SpheresOfBalance wrote:How old are you? I see this as an unneeded question if you are my contemporary, as to age, as I can clearly answer this, then I believe, so should you!
So after gender its now age. Whether you see it as needed or uneeded has what relevance to my question of what being overly concerned with respect to misogyny is?
You're the one that initially brought up my pronoun usage, so as I'm to speak, in that initial moment you'd rather have issue, thus argue, than correct!
What are you babbling about now? You called me a she and have regularly assumed I'm female. I've told you I think gender has little to do with what the actual thoughts are expressing and think the reason you wish to know such things appears to be a Yank cultural need to do with being able to then dismiss or patronise the other and that I think it shows misogynistic tendencies.
Outright lie, or your fading memory.
Fact.
Slander, at least as per your definition, which places you so far beneath me.
Experience upon this forum.
That you think yourself upon a pedestal just shows the hypocrisy and nonsense you speak with respect to how you say you treat others.
One has to wonder why? As to name and location, as a thin veil of security, understandable, but age, where's the security, only vanity need apply. Some women seem to be preoccupied with the fear of others knowing this. Unless, again you fear being written off as inconsequential due to your age; sex? It would seem that it's you that harbors these issues, so obviously you would project them, maybe their manifestation is merely a function of your fear and projection of them. Trust me, I know, getting old is a bitch!
Save your psycho-babble for yourself, as you obviously need it.
No! "I" see that you are impatiently nagging. This is typically a trait of at least some of the fairer sex. My wife doesn't do it, but some do!
"The fairer sex"
I asked you a fairly extensive question and you got upon your pedestal and told me to read your words in two other threads, presumably because you think this would answer my question, but you gave no links and when I went to look I could not easily find them as you have a thousand odd posts. I think it the least you could do, if you're not going to reply to me, is to give me the links so I can read what you've said about determinism and 'freewill'. So far all you've done is burble about females and nagging, I can only assume you're having a senior moment and can't find them.
Your logic is twisted, If I take you correctly, you believe that the lack of freewill has something to do with me not rapidly providing you with the previous post in question?
My logic is fine, its your paranoia that affects your reading ability. So no, you take me incorrectly, I made no such link, I just want to read these words that you claim will answer my questions.
But seriously, after all we've been through, why do you engage me? Really? Why do you take your precious time to engage Spheres Of Balance? What is the point? We don't get along. ...
Pardon!? You are on a philosophy forum, what has 'getting along' got to do with anything? You only wish to talk to those you agree with? Me, when I hear "Its obvious we have freewill" upon a philosophy forum, think that such an assertion given the history of philosophy should be challenged. Its got bugger all to do with personality and my precious time is given because I think others reading such words my think that the term 'freewill' is unproblematic in philosophy. Might be fine in a chatroom but not here.
I believe you're confused as with your presumptions, assumptions, jumping to conclusions, not weighing the words and then proceeding logically from their actual "MEANING," which requires a dictionary, which you fear due to circularity; which you believe has absolutely nothing to do with the standardization of a language, so that people can effectively communicate, or so you have said. ...
Go back and read what I said to you about this. I have no fear of dictionaries, I just understand that 'actual meaning' did not occur with dictionaries. If it did then you'd have to hold the position that there was no meaning in English before Johnson wrote one, that there was no meaning in language before the invention of writing? I agree that standardization is useful but "meaning" does not arise from such a source but from usage and meaning is refined by conversation and discussion, something you appear loathe to do.
In this case how can anyone effectively talk to you? I don't really like Bob, but he sees it too. Then you constantly demean me through the term Yank, at least in your eyes, merely because I live in America, and that you project you meaning onto my words, and then hold me accountable for them. ...
You read what you wish. What I've clearly said about my usage of the term "Yank" is not that it means any American but that it identifies a certain type of American.
I've told you my basic presumption, "The meaning of ones words is the response they get."
You can effectively talk to me by stopping all the psycho-babble and gender assumption and answer the bloody questions I pose about your words.
Effectively, you merely talk to yourself, find that you don't like what you see, and hold another responsible for it. ...
See my presumption above.
It seems as though you could be a post menopausal woman that has gone a little loopy. If so, I care for you, I just find it difficult to talk to you, in the past I have held you accountable for my frustration in being capable of effectively conversing with you, so as to actually gain some ground, and I have apologized, because that was wrong, I should either take the inordinate amount of time required, or condense my output. I have no right to make you responsible for my decisions to engage you. I could simply not do so, which would alleviate my frustration. So once again I apologize for all the instances that I've lost my cool and verbally abused you, you did not deserve it. And it doesn't matter what you think about my words here, as its my responsibility, not yours.
The more I read of you the more I think you a big girls blouse despite the claims of martial prowess and hyper masculinity. Save your platitudes for someone who gives a fuck about them, especially when they are couched in such a patronizing manner. Personally I think apologies are pretty meaningless things, as why do things one needs to apologise for? But LMAO about your assumptions given the bollocks you say about how you treat others. Despite appearances this is a philosophy forum, so grow a pair and start answering my questions about your words for once and stop with the psycho-babble that I presume is used to protect your insecure 'ego' or at least provide those bloody links!
