The funny thing here is that ‘I have NEVER said I was not here to prove my claims to you’.
I have been consistently saying, ‘I am not here to necessarily prove my claims to you readers’. Meaning, that if any of you readers happen to show interest, and are Truly curious, then I will prove my claims ‘to you’.
But, as usual, I have let you people presume and believe absolutely whatever you like.
Again, I do this, to show readers how much you people would prefer to just assume and believe things, instead of actively seek out to obtain clarification and clarity.
Again, I do this to show, with proof, how and why human beings took so, so long to evolve into doing the ‘very thing’ that is needed in order to learn and understand how to proceed towards what is wanted and desired with every human being.
You, as you have said, are not here to prove your claims to the people in this forum, but rather to prove your claims to future generations. You expect other people to prove their claims, here, since you keep reminding them ‘this is a philosophy forum’.
So, great. We have confirmed that you are not here to do what people do in philosophy forums because you are unlike us. This is clearly a double standard, which you consider justified. At least something was accomplished in all these posts.
But absolutely anyone who can read can also ‘know’ for ‘a fact’ what you had written. Of course, just as long as ‘your words’ here remain visible.
But you did not even have to explain the difference once, ‘to me’
Once again, you claimed that the earth does not revolve around the sun. Now, you are absolutely free to claim absolutely anything you like. But, because many in the scientific community do not agree with you, I am not sure why you presented some scientific literature.
There is absolutely nothing in there that states anything like, “The earth does not revlove around the sun”.
And, since you have not presented proof for ‘your claim’ here. I still wait, patiently.
Do you expect anyone here to believe this?
Are you, still, really wanting to claim that the earth does not revolve around the sun, and now claim that there is ‘academic proof’ for this?
Just out of curiosity, does anyone here believe that it is already proved fact that the earth does not revolve around the sun, and that this is written in academic literature?
Like ‘what’, for example?
Again, you have not presented anything to actually ‘look at’. In you have academic literature where it clearly states that the earth does not revolve around the sun is a fact, then please present it.
you saying and claiming that I do not want to look at what you told me, I would have hoped was already common knowledge.
you are Right. I do not want to look at what you told me. I want to look at the academic literature, which you claim states that the earth does not revolve around the sun.
Also, why do you claim that the ‘rest of humanity’ besides me ‘knows’ that the earth does not revovle around the sun?
If you quote ‘it’, then you do not have to tell me again
So, to you, all I do here is ‘move the goal post’, ‘gaslight people’, and do ‘little stunts’, ‘for me’.
What, supposedly, never once happened to me, in my life?
I will wait until you inform me what the word ‘that’ is referring to, exactly, which you claim never once happened to me, in my life, before I answer your question here.
I mean… since its clearly stating that everything orbits the exact center of mass between two or more orbiting bodies and you know… not the sun… Maybe its something with your ability to read and comprehend text then?
All you told me here is “hey i cant read”… umm… okay? So…?
I am not your pastor anew. Unlike him, i do not busy myself with what you believe.
I presented you with academic proof, to which your reaction was (and i quote)
“Bringing proof or evidence is simply more proof and evidence that i have no proof or evidence.”
So much gaslighting that i could probably cook my dinner on it.
No anew. Pretty much to everyone else by the looks of it. Everyone can see you and what you are doing just fine.
To me, if others show enough interest and curiosity, then I would wonder why anyone would hold back sharing and showing ‘the irrefutable proof’.
I do not know what “enough to hold it”, means.
No.
What made you think or presume this?
I have informed you many times over why I wait for those who show enough interest and curiosity.
you people can do whatever you like. For example, if you want to support your claims from the outset, then you are absolutely free to do so.
I just do not to show how and why human beings took so long to evolve into coming to know how to find and know the actual Truth of things, in Life.
And, once more, I do this to show what to do, and not do, if people really do want to live in Peace and Harmony with one another.
Again, ‘the proof’ for things like this are found in the Nine Steps - to Heaven.
No.
Once more, you are jumping to conclusions before you even stop to consider seeking out clarification first.
you get so far off-track with your assumptions, presuming, concluding, and believing before any clarity is sought that it makes it harder to bring you back on track.
Firstly, you start your question with some already concluded belief, which does not even align with anything that I have said and meant.
Secondly, because you believe your conclusion, and the start of your question, is an irrefutable fact, this needs to be addressed and Corrected, before we can move on to the second part of your question, which is also something that does not even apply here.
