Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Nov 16, 2025 6:07 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 7:17 am How about next time I say, 'Obviously, for as long as you, human beings, keep electing 'them' in?'

Why do you want so badly to use the word, "you" when referring to electing leaders who think it is stealing to tax the wealthy to provide social programs for the poor. It sounds like you are default blaming me for it too. So it could easily cause a misunderstanding between us. What is wrong with the formulation I suggested to you.

Posted: **Sun Nov 16, 2025 7:44 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 6:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 7:17 am How about next time I say, 'Obviously, for as long as you, human beings, keep electing 'them' in?'
Why do you want so badly to use the word, "you" when referring to electing leaders who think it is stealing to tax the wealthy to provide social programs for the poor. It sounds like you are default blaming me for it too. So it could easily cause a misunderstanding between us. What is wrong with the formulation I suggested to you.

But I do not want so badly to use the word, 'you'.

What is making you presume such a thing?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your formulation, to me. As could be clearly seen by my use of the words, 'Fair enough'.

I just asked you,

How about next time I say, 'Obviously, for as long as you, human beings, keep electing 'them' in?'

And,

How does that sound?

To see how open you are.

By the way, I would never call 'them' 'leaders'. But, as always, 'you' are absolutely free to see, and allow, 'others' to 'lead you'.

you are, also, absolutely free to infer 'my words' in absolutely any way you like. However, only I know, for sure, the meaning of what 'my words' are, exactly. So, you can assume any thing you like, but it is only you who can misunderstand, here. So, once more I will suggest becoming and remaining open, and always seeking out and obtaining actual clarity before you begin to assume absolutely any thing, here.

If you are prepared to seek out, and obtain, clarity first, then you can not, successfully, blame me for your own misunderstandings, here.

Now, you really do seem to have a lot of trouble, or a big issue, when 'you' perceive, or assume, 'you' are being pointed out as being responsible, individually. Which might just be a result of "your" mommy always being there 'fir you' and always having 'protected' 'you'.

But, the only real thing that causes misunderstanding between 'us', here, is when either 'you', or 'I', infers what the other is meaning, before clarification, and clarity, is sought, and obtained.

Although 'you' are absolutely free to keep inferring and assuming absolutely any thing you like, here, I much prefer to never assume any thing, here. So, as never misunderstand absolutely any thing.

Posted: **Sun Nov 16, 2025 8:03 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 7:44 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 6:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 7:17 am How about next time I say, 'Obviously, for as long as you, human beings, keep electing 'them' in?'
Why do you want so badly to use the word, "you" when referring to electing leaders who think it is stealing to tax the wealthy to provide social programs for the poor. It sounds like you are default blaming me for it too. So it could easily cause a misunderstanding between us. What is wrong with the formulation I suggested to you.
But I do not want so badly to use the word, 'you'.

What is making you presume such a thing?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your formulation, to me. As could be clearly seen by my use of the words, 'Fair enough'.

I just asked you,

How about next time I say, 'Obviously, for as long as you, human beings, keep electing 'them' in?'

And,

How does that sound?

To see how open you are.

By the way, I would never call 'them' 'leaders'. But, as always, 'you' are absolutely free to see, and allow, 'others' to 'lead you'.

you are, also, absolutely free to infer 'my words' in absolutely any way you like. However, only I know, for sure, the meaning of what 'my words' are, exactly. So, you can assume any thing you like, but it is only you who can misunderstand, here. So, once more I will suggest becoming and remaining open, and always seeking out and obtaining actual clarity before you begin to assume absolutely any thing, here.

If you are prepared to seek out, and obtain, clarity first, then you can not, successfully, blame me for your own misunderstandings, here.

Now, you really do seem to have a lot of trouble, or a big issue, when 'you' perceive, or assume, 'you' are being pointed out as being responsible, individually. Which might just be a result of "your" mommy always being there 'fir you' and always having 'protected' 'you'.

But, the only real thing that causes misunderstanding between 'us', here, is when either 'you', or 'I', infers what the other is meaning, before clarification, and clarity, is sought, and obtained.

Although 'you' are absolutely free to keep inferring and assuming absolutely any thing you like, here, I much prefer to never assume any thing, here. So, as never misunderstand absolutely any thing.

