Is the following a contradiction?

Philosophy Forums
1

“flannel jesus” didn’t seem to follow a previous discussion fully, and so they didn’t see what I claim is a contradiction that they made. Why some of the posts in that thread were hidden from the readers here I do not know why, but obviously they were hidden from you readers for a reason.

I will attempt to present what I perceive to be a contradiction here, again, so that, hopefully, this time “flannel jesus” recognises and sees it; that is, if this thread and my post do not also become hidden.

I said and wrote,

Which essentially means that the reason people are the way they are and do what they do is dependent upon their upbringing, solely.

To which “flannel jesus” replied,

Which, to me, essentially meant, duh, that is obvious.

However, “flannel jesus” later said and wrote,

Obviously, we can remove the truly absurd part about whether one could be made gay just by being near so-called “gay people”, but what the rest is saying and essentially meaning, well, to me anyway, is that people are born the way they are and do what they do because they were born that way.

To me, this is a contradiction of “flannel jesus’s” previous claim that it is obvious that people hate others [are the way they are] and reject others [do what they do] because of their past experiences.

Now, if this is not what “flannel jesus” meant, then what did “flannel jesus” mean, exactly?

2

How can they be a contradiction? One is about why people might hate another group of people. Another one is about how one can (or rather cannot) be turned gay. They literally aren’t even about the same thing, so how can they be contradictions of each other?

If you want to show it’s a contradiction, please explain how. Explain how these two statements that literally are not even about the same thing contradict each other.

3

In ‘the way’ I have explained ‘for you’. I even explained in more detail, for you, in bold.

If you can’t see it, then you can’t see it.

If ‘I’ was ‘you’, then ‘I’ would not be so worried nor concerned about it.

For thousands of years things have been explained over and over again, and in many different ways, but not everyone comes see what is being said and meant all at the exact same time.

I have explained in different ways, with more detail, in bold, and [in brackets], but if ‘you’ still cannot see and understand it, then it is not ‘the end of the world’ as some might say here.

I have already.

‘you’ seem to be under some sort of illusion that if ‘you’, personally, cannot yet see/understand something, then it has not yet been explained. ‘The world’ does NOT work ‘this way’.

Just because ‘you’ have not yet seen and understood something never means that it has not been presented and shown.

For crying out loud, ‘the ones’ who were saying, “The earth revolves around the sun”, or “The earth was flat”, were also asked to show and explain how. But, although they kept on ‘explaining’ HOW and WHY, not everyone could see and understand HOW, nor WHY. Once again, some people are able to see and understand things quicker, simpler, and easier than others can. While, let ‘us’ not forget, there are still some, in the days when this is being written, who are still asking to be shown and explained HOW the earth revolves around the sun and/or HOW the earth is not flat.

See, what happens is while people believe something is true, they are not able to see what opposes or contradicts that belief.

Again, some people can more quickly see and understand things. (Which, by the way, I have already explained HOW and WHY this happens and occurs as well.)

If you believe and claim that those two statements are, literally, not even about the same thing, then okay, that is what you believe and claim is true.

Again, NO one can show, demonstrate, nor explain something to someone whilst they are believing the opposite is true.

Once more, if you can’t see what I have shown and demonstrate and can’t understand what I have explained, then there is nothing to worry about nor be concerned about here. This is just ‘the way’ things are here.

4

The words in bold are you words, not mine. I’m quite happy for my words to contradict yours, I’ve got no problem with that.

Also, great example of writing an essay when a simple response is required. You require so much work of your readers and give them so little in return. Very obnoxious.

1 Like
5

Okay great. Now ‘we’ know what ‘you’ have no problems with, exactly.

If ‘this’ is what ‘you’ really want to believe is the absolute truth, and claim it as such, then, again, okay.

6

So do you have any examples of me contradicting my own words, and not contradicting yours? Or is that what you meant all along? When you said I was contradicting myself 3 days ago, you meant I was contradicting some words you were going to write in bold in the future?

7

He said I contradicted myself 3 days ago. It took him 3 business days and 2 essays for him to finally explain himself, just for his explanation to be complete nonsense. Anew is so much work for so little reward. An absolute nightmare and a plague on this forum.

8

Two completely different sentences responding to different comments. How is this a contradiction in any way?

So, Flannel Jesus talking about straight people being born straight leads for you directly to the generalization of “people are born the way they are and do what they do because they were born that way”? Yep, that is next level of gaslighting the discussion.

1 Like
9

‘be’ and ‘do’ are different verbs - he said carefully, aiming for imperviousness.

10

I also don’t think it’s controversial to say that some attributes of a person will be learned over their life, some attributes they’re born with. Someone may hate black people because of their life experiences and what they were taught by their elders, but someone wouldn’t BE a black person because of their life experiences and what they were taught by their elders. You don’t have to learn to have dark skin, some attributes are innate.

2 Likes
11

And we are born with temperaments, if not full blown personalities. The tabula rasa idea runs against a lot of separated twin studies, the experiences of parents with more than one child of the same sex, facets of language acquisition, including in deaf children, core ideas about physics in babies, and then there’s the whole babies who because of damage or illness damage get reassigned as the other sex. This just doesn’t work or hold in most cases. Nurture doesn’t override there. Some things are affected by nature more than others. Some things are a mix. Some are much more on the nurture side.

