucky 'we' have 'you' here to inform 'us' of how 'your interlocutor' behaves.

'We' are not able to 'work' things out for "ourselves", so 'we' are very, very grateful for 'you' to inform 'us' of what is going on here.

And, lucky 'you' are a 'good interlocutor', right?

Now, obviously, some will see the, absolute, sarcasm here. While others may not.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:27 am So, here's what you do. You assume that you know why we react to you the way we do. Your assumption is ego-syntonic. It could only be caused by negative qualities about other people and not by your behavior and attitudes.

Okay. If this is what you believe is true, then this must be what is happening and occurring here, right?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:27 am and then there's the literal/metaphorical confusion you have, both in specific instances and then your general conclusion that you are writing literally all the time.

So, when, exactly, have I, absolutely, written 'metaphorically'?

'We' again wait for clarity, from you.

Also, 'we' are lucky that you have no confusion here, right?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:27 am People's behavior in relation to you changed after they tried a variety of approachs and had the experiences they had. So, now you get pared down reactions to your BS.

If you believe so, then it must be so, correct?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:27 am And here you've assumed that your so-called self-justified, irrefutable position is something I disagree with, for example. I don't think you've proven much of anything, but your opinion fits rather well with what I do. Of course, it is so vague, it is pretty useless. You're always jumping to conclusions. But you can only see it in others.

But, obviously, when you do not have to eat meat when you do not have to.

Which is what makes eating meat Wrong, in Life.

So, why do you say and claim that this is not self justified?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:27 am I do find it amusing how much you sounded like Iambiguous in your response to FJ here.

Okay.

By the way, does any of this have any thing at all to do with the topic of this thread?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 7:40 am WILL THIS THREAD JUST DROP DEAD..!

1. NO, eating meat is NOT barbaric.
2. Killing animals for food is ok, slightly uncomfortable for an animal but not barbaric.

Barbaric:
extremely cruel and unpleasant

So, to "attofishpi" killing animals, for food, is perfectly okay.

And, let 'us' not forget that humans are animals.

So, to "attofishpi" killing humans and every other animal, for food, is okay.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 9:36 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 12:53 am

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

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

Once again, 'we' have 'another claim' 'about me' here, so let 'us' see if this time 'we' can get any actual clarity at it.

So, how did I, supposedly, kind of mangle 'my sentence', exactly?

And, your, supposed, 'gist' is that you actually believe that I am the only one ever who it would take just one call to a, so-called, 'right asylum' to lose internet access, which means that, to you, one call to a, so-called, 'right asylum' could never ever lose internet access to absolutely anyone else, right?

This is 'your gist', right?

If yes, then why do you, only, 'think' that I get 'your gist' here?

But, if what I just said and wrote is 'not right', then just Correct it.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

It is like some of you posters here are so frustrated because I have, once again, said and proposed some thing here, in this 'eating meat' thread, which has not yet been refuted by any of you, once more, and which is also just self justified, and this 'frustration' is really 'niggling' away at you so you come up with these absolutely ridiculous claims like only one call, to the 'right place/people', and "age" will lose its internet access. But, this also could not happen to absolutely anyone else.

I'm not reading all that, can you give me the cliff notes crazy boy?

I, also, could not be bothered reading all of what you have written here.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:51 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 7:40 am WILL THIS THREAD JUST DROP DEAD..!

1. NO, eating meat is NOT barbaric.
2. Killing animals for food is ok, slightly uncomfortable for an animal but not barbaric.

Barbaric:
extremely cruel and unpleasant

So, to "attofishpi" killing animals, for food, is perfectly okay.

And, let 'us' not forget that humans are animals.

So, to "attofishpi" killing humans and every other animal, for food, is okay.

Humans taste awful - not worth the effort.

But you know GOD better than me right? Ergo, you know that GOD removes any suffering for an animal prior to slaughter?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:52 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 9:36 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 12:53 am

Once again, 'we' have 'another claim' 'about me' here, so let 'us' see if this time 'we' can get any actual clarity at it.

