# On the Pleasure of Hating.



## Mindful

The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn. 

"That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.

Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).


----------



## Mindful

From a William Hazlitt essay.



As to my old opinions, I am heartily sick of them. I have reason, for they have deceived me sadly. I was taught to think, and I was willing to believe, that genius was not a bawd, that virtue was not a mask, that liberty was not a name, that love had its seat in the human heart. Now I would care little if these words were struck out of the dictionary, or if I had never heard them. They are become to my ears a mockery and a dream. Instead of patriots and friends of freedom, I see nothing but the tyrant and the slave, the people linked with kings to rivet on the chains of despotism and superstition. I see folly join with knavery, and together make up public spirit and public opinions. I see the insolent Tory, the blind Reformer, the coward Whig! If mankind had wished for what is right, they might have had it long ago. 

The theory is plain enough; but they are prone to mischief, "to every good work reprobate." I have seen all that had been done by the mighty yearnings of the spirit and intellect of men, "of whom the world was not worthy," and that promised a proud opening to truth and good through the vista of future years, undone by one man, with just glimmering of understanding enough to feel that he was a king, but not to comprehend how he could be king of a free people!

 I have seen this triumph celebrated by poets, the friends of my youth and the friends of men, but who were carried away by the infuriate tide that, setting in from a throne, bore down every distinction of right reason before it; and I have seen all those who did not join in applauding this insult and outrage on humanity proscribed, hunted down (they and their friends made a byword of), so that it has become an understood thing that no one can live by his talents or knowledge who is not ready to prostitute those talents and that knowledge to betray his species, and prey upon his fellow- man. "This was some time a mystery: but the time gives evidence of it." The echoes of liberty had awakened once more in Spain, and the mornings of human hope dawned again: but that dawn has been overcast by the foul breath of bigotry, and those reviving sounds stifled by fresh cries from the time-rent towers of the Inquisition - man yielding (as it is fit he should) first to brute force, but more to the innate perversity and dastard spirit of his own nature which leaves no room for farther hope or disappointment. 

And England, that arch-reformer, that heroic deliverer, that mouther about liberty, and tool of power, stands gaping by, not feeling the blight and mildew coming over it, nor its very bones crack and turn to a paste under the grasp and circling folds of this new monster, Legitimacy! In private life do we not see hypocrisy, servility, selfishness, folly, and impudence succeed, while modesty shrinks from the encounter, and merit is trodden under foot? How often is "the rose plucked from the forehead of a virtuous love to plant a blister there!" What chance is there of the success of real passion? What certainty of its continuance? 

Seeing all this as I do, and unravelling the web of human life into its various threads of meanness, spite, cowardice, want of feeling, and want of understanding, of indifference towards others, and ignorance of ourselves, - seeing custom prevail over all excellence, itself giving way to infamy - mistaken as I have been in my public and private hopes, calculating others from myself, and calculating wrong; always disappointed where I placed most reliance; the dupe of friendship, and the fool of love; - have I not reason to hate and to despise myself? Indeed I do; and chiefly for not having hated and despised the world enough.


----------



## Wry Catcher

I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?


----------



## G.T.

Sounds like the Philosophy of rationalizing depression. These folks seem to need some love and therapy, not confirmation bias.


----------



## Mindful

Wry Catcher said:


> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?



Would be nice. Needs the attention span of something more than a gnat.

Though a lot of folk on USMB just love to hate. It's nectar to them.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Mindful said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice. Needs the attention span of something more than a gnat.
> 
> Though a lot of folk on USMB just love to hate. It's nectar to them.
Click to expand...


How do you feel about Obama, liberals, HRC?


----------



## Mindful

Wry Catcher said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice. Needs the attention span of something more than a gnat.
> 
> Though a lot of folk on USMB just love to hate. It's nectar to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you feel about Obama, liberals, HRC?
Click to expand...


I'll tell you on an appropriate thread.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).


I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves. 

So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
Click to expand...


I've seen  that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> From a William Hazlitt essay.
> 
> 
> 
> As to my old opinions, I am heartily sick of them. I have reason, for they have deceived me sadly. I was taught to think, and I was willing to believe, that genius was not a bawd, that virtue was not a mask, that liberty was not a name, that love had its seat in the human heart. Now I would care little if these words were struck out of the dictionary, or if I had never heard them. They are become to my ears a mockery and a dream. Instead of patriots and friends of freedom, I see nothing but the tyrant and the slave, the people linked with kings to rivet on the chains of despotism and superstition. I see folly join with knavery, and together make up public spirit and public opinions. I see the insolent Tory, the blind Reformer, the coward Whig! If mankind had wished for what is right, they might have had it long ago.
> 
> The theory is plain enough; but they are prone to mischief, "to every good work reprobate." I have seen all that had been done by the mighty yearnings of the spirit and intellect of men, "of whom the world was not worthy," and that promised a proud opening to truth and good through the vista of future years, undone by one man, with just glimmering of understanding enough to feel that he was a king, but not to comprehend how he could be king of a free people!
> 
> I have seen this triumph celebrated by poets, the friends of my youth and the friends of men, but who were carried away by the infuriate tide that, setting in from a throne, bore down every distinction of right reason before it; and I have seen all those who did not join in applauding this insult and outrage on humanity proscribed, hunted down (they and their friends made a byword of), so that it has become an understood thing that no one can live by his talents or knowledge who is not ready to prostitute those talents and that knowledge to betray his species, and prey upon his fellow- man. "This was some time a mystery: but the time gives evidence of it." The echoes of liberty had awakened once more in Spain, and the mornings of human hope dawned again: but that dawn has been overcast by the foul breath of bigotry, and those reviving sounds stifled by fresh cries from the time-rent towers of the Inquisition - man yielding (as it is fit he should) first to brute force, but more to the innate perversity and dastard spirit of his own nature which leaves no room for farther hope or disappointment.
> 
> And England, that arch-reformer, that heroic deliverer, that mouther about liberty, and tool of power, stands gaping by, not feeling the blight and mildew coming over it, nor its very bones crack and turn to a paste under the grasp and circling folds of this new monster, Legitimacy! In private life do we not see hypocrisy, servility, selfishness, folly, and impudence succeed, while modesty shrinks from the encounter, and merit is trodden under foot? How often is "the rose plucked from the forehead of a virtuous love to plant a blister there!" What chance is there of the success of real passion? What certainty of its continuance?
> 
> Seeing all this as I do, and unravelling the web of human life into its various threads of meanness, spite, cowardice, want of feeling, and want of understanding, of indifference towards others, and ignorance of ourselves, - seeing custom prevail over all excellence, itself giving way to infamy - mistaken as I have been in my public and private hopes, calculating others from myself, and calculating wrong; always disappointed where I placed most reliance; the dupe of friendship, and the fool of love; - have I not reason to hate and to despise myself? Indeed I do; and chiefly for not having hated and despised the world enough.


There is a law of compensation at work. For every action there will be a reaction. I call this the conflict and confusion process. 

Everything is the way it is for a reason. Everything works itself out in the end. The only question that remains is whether or not we will suffer without complaint.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
Click to expand...

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a William Hazlitt essay.
> 
> 
> 
> As to my old opinions, I am heartily sick of them. I have reason, for they have deceived me sadly. I was taught to think, and I was willing to believe, that genius was not a bawd, that virtue was not a mask, that liberty was not a name, that love had its seat in the human heart. Now I would care little if these words were struck out of the dictionary, or if I had never heard them. They are become to my ears a mockery and a dream. Instead of patriots and friends of freedom, I see nothing but the tyrant and the slave, the people linked with kings to rivet on the chains of despotism and superstition. I see folly join with knavery, and together make up public spirit and public opinions. I see the insolent Tory, the blind Reformer, the coward Whig! If mankind had wished for what is right, they might have had it long ago.
> 
> The theory is plain enough; but they are prone to mischief, "to every good work reprobate." I have seen all that had been done by the mighty yearnings of the spirit and intellect of men, "of whom the world was not worthy," and that promised a proud opening to truth and good through the vista of future years, undone by one man, with just glimmering of understanding enough to feel that he was a king, but not to comprehend how he could be king of a free people!
> 
> I have seen this triumph celebrated by poets, the friends of my youth and the friends of men, but who were carried away by the infuriate tide that, setting in from a throne, bore down every distinction of right reason before it; and I have seen all those who did not join in applauding this insult and outrage on humanity proscribed, hunted down (they and their friends made a byword of), so that it has become an understood thing that no one can live by his talents or knowledge who is not ready to prostitute those talents and that knowledge to betray his species, and prey upon his fellow- man. "This was some time a mystery: but the time gives evidence of it." The echoes of liberty had awakened once more in Spain, and the mornings of human hope dawned again: but that dawn has been overcast by the foul breath of bigotry, and those reviving sounds stifled by fresh cries from the time-rent towers of the Inquisition - man yielding (as it is fit he should) first to brute force, but more to the innate perversity and dastard spirit of his own nature which leaves no room for farther hope or disappointment.
> 
> And England, that arch-reformer, that heroic deliverer, that mouther about liberty, and tool of power, stands gaping by, not feeling the blight and mildew coming over it, nor its very bones crack and turn to a paste under the grasp and circling folds of this new monster, Legitimacy! In private life do we not see hypocrisy, servility, selfishness, folly, and impudence succeed, while modesty shrinks from the encounter, and merit is trodden under foot? How often is "the rose plucked from the forehead of a virtuous love to plant a blister there!" What chance is there of the success of real passion? What certainty of its continuance?
> 
> Seeing all this as I do, and unravelling the web of human life into its various threads of meanness, spite, cowardice, want of feeling, and want of understanding, of indifference towards others, and ignorance of ourselves, - seeing custom prevail over all excellence, itself giving way to infamy - mistaken as I have been in my public and private hopes, calculating others from myself, and calculating wrong; always disappointed where I placed most reliance; the dupe of friendship, and the fool of love; - have I not reason to hate and to despise myself? Indeed I do; and chiefly for not having hated and despised the world enough.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a law of compensation at work. For every action there will be a reaction. I call this the conflict and confusion process.
> 
> Everything is the way it is for a reason. Everything works itself out in the end. The only question that remains is whether or not we will suffer without complaint.
Click to expand...

