Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:30 pm

Which of the words you use make you dishonest?

None of them that I am aware of.

Do you KNOW of any?

Yes, but you already KNOW the answer. You said it yourself.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:41 pm The words you add into your responses, which deflect away from what I actual wrote and asked you to clarify.

The words you use to not admit your mistakes or wrong doing and use to blame something else and excuse your yourself.

Those are EXACTLY the words which make you dishonest also!

If you say so, then it MUST be thee Truth, correct?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:10 am If you say so, then it MUST be thee Truth, correct?

You tell me. They are your words.

Are your words True and Correct?
Do your words apply to you?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:01 am In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.

Philosophy uses the law of non-contradiction (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ False to arbitrarily discard arguments as "wrong".
But the LNC is just an axiom. Like all axioms - it's arbitrarily chosen. So what happens if we make a different choice?

If one were to choose the axioms of dialethistic logic then all contradictions become theorems.

In practice, Dialethism accepts the axiom of unrestricted comprehension. Dialethism accepts that whatever is said (contradictory or otherwise) is true. The task before a Dialethist is to comprehend WHY it is true, despite the contradiction.

To this end Dialethists practice unrestricted comprehension. More formally, comprehension is studied by the field of reverse mathematics. In contrast to the ordinary mathematical practice of deriving theorems from axioms, reverse mathematics strives to arrive at axioms from theorems.

Less formally, it can be though of as arriving at your interlocutor's true premises from their conclusions.

Unrestricted comprehension (discarding the notion that your interlocutor is 'wrong', even in the face of contradictions), is the principle of charity applied.

It seems like you closing point there is functionally an argument that what you describe, while possibly useful in mathematics and formal logic, is not much use beyond. In the realm of philosophy, arguments are supposed to have persuasive power, and the point of not contradicting yourself is that you cannot persuade if you don't agree with yourself. Thus there is nothing arbitrary about discarding self-contradictory arguments as wrong.

The principle of charity is only required because it helps eliminate straw man arguments and some specious out of context nonsense when deployed honestly. It is not there to make shit arguments indistinguishable from good ones.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm while possibly useful in mathematics and formal logic, is not much use beyond.

Is that really the case? Arguments formulated in English are assessed and discarded using the various yardsticks of formal logic.

Soundness, Strength, Validity, Cogency. The LNC itself.

If all of the above notions can be studied formally, yet applied broadly then the same goes for comprehension.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm the point of not contradicting yourself is that you cannot persuade if you don't agree with yourself.

Q.E.D If you are choosing to interpret a contradiction in somebody's argument as "you don't agree with yourself" then nobody that has ever practiced rhetoric/persuasion has ever agreed with themselves.

Said otherwise - because of my applied experience with strict formalism (programming) I can find inconsistencies/contradictions in ALL arguments formulated in English if I was to look for them. Including my own. Language sucks.

I think I have demonstrated this fact long enough on this forum (if you have paid attention).

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm Thus there is nothing arbitrary about discarding self-contradictory arguments as wrong.

I mean that is entirely your choice, but ultimately - if you were to apply this rule strictly then you would discard all arguments as wrong. including your own. As a heuristic - the LNC is prone to false positives. In my view - all persuaders are guilty of contradictions.

The following are statements of fact for me:

1. All arguments become self-contradictory if grammar/equivocation/syntax rules are applied strictly enough.
2. Given the constructive nature of logic sound/valid arguments can be constructed in support of any position the constructivist desires.

This is a systemic issue, and for me it renders argumentation as an insufficient form of persuasion. Communication is better.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:30 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm while possibly useful in mathematics and formal logic, is not much use beyond.

Is that really the case? Arguments formulated in English are assessed and discarded using the various yardsticks of formal logic.

Soundness, Strength, Validity, Cogency. The LNC itself.

If all of the above notions can be studied formally, yet applied broadly then the same goes for comprehension.

Or it may be the other way round, and formal logic can be seen as an attempt to recreate what is largely natural and common sense in a manner that suits the psychological needs of some subeset of humanity that cannot cope with ambiguity very well or else has domain specific needs for certain levels of precision. Thus you get yourselves all bound up worrying about various paradoxes that are creations of the strict logics you imprison yourself within, and then escape those with silly ideas about contradictions being valid and sound (even though they make a mockery of validity and soundness).