Fair enough. If you want to communicate with me then you should NOT say, 'Obviously, for as long as you, human beings, keep electing 'them' in'" It is ambiguous and ultimate inaccurate because the word "you" refers to the person you are talking to. I did not vote for the current regime and don't support it, therefore it is inaccurate to say "you human beings keep electing them". I prefer that you state things accurately when talking to me.

Posted: **Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:27 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 8:03 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 7:44 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 6:07 pm

Why do you want so badly to use the word, "you" when referring to electing leaders who think it is stealing to tax the wealthy to provide social programs for the poor. It sounds like you are default blaming me for it too. So it could easily cause a misunderstanding between us. What is wrong with the formulation I suggested to you.
But I do not want so badly to use the word, 'you'.

What is making you presume such a thing?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your formulation, to me. As could be clearly seen by my use of the words, 'Fair enough'.

I just asked you,

How about next time I say, 'Obviously, for as long as you, human beings, keep electing 'them' in?'

And,

How does that sound?

To see how open you are.

By the way, I would never call 'them' 'leaders'. But, as always, 'you' are absolutely free to see, and allow, 'others' to 'lead you'.

you are, also, absolutely free to infer 'my words' in absolutely any way you like. However, only I know, for sure, the meaning of what 'my words' are, exactly. So, you can assume any thing you like, but it is only you who can misunderstand, here. So, once more I will suggest becoming and remaining open, and always seeking out and obtaining actual clarity before you begin to assume absolutely any thing, here.

If you are prepared to seek out, and obtain, clarity first, then you can not, successfully, blame me for your own misunderstandings, here.

Now, you really do seem to have a lot of trouble, or a big issue, when 'you' perceive, or assume, 'you' are being pointed out as being responsible, individually. Which might just be a result of "your" mommy always being there 'fir you' and always having 'protected' 'you'.

But, the only real thing that causes misunderstanding between 'us', here, is when either 'you', or 'I', infers what the other is meaning, before clarification, and clarity, is sought, and obtained.

Although 'you' are absolutely free to keep inferring and assuming absolutely any thing you like, here, I much prefer to never assume any thing, here. So, as never misunderstand absolutely any thing.
Fair enough. If you want to communicate with me then you should NOT say, 'Obviously, for as long as you, human beings, keep electing 'them' in'" It is ambiguous and ultimate inaccurate because the word "you" refers to the person you are talking to.

1. The word, 'you', never, necessarily, refers to the person 'you' are talking to.

2. To assume such a thing will lead, and cause, you to misunderstand things.

3. The way that I used 'that word' may well be ambiguous to you, personally, but this never means that that word was ambiguous to another one of you, human beings. After all what you wrote and asked was,
'So how long is our country going to be ruled by people who think it is "stealing" for the government to tax the wealthy in order to have social programs to help the poor?'

To which I replied,
Obviously for as long you keep selecting 'those people' in.'

Now, as everyone, here, knows that 'your' one, personal, vote did not elect 'those people' in, I would find it hard to accept that anyone else, besides you, personally, found my use of the 'you' word, there, ambiguous. Unless, of course, anyone else thought that "gary childress's', individual, personal vote elected 'those people's in. And, if anyone else did think that 'this' is what I mean t and)or was referring to, the I would appreciate you coming forward.

4. you, "gary childress" seem to, literally take the 'you' word, personally, here. Just maybe if you 'look at' 'my words' from a less 'about you personally' perspective, then you might see a bigger or larger and more real perspective, of things.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 8:03 pm I did not vote for the current regime and don't support it, therefore it is inaccurate to say "you human beings keep electing them".

If it is, supposedly, inaccurate to say 'you human beings keep voting them in', then who and/or what, exactly, does keep voting 'them' in?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 8:03 pm I prefer that you state things accurately when talking to me.

I would prefer you were not so narrowed and had a somewhat open view and perspective, here. But, 'we' do not always get what 'we' want, and prefer, right?

Now, as for 'your claim' about 'accurately', and, 'ultimate inaccurate', you appear to have some sort of belief that what you perceive as 'accurate' or 'inaccurate' is 'the way' everyone 'does', or 'should', perceive. Which, again, is Truly a very narrowed way of 'looking at' and 'seeing' things.

Now, I will try to remember your own personal perspective and your own personal way of 'looking at' and of 'seeing' things, here, when 'I' reply to 'you', and 'your questions', here., but 'this forum' is not for 'you' alone. It would help things, here, if you also remember that you are not the 'only one', here, and remember that 'I' am also wanting 'my words' to not be misunderstood by any of all of you human beings. Which is not exactly the most simplest and easiest things to do, considering that you all can have your own personal and unique way of 'looking at' and of 'seeing' things.