Do you know what "tautology" means, and is there any reason of utility you're renaming simple cause and effect?


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
Click to expand...

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a William Hazlitt essay.
> 
> 
> 
> As to my old opinions, I am heartily sick of them. I have reason, for they have deceived me sadly. I was taught to think, and I was willing to believe, that genius was not a bawd, that virtue was not a mask, that liberty was not a name, that love had its seat in the human heart. Now I would care little if these words were struck out of the dictionary, or if I had never heard them. They are become to my ears a mockery and a dream. Instead of patriots and friends of freedom, I see nothing but the tyrant and the slave, the people linked with kings to rivet on the chains of despotism and superstition. I see folly join with knavery, and together make up public spirit and public opinions. I see the insolent Tory, the blind Reformer, the coward Whig! If mankind had wished for what is right, they might have had it long ago.
> 
> The theory is plain enough; but they are prone to mischief, "to every good work reprobate." I have seen all that had been done by the mighty yearnings of the spirit and intellect of men, "of whom the world was not worthy," and that promised a proud opening to truth and good through the vista of future years, undone by one man, with just glimmering of understanding enough to feel that he was a king, but not to comprehend how he could be king of a free people!
> 
> I have seen this triumph celebrated by poets, the friends of my youth and the friends of men, but who were carried away by the infuriate tide that, setting in from a throne, bore down every distinction of right reason before it; and I have seen all those who did not join in applauding this insult and outrage on humanity proscribed, hunted down (they and their friends made a byword of), so that it has become an understood thing that no one can live by his talents or knowledge who is not ready to prostitute those talents and that knowledge to betray his species, and prey upon his fellow- man. "This was some time a mystery: but the time gives evidence of it." The echoes of liberty had awakened once more in Spain, and the mornings of human hope dawned again: but that dawn has been overcast by the foul breath of bigotry, and those reviving sounds stifled by fresh cries from the time-rent towers of the Inquisition - man yielding (as it is fit he should) first to brute force, but more to the innate perversity and dastard spirit of his own nature which leaves no room for farther hope or disappointment.
> 
> And England, that arch-reformer, that heroic deliverer, that mouther about liberty, and tool of power, stands gaping by, not feeling the blight and mildew coming over it, nor its very bones crack and turn to a paste under the grasp and circling folds of this new monster, Legitimacy! In private life do we not see hypocrisy, servility, selfishness, folly, and impudence succeed, while modesty shrinks from the encounter, and merit is trodden under foot? How often is "the rose plucked from the forehead of a virtuous love to plant a blister there!" What chance is there of the success of real passion? What certainty of its continuance?
> 
> Seeing all this as I do, and unravelling the web of human life into its various threads of meanness, spite, cowardice, want of feeling, and want of understanding, of indifference towards others, and ignorance of ourselves, - seeing custom prevail over all excellence, itself giving way to infamy - mistaken as I have been in my public and private hopes, calculating others from myself, and calculating wrong; always disappointed where I placed most reliance; the dupe of friendship, and the fool of love; - have I not reason to hate and to despise myself? Indeed I do; and chiefly for not having hated and despised the world enough.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a law of compensation at work. For every action there will be a reaction. I call this the conflict and confusion process.
> 
> Everything is the way it is for a reason. Everything works itself out in the end. The only question that remains is whether or not we will suffer without complaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know what "tautology" means, and is there any reason of utility you're renaming simple cause and effect?
Click to expand...

Do you  understand how technology evolves?  Can you explain the process?


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
Click to expand...


Then you show up.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
Click to expand...


Be quiet!


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you show up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm subscribed to this thread. I study Philosophy.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
Click to expand...

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a William Hazlitt essay.
> 
> 
> 
> As to my old opinions, I am heartily sick of them. I have reason, for they have deceived me sadly. I was taught to think, and I was willing to believe, that genius was not a bawd, that virtue was not a mask, that liberty was not a name, that love had its seat in the human heart. Now I would care little if these words were struck out of the dictionary, or if I had never heard them. They are become to my ears a mockery and a dream. Instead of patriots and friends of freedom, I see nothing but the tyrant and the slave, the people linked with kings to rivet on the chains of despotism and superstition. I see folly join with knavery, and together make up public spirit and public opinions. I see the insolent Tory, the blind Reformer, the coward Whig! If mankind had wished for what is right, they might have had it long ago.
> 
> The theory is plain enough; but they are prone to mischief, "to every good work reprobate." I have seen all that had been done by the mighty yearnings of the spirit and intellect of men, "of whom the world was not worthy," and that promised a proud opening to truth and good through the vista of future years, undone by one man, with just glimmering of understanding enough to feel that he was a king, but not to comprehend how he could be king of a free people!
> 
> I have seen this triumph celebrated by poets, the friends of my youth and the friends of men, but who were carried away by the infuriate tide that, setting in from a throne, bore down every distinction of right reason before it; and I have seen all those who did not join in applauding this insult and outrage on humanity proscribed, hunted down (they and their friends made a byword of), so that it has become an understood thing that no one can live by his talents or knowledge who is not ready to prostitute those talents and that knowledge to betray his species, and prey upon his fellow- man. "This was some time a mystery: but the time gives evidence of it." The echoes of liberty had awakened once more in Spain, and the mornings of human hope dawned again: but that dawn has been overcast by the foul breath of bigotry, and those reviving sounds stifled by fresh cries from the time-rent towers of the Inquisition - man yielding (as it is fit he should) first to brute force, but more to the innate perversity and dastard spirit of his own nature which leaves no room for farther hope or disappointment.
> 
> And England, that arch-reformer, that heroic deliverer, that mouther about liberty, and tool of power, stands gaping by, not feeling the blight and mildew coming over it, nor its very bones crack and turn to a paste under the grasp and circling folds of this new monster, Legitimacy! In private life do we not see hypocrisy, servility, selfishness, folly, and impudence succeed, while modesty shrinks from the encounter, and merit is trodden under foot? How often is "the rose plucked from the forehead of a virtuous love to plant a blister there!" What chance is there of the success of real passion? What certainty of its continuance?
> 
> Seeing all this as I do, and unravelling the web of human life into its various threads of meanness, spite, cowardice, want of feeling, and want of understanding, of indifference towards others, and ignorance of ourselves, - seeing custom prevail over all excellence, itself giving way to infamy - mistaken as I have been in my public and private hopes, calculating others from myself, and calculating wrong; always disappointed where I placed most reliance; the dupe of friendship, and the fool of love; - have I not reason to hate and to despise myself? Indeed I do; and chiefly for not having hated and despised the world enough.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a law of compensation at work. For every action there will be a reaction. I call this the conflict and confusion process.
> 
> Everything is the way it is for a reason. Everything works itself out in the end. The only question that remains is whether or not we will suffer without complaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know what "tautology" means, and is there any reason of utility you're renaming simple cause and effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you  understand how technology evolves?  Can you explain the process?
Click to expand...

There's all different processes. You'd have to specify which one you're looking to have explained.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
Click to expand...


What conversation?


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
Click to expand...

If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.

You started an argument by saying "I would argue"

Someone commented on "that argument"

Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be quiet!
Click to expand...

Really?

You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.
> 
> You started an argument by saying "I would argue"
> 
> Someone commented on "that argument"
> 
> Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.
Click to expand...

I didn’t start an argument. You are.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be quiet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What conversation?
Click to expand...

The one I thought we were having.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.
> 
> You started an argument by saying "I would argue"
> 
> Someone commented on "that argument"
> 
> Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t start an argument. You are.
Click to expand...

"I would argue" - ding

"i didnt start an argument" - ding


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What conversation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one I thought we were having.
Click to expand...


You know what thought did, don't you?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be quiet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> 
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What conversation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one I thought we were having.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what thought did, don't you?
Click to expand...

I know what you are doing.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be quiet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
Click to expand...


That doesn't excuse you.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> 
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What conversation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one I thought we were having.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what thought did, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what you are doing.
Click to expand...


Do you? Because I don't.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.
> 
> You started an argument by saying "I would argue"
> 
> Someone commented on "that argument"
> 
> Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.
Click to expand...