You have created a special tool to get yourself out of holes that only persons using your other broken tools could ever end up in, and now you are telling me I have to use that tool for a problem I don't have.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:30 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm the point of not contradicting yourself is that you cannot persuade if you don't agree with yourself.

Q.E.D If you are choosing to interpret a contradiction in somebody's argument as "you don't agree with yourself" then nobody that has ever practiced rhetoric/persuasion has ever agreed with themselves.

Said otherwise - because of my applied experience with strict formalism (programming) I can find inconsistencies/contradictions in ALL arguments formulated in English if I was to look for them. Including my own. Language sucks.

I think I have demonstrated this fact long enough on this forum (if you have paid attention).

Contradictory statements are not in agreement with each other. If you don't agree with me, contradict away, and see if it helps.

I think you have proven less than you have convinced yourself of. I have noticed that you have a vendetta against the LNC for some while, but it wasn't of great interest to me as I am not bound up in formal logic. That actual law though is merely an expression, within the format used for a specific knowledge domain, of a principle that predates it and applies far beyond the practices of formal logic, and can be understood by children using boring old natural language.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:30 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm Thus there is nothing arbitrary about discarding self-contradictory arguments as wrong.

I mean that is entirely your choice, but ultimately - if you were to apply this rule strictly then you would discard all arguments as wrong. including your own. As a heuristic - the LNC is prone to false positives. In my view - all persuaders are guilty of contradictions.

The following are statements of fact for me:

1. All arguments become self-contradictory if grammar/equivocation/syntax rules are applied strictly enough.
2. Given the constructive nature of logic sound/valid arguments can be constructed in support of any position the constructivist desires.

This is a systemic issue, and for me it renders argumentation as an insufficient form of persuasion. Communication is better.

If I am dumb enough to allow you to impose some theory of language derived from MIT's comp-sci labs, that first assumption might work for you. Otherwise, it looks overambitious. The second looks absurd, are you about to do a 1 = 0 routine on me?

I think you have taken my reference to persuasion a little too much to heart. A philosophical arg should have persuasive power in the sense that if some propositions are true, then a consequence is true, and some stuff is thereby shown to be the case, while other stuff is shown not to be the case. This is not a conflation of philosophy and the art of public speaking, it goes without saying that an argument can be valid and sound and someone like Age or Veritas wouldn't actually be persuaded by it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:27 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:10 am If you say so, then it MUST be thee Truth, correct?

You tell me. They are your words.

Are your words True and Correct?
Do your words apply to you?

Are you at all aware that it was a question posed to you, on what you said?

Also, how could a question itself actually be true or correct?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:30 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm while possibly useful in mathematics and formal logic, is not much use beyond.

Is that really the case? Arguments formulated in English are assessed and discarded using the various yardsticks of formal logic.

Soundness, Strength, Validity, Cogency. The LNC itself.

If all of the above notions can be studied formally, yet applied broadly then the same goes for comprehension.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm the point of not contradicting yourself is that you cannot persuade if you don't agree with yourself.

Q.E.D If you are choosing to interpret a contradiction in somebody's argument as "you don't agree with yourself" then nobody that has ever practiced rhetoric/persuasion has ever agreed with themselves.

Said otherwise - because of my applied experience with strict formalism (programming) I can find inconsistencies/contradictions in ALL arguments formulated in English if I was to look for them. Including my own. Language sucks.

Lol

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:30 pmI think I have demonstrated this fact long enough on this forum (if you have paid attention).

Lol

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:30 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm Thus there is nothing arbitrary about discarding self-contradictory arguments as wrong.

I mean that is entirely your choice, but ultimately - if you were to apply this rule strictly then you would discard all arguments as wrong. including your own. As a heuristic - the LNC is prone to false positives. In my view - all persuaders are guilty of contradictions.

The following are statements of fact for me:

1. All arguments become self-contradictory if grammar/equivocation/syntax rules are applied strictly enough.
2. Given the constructive nature of logic sound/valid arguments can be constructed in support of any position the constructivist desires.

This is a systemic issue, and for me it renders argumentation as an insufficient form of persuasion. Communication is better.

To you, could a sound and valid argument be refuted?

If yes, then what would be needed?

Would a sound and valid argument work?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:43 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:30 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm while possibly useful in mathematics and formal logic, is not much use beyond.

Is that really the case? Arguments formulated in English are assessed and discarded using the various yardsticks of formal logic.

Soundness, Strength, Validity, Cogency. The LNC itself.