So, how did I, supposedly, kind of mangle 'my sentence', exactly?

And, your, supposed, 'gist' is that you actually believe that I am the only one ever who it would take just one call to a, so-called, 'right asylum' to lose internet access, which means that, to you, one call to a, so-called, 'right asylum' could never ever lose internet access to absolutely anyone else, right?

This is 'your gist', right?

If yes, then why do you, only, 'think' that I get 'your gist' here?

But, if what I just said and wrote is 'not right', then just Correct it.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

It is like some of you posters here are so frustrated because I have, once again, said and proposed some thing here, in this 'eating meat' thread, which has not yet been refuted by any of you, once more, and which is also just self justified, and this 'frustration' is really 'niggling' away at you so you come up with these absolutely ridiculous claims like only one call, to the 'right place/people', and "age" will lose its internet access. But, this also could not happen to absolutely anyone else.

I'm not reading all that, can you give me the cliff notes crazy boy?

I, also, could not be bothered reading all of what you have written here.

You did read it

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 9:58 am Okay. So, you claim that you, absolutely, do not 'absolutely believe' absolutely anything, right?

What, are you six years old trying to trick your parents into letting you smoke?

I said that I claimed what you said I tried to claim.

I know, and I responded as such. Did you miss this, as well?

you seem to be just about always at least two 'steps' behind here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am If you can't figure this out you need help. I'm sure you want to discuss something else, now, about that claim, to move away from what I focused on and said.

Once again, not one shred of clarity was provided here.

Just deflection, and deception.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am

Why have you put the letters 'lol' after the 'some' word here, twice?

Because your use of 'some' amused me.

Wow, you really do find some completely unfunny things, to some, funny, right?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:03 pm Funny (new?) habit you have.

What, exactly, is a, supposed, 'funny (new) habit' of mine, 'now'?

Your use of 'some'.

Why do you find this funny?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am

But, I have never ever 'looked down upon' any of you, human beings.

Then you have communicated terribly.

So, once again, to this one anyway, it is always 'my fault' whenever it has Wrongly, or Falsely, interpreted what I have actually meant.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am

And, this is because I know, exactly, who, and what, you all are, and how, and why, you all think, and do, what you all think, and do.

LOL.

See how 'this one' will not seek out clarification?

And, this is why this one completely misses things and continually makes False and Wrong assumptions.

Also, the reason this one does not seek out clarity is because it, absolutely hilariously, actually believes that it already knows things.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:03 pm I know, I know. That's all false and wrong...to you.

So then why say it, and claim it as though it is true?

Ah, perhaps you read that in haste. I said...to you...at the end of the sentence.

I would say I read and replied, in haste.

So, if it was all false and wrong, to me, then why did you claim it as though it is true?

Obviously if some thing is all false and wrong, to another, then the other has a reason for this. And, obviously, if one does not wait, for the other, to explain why they have 'their reason', then 'that one' is CLOSED.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:03 pm But now, at least, you've made it clear why you have to pretend you know all sorts of things.

When did I, supposedly, do this, exactly?

Oh, you've done it a few times. Here for example...

And, this is because I know, exactly, who, and what, you all are, and how, and why, you all think, and do, what you all think, and do.

But, again, I am not pretending at all. So, why do you believe that I am not just pretending, but that I have to pretend, here?

Once again, you appear to have completely missed what I was actually asking here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am

Unfortunately though for 'this one' its first assumption/s were completely False and Wrong, and therefore the rest of its conclusions are also False, and Wrong, besides being completely moot too.

Oh, what a surprise, you disagree when I disagree with you and you find a convoluted way of saying this.

I was just pointing out the very Fact that you, once again, made more False and Wrong assumptions, and, once again, jumped to False and Wrong conclusions.

And, that this can be proved True is also a very simple and easy thing to do.