All she had to clarify. There were literally two different positions. I prefer not to make assumptions.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What conversation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one I thought we were having.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what thought did, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you? Because I don't.
Click to expand...

Yes. I do.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.
> 
> You started an argument by saying "I would argue"
> 
> Someone commented on "that argument"
> 
> Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All she had to clarify. There were literally two different positions. I prefer not to make assumptions.
Click to expand...


Only two?

That's unadventurous of you.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What conversation?
> 
> 
> 
> The one I thought we were having.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what thought did, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you? Because I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. I do.
Click to expand...


Enlighten me.

I've been in the darkness for too long.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be quiet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
Click to expand...

From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things. 

Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one I thought we were having.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what thought did, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you? Because I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enlighten me.
> 
> I've been in the darkness for too long.
Click to expand...

You are grinding an ax.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> 
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.
> 
> You started an argument by saying "I would argue"
> 
> Someone commented on "that argument"
> 
> Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All she had to clarify. There were literally two different positions. I prefer not to make assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only two?
> 
> That's unadventurous of you.
Click to expand...

Yes. Only two.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be quiet!
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
Click to expand...


My wrath?

I can do the death stare.

Aren't you  just thrilled it's about you? Enjoy.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> 
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.
> 
> You started an argument by saying "I would argue"
> 
> Someone commented on "that argument"
> 
> Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All she had to clarify. There were literally two different positions. I prefer not to make assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only two?
> 
> That's unadventurous of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Only two.
Click to expand...


Oh shame.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My wrath?
> 
> I can do the death stare.
> 
> Aren't you  just thrilled it's about you? Enjoy.
Click to expand...

No, I’m not thrilled about it. I didn’t come here looking for it. 

I’m saddened by it.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My wrath?
> 
> I can do the death stare.
> 
> Aren't you  just thrilled it's about you? Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I’m not thrilled about it. I didn’t come here looking for it.
> 
> I’m saddened by it.
Click to expand...


What did you come here for?

To be awkward?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.
> 
> You started an argument by saying "I would argue"
> 
> Someone commented on "that argument"
> 
> Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All she had to clarify. There were literally two different positions. I prefer not to make assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only two?
> 
> That's unadventurous of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Only two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shame.
Click to expand...

The shame is yours.  Or at least it should be.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My wrath?
> 
> I can do the death stare.
> 
> Aren't you  just thrilled it's about you? Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I’m not thrilled about it. I didn’t come here looking for it.
> 
> I’m saddened by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you come here for?
> 
> To be awkward?
Click to expand...

For honest discussion.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be quiet!
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
Click to expand...

I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog. 

Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.
> 
> You started an argument by saying "I would argue"
> 
> Someone commented on "that argument"
> 
> Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> All she had to clarify. There were literally two different positions. I prefer not to make assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only two?
> 
> That's unadventurous of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Only two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The shame is yours.  Or at least it should be.
Click to expand...


I never  thought about it that way.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
Click to expand...

It’s a phrase.  An expression. It conveys I am taking a different position.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a phrase.  An expression. It conveys I am taking a different position.
Click to expand...

when you use the turn of phrase, and then someone refers to it - one would think it would be easy to understand what they're pointing back to............and it's that implied ease - that one would assume - that makes me wonder that you're just fuckin trolling all of the time. That was the thought process.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a phrase.  An expression. It conveys I am taking a different position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when you use the turn of phrase, and then someone refers to it - one would think it would be easy to understand what they're pointing back to............and it's that implied ease - that one would assume - that makes me wonder that you're just fuckin trolling all of the time. That was the thought process.
Click to expand...

I can’t control how you take it.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
Click to expand...


One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
Click to expand...

How exactly did I control you?

I literally said I did not understand what you wrote and I asked two clarifying questions so that I could better understand what your meaning was. And here we are two pages later  off topic.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> 
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a phrase.  An expression. It conveys I am taking a different position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when you use the turn of phrase, and then someone refers to it - one would think it would be easy to understand what they're pointing back to............and it's that implied ease - that one would assume - that makes me wonder that you're just fuckin trolling all of the time. That was the thought process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can’t control how you take it.
Click to expand...

That's what she said.


----------



## Mindful

GT.

You are obviously here to provoke a confrontation with me.

However, if you really want a fist fight, and to insult me to hell and back, I'll  meet you in the Badlands. Behind the bicycle sheds.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> GT.
> 
> You are obviously here to provoke a confrontation with me.
> 
> However, if you really want a fist fight, and to insult me to hell and back, I'll  meet you in the Badlands. Behind the bicycle sheds.


I am here to discuss your topic.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly did I control you?
> 
> I literally said I did not understand what you wrote and I asked two clarifying questions so that I could better understand what your meaning was. And here we are two pages later  off topic.
Click to expand...


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
Click to expand...

You're just projecting, Mindful. 

You get very control-freakish, and then project that out onto other folks and the simple fact of the matter is that you're scape-goating your inability to deal with disagreements reasonably. 

That's why you tried to control the discussion on morality and ban speech that you didn't like (politics) when in fact it pertains directly to morality.

It's because you're a narcissist. Raise your paw, dear. You have entire threads to bash your political opponents and apologize for Trump, and then accused me of talking about Trump every day when it's actually RARE that I do.

You're not an adult.


----------



## ding

Again let me reiterate that we first hate ourselves and then we hate in others what we most hate about ourselves.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly did I control you?
> 
> I literally said I did not understand what you wrote and I asked two clarifying questions so that I could better understand what your meaning was. And here we are two pages later  off topic.
Click to expand...


You didn't control me, and I didn't say you did.

I said the GT was trying to control me.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Again let me reiterate that we first hate ourselves and then we hate in others what we most hate about ourselves.



Enjoyment. Discuss that.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> Again let me reiterate that we first hate ourselves and then we hate in others what we most hate about ourselves.


That's only true in some cases, unless there's something about child molesting in myself that I hate before I'm able to hate them sorts of psychotics. There's no one-size fits all in the category of human emotion and contemplation and if there were, we'd be robots and not at all innovative either.


----------



## ding

And that in order to stop being triggered by the outside world we must first put right what is wrong with us.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just projecting, Mindful.
> 
> You get very control-freakish, and then project that out onto other folks and the simple fact of the matter is that you're scape-goating your inability to deal with disagreements reasonably.
> 
> That's why you tried to control the discussion on morality and ban speech that you didn't like (politics) when in fact it pertains directly to morality.
> 
> It's because you're a narcissist. Raise your paw, dear. You have entire threads to bash your political opponents and apologize for Trump, and then accused me of talking about Trump every day when it's actually RARE that I do.
> 
> You're not an adult.
Click to expand...


Are you always this grumpy and miserable? 

I'm only a bunch of pixels.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> 
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly did I control you?
> 
> I literally said I did not understand what you wrote and I asked two clarifying questions so that I could better understand what your meaning was. And here we are two pages later  off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't control me, and I didn't say you did.
> 
> I said the GT was trying to control me.
Click to expand...

That's just really bizarre/disturbing.


----------



## ding

And in order to put right in ourselves we must first acknowledge what is wrong in us. Only then can we work on fixing it.


----------



## Mindful

This is getting complicated.

Not much of a threesome.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't excuse you.
> 
> 
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just projecting, Mindful.
> 
> You get very control-freakish, and then project that out onto other folks and the simple fact of the matter is that you're scape-goating your inability to deal with disagreements reasonably.
> 
> That's why you tried to control the discussion on morality and ban speech that you didn't like (politics) when in fact it pertains directly to morality.
> 
> It's because you're a narcissist. Raise your paw, dear. You have entire threads to bash your political opponents and apologize for Trump, and then accused me of talking about Trump every day when it's actually RARE that I do.
> 
> You're not an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you always this grumpy and miserable?
> 
> I'm only a bunch of pixels.
Click to expand...

I am perfectly happy to point out your immature game-playing bullshit when you do it - the way you react like a toddler is of no consequence to me. I don't care what you think of me, I'm here to toss my opinions out there to discuss just like everyone else.


----------



## ding

And unless we fix ourselves first we will continue to suffer the predictable surprises of our errors.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly did I control you?
> 
> I literally said I did not understand what you wrote and I asked two clarifying questions so that I could better understand what your meaning was. And here we are two pages later  off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't control me, and I didn't say you did.
> 
> I said the GT was trying to control me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just really bizarre/disturbing.
Click to expand...


You're loving all this. Don't deny it.


----------



## ding

The process is very much like the technology cycle where slight differences work to create the next big leap in evolution.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what?  All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.
> 
> Apparently that was asking too much.  So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just projecting, Mindful.
> 
> You get very control-freakish, and then project that out onto other folks and the simple fact of the matter is that you're scape-goating your inability to deal with disagreements reasonably.
> 
> That's why you tried to control the discussion on morality and ban speech that you didn't like (politics) when in fact it pertains directly to morality.
> 
> It's because you're a narcissist. Raise your paw, dear. You have entire threads to bash your political opponents and apologize for Trump, and then accused me of talking about Trump every day when it's actually RARE that I do.
> 
> You're not an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you always this grumpy and miserable?
> 
> I'm only a bunch of pixels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am perfectly happy to point out your immature game-playing bullshit when you do it - the way you react like a toddler is of no consequence to me. I don't care what you think of me, I'm here to toss my opinions out there to discuss just like everyone else.
Click to expand...


