Adhominous contradiction falls a little short of refutation, but maybe you’ve something there but did not share it because you believe your assertion, contrary to my invite, that I’m not happy to hear any refutation.
You started with a flase premise
Where?
and seem to think you have to only answer.
That’s amusing. If you’re willing to entertain the idea, … that sounds like projecting, contrary to the present evidence. Me with an open invitation to more perspectives, and you seeming to bark that down in apparent certainty to know otherwise.
If you think you’re right, go be about it. Be an example.
Implying I’m not walking the talk? Right now? Please do help make that clear where there’s grit in my eye, or what’s in my blind spot, because I’m only seeing as far as I’m seeing, and so merely alluding to there being something falling short in some way, is of null benefit, without saying what it is. Otherwise… kinda just looks like narcissistic insecurity attacking others with pompous airs of superior virtue thinly veiled over gaslighting and misdirection.
I don’t think I’m right. That’s the point. Humility avails curiosity. Ride it long enough, enough discoveries come to dispel certainty, especially naive realism. Or so says my naive ascertainment thus far. Exceptions abound, to every premature generalisation. And isn’t that all we ever have? And there’s always more?
ZERO AI used in that, at all. [(Another look back on that, and I wonder how you could have possibly perceived that as AI. Was it just because it was a lot of words, (reasonably) well formatted, and you didn’t even read it?)]
Please do respond to substance, engage with the idea… even just not respond like your responses could be coming from a cheap troll bot. LOL, the irony of your accusation. “Every accusation, a confession” LOL. … Actually… as I look at the rules here on [email protected], I see you’re way off the mark. E.g. “Be civil”, “no trolling”, “no low-effort comments”, and so on. And it advises, “do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do”… so how much more I’d try walk Daryl Davis’s walk with you, seems likely running short, to stay within the rules here. … So, unless a turn-around in response, to something of substance, and not a cheap fallacy, trolling, uncivility, etc, I guess we’re all but done here, by the rules.
Under the rules, it says
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
The commendability of the 1st sentence, especially the later half, has me on the fence about reporting already, and the 2nd sentence has me play safe… maybe this isn’t a case of (what I oft call) “posts of horror” where conversations derail and escalate, nor a “pearls before swine” moment, nor a “don’t argue with fools” moment, and I’ll maybe yet hear, I don’t know, maybe some refutation of Daryl’s method, some statistic showing while he converted 200 away he also encouraged thousands more to join, some reveal he’s a con-man or paid actor, or… or any kind of proper engagement with anything I said, and not just trolling & “low-effort comments”. *dreamer* :)
No you aren’t. You started with a flase premise and seem to think you have to only answer.
If you think you’re right, go be about it. Be an example.
Adhominous contradiction falls a little short of refutation, but maybe you’ve something there but did not share it because you believe your assertion, contrary to my invite, that I’m not happy to hear any refutation.
Where?
That’s amusing. If you’re willing to entertain the idea, … that sounds like projecting, contrary to the present evidence. Me with an open invitation to more perspectives, and you seeming to bark that down in apparent certainty to know otherwise.
Implying I’m not walking the talk? Right now? Please do help make that clear where there’s grit in my eye, or what’s in my blind spot, because I’m only seeing as far as I’m seeing, and so merely alluding to there being something falling short in some way, is of null benefit, without saying what it is. Otherwise… kinda just looks like narcissistic insecurity attacking others with pompous airs of superior virtue thinly veiled over gaslighting and misdirection.
I don’t think I’m right. That’s the point. Humility avails curiosity. Ride it long enough, enough discoveries come to dispel certainty, especially naive realism. Or so says my naive ascertainment thus far. Exceptions abound, to every premature generalisation. And isn’t that all we ever have? And there’s always more?
That’s a lot of words to say nothing.
Hrmm. Still evasive, gaslighting, arguing tone.
Would have been nice if you could have answered at least one of my questions. Such as “Where?”.
Nah dude. I just think the dumbest thing I can do is be friendly with someone who wants me dead.
Removed by mod
Bruh stop with the AI fucking shit.
Ah. Again with the nothing burger.
ZERO AI used in that, at all. [(Another look back on that, and I wonder how you could have possibly perceived that as AI. Was it just because it was a lot of words, (reasonably) well formatted, and you didn’t even read it?)]
Please do respond to substance, engage with the idea… even just not respond like your responses could be coming from a cheap troll bot. LOL, the irony of your accusation. “Every accusation, a confession” LOL. … Actually… as I look at the rules here on [email protected], I see you’re way off the mark. E.g. “Be civil”, “no trolling”, “no low-effort comments”, and so on. And it advises, “do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do”… so how much more I’d try walk Daryl Davis’s walk with you, seems likely running short, to stay within the rules here. … So, unless a turn-around in response, to something of substance, and not a cheap fallacy, trolling, uncivility, etc, I guess we’re all but done here, by the rules.
Under the rules, it says
The commendability of the 1st sentence, especially the later half, has me on the fence about reporting already, and the 2nd sentence has me play safe… maybe this isn’t a case of (what I oft call) “posts of horror” where conversations derail and escalate, nor a “pearls before swine” moment, nor a “don’t argue with fools” moment, and I’ll maybe yet hear, I don’t know, maybe some refutation of Daryl’s method, some statistic showing while he converted 200 away he also encouraged thousands more to join, some reveal he’s a con-man or paid actor, or… or any kind of proper engagement with anything I said, and not just trolling & “low-effort comments”. *dreamer* :)