Hello

[Age]

Who do you think is like him? The closest I can think of is Iambiguous, but even he's far away from Age.

VA, surely

I don't think they're very similar

I guess they're similar in one way, they don't really engage in anything resembling conversation most of the time.

LOL you adult human beings have been having the exact same so-called 'conversations' about the exact same 'things' for thousands upon thousands of years, and, still, have not gotten anywhere, really. As can be clearly seen and proved True throughout this forum, here.

But it's for very different reasons. Age doesn't because his brain is too fried, he doesn't know how to.

Yet it is people like you "flannel jesus" who baulk at my views and challenges and do not just clarify your positions and claims. Which obviously says and shows far more about 'you' and your inabilities, than it does 'me'.

VA doesn't because she's just so full of hate and anger.

[Age]

The causes are different..... the choices are similar.
Coping mechanisms.

Again, just more unsubstantiated beliefs and claims.

[Age]

More than one, like him, on this forum.

There's broadly speaking two types of person who could end up here. One set are people with some sort of actual interest in philosophy as a field of study that covers questions about what we can know about some X, and what a certain type of proposition in regards to X could mean if we aren't in agreement on the prior question etc...

The others are the people who think that there is some relationship between philosophy and wisdom that goes beyond a mere etymological accident (a demonstrable falsehood) and are here to explain how massively wise they are. This population is highly varied. Some are autistic like age whom you have already met. Some have narcissistic personality disorders and consider themselves the greatest philosopher of all time (currently we have around 7 of the world's single greatest ever philosopher, they don't argue with each other as much as you might expect). More than one show signs of psychopathy and at least one is most certainly a serial killer with an entire collection of beheaded truck stop prostitutes.

To complete your induction, somebody with Oppositional Defiance disorder will be along presently to start an argument with you over nothing. After that we will assign one of the multiple people we keep on staff whose deep and personal relationship with either a deity or the entire cosmos makes them the only possible source of THEE TrooTH, and then one final autist can tell you about something you urgently need to understand called an "FSK".

Only then will you be fully able to engage in important conversations about wokeness.

Every year this list gets longer and funnier

Coming from the one who has been psychologically diagnosed with disorder/s, but who spends their time trying, here, 'trying to' diagnose others with disorders, and sometimes with the same disorders that it has be verified and diagnosed as having, is even more funnier, to some.

[Age]

Does not ideological competition participate in natural selection?

In 'natural selection' for 'what', exactly?

What would there be an actual 'purpose' in 'competing' for or over 'ideas', exactly?

Obviously the exact same One idea, or goal, that every human being started out wanting and desiring is not any thing to 'compete' over, nor for, at all.

Each and every one just had the exact same One anyway.

There is no absolute truth, therefore we are linguistically competing over which worldview is closest to the truth.

And, that you are absolutely "one sided" and thus absolutely 'blind' and stupid, here, could not be more obvious.

Once again, when any says, states, claims, or believes any thing, 'There is no absolute truth', then they are obviously being absolutely self-contradicting.

Furthermore, 'trying to' be so-called 'closest to the truth' with just assumptions, theories, guesses, or models is, besides being absolutely ridiculous and stupid, is absolutely foolhardy as the actual Truth is HERE, 'staring at all of you', as some might say, already. you all just need to learn how to observe, and see, 'It' for what 'It' Truly is, exactly.

Any and all forms of 'competition' and 'competing', in Life, is just an adult human being ideology, which is absolutely unnecessary and really unwanted and not desired, in Life.

What varies is the objective and the linguistic method being used.

Either some thing is objectively True, which just means that 'that Truth' is irrefutable, or there is subjective truth', which is just what you human beings individually believe is true, but which can be refuted.

Now, how to decipher and discern between the two is very, very simple and easy, and can be explained to absolutely any one who is interest and would like to learn and know more, here.

[Age]

VA, surely

I don't think they're very similar

I guess they're similar in one way, they don't really engage in anything resembling conversation most of the time. But it's for very different reasons. Age doesn't because his brain is too fried, he doesn't know how to. VA doesn't because she's just so full of hate and anger.

I wasn't sniping at Veggie that time, but rather at Vestible Arquebus, who is, like age, happy to just do the same conversation over and over and over again.