Of course you don't care. lol.

You should get out more. Experience different cultures.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly did I control you?
> 
> I literally said I did not understand what you wrote and I asked two clarifying questions so that I could better understand what your meaning was. And here we are two pages later  off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't control me, and I didn't say you did.
> 
> I said the GT was trying to control me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just really bizarre/disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're loving all this. Don't deny it.
Click to expand...

It's just another frog in the bucket of shit you're wrong about. I don't use the word love that loosely - but I do enjoy my time messageboarding when I can't be doing other things. It's pretty neat.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing to the reality that you, in fact, grind all of the axes and so when you start a sentence with "i would argue" and then one follows it by saying they've seen that argument? If you then ask which argument, it's almost as if in some psychotic, sociopathic way you really just enjoy bickering over every tiny little fuckin thing - like the emotions of sealy bobo's dog....you literally tried to argue with a messageboard guy that he's misinterpreting his own dog.
> 
> Mindful, on the other-hand, is a control-freak and gets very worked up when someone disagrees with her - and instead of then fleshing out any rational discourse, she regresses into this psychotic game of typing wishy-washy meta-bullshit to try and be coy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just projecting, Mindful.
> 
> You get very control-freakish, and then project that out onto other folks and the simple fact of the matter is that you're scape-goating your inability to deal with disagreements reasonably.
> 
> That's why you tried to control the discussion on morality and ban speech that you didn't like (politics) when in fact it pertains directly to morality.
> 
> It's because you're a narcissist. Raise your paw, dear. You have entire threads to bash your political opponents and apologize for Trump, and then accused me of talking about Trump every day when it's actually RARE that I do.
> 
> You're not an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you always this grumpy and miserable?
> 
> I'm only a bunch of pixels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am perfectly happy to point out your immature game-playing bullshit when you do it - the way you react like a toddler is of no consequence to me. I don't care what you think of me, I'm here to toss my opinions out there to discuss just like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't care. lol.
> 
> You should get out more. Experience different cultures.
Click to expand...

You don't know me or where I've been, control freak.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't do rational discourse with a control freak like you. I've seen no evidence of that from you. _Very _worked up? How about _uber _worked up? Like you?
> 
> 
> 
> You're just projecting, Mindful.
> 
> You get very control-freakish, and then project that out onto other folks and the simple fact of the matter is that you're scape-goating your inability to deal with disagreements reasonably.
> 
> That's why you tried to control the discussion on morality and ban speech that you didn't like (politics) when in fact it pertains directly to morality.
> 
> It's because you're a narcissist. Raise your paw, dear. You have entire threads to bash your political opponents and apologize for Trump, and then accused me of talking about Trump every day when it's actually RARE that I do.
> 
> You're not an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you always this grumpy and miserable?
> 
> I'm only a bunch of pixels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am perfectly happy to point out your immature game-playing bullshit when you do it - the way you react like a toddler is of no consequence to me. I don't care what you think of me, I'm here to toss my opinions out there to discuss just like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't care. lol.
> 
> You should get out more. Experience different cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know me or where I've been, control freak.
Click to expand...


Ditto.


----------



## ding

So in the end we can choose to not transform ourselves and suffer the predictable surprises of our behaviors but we will continue to have our lessons brought back to us in until we do. The best many can hope for is to suffer without complaint. Something few of you do.


----------



## Marion Morrison

It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.

And Others are G.T.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> So in the end we can choose to not transform ourselves and suffer the predictable surprises of our behaviors but we will continue to have our lessons brought back to us in until we do. The best many can hope for is to suffer without complaint. Something few of you do.



Funny how you switched from "we" to "you".


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> And that in order to stop being triggered by the outside world we must first put right what is wrong with us.


That's just another vague platitude. It doesn't apply in all cases - for example, not everyone is actually bothered, or sorry, "triggered" by the things around them and secondly - there's a lot of things that can be fixed in society, externally, without any indication that something within has changed. 

There's utility in platitudes, but they're pretty far from being absolutes.


----------



## G.T.

Marion Morrison said:


> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.


I love you, bloo0o0od


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in the end we can choose to not transform ourselves and suffer the predictable surprises of our behaviors but we will continue to have our lessons brought back to us in until we do. The best many can hope for is to suffer without complaint. Something few of you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you switched from "we" to "you".
Click to expand...

More like sad.


----------



## Mindful

Marion Morrison said:


> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.



I think GT loves to hate = me.

(BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
Click to expand...

You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks. 

Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.


----------



## ding

I believe these exchanges were a perfect example of how much pleasure people get from hating. The thing is it can’t be maintained and it does not lead to happiness.


----------



## Moonglow

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
Click to expand...

She is a woman you should know better by now.


----------



## Marion Morrison

^ding just wishes he could feel emotion.


----------



## Moonglow

ding said:


> I believe these exchanges were a perfect example of how much pleasure people get from hating. The thing is it can’t be maintained and it does not lead to happiness.


people like you make it easy to hate...


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
Click to expand...


Should I put all that on my resume?


----------



## Marion Morrison

Moonglow said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
Click to expand...



One does not simply try to figure women out.


----------



## Mindful

Marion Morrison said:


> ^ding just wishes he could feel emotion.



Yet GT is riddled with paranoia, and imagining things which don't exist.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should I put all that on my resume?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you be retired by now? What the fuck.


----------



## Moonglow

Marion Morrison said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
Click to expand...

One simply learns to live without them..


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should I put all that on my resume?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shouldn't you be retired by now? What the fuck.
Click to expand...


You're trying every trick in the book. lmao.


----------



## G.T.

Marion Morrison said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
Click to expand...

When it's the wife, it's mutual respect. 
When it's a biddy unworthy of the D - the internetzz makes it easy to shut it down like Reagan sonning Gorbachev


----------



## Marion Morrison

Moonglow said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
Click to expand...


Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ding just wishes he could feel emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet GT is riddled with paranoia, and imagining things which don't exist.
Click to expand...

C'mon Mindful we all know you were a deletant to Khrushchev...


----------



## G.T.

Moonglow said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's apparent some like to hate and some argue just for the sake of argument with no passion.
> 
> And Others are G.T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
Click to expand...

That sounds too desolate man! Girls make good friends and lovers, it's the oddish psychotic thirsties that you need to worry about.


----------



## OldLady

Mindful said:


> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).


Just like tickles and pleasure travel on the same nerves as excruciating pain, hatred is a strong reaction to something we have come to experience in a negative light.   That negative light on a topic can be taught; it can be stumbled upon during a bad personal experience.  It can also, to a large extent, be controlled.  I think Mr. Hazlitt was having a REALLY bad day when he wrote the above.  How sad that he felt that way.  I would have made him an apple crisp and visited to talk about the good old days with him.  Sounds so depressed, doesn't he?


----------



## Moonglow

Marion Morrison said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.
Click to expand...

I do want a two income household while living alone..


----------



## Mindful

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ding just wishes he could feel emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet GT is riddled with paranoia, and imagining things which don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon Mindful we all know were a deletant to Khrushchev...
Click to expand...


Who's he? One of your fans?


----------



## Moonglow

G.T. said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds too desolate man! Girls make good friends and lovers, it's the oddish psychotic thirsties that you need to worry about.
Click to expand...

WTF do you mean they are all psychotic thirsties...


----------



## G.T.

Moonglow said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do want a two income household while living alone..
Click to expand...

Become a cam girl when you get home from work. Make sure you have a Patreon!


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ding just wishes he could feel emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet GT is riddled with paranoia, and imagining things which don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon Mindful we all know were a deletant to Khrushchev...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's he? One of your fans?
Click to expand...

I thought you had a brain?


----------



## Mindful

Marion Morrison said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think GT loves to hate = me.
> 
> (BTW, Marion, Tainant is going around stirring it up with his anti American crap.)
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.
Click to expand...


It was derailed from the start. Everyone on board with their personal hobby horses.


----------



## Mindful

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ding just wishes he could feel emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet GT is riddled with paranoia, and imagining things which don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon Mindful we all know were a deletant to Khrushchev...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's he? One of your fans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you had a brain?
Click to expand...


So did I. But the batteries ran out.


----------



## G.T.

Moonglow said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds too desolate man! Girls make good friends and lovers, it's the oddish psychotic thirsties that you need to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF do you mean they are all psychotic thirsties...
Click to expand...

A lot of them are thirsty, but they're not all Min..psychotic. 

Sometimes when I'm wondering about something at a traffic light, my wife utters the most brilliant solution I could ever fathom & it's good to have 4 eyes for any given issue than two. Albeit, I wear glasses sometimes.


----------



## Moonglow

Let go, learn to love the hate just like the idiots upstairs..


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ding just wishes he could feel emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet GT is riddled with paranoia, and imagining things which don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon Mindful we all know were a deletant to Khrushchev...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's he? One of your fans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you had a brain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So did I. But the batteries ran out.
Click to expand...

Mine corroded..And I have no nose since I kept it to the grindstone...