If all of the above notions can be studied formally, yet applied broadly then the same goes for comprehension.

Or it may be the other way round, and formal logic can be seen as an attempt to recreate what is largely natural and common sense in a manner that suits the psychological needs of some subeset of humanity that cannot cope with ambiguity very well or else has domain specific needs for certain levels of precision. Thus you get yourselves all bound up worrying about various paradoxes that are creations of the strict logics you imprison yourself within, and then escape those with silly ideas about contradictions being valid and sound (even though they make a mockery of validity and soundness).

You have created a special tool to get yourself out of holes that only persons using your other broken tools could ever end up in, and now you are telling me I have to use that tool for a problem I don't have.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:30 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm the point of not contradicting yourself is that you cannot persuade if you don't agree with yourself.

Q.E.D If you are choosing to interpret a contradiction in somebody's argument as "you don't agree with yourself" then nobody that has ever practiced rhetoric/persuasion has ever agreed with themselves.

Said otherwise - because of my applied experience with strict formalism (programming) I can find inconsistencies/contradictions in ALL arguments formulated in English if I was to look for them. Including my own. Language sucks.

I think I have demonstrated this fact long enough on this forum (if you have paid attention).

Contradictory statements are not in agreement with each other. If you don't agree with me, contradict away, and see if it helps.

I think you have proven less than you have convinced yourself of. I have noticed that you have a vendetta against the LNC for some while, but it wasn't of great interest to me as I am not bound up in formal logic. That actual law though is merely an expression, within the format used for a specific knowledge domain, of a principle that predates it and applies far beyond the practices of formal logic, and can be understood by children using boring old natural language.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:30 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:19 pm Thus there is nothing arbitrary about discarding self-contradictory arguments as wrong.

I mean that is entirely your choice, but ultimately - if you were to apply this rule strictly then you would discard all arguments as wrong. including your own. As a heuristic - the LNC is prone to false positives. In my view - all persuaders are guilty of contradictions.

The following are statements of fact for me:

1. All arguments become self-contradictory if grammar/equivocation/syntax rules are applied strictly enough.
2. Given the constructive nature of logic sound/valid arguments can be constructed in support of any position the constructivist desires.

This is a systemic issue, and for me it renders argumentation as an insufficient form of persuasion. Communication is better.

If I am dumb enough to allow you to impose some theory of language derived from MIT's comp-sci labs, that first assumption might work for you. Otherwise, it looks overambitious. The second looks absurd, are you about to do a 1 = 0 routine on me?

I think you have taken my reference to persuasion a little too much to heart. A philosophical arg should have persuasive power in the sense that if some propositions are true, then a consequence is true, and some stuff is thereby shown to be the case, while other stuff is shown not to be the case. This is not a conflation of philosophy and the art of public speaking, it goes without saying that an argument can be valid and sound and someone like Age or Veritas wouldn't actually be persuaded by it.

What do you think or believe there is, which you think or believe I am not seeing, and conversely, what do you think or believe there is not, which you think or believe that I am seeing?

In other words, what do you think that I am not seeing, which you can see?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:43 pm Or it may be the other way round, and formal logic can be seen as an attempt to recreate what is largely natural and common sense in a manner that suits the psychological needs of some subeset of humanity that cannot cope with ambiguity very well or else has domain specific needs for certain levels of precision. Thus you get yourselves all bound up worrying about various paradoxes that are creations of the strict logics you imprison yourself within, and then escape those with silly ideas about contradictions being valid and sound (even though they make a mockery of validity and soundness).

Do you not see the irony in all this? To "cope with ambiguity" is precisely the ability to overlook contradictions! Ambiguity in syntax, grammar and semantics is what causes contradictions. Language is ambiguous.

Formal logic is merely a tool to study language by idealising it. In that regard it has inherited all of language's problems. The most serious error of all being treating language as ontological.

The point from all this: If a precise formal language cannot escape contradictions/paradoxes then an imprecise language can't avoid them either! Contradictions are part of language and our brains do an amazing job at sweeping all that stuff under the carpet.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:43 pm You have created a special tool to get yourself out of holes that only persons using your other broken tools could ever end up in, and now you are telling me I have to use that tool for a problem I don't have.

Obviously, a problem overlooked is a problem not had!

The broken tool is Language itself. Logic is a tool created to study the broken tool. And you "don't have that problem" because you are intuitively using para-consistent logic, not a strict consistent logic.