Now, you want to claim that I just do the 'same conversation' over and over and over again. So, either you say and write what 'this same conversation' is, exactly, which I, supposedly, do over and over and over again, or, it is just another belief and claim of yours that you can not or will not provide any back up and support for.

Also quite incapable of reading other people's writings with any intent of finding out what that other person is attempting to communicate.

LOL If 'this' is meant to be about 'me' in any way, shape, or form, then 'this one' is more delusional than first appeared. As it is obviously 'I' who spends far more time than anyone else, here, in trying to gain a better understanding of other's positions, views, and beliefs. Any one only has to look at the number of times that I ask for clarity and clarification compared to anyone else, here, to see and know that it is 'I' who has the actual intent of finding out what others are attempting to communicate.

[Age]

I don't think they're very similar

I guess they're similar in one way, they don't really engage in anything resembling conversation most of the time. But it's for very different reasons. Age doesn't because his brain is too fried, he doesn't know how to. VA doesn't because she's just so full of hate and anger.

I wasn't sniping at Veggie that time, but rather at Vestible Arquebus, who is, like age, happy to just do the same conversation over and over and over again. Also quite incapable of reading other people's writings with any intent of finding out what that other person is attempting to communicate.

Oh Sorry, of course, it would be VT if it were veggie.

You're right actually though about VA, VA is remarkably close to Age. A different style, but similar destination.

Age's style is, and will forever be, unmatched.

Great, and thank you for noticing this.

This is exactly what I have set to accomplish, and mostly just because 'I' am not like who and what 'you' human beings are.

The amount of energy it takes to behave like Age could power a small city.

And, the amount of energy that 'these people' have spent, and still are spending, on talking 'about' 'me' it could be said could also 'power cities'.

Once more it appears that 'another thread' is turning out to be 'about' 'me', again.

[Age]

The endless questioning harpy.....Socratic method or a feminine tactic of annoying the other until he surrenders?

In this case....the 'other' that 'said so,' is you.
So, sarcasm is not your forte.
Insults are.
Quick to the draw.
Premature... interlocutor. He wants to get off fast. The impulse cannot be restrained.

Defensive, as fuck.
Brittle ego.

What are you even on about, and, who are you even talking to, here, EXACTLY?

In the middle there, he switches to accusing you of sexual dysfunction, the "Premature... interlocutor" bit is suggestive of premature ejaculation, which is the getting off fast and the unrestrainable impulse bit.

Glad I could help.

But you did not help at all. you are only saying more or less exactly what would have already been assumed, if I was into 'assuming'.

Again, I ask 'clarifying questions' to see who is open and honest, from who is not, and to see who can and will clarify and/or back up their claims and beliefs, from who will not.

So far, which category 'this one' is in, here, is blatantly obvious.

[Age]

Some incoherent, stuff.... ignore me from now on....please.

Again, who are you talking to, an, what is this in relation to, exactly?

[Age]

Don't know...ask them.

I find you adorable.

Once more, who you are addressing is not yet known, nor is what you are even talking about.

[accelafine]

The endless questioning harpy.....Socratic method or a feminine tactic of annoying the other until he surrenders?

In this case....the 'other' that 'said so,' is you.
So, sarcasm is not your forte.
Insults are.
Quick to the draw.
Premature... interlocutor. He wants to get off fast. The impulse cannot be restrained.

Defensive, as fuck.
Brittle ego.

Age is a man who believes he's channeling the conscious universe. His comments are all the same--an insanity-inducing stream of pointless questions and condescending put-downs. He has driven several members to nervous breakdowns. Engage at your peril.

1. I do not believe what this one just claimed I do.

2. My comments are obviously not all the same.

3. My questions are very 'point' driven.

4. I have never put any one down, here.

5. Who are these, supposed and alleged, 'several members', here, that I have, supposedly and allegedly, driven to nervous breakdowns, exactly?

If 'this one' does not provide clarity to the point driven clarifying question, here, then this shows that each and every comment 'this one' made about 'me' are just pure Falsehoods, and thus just LIES.

I'm sure that's what you said when you changed from being just plain 'Ken', or words to that effect. How else would you know what's in the minds of every other person? And yes, putting a row of 'LOLs' after quoting someone else's perfectly reasonable comment would be considered a 'condescending put down'. You do it all the time. You don't seem to have any empathy whatsoever.

