So, are you once again suggesting I look back at my writings and see my own faults in my own communication style?Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 5:07 amI request that you read back the above post and consider the irony in it.creation wrote:To me, just about everyone here in this forum now, when this is written, are assuming and believing somethings are already true, right, and correct. Therefore, those ones are 'not' truly inquisitive nor open, and it is inquisitiveness, openness, and honesty that is needed for your sensible guidelines for discussions to occur in a philosophy forum.
When I wrote the post citing the forum rules and suggesting some guidelines that might be mutually agreeable, I had hoped to "reset" things by meeting you halfway; by us both acknowledging past faults in our own communication styles and learning from them.
I could request you look back and see where how just through simple inquisitiveness, openness, and honesty all of your "guidelines" would be fulfilled anyway, but I will not request that. If I did, then we would again be getting sidetracked from looking at the actual words I have used in relation the actual topic of this thread, and once again be focusing on how to express things in a way that agrees with the "commonly accepted version of things".
I say 'time' is some actual thing. Do you know what that thing is?
By the way, have you yet said anything in relation to whether, from your perspective, 'time' is just an idea or not?
If you have, then I must of missed it. What do you say 'time' is then? Just an idea, or something else?
To you, I do not get what exactly?
Do you want me to acknowledge my past faults?
If yes, then we would be here for the rest of our lives, at least.
Just about every view I want to eventually share I cannot get to be looked at, and considered, let understood understood at all, let alone completely and fully understood.
In fact, I cannot even ask a very simple straightforward clarifying question, for example, like, How long does it take light to travel from the sun to the earth? without some completely wrong misinterpretation of what I am actually asking for being made, my question being completely taken out of context and misconstrued, and me being completely and utterly misunderstood.
Well do you believe some things are true, right, and/or correct?
Do you like to assume what others are meaning in their writings, without clarifying first?
If yes, and yes, then you would be convinced of your own rightness, and/or you would be unwilling to consider others' arguments sometimes, correct?
The very reason I ask so many unassuming clarifying questions is so that I can better understand them, and their views and/or "arguments". And, while you are believing something is true, then you are convinced of your own 'rightness' correct?
I do not believe nor disbelieve anything for the very reason that I would not be open.
Also, my 'rightness' is irrefutable.
But what does this sentence actually mean and refer to exactly?
Are you absolutely sure of this?
What supposed "unfounded assumptions about other people" did I supposedly make in the quote above?
Did I say something that was not true, not right, and/or not correct?
If yes, then what is it or are they exactly?
But if no, then what I said was is just true, right, and/or correct, and not an unfounded assumption at all, correct?
By the way, yes I do sometimes, unfortunately, make completely unintended assumptions, which I hope people would make them clearly known to me and the readers here.
Also, I have previously admitted that I am probably the most useless communicator here, in this forum. So, I have a great deal to learn about how to communicate much better. But the change that I am seeking to discover and learn just maybe not the same way that you think or believe I need to change to.
What do you mean without evidence, it was your words that was what told me this, and then your actions after are confirming this further. So the evidence in your words and your actions.
Of which you have not actually made clear, so that we could at least have a look at what you are yourself 'assuming' here. For all we know your assumptions here could be well and truly just 'unfounded assumptions' of yours.
If you are not open and honest and share your views, then I have absolutely nothing to respond to.
I cannot logically accuse you of making 'unfounded assumptions' for example if we have not even provided with what you are actually assuming that I have made "unfounded assumptions" of something, which only you know about.
To me, I have not made an assumption at all, let alone an unfounded one, so until you point out and acknowledge what your assumption is, then I have no idea.
Well go and talk with other posters. I would certainly never make you talk with anyone that you do not freely want to.
Also, you accusing me of making "unfounded assumptions" seems, to me, to be a completely 'unfounded assumption' itself.
There was nothing to disagree with anyway, was there?
I do not think I have had a discussion with you where you have actually said anything really to disagree with.
From what I recall, when discussing with you, is your continual look at the way I talk and/or act, and your continual diversionary tactics away from what I am actually talking about and pointing out. You have yet to discuss any actual things that I have been talking about. So, if I recall correctly, you never actually say anything to agree or disagree with.
If you do not want to talk about, and/or dispute, how 'time' is just an idea or not, or in the other thread talk about how traveling at speed relative to others that 'time' does or does not change relative to those observers in different reference frames, then please feel very free to talk with other posters. I am looking for those that disagree with me and what to question and challenge me on my views, and not just talk about how I converse.