You are more tolerant of contradictions than you claim to be - you actually ignore very many of them. Consciously or subconsciously - I can't possibly know that.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:43 pm Contradictory statements are not in agreement with each other.

English is para-consistent, it's not contradiction-free so your claim above is an uninteresting dichotomy.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:43 pm If you don't agree with me, contradict away, and see if it helps.

Obviously it's not going to help, but that's hardly the point.

Am I really contradicting you or am I merely pointing out that you contradict yourself?
And it was your own claim that "If you can't agree with yourself why should I agree with you?", so I can trivially dismiss you then?

I know that I can trivially force you into contradicting yourself by engineering a question that (if answered) will lead to a contradiction. And so goes the game...
I know that I can do this on command. By the principle of charity - I assume you know this too.

Am I being too charitable in assuming this, or is this one of those *wink*wink* *secret handshake* moments?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:43 pm I think you have proven less than you have convinced yourself of. I have noticed that you have a vendetta against the LNC for some while, but it wasn't of great interest to me as I am not bound up in formal logic.

See... The above is a contradiction from where I am standing, but instead of flat out dismissing you i can simply say this.

You may not be bound by a formal logic, but you are bound by a logic or logics (that you aren't aware of). And you seem unaware whether the logic you are bound by is consistent, para-consistent or dialethistic (and perhaps you don't even know what the difference is).

My vendetta is not against the LNC. It's against its (mis?)interpretation. At the very least you have chosen to bind yourself by the LNC itself, and a contradiction means different things in different logic-systems. There is more than one way to interpret and react to that which has been defined as a contradiction.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:43 pm That actual law though is merely an expression, within the format used for a specific knowledge domain, of a principle that predates it and applies far beyond the practices of formal logic, and can be understood by children using boring old natural language.

Sure, it may be a useful and intuitive heuristic for children, but you are not a child.There is a difference between detection and understanding. Any fool (even Age himself) can detect contradictions.

Obviously, if you are speaking to a child - you need to work really hard to avoid contradictions (knowing that children are very intolerant of contradictions). But if you are not persuading children, and you are communicating with adults (who don't get triggered by contradictions) you can actually use contradictions constructively in communication.

My point isn't the contradictions. My point is about the choice that you make having detected a contradiction.
My point is about the interpretation of a (perceived) contradiction in the context of a dialogue.

Because if you subscribe to Dialethism (a.k.a non-dualism) "true contradictions exist" is a true claim.
Which goes against the core belief of all classical logicians "contradictions don't exist in reality".

That intuition is really hard to unlearn. And harder yet to leverage.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:43 pm If I am dumb enough to allow you to impose some theory of language derived from MIT's comp-sci labs, that first assumption might work for you. Otherwise, it looks overambitious.

I am not imposing anything. I am pointing out that the choice exists for you.

Interpret any argument weakly and contradictions disappear.
Interpret any argument strictly and contradictions appear.

If you were smart enough you would recognize that. Hence my claim "if you choose to be persuaded - then you will be."

(Mis?)interpretation reduces to choice.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:43 pm The second looks absurd, are you about to do a 1 = 0 routine on me?

Now look who's blurring the lines between precise formalisms and language

Give me an ambiguity and I will give you a contradiction. And the "=" sign is very ambiguous in Mathematics.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/equality#DifferentKinds

What seems "absurd" to you reduces to your own conception of "sufficient proof". I can prove 1=0 via ex falso quodlibet .
It doesn't mean you will accept my proof, even though the LNC compels you to.

Which, once again, demonstrates that persuasion is more about understanding your interlocutor's interpretation, than understanding your own argument.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:43 pm I think you have taken my reference to persuasion a little too much to heart. A philosophical arg should have persuasive power in the sense that if some propositions are true, then a consequence is true, , and some stuff is thereby shown to be the case, while other stuff is shown not to be the case.

Ok, but it's not clear why any such argument ought to persuade me. There are any number of premises which can lead to the exact same conclusions/consequence from all sorts of varying premises.

And it's not exactly clear to me who, where or how it has been mandated that one MUST start with premises then arrive at conclusions, and why it shouldn't be done the other way around.

This is exactly why I pointed to reverse mathematics/comprehension. Start with true conclusions then seek true premises. It's how justification works, and it is also how pragmatists think. I need not justify my desires - I need only articulate them to others.