----------



## Mindful

Moonglow said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds too desolate man! Girls make good friends and lovers, it's the oddish psychotic thirsties that you need to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF do you mean they are all psychotic thirsties...
Click to expand...


Anyone he can't get his mind around. 

Sooooo old fashioned.


----------



## Moonglow

G.T. said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds too desolate man! Girls make good friends and lovers, it's the oddish psychotic thirsties that you need to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF do you mean they are all psychotic thirsties...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them are thirsty, but they're not all Min..psychotic.
> 
> Sometimes when I'm wondering about something at a traffic light, my wife utters the most brilliant solution I could ever fathom & it's good to have 4 eyes for any given issue than two. Albeit, I wear glasses sometimes.
Click to expand...

Well I will admit some get through the propaganda mills with some sense of reality..


----------



## Mindful

Moonglow said:


> Let go, learn to love the hate just like the idiots upstairs..



First honest post.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was derailed from the start. Everyone on board with their personal hobby horses.
Click to expand...

Your topic was being discussed and YOU derailed it with your psycho meta coy talk.

My first post addressed the topic directly. 

Ding addressed the topic directly.

You tried to derail everything and then when you got bored of THAT, you tried to control the WAY folks were discussing the topic and kept repeating to discuss "enjoyment."

You need to have some pills and a nap. Likely, some therapy.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds too desolate man! Girls make good friends and lovers, it's the oddish psychotic thirsties that you need to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF do you mean they are all psychotic thirsties...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone he can't get his mind around.
> 
> Sooooo old fashioned.
Click to expand...

At least the women at my age don't think they are a princess anymore if they do they are in a nursing home..


----------



## G.T.

Moonglow said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> 
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds too desolate man! Girls make good friends and lovers, it's the oddish psychotic thirsties that you need to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF do you mean they are all psychotic thirsties...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them are thirsty, but they're not all Min..psychotic.
> 
> Sometimes when I'm wondering about something at a traffic light, my wife utters the most brilliant solution I could ever fathom & it's good to have 4 eyes for any given issue than two. Albeit, I wear glasses sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I will admit some get through the propaganda mills with some sense of reality..
Click to expand...

There are zero issues of Cosmo in my Bathroom.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let go, learn to love the hate just like the idiots upstairs..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First honest post.
Click to expand...

I would never shit you my dear,,,,You are my favorite turd.


----------



## Mindful

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet GT is riddled with paranoia, and imagining things which don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon Mindful we all know were a deletant to Khrushchev...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's he? One of your fans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you had a brain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So did I. But the batteries ran out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mine corroded..And I have no nose since I kept it to the grindstone...
Click to expand...


Well; you can always use your other one.


----------



## Moonglow

G.T. said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds too desolate man! Girls make good friends and lovers, it's the oddish psychotic thirsties that you need to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF do you mean they are all psychotic thirsties...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them are thirsty, but they're not all Min..psychotic.
> 
> Sometimes when I'm wondering about something at a traffic light, my wife utters the most brilliant solution I could ever fathom & it's good to have 4 eyes for any given issue than two. Albeit, I wear glasses sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I will admit some get through the propaganda mills with some sense of reality..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are zero issues of Cosmo in my Bathroom.
Click to expand...

I started reading it in the 1970's when all they were interested in was being bimbo's.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon Mindful we all know were a deletant to Khrushchev...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's he? One of your fans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you had a brain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So did I. But the batteries ran out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mine corroded..And I have no nose since I kept it to the grindstone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well; you can always use your other one.
Click to expand...

That's a vacuum inlet for cocaine.


----------



## G.T.

Moonglow said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds too desolate man! Girls make good friends and lovers, it's the oddish psychotic thirsties that you need to worry about.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do you mean they are all psychotic thirsties...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them are thirsty, but they're not all Min..psychotic.
> 
> Sometimes when I'm wondering about something at a traffic light, my wife utters the most brilliant solution I could ever fathom & it's good to have 4 eyes for any given issue than two. Albeit, I wear glasses sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I will admit some get through the propaganda mills with some sense of reality..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are zero issues of Cosmo in my Bathroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I started reading it in the 1970's when all they were interested in was being bimbo's.
Click to expand...

was that when cindy crawford brought the mole back in style?


----------



## Moonglow

I love the cynical vindictive culture humans employ..


----------



## Moonglow

G.T. said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do you mean they are all psychotic thirsties...
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of them are thirsty, but they're not all Min..psychotic.
> 
> Sometimes when I'm wondering about something at a traffic light, my wife utters the most brilliant solution I could ever fathom & it's good to have 4 eyes for any given issue than two. Albeit, I wear glasses sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I will admit some get through the propaganda mills with some sense of reality..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are zero issues of Cosmo in my Bathroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I started reading it in the 1970's when all they were interested in was being bimbo's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was that when cindy crawford brought the mole back in style?
Click to expand...

Yes, we all thought she was French..


----------



## Moonglow

The best hate is the hate fuck simply exhilarating, at my age deadly as it may cause heart failure.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was derailed from the start. Everyone on board with their personal hobby horses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your topic was being discussed and YOU derailed it with your psycho meta coy talk.
> 
> My first post addressed the topic directly.
> 
> Ding addressed the topic directly.
> 
> You tried to derail everything and then when you got bored of THAT, you tried to control the WAY folks were discussing the topic and kept repeating to discuss "enjoyment."
> 
> You need to have some pills and a nap. Likely, some therapy.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't watch American daytime TV. From where you must have been spawned.

You're very primitive, my dear.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> 
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was derailed from the start. Everyone on board with their personal hobby horses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your topic was being discussed and YOU derailed it with your psycho meta coy talk.
> 
> My first post addressed the topic directly.
> 
> Ding addressed the topic directly.
> 
> You tried to derail everything and then when you got bored of THAT, you tried to control the WAY folks were discussing the topic and kept repeating to discuss "enjoyment."
> 
> You need to have some pills and a nap. Likely, some therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't watch American daytime TV. From where you must have been spawned.
> 
> You're very primitive, my dear.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're intelligent enough to be making these sorts of determinations. No offense.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was derailed from the start. Everyone on board with their personal hobby horses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your topic was being discussed and YOU derailed it with your psycho meta coy talk.
> 
> My first post addressed the topic directly.
> 
> Ding addressed the topic directly.
> 
> You tried to derail everything and then when you got bored of THAT, you tried to control the WAY folks were discussing the topic and kept repeating to discuss "enjoyment."
> 
> You need to have some pills and a nap. Likely, some therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't watch American daytime TV. From where you must have been spawned.
> 
> You're very primitive, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you're intelligent enough to be making these sorts of determinations. No offense.
Click to expand...


Taken on the chin.

Next....


----------



## Moonglow

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was derailed from the start. Everyone on board with their personal hobby horses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your topic was being discussed and YOU derailed it with your psycho meta coy talk.
> 
> My first post addressed the topic directly.
> 
> Ding addressed the topic directly.
> 
> You tried to derail everything and then when you got bored of THAT, you tried to control the WAY folks were discussing the topic and kept repeating to discuss "enjoyment."
> 
> You need to have some pills and a nap. Likely, some therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't watch American daytime TV. From where you must have been spawned.
> 
> You're very primitive, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you're intelligent enough to be making these sorts of determinations. No offense.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking at least twelve years old.


----------



## Mindful

Have to leave, guys.

Sure you can manage?


----------



## Mindful

Moonglow said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was derailed from the start. Everyone on board with their personal hobby horses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your topic was being discussed and YOU derailed it with your psycho meta coy talk.
> 
> My first post addressed the topic directly.
> 
> Ding addressed the topic directly.
> 
> You tried to derail everything and then when you got bored of THAT, you tried to control the WAY folks were discussing the topic and kept repeating to discuss "enjoyment."
> 
> You need to have some pills and a nap. Likely, some therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't watch American daytime TV. From where you must have been spawned.
> 
> You're very primitive, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you're intelligent enough to be making these sorts of determinations. No offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm thinking at least twelve years old.
Click to expand...


How many times have I told you, 89.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was derailed from the start. Everyone on board with their personal hobby horses.
> 
> 
> 
> Your topic was being discussed and YOU derailed it with your psycho meta coy talk.
> 
> My first post addressed the topic directly.
> 
> Ding addressed the topic directly.
> 
> You tried to derail everything and then when you got bored of THAT, you tried to control the WAY folks were discussing the topic and kept repeating to discuss "enjoyment."
> 
> You need to have some pills and a nap. Likely, some therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't watch American daytime TV. From where you must have been spawned.
> 
> You're very primitive, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you're intelligent enough to be making these sorts of determinations. No offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm thinking at least twelve years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I told you, 89.
Click to expand...

Months?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me yesterday for talking about morality in your morality thread. You take it so deep and say such disturbing things that I have to rather HOPE you're not some obsessive. You tried to CONTROL the discussion, you bickered and neenered about little things that didn't matter - and then you tried to tell others they were bickerers and control freaks.
> 
> Howe the fuck do you consider yourself a sensible person would be something for the library of Alexandria.
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was derailed from the start. Everyone on board with their personal hobby horses.
Click to expand...

