Honesty & Openness

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
,
281

Once again, it is ‘me’ who does not understand.

Once again, this one has presumed things that are absolutely Inaccurate and Incorrect.

I just make claims, as can be clearly seen. Now, if this does not spark curiosity, then so be it.

And, again, this one speaks as though it believes it does not initiate that kind of communication “itself”.

It is beyond “greenfuse’s” conception that ‘it’ with regularity starts the degeneration of a dialogue into ad homs, insults, tangents, condescension, and pretend so-called ‘mind reading’ more than ‘I’ do.

The point, which this one still has not yet come to recognise and notice, is that none of them have any real interest to begin with nor any curiosity left within them.

Again, as I have shown and proved throughout these forums.

For example, if absolutely anyone came here and claimed some of the things I have, and especially in ‘the way’ I have, then ‘I’ would be ‘on them’ almost instantaneously with absolute curiosity, to see if they could back up and support their claims with actual proofs and facts.

I would also be continually challenging them in regards to the words they use/d and to the definitions, meanings, and intentions behind those words.

I certainly would not be ‘sitting back’ and saying things like “you are wrong”, from ‘the beliefs’ that “i know better”. Like some here obviously certainly do.

This one has, supposedly, “seen” so-called “toxic behaviour” from the outset. And, to keep proving it’s preexisting beliefs is true and right the ‘confirmation bias’ it clearly has keeps missing the non-toxic behaviour and it only “sees” what it wants to see.

Look, I make claims. As can be clearly seen. This is NOT initiating absolutely any of the thing you keep “seeing” and claiming I keep initiating. I, then, wait patiently for absolutely anyone to come forward with actual interest and curiosity.

Once more I KNOW my claims are backed up by and are supported by irrefutably proofs and facts.

LOL Imagine if you had spent as much time as you have here on ‘trying to’ discredit ‘me’, on actually being curious and questioning ‘me’ about ‘my claims’ and/or challenging ‘me’ over the words I use and the definitions I use.

Imagine what could have been actually learned, understood, and gained here.

Instead, ‘we’ have not progressed absolutely anywhere here.

See how it, once again, instead of ‘asking me’ for clarification, in order to gain clarity, it will just talk ‘about me’, based on what it ‘currently’ believes is absolutely true. This one believes, absolutely, that there is no way possible that I could know the way to Peace and Harmony, so it will talk ‘about me’ from that perspective. While ‘trying to’ garner more support to discredit and/or ‘ridicule me’.

Could ‘this one’ talk ‘about me’ anymore?

LOL I have, once again, provided a set of further claims, one of us that I can proof them all to be absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Now it is time to see if “greenfuse” can improve at all, but hopefully greatly, and start focusing on those claims solely.

Or, will ‘we’ see it resort to its very old and completely nonprogressive way of communicating?

Will ‘we’ see it engaging with ‘the claims’ or just continuing to talk ‘about me’ further and instead?

Can “greenfuse” avoid ‘that way’ of approaching people and manage to effectively communicate without those tactics?

Is it even possible for ‘this one’ to focus on ‘the claims’ only, and just stop talking ‘about people’?

Is it interested and curious at all in and about any of ‘my claims’? Or, is its sole intent and purpose here to just ‘try to’ ‘discredit me’, only?

282

anew cut off the discussion in this thread when anew ‘read my mind’ and decided I wasn’t asking in the right spirit. Coincidentally, this was precisely when I pointed out, politely, a contradiction in his description of an experiential proof and his definition of proof. Right at that moment he decided to focus on my person, rather than the topic. I have experienced this pattern with regularity. And, of course, he initiates the pattern of going personal in a negative in threads were no one has challenged him or even disagreed yet.

Anew is asking a strange question since he has responded to my posts in other threads where I was responding on topic and not posting about members of the forum. So, he should know the answer to this question, unless he sees some of his own experience with me and the only experience with me and as all that I am doing, including what I am doing with others. In one of these other threads he asked me a question or two politely and I answered politely. Then he went ad hom, condescending etc, again in that thread.

