Philosophy Now Forum

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:09 am I asked the question. If I tell you that you didn't answer my question, you better believe it. Otherwise, you're undermining the very concept of communication.

Lol Once again 'this one' believes that its own personal opinions, assumptions, and/or beliefs of things are the one and only true and right ones.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:10 am Question #3:
Why are you abusing commas?

LOL Again, 'this one' can not see any thing other than what it presumes or believes is true and right, here.

While 'this one' is believing any of 'you' are doing, or not doing, some thing, here, then 'it' is not open to absolutely anything else. As 'it' keeps showing and proving absolutely True, here.

And, while 'this one' remains this closed, 'it' will not be able to see and recognize the actual Truths from its own made up Falsehoods.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:09 am I asked the question. If I tell you that you didn't answer my question, you better believe it. Otherwise, you're undermining the very concept of communication.

You are trying to explain the basic alphabet to a newborn.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:49 am Lol Once again 'this one' believes that its own personal opinions, assumptions, and/or beliefs of things are the one and only true and right ones.

No. Once again, that would be you accusing others of your own guilt.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:10 am You are trying to explain the basic alphabet to a newborn.

I agree.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:49 am Lol Once again 'this one' believes that its own personal opinions, assumptions, and/or beliefs of things are the one and only true and right ones.

No. Once again, that would be you accusing others of your own guilt.

LOL If 'this' is, really, what you want to believe is true, then okay.

Now, would you like to have a discussion, with us both presenting examples, and then see who, exactly, can back up and support 'their claim', here, with actual presented proof?

If no, then why not?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:41 am Now, would you like to have a discussion, with us both presenting examples, and then see who, exactly, can back up and support 'their claim', here, with actual presented proof?

If no, then why not?

Well, it's your turn. I asked you to tell us how other people are using the word "definition". What do they mean by it? You can start with the most common definition, although you don't have to.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:10 am

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:09 am I asked the question. If I tell you that you didn't answer my question, you better believe it. Otherwise, you're undermining the very concept of communication.

You are trying to explain the basic alphabet to a newborn.

'This', coming from the 'very one' who changed the title of 'their thread' only after I pointed out, once again, the Wrongness in its writings.

Also, you claim what you did, here, although it is 'you' who says and writes things like, 'The recursion of infinities is but self referential completeness of a system where the infinite recursion of infinities is but the foundations of infinite recursion justifying themselves as complete through the nature of the process', and who wonders why it is having so much trouble explaining it's beliefs to others.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:33 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:10 am You are trying to explain the basic alphabet to a newborn.

I agree.

you would, especially considering that it has been I who has been pointing out some of the very reasons why no one agreed with you in regards to your claims, beliefs, and explanations in your own thread.

Once again, if 'others' do not understand agree with you and/or accept your explanations, then, to you, it is always 'the others' fault.

And, when people like 'you' and "eodnhoj7" have 'superiority complexes', like you two both clearly have, then you will continue to always 'see' that it is 'the other' who is 'less than'.

Which is, really, just another True sign of actual 'immaturity', itself.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:45 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:41 am Now, would you like to have a discussion, with us both presenting examples, and then see who, exactly, can back up and support 'their claim', here, with actual presented proof?

If no, then why not?

Well, it's your turn. I asked you to tell us how other people are using the word "definition". What do they mean by it? You can start with the most common definition, although you don't have to.

LOL, once again, you have completely and utterly not comprehend a single thing that I was 'talking about' and 'referring to', here.

But, yet 'this one' will believe, absolutely, that it is only 'me' who does 'this', here.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:53 am Once again, if 'others' do not understand agree with you and/or accept your explanations, then, to you, it is always 'the others' fault.

And, when people like 'you' and "eodnhoj7" have 'superiority complexes', like you two both clearly have, then you will continue to always 'see' that it is 'the other' who is 'less than'.

Which is, really, just another True sign of actual 'immaturity', itself.

Again, you're accusing of your own guilt.

Nothing new here.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:55 am LOL, once again, you have completely and utterly not comprehend a single thing that I was 'talking about' and 'referring to', here.

But, yet 'this one' will believe, absolutely, that it is only 'me' who does 'this', here.

There you go. I ask you a very simple question and I get this.

I'm still waiting for you to define the word "definition".

I am also waiting for you to realize that "It means whatever anyone wants it to mean" is not an answer.

Someone asks it a question. It interprets it any random way it likes and then answers the question noone actually asked. It is then told that it didn't answer the question that was asked, only for it to stubbornly refuse to accept that, believing that the other is trying to deceive it.

The pattern that one can observe:
It is always the other person who is at fault. Never it.

And then it proceeds to accuse the other of its very own guilt.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:59 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:53 am Once again, if 'others' do not understand agree with you and/or accept your explanations, then, to you, it is always 'the others' fault.

And, when people like 'you' and "eodnhoj7" have 'superiority complexes', like you two both clearly have, then you will continue to always 'see' that it is 'the other' who is 'less than'.

Which is, really, just another True sign of actual 'immaturity', itself.

Again, you're accusing of your own guilt.

Nothing new here.

Again, 'this one' will, freely, make claims, but when questioned and challenged it will 'run away', and 'hide'.

I asked you previously,
Would you like to have a discussion, with us both presenting examples, and then see who, exactly, can back up and support 'their claim', here, with actual presented proof?

you, once more, 'ran away', and 'hid'.

What are you afraid of, here, exactly, "magnus anderson"?