That’s bullshit.


----------



## Moonglow

Ding is here time to leave..


----------



## ding

Marion Morrison said:


> ^ding just wishes he could feel emotion.


Actually I wish you weren’t so emotional.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman you should know better by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One does not simply try to figure women out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One simply learns to live without them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not derail this thread. It appears you like to hate certain aspects of co-habitating with women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was derailed from the start. Everyone on board with their personal hobby horses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your topic was being discussed and YOU derailed it with your psycho meta coy talk.
> 
> My first post addressed the topic directly.
> 
> Ding addressed the topic directly.
> 
> You tried to derail everything and then when you got bored of THAT, you tried to control the WAY folks were discussing the topic and kept repeating to discuss "enjoyment."
> 
> You need to have some pills and a nap. Likely, some therapy.
Click to expand...

You were more than happy to derail the discussion.


----------



## OldLady

OP isn't interested in talking about Hazlitt, I guess.  Is it because I haven't got balls or was it the apple crisp?


----------



## Moonglow

OldLady said:


> OP isn't interested in talking about Hazlitt, I guess.  Is it because I haven't got balls or was it the apple crisp?


Try an apple crisp with balls next time hater!..(shave the balls first)


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> OP isn't interested in talking about Hazlitt, I guess.  Is it because I haven't got balls or was it the apple crisp?


It's because she'd rather engage in petty little meta than discuss topics in a rational way. That's why I don't hesitate to feed back anyone's bullshit with equal to or more improved bullshit. Like cowshit with a Ruby inside of it.


----------



## OldLady

I hated a supervisor once.  Only time I can think of that I would have gladly run over a human being if I saw her walking on the side of the road.  Good thing she didn't live around here.  It was not at all a pleasurable experience, though.

It sounds like Hazlitt believes hatred is somehow more powerful than all the good stuff our minds and emotions create, that it somehow undermines and defeats everything good.  I don't see it that way.  I don't think the Good Guys always win and I don't think hate isn't powerful, but it's more a yin and yang thing, imo.  Both sides will always be pushing the other, trying to encroach on the other's territory, but neither side ever actually wins.  Small battles, maybe, but never the War.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ding just wishes he could feel emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I wish you weren’t so emotional.
Click to expand...


I wish you were.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP isn't interested in talking about Hazlitt, I guess.  Is it because I haven't got balls or was it the apple crisp?
> 
> 
> 
> It's because she'd rather engage in petty little meta than discuss topics in a rational way. That's why I don't hesitate to feed back anyone's bullshit with equal to or more improved bullshit. Like cowshit with a Ruby inside of it.
Click to expand...


Do you come here often?

We can't go on meeting this way.


----------



## ding

Moonglow said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe these exchanges were a perfect example of how much pleasure people get from hating. The thing is it can’t be maintained and it does not lead to happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> people like you make it easy to hate...
Click to expand...

And little red riding hood said, “my what a big external locus of control you have.”


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ding just wishes he could feel emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I wish you weren’t so emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you were.
Click to expand...

Seek balance in all things. It’s the only thing you can’t have too much of.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was derailed from the start. Everyone on board with their personal hobby horses.
> 
> 
> 
> Your topic was being discussed and YOU derailed it with your psycho meta coy talk.
> 
> My first post addressed the topic directly.
> 
> Ding addressed the topic directly.
> 
> You tried to derail everything and then when you got bored of THAT, you tried to control the WAY folks were discussing the topic and kept repeating to discuss "enjoyment."
> 
> You need to have some pills and a nap. Likely, some therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't watch American daytime TV. From where you must have been spawned.
> 
> You're very primitive, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you're intelligent enough to be making these sorts of determinations. No offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm thinking at least twelve years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I told you, 89.
Click to expand...

Most women say they are younger than they actually are. How old are you really?


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your topic was being discussed and YOU derailed it with your psycho meta coy talk.
> 
> My first post addressed the topic directly.
> 
> Ding addressed the topic directly.
> 
> You tried to derail everything and then when you got bored of THAT, you tried to control the WAY folks were discussing the topic and kept repeating to discuss "enjoyment."
> 
> You need to have some pills and a nap. Likely, some therapy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't watch American daytime TV. From where you must have been spawned.
> 
> You're very primitive, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you're intelligent enough to be making these sorts of determinations. No offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm thinking at least twelve years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I told you, 89.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most women say they are younger than they actually are. How old are you really?
Click to expand...


98.


----------



## Marion Morrison

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your topic was being discussed and YOU derailed it with your psycho meta coy talk.
> 
> My first post addressed the topic directly.
> 
> Ding addressed the topic directly.
> 
> You tried to derail everything and then when you got bored of THAT, you tried to control the WAY folks were discussing the topic and kept repeating to discuss "enjoyment."
> 
> You need to have some pills and a nap. Likely, some therapy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't watch American daytime TV. From where you must have been spawned.
> 
> You're very primitive, my dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you're intelligent enough to be making these sorts of determinations. No offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm thinking at least twelve years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I told you, 89.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most women say they are younger than they actually are. How old are you really?
Click to expand...


Gentlemen say it's not polite to ask a lady her age.


----------



## Mindful

Marion Morrison said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't watch American daytime TV. From where you must have been spawned.
> 
> You're very primitive, my dear.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you're intelligent enough to be making these sorts of determinations. No offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm thinking at least twelve years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I told you, 89.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most women say they are younger than they actually are. How old are you really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gentlemen say it's not polite to ask a lady her age.
Click to expand...


Gentlemen? Polite? 

Here?


----------



## Mindful

Convolute this, *Ding.


Wouldn’t it be fantastic if you woke up one morning to find all your problems with your partner had disappeared? Instead of arguing, criticising or ignoring each other, you could just get on with being happy together.

Relationship theory has been dominated by the premise that when we fight, it is because we lack the skills or insight required to resolve conflict. But what if it’s not that we don’t know how to get along – we just don’t want to?

This is the view of Dr David Burns, psychiatrist and author of Feeling Good Together (Vermilion, £11.99). ‘Many couples I counsel aren’t interested in change,’ he claims. ‘They’re more interested in bashing each other’s heads in.’ The reason, he says, is that our ego competes with our ability to live harmoniously. Think of someone you don’t get along with. Now imagine you can press a button to transform your interaction into a close, caring and supportive friendship. Fancy it? Not many people do.

‘Sometimes we just don’t want to get close to the person we’re at odds with,’ says Burns. He gives his own example of a hostile colleague: ‘A close relationship with him is the last thing I want. What I need is for him to admit how self-centred he is.’

He believes this ‘joy in hostility’ is rooted in the animal side of human nature we seek to suppress. In order to improve our relationships, we have to focus on changing ourselves – not the other person. ‘You are 100 per cent of the problem, just as they are,’ says Burns. ‘The moment you change, the other person will change too. You can’t not change someone else: everything you say and do impacts on the behaviour of those around you. Ultimately, you need to ask yourself, “What do I want more: the rewards of battle or the rewards of a close, loving relationship?”’

The 12 causes of conflict:

Why we secretly love to hate


*


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> Convolute this, *Ding.
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be fantastic if you woke up one morning to find all your problems with your partner had disappeared? Instead of arguing, criticising or ignoring each other, you could just get on with being happy together.
> 
> Relationship theory has been dominated by the premise that when we fight, it is because we lack the skills or insight required to resolve conflict. But what if it’s not that we don’t know how to get along – we just don’t want to?
> 
> This is the view of Dr David Burns, psychiatrist and author of Feeling Good Together (Vermilion, £11.99). ‘Many couples I counsel aren’t interested in change,’ he claims. ‘They’re more interested in bashing each other’s heads in.’ The reason, he says, is that our ego competes with our ability to live harmoniously. Think of someone you don’t get along with. Now imagine you can press a button to transform your interaction into a close, caring and supportive friendship. Fancy it? Not many people do.
> 
> ‘Sometimes we just don’t want to get close to the person we’re at odds with,’ says Burns. He gives his own example of a hostile colleague: ‘A close relationship with him is the last thing I want. What I need is for him to admit how self-centred he is.’
> 
> He believes this ‘joy in hostility’ is rooted in the animal side of human nature we seek to suppress. In order to improve our relationships, we have to focus on changing ourselves – not the other person. ‘You are 100 per cent of the problem, just as they are,’ says Burns. ‘The moment you change, the other person will change too. You can’t not change someone else: everything you say and do impacts on the behaviour of those around you. Ultimately, you need to ask yourself, “What do I want more: the rewards of battle or the rewards of a close, loving relationship?”’
> 
> The 12 causes of conflict:
> 
> Why we secretly love to hate
> 
> *


Isn’t that what I have been saying?


----------



## ding

Marion Morrison said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't watch American daytime TV. From where you must have been spawned.
> 
> You're very primitive, my dear.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you're intelligent enough to be making these sorts of determinations. No offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm thinking at least twelve years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I told you, 89.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most women say they are younger than they actually are. How old are you really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gentlemen say it's not polite to ask a lady her age.
Click to expand...