Posted: **Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:34 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:27 pm 1. The word, 'you', never, necessarily, refers to the person 'you' are talking to.

So when you say to someone, "you human beings keep electing people who believe taxing for social programs is theft" you are not referring to me? Interesting. So what was your intent by using the word "you" there in the context of your reply to my post?

Do you think it's possible that it is poorly worded to use "you" in a context that is not referring to the person you are talking to?

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 8:29 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:34 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:27 pm 1. The word, 'you', never, necessarily, refers to the person 'you' are talking to.
So when you say to someone, "you human beings keep electing people who believe taxing for social programs is theft" you are not referring to me?

Obviously not personally and only.

Are you, still, thinking, or believing, that 'I' am referring to 'you', only, or personally?

I thought the words, 'human beings', would have made it very, very clear and obvious that 'I' am not referring to 'you' only, nor personally. And, what I thought would have been just as obvious is that if 'you', personally, did not elect 'those people' in, then 'you' would automatically not be in the 'you' human beings, group.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:34 pm Interesting. So what was your intent by using the word "you" there in the context of your reply to my post?

What my actual intent by using the word, 'you', followed by the words, 'human beings', was to just answer 'your', "gary childress" question, while implying that it is absolutely and totally insane for a species like you human beings to keep 'electing' 'others', with the belief that 'they' will 'lead' 'you' 'fairly and squarely', especially while you keep giving 'them' more and more of 'your worked for money'.

Look, you asked some thing like, 'So how long is our country going to be ruled by people who think it is "stealing" for the government to tax the wealthy in order to have social programs to help the poor?'

And, I just said and answered, with some thing like, 'Obviously, for as long as you, human beings, keep electing 'them' in'

Now, if 'this' is, still, just 'too much', for you, then would you prefer an answer that goes some thing like, 'Obviously, for as long as people, or human beings, keep electing 'them' in', instead?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:34 pm Do you think it's possible that it is poorly worded to use "you" in a context that is not referring to the person you are talking to?

But, when I wrote what I did, I had no way of previously knowing if 'you', personally, were being referred to, or not. As 'I' was not, yet, aware of who 'you' had elected in.

It was, and still is, as simple as, if 'you' had elected 'them' in, then 'you' would have been being referred to, but, if you had not elected 'them' in, then, obviously, 'you' would not have been being referred to.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 9:02 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 8:29 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:34 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:27 pm 1. The word, 'you', never, necessarily, refers to the person 'you' are talking to.
So when you say to someone, "you human beings keep electing people who believe taxing for social programs is theft" you are not referring to me?
Obviously not personally and only.

Are you, still, thinking, or believing, that 'I' am referring to 'you', only, or personally?

You shouldn't be referring to me at all in your statement. If you're referring to me with everyone else who supports the current regime then you're an idiot. Why do you support Trump, Age? Use the word "WE" if you want to refer to all humans, unless you're not a human. And if you're not human, then get off this website, it's not for bots.

And while you're at it. Stop replying to my posts where I'm not talking to you. Everything you say is poorly communicated and annoying and you don't listen to advice on how to communicate better. Just be you, Age. Don't listen to what I suggest to help you communicate better. And get out of my face. I'm tired of your nonsense.

Goodbye.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 10:07 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 9:02 pm
Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 8:29 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:34 pm

So when you say to someone, "you human beings keep electing people who believe taxing for social programs is theft" you are not referring to me?
Obviously not personally and only.

Are you, still, thinking, or believing, that 'I' am referring to 'you', only, or personally?
You shouldn't be referring to me at all in your statement.

Why 'should' 'I' not be referring to 'you', at all, in 'my statement'?

And, which of 'my statements' are 'you' referring to, exactly?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 9:02 pm If you're referring to me with everyone else who supports the current regime then you're an idiot.

Once more, because you left 'it' out, here.

I did not know who you voted for. I also made it very clear that if 'you', personally, were not one of the human beings who elected 'them' in, then 'you', personally, are not one of 'the ones' that I was referring to. How much simpler can 'this' get and be, here?

Look, you asked some thing like, 'How much longer are 'they' going to be 'in power' and be 'controlling' 'you' for?'

I just said as long as 'you', human beings, keep voting 'them' in.