And then there’s the metaphysical assumption that there is no connection between what we experience and our essence.

1 Like
12

you can say and claim it, but can you prove it?

List the attributes of a person that you believe and claim they are born with. If you ever do this, then we will see if you have the proof for this claim, or if it is just something else you only believe is true but you have no proof for

Here we can see that people like this one, in the days when this was being written, stll had not yet thought about and recognised the absolute stupidity of calling ‘people’, “themselves”, black or white, nor the actual damage this misunderstanding and abuse causes.

Once again, ‘my words’ are associated with something so absolutely ridiculous, and then the introduced red herring and strawman is argued against.

LOL Of course, absolutely everything physical is heredity.

What is hilarious here is that you claim that those who you call “gay” [the way they are], and who ‘reject’ others [what they do], are born to be that way, but then also, contradictorily, claim that those who ‘hate’ or who are called “haters” [the way they are], and who reject some others [what they do], have learned to be that way.

See, what you people will also discover and learn is HOW and WHY ‘you’, people, cannot be born ‘that way’. Once more, ‘you’ all are ‘the way you are’ and 'mis/behave in the way ‘you’ all do solely because of learned past experiences hitherto.

Now I am giving any of ‘you’ people a chance to show and prove how ‘you’ people can be born a certain way and/or to behave/misbehave in certain ways, and that ‘you’ were ‘born that way’.

And please do NOT forget that the physical visible human body is ALL hereditary, and is NOT who ‘you’, people, are.

13

you seem to have missed the contradiction also.

How they are contradictions is because of HOW ‘people’ become who they are and do what they do.

‘you’, a person, cannot be claimed to have OBVIOUSLY learned to be ‘the way ‘you’ are’, but then later on also be claimed to be ‘the way you are’ because ‘you’ are born ‘that way’. This is a contradiction in all ways.

Now, obviously ‘you’ human beings, collectively, come to learn, see, and understand gradually, while some, individually, never get to learn new/er insights and new/er knowledge before ‘you’ ‘pass on’.

But once ‘you’ people also come to see and understand ‘who ‘you’ are’ and HOW ‘you’ came to be ‘who ‘you’ are’, then those of ‘you’ who do, then will see the very blatant to some of ‘us’ contradiction also.

So, if someone says to you that people born in a particular way does not directly translate to you that that one is saying people are ‘born that way’ or ‘born the way they are’. Is this correct?

Now, for those who are open, and really interested and curious to find where exactly the contradiction is, exactly, then just let me know. For the rest of you, keep on believing what you are here for, if that is what you really want or prefer to do.

14

There were even other specifically chosen words, said even more carefully, providing irrefutably. Just in case absolutely anyone was interested.

15

Yes.

No.

No.

Why did you mention specifically ‘3 days ago’ here, exactly?

And that ‘you’ have, once again, not understood what I said in relation to ‘in bold’ is not surprising.

Again, ‘No’, it was not about ‘you’ contradicting some words I was going to write in the future at all.

Maybe if you read what I wrote again, then ‘you’ might see something different next time.

16

Again, what is with the specific “3 days ago” wording, exactly?

Is there some time frame that I am under to reply here?

What is it with this ‘3 days’?

Has it anything to do with the Fact that ‘you’ suspended me from this forum, and so I was not able to reply AT ALL here?

If ‘my explanation’ is complete nonsense ‘to you’, then so be it.

‘you’ are obviously not the type of person who tries to comprehend and understand things, while ‘you’ are believing something else entirely.

But, maybe ‘you’ were just born ‘this way’, correct?

17

You can be born man, with brown hair and blue eyes. Does this dictate who you are?

Being born straight or gay has to do with your sexual orientation, nothing more or less. The “who you are” is a deeper philosophical question.

1 Like
18

And, you have made this claim before but providing nothing for support of it.

Once more, could one be more elusive? Some things ‘this’, some things ‘that’. Some things … [whatever].

Again, what are the ‘some things’, EXACTLY?

And then there are the many other ‘assumptions’ ‘you’ people make here. But, again, what about them, exactly?

19

this is too long, i won’t read it. focus. lock in on a topic. don’t quote me a billion times and ask a billion questions, I won’t accept interactions like that from you. If you can’t focus, you don’t deserve my time.

20

Once more, that is a resounding NO. But, as ALWAYS, the answer depends on what ‘you’ mean by ‘you’ here, EXACTLY.

AGAIN, you are talking about and referring to A ‘human body’, which I have ALREADY EXPLAINED is ALWAYS because of genes/hereditary.

Once more, these ‘people’ keep MISSING the difference between a physical, visible human body AND the ‘person’, ‘the one’ who ‘you’ are.

Obviously and clearly.

Do babies want sex and are sexually oriented towards particular things/others?

If the answer is no, then this leads far more to NOT being ‘born a particular way’. And, the proof for HOW and WHY ‘people’ are NOT born in those particular ways can and will be provided later on, but first things first, as some say.

‘We’ are in a philosophy forum, correct, where ALL so-called levels of philosophical questions would best be presented, ‘looked at’, and discussed.

By the way, ‘the answer’ to ‘your question’ here is where ‘I’ am taking ‘us’.