I’m no gentlemen.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Convolute this, *Ding.
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be fantastic if you woke up one morning to find all your problems with your partner had disappeared? Instead of arguing, criticising or ignoring each other, you could just get on with being happy together.
> 
> Relationship theory has been dominated by the premise that when we fight, it is because we lack the skills or insight required to resolve conflict. But what if it’s not that we don’t know how to get along – we just don’t want to?
> 
> This is the view of Dr David Burns, psychiatrist and author of Feeling Good Together (Vermilion, £11.99). ‘Many couples I counsel aren’t interested in change,’ he claims. ‘They’re more interested in bashing each other’s heads in.’ The reason, he says, is that our ego competes with our ability to live harmoniously. Think of someone you don’t get along with. Now imagine you can press a button to transform your interaction into a close, caring and supportive friendship. Fancy it? Not many people do.
> 
> ‘Sometimes we just don’t want to get close to the person we’re at odds with,’ says Burns. He gives his own example of a hostile colleague: ‘A close relationship with him is the last thing I want. What I need is for him to admit how self-centred he is.’
> 
> He believes this ‘joy in hostility’ is rooted in the animal side of human nature we seek to suppress. In order to improve our relationships, we have to focus on changing ourselves – not the other person. ‘You are 100 per cent of the problem, just as they are,’ says Burns. ‘The moment you change, the other person will change too. You can’t not change someone else: everything you say and do impacts on the behaviour of those around you. Ultimately, you need to ask yourself, “What do I want more: the rewards of battle or the rewards of a close, loving relationship?”’
> 
> The 12 causes of conflict:
> 
> Why we secretly love to hate
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t that what I have been saying?
Click to expand...


Let's see you doing it.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Convolute this, *Ding.
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be fantastic if you woke up one morning to find all your problems with your partner had disappeared? Instead of arguing, criticising or ignoring each other, you could just get on with being happy together.
> 
> Relationship theory has been dominated by the premise that when we fight, it is because we lack the skills or insight required to resolve conflict. But what if it’s not that we don’t know how to get along – we just don’t want to?
> 
> This is the view of Dr David Burns, psychiatrist and author of Feeling Good Together (Vermilion, £11.99). ‘Many couples I counsel aren’t interested in change,’ he claims. ‘They’re more interested in bashing each other’s heads in.’ The reason, he says, is that our ego competes with our ability to live harmoniously. Think of someone you don’t get along with. Now imagine you can press a button to transform your interaction into a close, caring and supportive friendship. Fancy it? Not many people do.
> 
> ‘Sometimes we just don’t want to get close to the person we’re at odds with,’ says Burns. He gives his own example of a hostile colleague: ‘A close relationship with him is the last thing I want. What I need is for him to admit how self-centred he is.’
> 
> He believes this ‘joy in hostility’ is rooted in the animal side of human nature we seek to suppress. In order to improve our relationships, we have to focus on changing ourselves – not the other person. ‘You are 100 per cent of the problem, just as they are,’ says Burns. ‘The moment you change, the other person will change too. You can’t not change someone else: everything you say and do impacts on the behaviour of those around you. Ultimately, you need to ask yourself, “What do I want more: the rewards of battle or the rewards of a close, loving relationship?”’
> 
> The 12 causes of conflict:
> 
> Why we secretly love to hate
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t that what I have been saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see you doing it.
Click to expand...

I already have.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Convolute this, *Ding.
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be fantastic if you woke up one morning to find all your problems with your partner had disappeared? Instead of arguing, criticising or ignoring each other, you could just get on with being happy together.
> 
> Relationship theory has been dominated by the premise that when we fight, it is because we lack the skills or insight required to resolve conflict. But what if it’s not that we don’t know how to get along – we just don’t want to?
> 
> This is the view of Dr David Burns, psychiatrist and author of Feeling Good Together (Vermilion, £11.99). ‘Many couples I counsel aren’t interested in change,’ he claims. ‘They’re more interested in bashing each other’s heads in.’ The reason, he says, is that our ego competes with our ability to live harmoniously. Think of someone you don’t get along with. Now imagine you can press a button to transform your interaction into a close, caring and supportive friendship. Fancy it? Not many people do.
> 
> ‘Sometimes we just don’t want to get close to the person we’re at odds with,’ says Burns. He gives his own example of a hostile colleague: ‘A close relationship with him is the last thing I want. What I need is for him to admit how self-centred he is.’
> 
> He believes this ‘joy in hostility’ is rooted in the animal side of human nature we seek to suppress. In order to improve our relationships, we have to focus on changing ourselves – not the other person. ‘You are 100 per cent of the problem, just as they are,’ says Burns. ‘The moment you change, the other person will change too. You can’t not change someone else: everything you say and do impacts on the behaviour of those around you. Ultimately, you need to ask yourself, “What do I want more: the rewards of battle or the rewards of a close, loving relationship?”’
> 
> The 12 causes of conflict:
> 
> Why we secretly love to hate
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t that what I have been saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see you doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already have.
Click to expand...


Where?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Convolute this, *Ding.
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be fantastic if you woke up one morning to find all your problems with your partner had disappeared? Instead of arguing, criticising or ignoring each other, you could just get on with being happy together.
> 
> Relationship theory has been dominated by the premise that when we fight, it is because we lack the skills or insight required to resolve conflict. But what if it’s not that we don’t know how to get along – we just don’t want to?
> 
> This is the view of Dr David Burns, psychiatrist and author of Feeling Good Together (Vermilion, £11.99). ‘Many couples I counsel aren’t interested in change,’ he claims. ‘They’re more interested in bashing each other’s heads in.’ The reason, he says, is that our ego competes with our ability to live harmoniously. Think of someone you don’t get along with. Now imagine you can press a button to transform your interaction into a close, caring and supportive friendship. Fancy it? Not many people do.
> 
> ‘Sometimes we just don’t want to get close to the person we’re at odds with,’ says Burns. He gives his own example of a hostile colleague: ‘A close relationship with him is the last thing I want. What I need is for him to admit how self-centred he is.’
> 
> He believes this ‘joy in hostility’ is rooted in the animal side of human nature we seek to suppress. In order to improve our relationships, we have to focus on changing ourselves – not the other person. ‘You are 100 per cent of the problem, just as they are,’ says Burns. ‘The moment you change, the other person will change too. You can’t not change someone else: everything you say and do impacts on the behaviour of those around you. Ultimately, you need to ask yourself, “What do I want more: the rewards of battle or the rewards of a close, loving relationship?”’
> 
> The 12 causes of conflict:
> 
> Why we secretly love to hate
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t that what I have been saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see you doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where?
Click to expand...

More like when.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Convolute this, *Ding.
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t it be fantastic if you woke up one morning to find all your problems with your partner had disappeared? Instead of arguing, criticising or ignoring each other, you could just get on with being happy together.
> 
> Relationship theory has been dominated by the premise that when we fight, it is because we lack the skills or insight required to resolve conflict. But what if it’s not that we don’t know how to get along – we just don’t want to?
> 
> This is the view of Dr David Burns, psychiatrist and author of Feeling Good Together (Vermilion, £11.99). ‘Many couples I counsel aren’t interested in change,’ he claims. ‘They’re more interested in bashing each other’s heads in.’ The reason, he says, is that our ego competes with our ability to live harmoniously. Think of someone you don’t get along with. Now imagine you can press a button to transform your interaction into a close, caring and supportive friendship. Fancy it? Not many people do.
> 
> ‘Sometimes we just don’t want to get close to the person we’re at odds with,’ says Burns. He gives his own example of a hostile colleague: ‘A close relationship with him is the last thing I want. What I need is for him to admit how self-centred he is.’
> 
> He believes this ‘joy in hostility’ is rooted in the animal side of human nature we seek to suppress. In order to improve our relationships, we have to focus on changing ourselves – not the other person. ‘You are 100 per cent of the problem, just as they are,’ says Burns. ‘The moment you change, the other person will change too. You can’t not change someone else: everything you say and do impacts on the behaviour of those around you. Ultimately, you need to ask yourself, “What do I want more: the rewards of battle or the rewards of a close, loving relationship?”’
> 
> The 12 causes of conflict:
> 
> Why we secretly love to hate
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t that what I have been saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see you doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like when.
Click to expand...


Are you going to carry on like this?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t that what I have been saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see you doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like when.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to carry on like this?
Click to expand...

It depends if you are going to continue asking irrelevant questions.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see you doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like when.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to carry on like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends if you are going to continue asking irrelevant questions.
Click to expand...


Whatever they are, you keep answering them.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like when.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to carry on like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends if you are going to continue asking irrelevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever they are, you keep answering them.
Click to expand...

Yes, but do you like the answers?

I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where?
> 
> 
> 
> More like when.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to carry on like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends if you are going to continue asking irrelevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever they are, you keep answering them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but do you like the answers?
> 
> I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.
Click to expand...


Did you ever see those movies?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> More like when.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to carry on like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends if you are going to continue asking irrelevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever they are, you keep answering them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but do you like the answers?
> 
> I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
Click to expand...

What movies?

Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to carry on like this?
> 
> 
> 
> It depends if you are going to continue asking irrelevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever they are, you keep answering them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but do you like the answers?
> 
> I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
Click to expand...


The Carry On movies.