And, if you, really, are having troubling discerning if 'you', personally, are 'one of those ones', or not, then 'I' suggest you take notice of 'the thinking' within 'that head' some more.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 9:02 pm Why do you support Trump, Age?

Why do you continue to 'assume' things, before you seek out and obtain actually clarity, first?

See, if you did, then 'you' would not be so Wrong, so often.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 9:02 pm Use the word "WE" if you want to refer to all humans,

'I', very clearly and very obviously, did not want to refer to 'all humans'. Because to do so would be one of the most idiotic things to do, obviously.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 9:02 pm unless you're not a human. And if you're not human, then get off this website, it's not for bots.

Here, is a clear sign of what is called and referred to as, the 'God gap'.

Which, over time, has turned into the 'bot', and/or 'alien gap'.

Just out of curiosity "gary childress" why, to you, if one is presumed to be 'not human' has to then, automatically, be 'a bot'?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 9:02 pm And while you're at it. Stop replying to my posts where I'm not talking to you.

I suggest 'you' do not enter 'public forums', say, claim, and/or ask things, and then expect to not be responded to.

'you', obviously, asked 'a question', to no one in particular.

'i" just answered that question, for 'you'.

And, as 'you' do, quite often, 'you' see 'the world' as 'you' are 'the victim', and so, in turn, saw 'my response and answer' being 'about you', personally. Which it, very clearly and very obviously, was not. As absolutely anyone else could attest to.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 9:02 pm Everything you say is poorly communicated and annoying and you don't listen to advice on how to communicate better.

Once again, and as you, very obviously, did not read and comprehend what I wrote before, after you informed 'me' of a 'better way' to communicate with 'you', personally, and only, 'i' then said and wrote,

Fair enough.

Which meant, and still means, 'What you just said and wrote in relation to communicating with 'you' in a 'better way' has been 'taken on board', as some might say, is understood, and which 'i' am acknowledging with, and by, the words, 'Fair enough', and so 'I' will try to remember to communicate in 'that way', 'with you', from now on.

Would you like any further elaboration, explanation, or clarification in regards to what I actually meant when I said and wrote the words, 'Fair enough', in reply to comment about communicating 'with you', personally, in a 'better way'?

If yes, then just say so.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 9:02 pm Just be you, Age. Don't listen to what I suggest to help you communicate better. And get out of my face. I'm tired of your nonsense.

Okay.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 9:02 pm Goodbye.

Posted: **Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am**

Sitting around waiting for the end of life get's boring as I get older. But it's still better than reaching the end. There's less and less to look forward to and more and more to look back on. And none of what I look back on is particularly satisfying.

I'm convinced that when the body dies, the mind disappears with it. Most human history occurred before I was born and I am not cognizant of anything at all until I came into the world. For billions of years (perhaps for an eternity) prior, the world existed without me in it. When I go, I fully expect it's going to be lights out and something like dreamless sleep--just a sudden nothingness that lasts for all eternity afterward, just as it existed for all eternity prior to the day I was born. It seems ridiculous to think that consciousness is eternal, that there is anything at all of consciousness that survives bodily death.

Not existing is a sobering thought. It scares me while I exist. But when I no longer exist, I think there will probably be no worries afterward. There won't be a "me" at all. It will neither be a "good" thing nor a "bad" thing for me. It will be nothing whatsoever at all. And so I will have no sobering thoughts afterward to fear or dread.

I will always be glad that I didn't have children, until I'm no longer able to have any thoughts at all. I didn't pollute the gene pool with more of me and I spared my potential children from a miserable world. Better to have never lived. And that's what I'm doing for my children. Of course, not having had any children, it's also probably non-sensical to talk about doing anything for children that never existed and never will. But I don't care. I'll talk about them anyway.

They would have been all boys--three of them. I would have named them; Ebeneezer, Icabod and Huckleberry. Those poor kids. They never would have lived down their names on the school playground. And they would have been just plain weird.

Posted: **Thu Nov 20, 2025 8:04 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am Sitting around waiting for the end of life get's boring as I get older. But it's still better than reaching the end. There's less and less to look forward to and more and more to look back on. And none of what I look back on is particularly satisfying.

I'm convinced that when the body dies, the mind disappears with it.

And, what even is 'the mind', exactly?

Also, where does 'the body', and, 'the mind' go, exactly?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am Most human history occurred before I was born and I am not cognizant of anything at all until I came into the world. For billions of years (perhaps for an eternity) prior, the world existed without me in it.

