So, he makes statements which do not agree with reality.
Yes, sometimes he catches assumptions we make. He doesn’t notice his own assumptions. He notices when others make mistakes, but denies his own mistakes. For example, if you don’t exactly reproduce his claim, even if it has the same meaning, he will refer to this as a mistake on your part. But if he utterly misquotes you, adding meanings, he never sees this as a mistake.
Yes.
Is that a general rule or does it just apply to him? We all have experiences? I don’t think anyone is suggesting he doesn’t have the right to make decisions, but then we also have the right to make decisions, like pointing out his contradictions, condescension, mistakes, etc.
It sounds sort of like what some gurus say: do what I say not what I do. Except you are saying this for him. Should we bow down to him?
Each individual has the responsibility; not any particular group of people. The individual has to find out his answers for questions. If he can find out an answer for his question, or a solution for his problems, maybe there is some kind of an optimism for us as a whole – because we all are brought together: whatever is happening has effects locally and elsewhere.
I could also just as easily say and claim, “And what you do is clear to anyone who spends time interacting with you,” as well.
I could also say and claim, “One problem for moving forward is that you most likely don’t know what you are doing”.
Also, “Some people are so upset by cognitive dissonance that even if you demonstrate that they contradicted themselves through 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,” too.
As well, “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,” as well.
And, “I appreciate the honesty even though I think your justification is a rationalization.”
Now, as anyone with intelligence can very quickly notice and see, there is nothing of any real substance, here, as I never explained what I was alluding to exactly.
You could say it. But how it is read by people will be quite different. You can certainly hide more online than in person. But we still see enough anew.
Anyone can read back through my posts and see in philosophy forums I use the ‘it’ word just about all of the time. Therefore, ‘I’ must have been ‘under pressure’ since I came to philosophy forums.
And, right on schedule it still never sought out what I was actually meaning. This is because it is so self-centred it has absolutely no interest in what others mean nor feel. Because it KNOWS how others are feeling and what they are meaning, exactly.
Ah, usually anew1 tells me I absolutely believe things. Now he’s focusing on absolutely true and his own vague somewhat true. Off in the tangle of his own mind.
You have told us that your entire purpose here is to use us, show future generations what we were like at the time this was being written, to prove your claims. Everything you do her is for the purpose of being about us. But it is somehow a problem if this is about you. It’s fine if you refer to us as ‘it’ when you get irritated or ‘you people’ or how everyone here is in a cult and abuses children. But then when people notice your condescension, double standards, insults, etc., and talk about you…how shocking!!!
Hm. Yeah, strawman, at least in relation to me. I pointed out that your use of LOLs, insults, use of ‘it’, typos, weird grammar increases when you meet resistance. But you just keep going on noticing only those things that are easier for you to dismiss and let us see how your denial system works.
But not here, recently. You change your patterns. You used to capitalize many words. But you cut that down. Citation marks had other patterns also. But here in ILP, sorry anew1, you have patterns. Perhaps you’re not good at feeling and/or owning up to your own anger.
You explained that long ago, why you used ‘it.’ And because you lack empathy, you couldn’t opt to address people in a more polite form at the time this is being written. Fine, you don’t care to take into account how you affect other people. Yet, here’s this person who thinks he knows the route to peace and harmony, who in many ways, not just this one, has very little empathy, and who uses people.
Can ‘I’ also believe what ‘you’ believe about how the earth does not revolve around the sun, as well?
But I was not invoking a majority vote at all. I am truly curious if absolutely anyone here also believes that there is academic explanations and proof stating the earth does not revolve around the sun. And, if there is, then I am curious as to how many people here have the same belief as you.
Can you notice the difference?
What are you even on about here?
you believe and claimed that the earth does not revolve around the sun.
Yeah, that is what it must be. “anew1” probably thinks “nausamedu” is a geo-centrist or something.
Now, for what has actually occurred is “nausamedu” claimed that the earth does not revolve around the sun, and ‘I’ am just curious if anyone else thinks or believes this.
It’s made easier if you never engage with why he suggests what he has about the relationship between the sun and the earth. Since you don’t actually engage with the information he gave you, you
His argument is correct. ‘Revolves around’ has to do with what point the planet or whatever moves in a circular or curved path. We don’t say the earth revolves around Mercury, even though it is inside the ellipse of the earth’s path. In the case of sun and earth we are dealing with the Barycenter which is usually outside the sphere of the Sun, because not only the earth affects the central point of that revolving - with it’s mass - but other planets also affect this with their masses and the gravity associated with it. So, the center of the earth’s revolving is not the Sun.
But you could actually engage with what he wrote and linked to, you know, since we are in a philosophy forum.
So what? That has nothing to do with the points I made.
Neutral: “If that’s what you believe, okay.”
Once you add the ‘really’ it is critical. The exact way it is critical could be in a few different ways. That is if you person using ‘really’ is competent in English. You may have communicated poorly.