If you just want to disagree, and that is all you want to do here, then by all means just do that.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:03 pm

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?

Yup, no response to the justification for what I pointed out. Evasive. Some will see this and think less of you. (thanks for the funny silly habit of using in the ways you did in this response; of course, it's far more likely there is a real 'some' reacting like I do to you, than that you are part of some 'some')

Obviously 'you' have a very different definition of and for the 'some' word than 'I' do. But, you will not let this distract from your belief that how you respond is true and correct, but which on a lot of occasions was not even in relation to what I was talking about and meaning.

Also, would you like to clarify in regards to what, supposed, 'justification', exactly, which you are referring to here, which you also, supposedly, pointed out?

If no, then why not?

Because I am not your caretaker.

So, once again, no clarity is provided, by 'this one'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am Because you either don't read well or just assume that I should hand feed you food that is on your plate when you are sitting there supposedly with a knowledge of everything I do and why.

See, here is another prime example how this one assumes things in what I say and claim, but which are absolutely False and Wrong.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:23 am You have this overarching complete knowledge of me, but you can't even figure out anything in context. And you seem blissfully ignorant of this.

But it is you doing this. And, as you will prove absolutely True you have absolutely no idea.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:25 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:21 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 6:32 am Evasive as usual.

This one, literally, did not see and recognize the absolute irony of quoting not a single word that I have said and written here, and then responding to a very 'evasive quote' with the words, 'Evasive as usual'.

Unless, of course, it was referring to what it continually does here, and which has become another habit of "iwannaplato" here.

Obviously this one cannot use context to understand communication. Could be connected to what come across as memory issues.
If you communicated differently you'd get a more thorough point by point explanation. But you have communicated the say you do and that post I linked to was evasive on your part.

Which is, exactly, why I pointed out that you do this. But, you have obviously missed this, as well.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:51 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 7:40 am WILL THIS THREAD JUST DROP DEAD..!

1. NO, eating meat is NOT barbaric.
2. Killing animals for food is ok, slightly uncomfortable for an animal but not barbaric.

Barbaric:
extremely cruel and unpleasant

So, to "attofishpi" killing animals, for food, is perfectly okay.

And, let 'us' not forget that humans are animals.

So, to "attofishpi" killing humans and every other animal, for food, is okay.

Humans taste awful - not worth the effort.

But, there is no effort in killing humans. Just ask "henry quirk".

you human beings have also, obviously, made killing each other 'no effort' at all as well. One only has to 'look at' human beings 'love' of designing, making, and producing more and more 'effortless killing' weaponry.

Also, maybe if you 'farmed' or 'raised' humans with 'better food' sources, rather than 'fast food' sources, then humans may well taste much more yummier.

Anyway, you have already informed the readers here that killing humans, for food, although being 'slightly uncomfortable', for humans, doing so is 'not barbaric'.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:55 am But you know GOD better than me right?

Yes.

Obviously, any one who believes that God is just an 'artificial intelligence', which obviously had to come about 'after' the Universe, Itself, was already in creation, and which would have had to be created by something else, literally means that God had to be created by something else. Which, obviously, opposes what God, Itself, is said and claimed to be.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:55 am Ergo, you know that GOD removes any suffering for an animal prior to slaughter?

Well this is another completely stupid and idiotic thing to say and claim.

If you had ever heard 'the cries' of humans just prior to when they know that they are just about to be slaughtered, then you would already know that God does not remove any suffering for an animal prior to it being slaughtered.

But, you are, obviously, absolutely free to believe and claim otherwise.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 11:00 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:52 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 9:36 am

I'm not reading all that, can you give me the cliff notes crazy boy?

I, also, could not be bothered reading all of what you have written here.

You did read it

How do you know?

And, could you be Wrong? Or, is this not a possibility, from your perspective.

See, if you want to 'look at' and 'delve' into this, further. I can show and prove how you could be Wrong here.

But, you do believe that you are not Wrong here, right?