If thats what you decided then okay.
If thats what you believe
Correct. You dont do anything.
This actually made me laugh out. Thank you for that.
If thats what you wanna believe go right ahead.
But, that is not what I have ādecidedā. That is what I am āseeingā.
Are you not yet aware of āthe differenceā?
Did you forget to finish your sentence?
Also, it is an irrefutable fact.
Yet here you are responding to ānothingā.
Also, if you infer and believe that if one does not do one thing, then that means that they do not do anything, some might see this as very faulty thinking.
Again, I donāt do these types of beliefs. But, you may have missed and misunderstood this as well.
Oh? So that option exists suddenly?
How curious that you are capable of making that distinction for yourself, but not for others.
Ah yes. The irrefutable facts of āi decided it to be soā.
I really do cherish the narcissistās world view. That blank white world where everything revolves around yourself, including reason.
āI decide what is and is not, because the only foundation that exists is myselfā. Its adorable.
Oh no, no. I understand everything just fine. Dont worry about it.
Or discussing. - I mean there he was in the debate preparation thread and it comes out that he thinks debates are a problem. He was not there to engage in the purpose of the thread. He had a different goal.
I think of it a bit like this: anew1 has found a process - in part questioning all assumptions and holding oneself agnostic to every issue - that has made him feel better. Great. The problem comes in when he enters a discussion. It looks like he is ādoing philosophyā, but actually what heās doing is starting the process with participants in the thread that he went through.
Itās a bit like people are playing tennis and he walks onto the court and starts teaching French. Heās misreading things socially and functionally.
The real problem comes in because his process looks a lot like a philosophical discussion. He asks questions. He asks for evidence. He questions assumptions. Unlike the French teacher entering, it kinda looks like participating in the thread.
But itās not really. Heās initiated a process that if made clearer someone would likely reject at an early stage.
If he started his own thread, told people about what he as experienced, and asked readers if they would be interested in questioning beliefs and assumptions in the way he did himself and has found valuable, suddenly everything is clear. French lessons. Or a very particular kind of inquiry and one can consent to participating in it or not.
But when he enters other discussions itās a derail. Itās not intended as a derail, but it is one.
Does he? You know him better than i do then.
All i am seeing is beautiful, white, all encompassing narcissism.
- He makes a point.
- You react.
- If his point took a hit then he claims that you misconstrued his point
- You reiterate
- He claims you only believe he meant that, but will never correct or elaborate further
Then i toss back at him his own argument of him only believing what i believe and suddenly a hidden third option opens up:
And all of a sudden the meaning of words matter again and its not only āmy beliefā that has lead to the conclusion.
But then instantly we gonna switch back to
If he claims it, then his opinion is an irrefutable fact.
Sorry sorry, not trying to be an ass here, but i grew up alongside a few of these kind of people.
I think the mindset of a narcissist holds great beauty.
Its not correct, its also arrogant af, but you just have to respect that crystal clear method of allowing oneās self to be free of doubt and uncertainty.
Its a crystal vase.
Fulfills no purpose. Cant debate. Cant reason. Cant do a damn thing. But it is unquestionably absolutely beautiful.
Why did you put a question mark here?
I never thought that it was not an option.
Why do you believe that I am not capable of making that distinction for others?
It is an irrefutable fact because you cannot refute it. Not because i or you decided it to be so.
Are you not yet aware of one who just expresses an irrefutable fact, from one you call a ānarcissistā , who believes that they have an irrefutable fact?
This oneās APE-thinking and its pre-existing beliefs and presumptions are shining here blindingly now.
The words of a True ānarcissistā,
āI understand [absolutely] everythingā.
And,
āDonāt you worry about thatā.
LOL, LOL, LOL I have, also, never ever thought this. But, here, this one is, again, inferring things that are completely and utterly untrue.
And you apparently have, still, not yet worked out what my goal was.
But, when you people spend far more time, energy, and focus on talking āabout meā, instead of talking on the actual topic, in the thread you are in, this is not a āderailā, correct?
Notice how much time and effort people like these ones put into talking āabout meā.
It is like when one was presenting the irrefutable fact that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the sun revolving around the earth, as most people believed and presumed, what happened was most people spend more time and effort trying to discredit āthat oneā instead of just becoming open to listen and hear what āthe oneā presenting the actual irrefutable fact was actually saying and meaning.
Some of these people took decades to just listen. They were too caught up in their own APE-thinking and believing to actually ājust stopā, and listen.