Thirdly, if you read ‘the writings’, did ‘the process’, and comprehended and understood what is being explained and shown there, then, and only then, you will ‘know’, for sure, how ‘the proof’ is attained.
I can, for example, tell you, “The stove is hot”, but you will not ‘know’ this, for sure, until you try and test it. The same applies here, not until you try and test it, you will not have gained the experiential experience to ‘know’, for sure, what the actual Truth and ‘proof’ is, exactly.
What you do is clear to anyone who spends time interacting with you. One problem for moving forward is that you most likely don’t know what you are doing. Some people are so upset by cognitive dissonance that even if you demonstrate that they contradicted themselves though quotes, for example, they actually cannot see it because it would be too painful or it is so extremely ego-dystonic, they can never admit it.
I can’t be sure. Perhaps you are more Machievellian and know at least some of what you are doing. Perhaps you refuse to admit you get angry, but you notice it yourself. But my main guess is that you actually don’t know that you contradict yourself, gaslight, avoid answering, distract, delay, etc.
But at least you admitted to the double standard. You are not like us so you are not going to do what people do in philosophy forums.
I appreciate the honesty even though I think your justification is a rationalization.
Actually, this conclusion was deduction. If something is determined to be irrefutably true by everyone, then it is not determined until every one has determined it is. That’s deduction. Now we are getting close to proofs, especially if we use your definition.
Tsk, tsk. Now you are contradicting all the times you pointed out it was a philosophy forum where people use formal reasoning, etc. Over and over you have pointed out this is a philosophy forum and asked things like why would you not do this in a philosophy forum of all places. Contradicting yourself again. Unlike you I do not have weak central coherence.
Could it be possible that it would be more idiotic to just jump to another conclusion, again, based upon your own previous assumptions only, and still which does not align with what I am saying and meaning?
The fact that this does not necessarily instantly mean that ‘I’ expect ‘you’ people to do something, which ‘I’ will not do, obviously you have completely and utter missed also.
By the way, if ‘you’ a human being expects an ‘elephant’ to do something, which you would not do, then this is not a ‘double standard’.
So, your believe that I am confirming a ‘double standard’ for not doing what something else entirely does, or is expected to do, and ‘I’ chose not to do.
Unrelated to every or anyone in this thread, i would like to ask though… do you think that such a person would be incapable with being honest to themselves as well?
I mean we function completely differently when its in a social situation, when we face other people, and especially in a group. However, at the end of the day when you are alone in your home, would such a person be still incapable of… lets say “holding a wider view” of their interaction?
To see where narrative problems or questions arise, even if they do not admit to them in public?
Who determines it? Everyone. Not anyone. Not experts. Not ‘the curious’. Everyone determines it. If something is not determined yet, it is not determined.
Notice how it completely missed what I meant. And, just about instantly turned it around to fit in and align with its currently held onto well maintained belief and presumption here.
So, ‘we’ have another claim by ‘this one’. Now, you want to claim that ‘I’ am in denial of ‘my actions’. So, which ‘actions’ am I, supposedly and allegedly, in denial of, exactly?
By the way, the more ‘you’ people claim to “see” ‘me’ for what ‘I’ am, the better ‘this’ works ‘for me’.
Remember, ‘I’ am ‘the One’ claiming to ‘know’, for sure, the answer to the question, ‘Who am ‘I’?’
Which means that I claim to know who ‘I’ am, and therefore absolutely anything anyone who says and claims that ‘they’ see ‘me’ for who ‘I’ am, pleases ‘me’ greatly.
There’s the rub. I think that is part of what brings me back to him. He’s clever. To be this evasive’, and to use some of the tricks he uses, requires some cleverness. How could he not notice he gets angry? Well, some people don’t notice their own emotions well. But all the contradictions, distractions, endless requests for clarification when he has no good response and it’s convenient to give the other person something to work on…all his tricks…can he really not notice at least soe of this.
My guess is that he notices some things, but that he really has a very hard time holding much information at once, that he can’t see the forest for the trees, and that he’s really incredulous. That he would pass a lie detector test. That may well be too charitable - though it’s hardly flattering.
I’ve had interactions with narcissists, a couple I knew quite well. I think they really didn’t realize they were contradicting themselves, even sometimes in a very short space of time. In fact, I think that mechanism that considers such things, I don’t think they have it. They know they are right, period. So, they focus on attack and distraction. They don’t go back. They may get extremely anxious and abusive - for anew1 typos arise, he uses more and more LOLs, his sentences become stranger, he stops using the quote functions as well, etc - but I don’t think they notice that either.