In fact (and in so far as I can tell)

From Premises to Conclusions is the way epistemic foundationalists think (e.g Mathematicians)
From Conclusions to Premises is the way epistemic coherentists think (e.g Reverse Mathematicians)

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:43 pm This is not a conflation of philosophy and the art of public speaking, it goes without saying that an argument can be valid and sound and someone like Age or Veritas wouldn't actually be persuaded by it.

Similarly. The argument could be invalid, unsound but its consequences (by accident) correspond to reality or simply appeals to people's values. And persuades people too.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:49 am Are you at all aware that it was a question posed to you, on what you said?

Are you at all aware that I was using your exact words to answer your question?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:49 am Also, how could a question itself actually be true or correct?

Because I was mirroring your words, and it seems inappropriate that you should be asking me questions about your words?

So, if you could express the intention behind your question - that would be wonderful.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:49 am Are you at all aware that it was a question posed to you, on what you said?

Are you at all aware that I was using your exact words to answer your question?

But that is exactly what you did NOT do at all.

Maybe you are becoming delusional?

You did NOT use my exact words at all. You used your own words to just ask another question. So, you NEVER used my exact words and you also actually NEVER answered my question at all either.

This can be clearly seen and acknowledged now by the readers.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:49 am Also, how could a question itself actually be true or correct?

Because I was mirroring your words, and it seems inappropriate that you should be asking me questions about your words?

Again, you have got it all mixed up.

You did NOT mirror my words. You used your own words, twisting things around so much that you become apparently insane.

Do you even understand what my question was asking? Your response clearly shows that you do not appear to understand at all.

You are NOT directly answering my clarifying questions posed to you. Are you aware of this and what is happening here now?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:25 pmSo, if you could express the intention behind your question - that would be wonderful.

My intention is to gain clarity, of what you are actually meaning. This is because your words are showing you have lack understanding, itself, somewhat. Like I said before;
You start a thread, and as you typically do, you end up twisting things around so much that you end up arguing against your own original points, just in your quest to ALWAYS appear to be right

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:57 pm But that is exactly what you did NOT do at all.

Maybe you are becoming delusional?

You did NOT use my exact words at all. You used your own words to just ask another question. So, you NEVER used my exact words and you also actually NEVER answered my question at all either.

This can be clearly seen and acknowledged now by the readers.

Yes. I used your exact words, Age. I even quoted them in this post.
Indeed, this can be clearly seen and acknowledged now by the readers, who will see that you are actually lying.

You are also lying about me asking you questions, because in this post I didn't ask you any questions.

Maybe you aren't a liar, but I find it impossible to interpret you charitably. It seems to me that you are doing absolutely everything in your power to hinder communication. Perhaps you were also lying when you said you are here to learn to communicate better?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:57 pm But that is exactly what you did NOT do at all.

Maybe you are becoming delusional?

You did NOT use my exact words at all. You used your own words to just ask another question. So, you NEVER used my exact words and you also actually NEVER answered my question at all either.

This can be clearly seen and acknowledged now by the readers.

Yes. I used your exact words, Age. I even quoted them in this post.
Indeed, this can be clearly seen and acknowledged now by the readers, who will see that you are actually lying.

In case you are unaware, when I respond to a post, then I am actually responding to, talking about, AND referring to THAT POST.

And NOT to some post that happened some time ago in the past.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:00 pmYou are also lying about me asking you questions, because in this post I didn't ask you any questions.

Again, that was some time in the past and NOT the post that I was actually answering and responding to.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:00 pmMaybe you aren't a liar,

But you just said, twice, that I AM lying. So, which one is it;
I am a liar, or maybe I am not a liar?

Could it be possible that just some miscommunication or misinterpretation has taken place in our communication?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:00 pmbut I find it impossible to interpret you charitably.

But I certainly do NOT want you to interpret what I say, in any way, shape, nor form, charitably or not charitably.
Have you really NOT been reading, seeing, and hearing what I have wrote and said countless times already here in this forum?

I have specifically requested to be CHALLENGED and to be ASKED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which could be "interpreted" as, I do NOT want any charity nor do I want to be interpreted at all.

I really do have so much more to learn about how to communicate better. Even when I specifically say that I WANT to be asked clarifying questions, so that I can be better understood, then this even gets misinterpreted.

Also, I do not like to give any charity what so ever, so I also certainly do NOT want any charity from you, nor from any one "else".