They much preferred to āgang upā and try to attack the opponent of their beliefs, instead of just looking at and seeing āthe wordsā being presented for what they really were.
Nothing much has changed centuries later.
Agreed. You clearly never thought it was not an option for yourself.
It was just not an option for everybody else.
When its you, you are free to conclude something from āwhat you are seeingā.
When others do it, they just assume your position.
Isnt that right?
Oh but it absolutely is. You didnt ask a question. You didnt prompt me to refute it.
You just went ahead and stated that its an absolute fact, as decreed by the holiness that is you.
Not only that, but you also decreed that i absolutely cannot refute it. Apparently i am now subject to your beliefs too.
You do understand that the quote was a shot at YOUR reasoning. Right?
But im glad you perfectly described it. It indeed is APE-thinking and its pre-existing beliefs and presumptions.
Is that what you believe? 
He was a regular at Philosophy Now Forum. I interacted with him for a while. So did Atla.
Iām not trying to talk you out of your sense of things, re: narcissism. Just mulling over the patterns. I find it fascinating - and Iāve also found narcissism fascinating - once I knew what was happening and could disengage from it - real life encounters.
This is often the way the onus shifts. Itās true because you cannot refute it. No need for him to provide justification.
He has no beliefs. He knows certain things are irrefutably True and Real. But then at the same time, he could be convinced if you showed him he was wrong. He canāt quite see the contradiction there.
I never thought, said, nor implied that.
What we have here is another great example of this one continually wrongly inferring and misinterpreting what I have actually been implying and meaning.
But, because it has very strong narcissist traits, it cannot see this. It certainly does not believe it.
LOL I asked a question, this one completely misconstrued it.
Yes.
Now, watch what this one is thinking and inferring.
Again, it is inferring and presuming incorrectly and wrongly.
Yes, it is an irrefutable fact.
But, what āitā is to you may well not be to me, and vice-versa.
Because I wasnāt looking for an answer.
-
Because you canāt refute an irrefutable fact, obviously.
-
To see whether you could or not was of no concern to me.
-
I want you to reveal and show what you would do, instead. Which you did.
Because I know it is an irrefutable fact. Which, again, means you cannot refute it.
Your lack of wanting to even try to show you can could be interpreted as reinforcing what I am now claiming.
Do you call āthe oneā who declared that the earth revolves around the sun and declared that it is an irrefutable fact, āthe holinessā that was him as well?
If no, then why not? What is the difference exactly?
And, I still do.
I, again, do not do these types of beliefs.
I know you are trying your hardest, but you are failing miserably.
Yes, it is. And, what āitā was, still stands.
You wrote āthat quoteā, so āthat quoteā belongs to you alone here.
Which, as I very clearly pointed out, is a very clear sign of a True narcissist.
LOL, Obviously one cannot refute an irrefutable fact.
And, once more, that no one is even trying to refute the āirrefutable factā is just another sign and further evidence of the āirrefutable factā being āan irrefutable factā.
LOL One would think if one believes that āitā is not āan irrefutable factā, then that one would just show and prove how āitā is not.
Again, you people who prefer to ātalk about oneā, or who āgang up and try to attack and/or discredit that oneā, based upon nothing but their own distorted beliefs and assumptions, instead of just trying to show and prove the claimed āirrefutable factā is actually refutable, just goes to show those peopleās insecurities and inabilities.
You appear to have missed your grammatical error or freudian slip.
Now, if you did not make an error, or have a slip, then where and what is the supposed contradiction there, exactly?
You want to make another claim, āabout meā. You claim that I ācanāt quite see the contradiction thereā, so letās us see if you can present āitā for others to see.
If you do not, then more of your true character āgreenfuseā is being revealed.
Sorry to chime in, but in this discussion has the question of the topic been answered?
I would consider fiddling with the idea of refuting it, but in all honesty i prefer such statements to āearn their mealā before thatād happen. Case and point being: I dont even need to refute it because he makes the claim so the burden of proof is on his side.
Why would i bother with refuting a claim that fails to as much as justify itself or reveal evidence?
The contradiction is the above.
Just because i consider something to be true, does not mean that it is.
Not only that, but the idea that other people would have to believe it and engage with it absent of evidence, proof, logic, justification or reasonā¦ thats just comedy.
Imagine me knowing for a fact that Santa exists. Can i now put the burden on you having to treat that claim as a fact?
You didnt have to. You showed it through your actions.
What you are thinking, saying or implying are red herrings when your own actions prove you otherwsie.