[accelafine]

Don't know...ask them.

I find you adorable.

Once more, who you are addressing is not yet known, nor is what you are even talking about.

I think he was referring to you. You have a fan.

[Age]

The common thread, connecting all of these psychotics, is their inability to be affected by reasoning.
They repeat the same behavior, as if the other said nothing to make them doubt their positions.

If you are going to enter a forum, and pretend that you are a new member, then at least try to pretend that you are not yet savvy of the already existing members, already.

Now, if you really want to claim that the 'common thread', connecting 'all' of these so-called "psychotics", is their inability to be affected by 'reasoning', and you do not present who these "psychotics" are, exactly, and provide actual examples of 'the reasoning' that they are not able to be 'effected' by, then all you are doing is showing your own beliefs and claims with absolutely nothing at all backing up and substantiating your own beliefs and claims.

So, use 'me' now if you want to, if you believe that 'I' am one of the "psychotics", what is 'the reasoning', which you believe I do not have the ability to be 'effected' by. Show 'the readers', here, what 'this reasoning' is, exactly. Let them decide if 'it' is 'actual reasoning', or just more of your twisted and/or distorted stubbornly held onto assumptions or beliefs, or not. That is, if you even have the ability and courage to do so.

If you do not, then, once again, you are doing nothing more than just sprouting your own beliefs, which are, once more, not even able to be supported at all.

And, you talking about 'those' 'who repeat the same behavior, as if the other said nothing to make them doubt their positions', is quite funny considering the actual Fact that it is 'you', "yourself", who does this very thing.

Now, again if you have the ability and enough courage to, provide 'one position' that I certainly have, here, and then provide absolutely any thing that you have said and written, here, which would be classed as 'enough' to make me doubt 'that position'.

And, again, if you do not, then you are doing nothing more than just making up and holding onto beliefs, which you have absolutely nothing at all that could even be close to backing up, supporting, and/or sustaining your own belief and position, here.

Thus, rendering your own beliefs and claims, here, absolutely worthless and useless.

The other connecting thread, is their conviction that the other is trying to impose his perspective on them, because they are unable to offer counterarguments to what challenges their absolutist perspective.

Again, another example of 'projection', in its finest form.

The underlying position being all perspectives are equally plausible,

Do you, really, believe that 'all perspectives' are 'equally plausible'?

If yes, then you are more 'blind' and 'deluded than you first come across as.

because nobody is omniscient,

Is 'this' one of your so-called 'reasoning', which others, supposedly, do not have the ability to be 'affected' by?

If yes, then you are completely insane.

So, according to 'this one's' 'logic and reasoning' absolutely 'every perspective' is 'equally plausible' with every other one, because, there is no one that knows every thing.

There is no wonder why some are not affected by 'this one's' so-called 'reasoning', and just 'carry on' as though 'this one' has said nothing at all to make them doubt their own position, or view.

Obviously not every perspective is equally plausible at all. And, not because there is any human being who is omniscient but just because not every perspective is equally plausible, obviously.

and only power imposes certain perspectives on the powerless - a Marxist position, that can be traced back to Abrahamic dogma.

It does not matter if 'it' can be traced back to 'a minute ago', 'yesterday', or to 'any 'time' in the past', what does, 'only power imposes certain perspectives on the powerless', even mean, exactly, to you?

What even is 'power', itself, which can, supposedly and allegedly, 'impose certain perspective', and, who and/or what are the so-called 'powerless', exactly?

When their positions are threatened they must play the victim, fighting against power.

Are you speaking from first-hand experience, here?

After all quite a few of 'your positions', and even here in this thread, and post, are continually being threatened.

And, the fact that you will not stand up and behind your own claims and beliefs, here, and do not fight against the challenges you are presented with, shows and proves just how much you are 'threatened by' 'reasoning', itself, or what you are 'trying to' call 'power', here.

They feel bullied. victims of a fascist threatening their peace of mind.

Again, this sounds, exactly, like you are speaking from first-hand experience/s.