But yes, I find the patterns of interaction anew uses here to be an almost pure form of certain toxic patterns that are widespread, and yes often have to do with dominance games in interpersonal interactions, which can range from the trivial to the very toxic. Ironically it relates to peace and harmony.

It seems like today compared to yesterday anew has initiated less ad homs, condescension, blanket statements implying his superiority, pretend toxic mind-reading, etc. I didn’t post here posts where the pattern was already entrenched in an interaction. I am sure he and/or The Mind can manage to be at least as effective a communicator without these. I am sure he has the skills and that the reduction can become an absence of this pattern.

283

Oh, well, I spoke too soon. He initiated here:

anew: Yet it still shuts down that natural curiosity completely sometimes.

This is from the What has made life more beautiful thread. It’s a mild example, but it is going ad hom, ‘to the man’. He is assessing the internals state of another member of the group, instead of responding to the topic.

1 Like
284

So, again, it is ‘my fault’.

See, how one of ‘my claims’ is there is only One mind only, and how this one is completely unable to focus and engage with this.

And, what it did it here just not go unnoticed at all.

LOL, LOL, LOL What the actual Truth is is that when it was being pointed out that any ‘contradiction’ that it “saw” was not an actual contradiction at all, it then decided to end the discussion before the Truth could come to light.

Coming from the one who has spend just about all if its time here focusing ‘on me’ and talking ‘about me’ this is quite funny, besides being hypocritical.

If pointing out that you were “seeing” a contradiction when one did not exist is me ‘focusing on you’, to you, then okay.

‘We’ have all experienced how this one just does not stop talking ‘about me’.

I am such a horrible individual and so should never ever be questioned and challenged over ‘my claims’, right “greenfuse”?

Everyone should keep focusing ‘on me’ and just talk ‘about me’, instead, correct?

As long as everyone is kept focusing ‘on me’, ‘we’ can never discuss ‘my claims’, which have been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct already by the way.

Again, here, absolutely all focus was ‘on me’.

285

Again, “greenfuse” is completely ‘focused on me’, only.

Has “greenfuse” got an ‘obsession with me’?

286

No, the conversation stopped much much later. When I pointed out the contradiction, you shifted to personal focus on me including pretend-mindreading, and you discontinued explaining the ‘proof’ for quite a while. In the quote of yours above is a convenient misrembering.

I hope you realize that increasing the number of LOLs does not in some way support the incorrect claims you make. It adds no reasoning and no pressure.

But, look. It’s great you’ve started a thread with your claims. Perhaps some people will discuss things with you there. You were much less toxic today, whether coincidence or affected by my posts here, it doesn’t really matter. It’s a good trend regardless. Kudos for that. You reduced the amount you did this and still communicated with people. If you don’t initiate that stuff, I will have nothing to post here. Great. If you do initiate ugly generalizations, toxic mindreading, ad homs, insults and so on, I will post them here. You can even ignore this if you don’t care or respond though that hasn’t been handled very rationally on your part. Some people clearly appreciate my pointing out when you initiate that kind of communication. This is a win win situation as you can learn through this how to communicate better with humans at the time this is being written.

287

And, in the quote of yours above is a convenient misremembering.

Also, if your claim of ‘for a quite a while’ is the Truth, then what followed on is obvious.

Do you realise that you continually going back to them does not support your Incorrect claims? It adds no reasoning and no pressure.

‘Today’, ‘you’ are still obsessed ‘with me’. But obviously it does not matter at all.

It’s not good for you. But if you can’t control your obsessions, then okay. you have to want to help “yourself” first before we can help you at all.

you are increasing the amount you are talking ‘about me’. But, again, until you admit you have a ‘problem’, you will not seek out help nor be able to change.

Once more, I will speak and write in whatever way I want to, no matter what you allege, say, and claim.

And, you will always have something to post here, no matter what I say and write.

Double great.

And, when you do it, which you obviously will keep doing it, I will just leave them alone, as I have been. As they are not worth looking at nor especially repeating anywhere.

They are so focused ‘on me’ and obsessed ‘with me’, your words are best ignored.

That you have pointed out that you believe that this has not been handled very rationally on my part is very telling.

Okay “donald”.