Are you sure you know the difference between a statement and a question?
Its a fact based on your own actions im afraid.
You keep on repeating to everyone that they merely assume your position.
Yet the moment the same was said to you, you instantly discovered that words have meaning and suddenly you are free to assume other peopleās position because thats what you are inferring from their words.
Its a simple double standard at itās core really, and im inferring nothing. I stated a fact based on your own actions. Unlike with the interpretation of words, there is no wriggle room when it comes to things you have already done im afraid.
Step 1: Make a claim and state that your claim is an irrefutable fact
Step 2: Someone points out that you are just assuming and neither clarifying nor asking for clarification
Step 3: Your response is that you do not need to because its an irrefutable fact āobviouslyā
We gonna do basic circular logic now apparently.
Translation: Whether my claim was true or false didnt matter
Im starting to think that you are doing a comedy bit.
So you are not asking others because you dont care about what their response is, but instead gaslight them with nonsense because you want to see what their response is?
Amazing.
Why would i want to refute something you cant even justify, god forbid reason or point at evidence of?
Wanna play these kinds of games? Alright. I proclaim that its a proven fact that you are a pedophile.
Now if you cant or wont even try to refute this fact, it ācould be interpreted as reinforcing what I am now claiming.ā
Im sorry to disappoint but i havent tried a damn thing lol. Literally all i am doing is reading back your own words to you and you are falling apart like a wall of cereal.
If thats what you want to believe
How dare you!!!
There were different answers. I do not think consensus was reached about either half of the question.
Spot on. Not noticed by him.
And, denying it can also justify the assertion, according to him
All of you here are in a cult, but since none of you even recognise which cult that is, you do not even realise that you are in a cult.
You believing that you are not in a cult means that you donāt even recognise which cult you are in. This justifies my assertion. That you donāt even notice that you are in a cult, also justifies my assertion.
His assertion was that we were all in a cult.
When I pointed out this was not logical and given that any response is taken as evidence of his assertion, it wasnāt falsifiable, he thought this meant it was irrefutable. [and oddly enough I used the exact same example: him being a pedophile. Just to point out how truly pernicious the ālogicā he uses is.
One thing I noticed is that people in cults do have some rituals. The people forming part of those cults gather, and gather to assert each other of their belief.
They have, too, certain types of chants, or rather simple phrases, that are repeated on occasion as a kind of counter-action to criticism of their beliefs.
That matches a lot of things more than just religions
you make some of the weirdest and false claims āgreenfuseā.
Tell me how you can tell someone who is in a cult that they are in cult, but who believes that they are not in a cult, and what you can say to them to make them realise that they are in a cult. Then I will say the exact same thing, to you, to point out to you that you are in a cult.
Once again, āgreenfuseā proves my point, absolutely.
You want me to tell you what would convince me I am in a cult so you can say it to me.
Right there, in that, is the implicit premise I am not in a cult. Give that a mull.
But Iāll tell you some signs that I am resistant to cults. I distrust someone
- who says he is infallible
- who says he knows the most important truths and can prove them, but over a ten year period never does
- who tells people he is using them and has no intention of proving his claims to them
- who regularly condescends to human individuals and humans in general
The irony is that my not believing you is evidence I am not susceptible cults. Not proof, but evidence. Yes, somehow you cannot see that.
P.S. Your grammar needs work in the paragraph.
you logic needs far more work.
you believe, absolutely, that you are not in a cult.
LOL Just like everyone else who is in a cult.
And, the fact that you could not do what I asked you do, is further proof of the cult that has you completely and utterly indoctrinated into.
I couldnāt do what you asked me to do because I am not in a cult, which was implicit in your request.
But Iāll tell you some signs that I am resistant to cults. I distrust age whoā¦
-
who says he is infallible
-
who says he knows the most important truths and can prove them, but over a ten year period never does
-
who tells people he is using them and has no intention of proving his claims to them
-
who regularly condescends to human individuals and humans in general
The irony is that my not believing you is evidence I am not susceptible cults. Not proof, but evidence. Yet, somehow you cannot see that.
Once again, this one completely and utterly missed the point I made.
So, it repeats, but criticises if others have a repeated pattern.
LOL Imagine believing that ānot believing just oneā, out of uncountable many, means that that is evidence that you are not susceptible to cults. LOL you are actually showing evidence of the opposite.
Again, believing that you are not in a cult is evidence of being in a cult.
The proof that āgreenfuseā is in a cult is blatantly obvious.