Their potions could be postmodern cultural-Marxist, or Globalist Americanism, or Christian (Abrahamic) totalitarianism....
Doesn't matter.
Popularity is a factor. Not rationality.
They've assumed that existence must follow their reasoning, but they cannot explain how, so they automatically attack and repeat their defensive methods that prevent them from ever doubting themselves.

Once more, you are providing absolutely prime examples of 'projection', itself.

Unable to challenge another position, so as to preserve their own, they must accuse it of dogmatism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism....ironically their own often conceals these motives.
All must agree with my dogma, otherwise it is dogmatic, because I cannot contradict the challenges it posits to my dogmatism.

Thank you for providing even more great examples of what the term and phrase 'projecting' is referring to, exactly, and thus what 'projecting' really looks like.

Now, will you accept 'my challenges and questions' above, here, in relation to 'your position/s', or what some my call 'your dogmatic position/s'?

if no, then why not, exactly?

[Age]

Here's a "coherent" paternalistic quote, from an authority figure you cannot pretend lacks coherence, so that you can dismiss and mock...

LOL 'authority figure'.

Once again, it is 'only those' who have the 'same views', or have 'the views' that are followed and believed, who are the so-called 'authority figures'.

Logos also contains the idea of the word; legein means to talk, to speak. It is another characteristic of man that he insists upon giving voice to an idea, designating it, giving a name, making a concept, expressing it, while woman, characterized more by Eros, can leave things in suspens; they have not necessarily to be SAID. A man says, “Why the devil don’t you say so?” but a woman doesn't need to say so, and usually she doesn’t. Or she says something else, and a man is always convinced that she has said just the thing she should not have said. Therefore, men’s ideas about women – about their talk, you know: gossip and afternoon tea, that intricate talk, the indirect vague way of women. If he carefully follows up such a conversation, however, he sees that she is like a spider weaving a web. The talk of women, being round-about, doesn’t consist of words but of spider webs, and they have a purpose different from that of a man. He means, “This is a chair, damn you, it is not a footstool.” This is interesting to him; he establishes this particular distinguishing factor. But it is not interesting to a woman: if this is not a chair, it is a footstool and one can sit on a footstool if there is no chair... To a woman, it doesn't matter so much. It only matters inasmuch as a difference must be covered up or related; a bridge must be made in between, and that is the weaving of plots.
The natural mind of a woman consists chiefly in weaving plots... in their natural mind they establish spider webs, threads leading from here to there which connect them up. Eventually a woman gets herself in it as well... They are natural spiders, because they can thus find out about connections. You see, that is Eros... Therefore, a man, in order to be definite, very often cuts a thing away from life; he does not understand its living function.

'your' so-called 'authority figure' had also not yet learned that, ' Damn it, there is no such thing as any 'mind' of a 'woman' nor of a 'man' '. But, 'your' so-called 'authority figure', like those of all older human beings, is not to actually find and speak of only 'the Truth' and of 'the Truth' only, but to speak 'in ways' that are 'close enough'.

[Age]

Incoherent and weird....

you say and write 'this' as though every thing you say and write, here, is coherent and not weird. Is 'this' what you actually really believe is true?

This satyr guy keeps being mentioned.
Is he another "weird incoherent" toxic man, reminding you of what you can never be?

Isn't it odd that you found yourself in this place, putting on that old angry threatening biatch routine, for the children?

Why the mask, spider-woman?
You can understand my motives....but you have no reason other than evasion.

What are your motives, here, exactly?

[Age]

"pistolero",

Why, when someone says and writes,

'That's a coherent piece of writing.'

you then turn 'that' around, as well, and then ask,

'What do you find difficult to understand?'

Do you understand what the word 'coherent' means and/or is referring to, exactly?

I'm on a schedule, here.

When you said and wrote, 'here', here, what are you referring to, exactly?

you are, allegedly, on some sort of schedule 'where', exactly?

And, what has, supposedly, being on 'a schedule' got to do with any thing, here, exactly?

My presence has an expiration date, dear.

Do any of your human being's 'presence' not have an 'expiration date'? And, what does what you saying and claiming, here, have to do with any thing, here?

I am not as 'free' to spew poison, as you are.

Why not?

And, why would you even want to so-call 'spew poison', anyway?

Why not just so-call 'spew' the actual and irrefutable Truth, here, only, and instead?