But the way you have been insinuating things here is not working, and certainly has not been helpful at all. Although you obviously believe absolutely otherwise, correct?

288

There aren’t a lot of posts by anew so far today, but not a single one had any of the toxic communication. Wonderful!

I don’t count posts of his in this thread. The point of cataloguing things here is to point out when he initiates going personal negatively with people who haven’t done that in the thread. Where he initiates.

And perhaps that pattern is now over!!!

1 Like
289

This one laughably believes that constructive criticism and /or helpful honest guidance, when coming ‘from me’, are insults, personal attacks, toxic communication, or negativity.

Which is just further proof of how narrow and closed “greenfuse” really is.

290

So, even when there is not a single thing to ‘try to’ discredit ‘me’ about or ‘try to’ ridicule ‘me’ on, this one’ obsession ‘with me’ continues.

It’s like “greenfuse” cannot stop looking for ‘my posts’. its fascination with ‘me’ and ‘my words’ it does not seem to have control over.

291

anew: Could you come across more confused?

This is another mild example but with a very interesting twist. anew is using a rhetorical question!! This is not literal, unless anew really wants a response like: Of course, I could. I could write in complete word salad. Not that I think my argument was confused.

It is not a question to be answered; it is an expressive negative judgement of the other person’s internal state.

But in general, the discussion with Acltalls is free of the main problematic rhetoric anew uses, and Acltalls is polite and focused directly on the topic itself and doesn’t wander from that, even if anew does.

Above, anew frames the negative patterns I have been cataloguing here as guidance and constructive criticism, but the wonderful thing is, he is managing to present his ideas and criticisms in that thread, for the most part without these habitual condescending and ad hom filled responses. I hope he notices this. Interactions carried out this way are actually even more effective.

292

LOL, LOL, LOL “and doesn’t wander from that”.

LOL “greenfuse” has become so totally blind, from its absolute ‘focus on me’, it failed completely to recognise the blatant obviousness here.

“greenfuses” belief in its absolute superiority here has closed it off, completely, from the actual Truth that has been happening and occurring here.

And, at least, “greenfuse” found one thing I wrote, so it can continue its obsession ‘about and over me’.

293

To expect sense from two mentalities of such extreme viewpoints in not logical. Nobody likes to be attacked, but it’s illogical because it fails to provide any actual data of the discussion at hand. Arguing against what a person has said is very different from the attacking the person themselves.

294

It is okay to question the source of an opponent’s evidence (e.g., “Where did you get this statistic?”), as this tests the argument’s validity, but do not dismiss the claim purely because you dislike the person speaking.

295

Both very True.

Also, one has to look at and see, and understand, what another actually has for ‘thier claim’ before ‘the claim’ could be logically and correctly dismissed.

And again, while I wait, patiently, for those who interest in my claims, if I choose to I will point out what others do, from my perspective. For example, if they are being stupid, and I choose to, I will just point this out. And, contrary to what some believe to be absolutely true, this is certainly not an insult nor an attacked of ‘the person’.

Once again, until one obtains enough interest to find out what the other is actually saying and meaning, what they are ‘understanding’ could be a completely Wrong and/or False misunderstanding. For example, what I mean when I say and use the ‘stupid’ word could be completely and utterly different from how others say it, mean it, and use it. As I have been continually pointing out, but which some here have never been able to comprehend and understand. But, again, this is just the negative result of having and maintaining beliefs and presumptions.

The Epistemic Communication Dilemma Why Infinite Consequences Require Perfect Communication My Personal Argument
296

Anew,

By constantly exposing the unwarranted assumptions we make in our thinking, you leave us totally defenseless. At times, you make some dogmatic statements without even trying to justify them. On initial impressions, the listener is tempted to contradict them, but soon he or she realizes that you make them with such authority that the listener backs off and starts to wonder in what sense the statements could be true. Soon the listener also realizes that your authority comes from your living, which the listener is no great position to understand or judge.