I do NOT give charity because I do NOT like to just 'interpret' what "another" is saying because 'interpreting is just another form of ASSUMING.

Assuming has NOT gotten 'you', human beings, forwards in any meaningful way nor really in any truly successful way at all. If any thing assuming wrongly or misinterpreting has and is only slowing you human beings down and preventing you ALL from seeing the actual and real Truth of things anyway.

And as I continually keep asking; WHY assume some thing is true, when it may not be anyway? Or, why interpret any thing to be true, especially when the actual and real Truth of things can be clearly and easily SEEN anyway?

So, I just ask clarifying questions to "others" instead of interpreting or assuming at all. I do this so I can Truly better understand what it IS that "another" is actually saying and meaning.

By the way, considering you find it impossible to interpret me charitably, then would that not be a very strong hint to just STOP 'trying to' do it completely? I do NOT want it and you are incapable of doing it anyway, so what better time then NOW to STOP doing it altogether?

As I have been saying; Just ask me clarifying questions instead.

I had already forwarned that I do NOT necessarily write in a way to be understood, when this written, and I have already given the reasons WHY I do this. So, why the continual interpreting? It just seems more and more like a ridiculously stupid thing to do.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:00 pmIt seems to me that you are doing absolutely everything in your power to hinder communication.

But I had already alluded to this fact quite a number of times already.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:00 pmPerhaps you were also lying when you said you are here to learn to communicate better?

It appears as though you still have not got it.

I am NOT here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better, with you ones here in this forum at all.

I am here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better (what I eventually want to say, outside of this forum).

I am just here, in this forum, to use people like you, so that I can learn from them.

Also to prove what I eventually want say and share, then I needed some evidence. The best evidence I could obtain is the evidence that cones from completely unsuspecting 'testv subjects. Although NONE of you are going to get "paid" with money, nor were any of you invited to take part, your future offsprings will be glad you did.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:47 pm I am just here, in this forum, to use people like you, so that I can learn from them.

People on this forum already know this.

The way you are going about it is exhausting to the person you are trying to learn from.

For you show absolutely no signs of learning, and so investing any time in you seems to be time wasted.

Your act is not fooling anybody anymore, so why act?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:54 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:47 pm I am just here, in this forum, to use people like you, so that I can learn from them.

People on this forum already know this.

Great, so hopefully I will NOT have to remind them again. But somehow I think this might not be the case, especially considering that you can NOT accurately speak for ALL of the people, on this forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:54 pmThe way you are going about it is exhausting to the person you are trying to learn from.

Who cares? I do not.

I am using you for my purpose and benefit, not for yours.

I think you might also still be very confused about what it IS EXACTLY that I want to learn, and am learning.

To make it clear, what I am gaining and learning from you is certainly NOT necessarily what you are hoping "others" will learn and obtain from you.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:54 pmFor you show absolutely no signs of learning,

That is from your perspective.

But from perspective I am learning enough. You, however, would NOT be aware of what I am actually learning because there is NOTHING I want to SHOW in this forum, in this regard.

Do you remember WHY I want to learn?

It is especially NOT for this forum, so I am NOT showing what I am learning and discovering from you.

Also, what I am learning is NOT what you want to teach. Just about all of what you are expressing is of NO real importance to any thing, anyway.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:54 pmand so investing any time in you seems to be time wasted.

So then you 'should' KNOW by now what to do, especially considering just how much time you have spend, and wasted, with me here.

I have found interacting with 'you', "under any of your many names", very enlightening, and thus very rewarding. You have provided a great deal of evidence for me, so I thank you profusely for that. Although you are still NOT getting any monetary reward.

By the way almost all of what you say is nothing new, and so there is nothing really to learn there anyway.

If you do not gain anything when discussing with me, and so investing your time really is a waste of time for you, then do you KNOW what to do by now?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:54 pmYour act is not fooling anybody anymore, so why act?

What do you believe my "act" is exactly?

When do you believe that I have been fooling you, and when do you believe that I am not fooling 'anybody' any more?

When did you realise that I was "acting" and that my so called "act" was not fooling you any more?

Was it WHEN I told you my real intentions for being here in this forum?

If yes, then from the outset my real intentions has NOT changed, which can be SEEN in my writings.

If no, then WHEN EXACTLY did you realise that I was "acting" and that my so called "act" was not fooling you any more?