Why do you say, 'perhaps for an eternity'?

It is an irrefutable Fact that 'the world' exists eternally'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am When I go, I fully expect it's going to be lights out and something like dreamless sleep--just a sudden nothingness that lasts for all eternity afterward, just as it existed for all eternity prior to the day I was born.

Although 'you' came-to-exist, 'I' exist eternally. 'you' meant to write, 'i', here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am It seems ridiculous to think that consciousness is eternal, that there is anything at all of consciousness that survives bodily death.

The 'consciousness' within a human body stops existing when the body stop breathing and stops pumping blood. 'Consciousness', however, is different, and may well exist eternally.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am Not existing is a sobering thought.

And, 'a thought' that can cause 'irrational fear', in some.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am It scares me while I exist.

Why?

Once again, 'I' exist eternally.

What 'you' were meant to say and write was, 'It scares 'me' while 'i' exist'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am But when I no longer exist, I think there will probably be no worries afterward.

1. 'you' keep getting the 'i' and the 'I' mixed up, here. (But, this is totally understandable since no one has 'taught' 'you' the Right usage, before.)

2. 'I' always exist.

3. If what 'you' are, supposedly, 'convinced' of, is true, then 'you' should also be 'convinced', absolutely, that that are 'no worries', afterwards.

4. By the way there are 'no worries' beforewards. Unless, of course, you want to make some up, and then believe that 'they' exist.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am There won't be a "me" at all. It will neither be a "good" thing nor a "bad" thing for me. It will be nothing whatsoever at all. And so I will have no sobering thoughts afterward to fear or dread.

Is 'this' absolutely True, or, is 'this' just what you 'hope' is true?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am I will always be glad that I didn't have children, until I'm no longer able to have any thoughts at all. I didn't pollute the gene pool with more of me and I spared my potential children from a miserable world.

So, 'you' blame "your" 'parents' for 'the way' that 'you' are, right?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am Better to have never lived. And that's what I'm doing for my children.

Could it be 'the case' that actually 'you' just could not find a partner before?

But, really, you do not want to admit 'this', so you are 'now' 'trying to' fool, and deceive, "your" 'self', here?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am Of course, not having had any children, it's also probably non-sensical to talk about doing anything for children that never existed and never will. But I don't care. I'll talk about them anyway.

Okay. There would be no use informing 'you' of what the actual Truth is, here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 5:14 am They would have been all boys--three of them. I would have named them; Ebeneezer, Icabod and Huckleberry. Those poor kids. They never would have lived down their names on the school playground. And they would have been just plain weird.

Of course they would of, if 'this' is what you would have told them.

Posted: **Thu Nov 20, 2025 8:15 am**

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:50 pm I think your problem, Gary, is that you are in love with yourself but you have no self-respect. That sets up a cognitive dissonance that you can’t cope with.

Posted: **Thu Nov 20, 2025 11:41 am**

So says the man who's always quoting himself

Posted: **Thu Nov 20, 2025 11:49 am**

I'm right behind you, Gary, but i found a new reason to live in 2010 that would become my life's purpose. I don't suffer the indecision of self-loathing existentialists who don't know what to do with themselves and are waiting to die. I can't even imagine what that's like.

Posted: **Thu Nov 20, 2025 11:56 am**

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 11:49 am I'm right behind you, Gary, but i found a new reason to live in 2010 that would become my life's purpose. I don't suffer the indecision of self-loathing existentialists who don't know what to do with themselves and are waiting to die. I can't even imagine what that's like.

That's because you are a shallow, self-absorbed jerk.

Posted: **Thu Nov 20, 2025 12:23 pm**

"Not existing is a sobering thought. It scares me while I exist."

Yup, that's the hard part. What everybody's afraid of is missing out on something fun... they don't wanna die just yet... they wanna be able to say, "Okay, now i can die... I'm done, etc."

A couple ways around this problem. Remember that everyone dies, so nobody's getting over on you. Keep in mind how lame everyone is, and the thought of not having their company anymore (when you're dead) doesn't bother you as much.

You wanna have the attitude that the world is a joke (so you'll not really miss it), but also that there are pleasurable experiences to be had while alive and that you should take advantage of this while living.

When you die, the noise stops, and all debts are erased. It's a perfect ending, no?

Philosophy Now Forum

Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner

Re: Gary's Corner