1 Like
297

There’s an interesting development in the discussion between Acltalls and anew. First, it deals with the use of ‘obvious’. I noticed this also, but thought I would just focus on the more egregious forms of condescension, insults, ad homs and so on. But yes, asserting that something is obvious, especially when the other person has disagreed or presented a different perspective without backing that up, does a couple of things: 1) it acts like an argument, as Acltalls points out, but isn’t one and 2) it frames the other person as missing the obvious, rather than having a different perspective or experience base, etc. There have been other not so egregious responses like ‘This reasoning of yours here appears illogical, nonsensical, and unreasonable, to me.’ It has ‘appears’; it is aimed at the reasoning, but there’s no need to paint someone else’s assertion as so extremely wrong. This is clearer in context:

you appear to be confused here.

How does defining a word like ‘nothing’ make it supposedly be no longer nothing?

This reasoning of yours here appears illogical, nonsensical, and unreasonable, to me.

I can define the word ‘nothing’ as 'no physical thing’, ‘distance’, or ‘space’, for example, and ‘it’ or ‘they’ are still ‘nothing’, by definition.

A so-called ‘true nothingness’ when defined as the lack of everything can be very easily imagined. But, because there are things already existing, and because of what the Universe is and how It works, there could never have been a ‘lack of everything’ and never could be.

Anew focuses on the state of mind: confused, rather than the point, as the opener. He uses the phrase later ‘very easily’ which functions the way ‘obvious’ does.

If I define nothing as X, how does this lead to it no longer being nothing? That does all the work without anything personal, no stacking of adjectives, and no implicit ‘you are missing something obvious’ with the ‘very easily’.

I didn’t react to these before because compared to things like ‘you are all in a cult’ ‘you all abuse children’ ', referring to people as ‘it’ - even if this comes from an ontological viewpoint - framing criticism of ideas as an inability to see or a closed mind, and so on, they were really minor. But they are also things one should not have to put up with. And given that anew has repeatedly said he would like to improve his communication, he is getting some very good feedback from Acltalls.

1 Like
298

ONCE AGAIN, I do this on purpose.

I make very dogmatic claims, when I KNOW, for sure, the absolutely certain Correctness of the claim. And, I do this without even trying to justify them BECAUSE I just make ‘the claim’ and then wait, patiently, for those who are Truly interested and curious in learning, understanding, and knowing more and/or anew.

For example, I will claim, ‘dogmatically’ if you like, that the Universe never began is not expanding. And, as such the Universe is infinite and eternal.

Now, because I have the irrefutable proof for this Fact, I;

  1. Have no need to prove ‘the claim’ True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.
  2. Just wait to see if there is anyone who is Truly open, interested, and curios here.

Thank you so, so very much for saying this and pointing this out. This explains more here.

I agree that no one is in any position, let alone a great one, to ‘judge’. But, everyone is in a position to understand, or learn, more. Again, that is if they really want to learn and/or understand more.

299

Again, I will point out that ‘the one’ who KNEW, for sure, that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around that everyone believed was the truth, could correctly say, for example, ‘it is obvious, if only you people would just stop believing what you are and come and look at what is being shown and presented to you’.

See, once something is learned, understood, and known, for sure, then ‘it’ becomes ‘bloody obvious’, as some might say.

Again, ‘these people’ liked to use symbols like ‘x’, instead of just providing a specific example. And, this was because they usually never had a specific example they could use.

This says and means nothing at all.

But, ‘that’ did nothing at all.

In fact, it says and means nothing at all.

AGAIN, just like the sun does not revolve around the earth, so to there is no closed mind.

But, some people just cannot see the Truth of things while they believe the opposite is the absolutely truth.

Yes, like people who make claims, but when questioned and/or challenged over them they “run away” and hide.

‘We’ would be best not having to put up with people like this. But, what can ‘we’ do about it, exactly?

These people really still had absolutely no idea nor clue.

How does one communicate the Truth to people who believe otherwise.

For example, what feedback on how to communicate better would you provide ‘the one’ who was trying to tell and inform everyone that believed the sun revolves around the earth that actually that is not true at all and the fact is that the earth revolves around the sun instead?

How could ‘that one’ have improved their communication, exactly?

After all, they were just expressing what is the actual Truth, while everyone around ‘that one’ just believed absolutely otherwise.

300

I read this in the imagined voice of Captain James T. Kirk.