On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends if you are going to continue asking irrelevant questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever they are, you keep answering them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but do you like the answers?
> 
> I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
Click to expand...

Nope. I have never seen The Carry On movies. 

You might be surprised what I would get. I’m surprised by how many assumptions people are willing to make.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever they are, you keep answering them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but do you like the answers?
> 
> I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. I have never seen The Carry On movies.
> 
> You might be surprised what I would get. I’m surprised by how many assumptions people are willing to make.
Click to expand...


I'm not.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends if you are going to continue asking irrelevant questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever they are, you keep answering them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but do you like the answers?
> 
> I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
Click to expand...

So what do you think about my assertion (God forbid I use the term argument) that we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves and that if we fix the problems with ourselves we will hate less what we see in the world around us?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but do you like the answers?
> 
> I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. I have never seen The Carry On movies.
> 
> You might be surprised what I would get. I’m surprised by how many assumptions people are willing to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not.
Click to expand...

What?  Surprised that people make so many assumptions?  

You do know you are bad about that, right?


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever they are, you keep answering them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but do you like the answers?
> 
> I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what do you think about my assertion (God forbid I use the term argument) that we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves and that if we fix the problems with ourselves we will hate less what we see in the world around us?
Click to expand...


Could well be. In some instances. I've not given it much thought.

But I've just been given a book, 'The Psychology of Self Deception'. Maybe I'll come across the notion in there.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
> 
> 
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. I have never seen The Carry On movies.
> 
> You might be surprised what I would get. I’m surprised by how many assumptions people are willing to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?  Surprised that people make so many assumptions?
> 
> You do know you are bad about that, right?
Click to expand...


Now you are making an assumption.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever they are, you keep answering them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but do you like the answers?
> 
> I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what do you think about my assertion (God forbid I use the term argument) that we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves and that if we fix the problems with ourselves we will hate less what we see in the world around us?
Click to expand...

The assertion is absurd, if youre a caring parent.

If youre a parent, typically the folks youd hate the most are folks that seek to do harm to children.

Thats what I personally hate the MOST, and its certainly not within myself as a trait to seek to harm children.

What do you think you hate the most in others? Murder, rape, lying - molestation?

I wouldnt accuse you of those. 

Thats what I personally think of your assertion.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but do you like the answers?
> 
> I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what do you think about my assertion (God forbid I use the term argument) that we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves and that if we fix the problems with ourselves we will hate less what we see in the world around us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could well be. In some instances. I've not given it much thought.
> 
> But I've just been given a book, 'The Psychology of Self Deception'. Maybe I'll come across the notion in there.
Click to expand...

T.S. Elliot touched on this point, albeit obliquely, in his novel The Cocktail Party. 

It’s a very powerful concept that allows one to take back control.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. I have never seen The Carry On movies.
> 
> You might be surprised what I would get. I’m surprised by how many assumptions people are willing to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?  Surprised that people make so many assumptions?
> 
> You do know you are bad about that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are making an assumption.
Click to expand...

No. It’s an observation.  Would you like me to explain?


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I have never seen The Carry On movies.
> 
> You might be surprised what I would get. I’m surprised by how many assumptions people are willing to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?  Surprised that people make so many assumptions?
> 
> You do know you are bad about that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are making an assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It’s an observation.  Would you like me to explain?
Click to expand...


Not really. I'm fading away, it's past my bedtime; and I can't give you my undivided attention.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I have never seen The Carry On movies.
> 
> You might be surprised what I would get. I’m surprised by how many assumptions people are willing to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?  Surprised that people make so many assumptions?
> 
> You do know you are bad about that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are making an assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It’s an observation.  Would you like me to explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. I'm fading away, it's past my bedtime; and I can't give you my undivided attention.
Click to expand...

Well... you are 98 years old.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Surprised that people make so many assumptions?
> 
> You do know you are bad about that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are making an assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It’s an observation.  Would you like me to explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. I'm fading away, it's past my bedtime; and I can't give you my undivided attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... you are 98 years old.
Click to expand...


If that helps you.

Do you expect me to stay up all night, just for you?


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but do you like the answers?
> 
> I can carry on like this as long as you can carry on like that. The choice is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what do you think about my assertion (God forbid I use the term argument) that we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves and that if we fix the problems with ourselves we will hate less what we see in the world around us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assertion is absurd, if youre a caring parent.
> 
> If youre a parent, typically the folks youd hate the most are folks that seek to do harm to children.
> 
> Thats what I personally hate the MOST, and its certainly not within myself as a trait to seek to harm children.
> 
> What do you think you hate the most in others? Murder, rape, lying - molestation?
> 
> I wouldnt accuse you of those.
> 
> Thats what I personally think of your assertion.
Click to expand...

It’s not really me you are disagreeing with it’s Marian Keyes and Carl Jung you are disagreeing with. I just happen to agree with them. 

Why It’s Important To Understand That We Hate Others For What We Hate About Ourselves

Furthermore, devaluing others makes us feel better. It’s the dunning effect all over again. 

We See in Others What We Fear in Ourselves

So I can easily see why it is easy to hate others. But I don’t see how it is productive or helpful. I think it is detrimental.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Surprised that people make so many assumptions?
> 
> You do know you are bad about that, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are making an assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It’s an observation.  Would you like me to explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. I'm fading away, it's past my bedtime; and I can't give you my undivided attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... you are 98 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that helps you.
> 
> Do you expect me to stay up all night, just for you?
Click to expand...

That stick of yours is buried deep.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are making an assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It’s an observation.  Would you like me to explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. I'm fading away, it's past my bedtime; and I can't give you my undivided attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... you are 98 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that helps you.
> 
> Do you expect me to stay up all night, just for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That stick of yours is buried deep.
Click to expand...


You're so unkind.


----------



## ding

“If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.”  Hermann Hesse


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It’s an observation.  Would you like me to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. I'm fading away, it's past my bedtime; and I can't give you my undivided attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... you are 98 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that helps you.
> 
> Do you expect me to stay up all night, just for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That stick of yours is buried deep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so unkind.
Click to expand...

Sometimes.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It’s an observation.  Would you like me to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. I'm fading away, it's past my bedtime; and I can't give you my undivided attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well... you are 98 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that helps you.
> 
> Do you expect me to stay up all night, just for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That stick of yours is buried deep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so unkind.
Click to expand...

I was literally making a joke that I thought you would find funny. But instead you made an assumption which was skewed by your perception of me.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> “If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.”  Hermann Hesse



So because Herman Hesse says it.......


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> “If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.”  Hermann Hesse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because Herman Hesse says it.......
Click to expand...

No. Because it is true. 

But if you don’t want to believe it then don’t.   But in my opinion you would be missing out on a very powerful tool. According to Karl Jung, “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever see those movies?
> 
> 
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what do you think about my assertion (God forbid I use the term argument) that we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves and that if we fix the problems with ourselves we will hate less what we see in the world around us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assertion is absurd, if youre a caring parent.
> 
> If youre a parent, typically the folks youd hate the most are folks that seek to do harm to children.
> 
> Thats what I personally hate the MOST, and its certainly not within myself as a trait to seek to harm children.
> 
> What do you think you hate the most in others? Murder, rape, lying - molestation?
> 
> I wouldnt accuse you of those.
> 
> Thats what I personally think of your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not really me you are disagreeing with it’s Marian Keyes and Carl Jung you are disagreeing with. I just happen to agree with them.
> 
> Why It’s Important To Understand That We Hate Others For What We Hate About Ourselves
> 
> Furthermore, devaluing others makes us feel better. It’s the dunning effect all over again.
> 
> We See in Others What We Fear in Ourselves
> 
> So I can easily see why it is easy to hate others. But I don’t see how it is productive or helpful. I think it is detrimental.
Click to expand...

I made points. Instead of addressing them directly, you made 2 non sequiturs.

If its not ok to disagree with your, or their, idea - cool bro.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What movies?
> 
> Please don’t have a cow because I asked another clarifying question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what do you think about my assertion (God forbid I use the term argument) that we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves and that if we fix the problems with ourselves we will hate less what we see in the world around us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assertion is absurd, if youre a caring parent.
> 
> If youre a parent, typically the folks youd hate the most are folks that seek to do harm to children.
> 
> Thats what I personally hate the MOST, and its certainly not within myself as a trait to seek to harm children.
> 
> What do you think you hate the most in others? Murder, rape, lying - molestation?
> 
> I wouldnt accuse you of those.
> 
> Thats what I personally think of your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not really me you are disagreeing with it’s Marian Keyes and Carl Jung you are disagreeing with. I just happen to agree with them.
> 
> Why It’s Important To Understand That We Hate Others For What We Hate About Ourselves
> 
> Furthermore, devaluing others makes us feel better. It’s the dunning effect all over again.
> 
> We See in Others What We Fear in Ourselves
> 
> So I can easily see why it is easy to hate others. But I don’t see how it is productive or helpful. I think it is detrimental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made points. Instead of addressing them directly, you made 2 non sequiturs.
> 
> If its not ok to disagree with your, or their, idea - cool bro.
Click to expand...

I don’t have to address your points to validate mine.

Like I told the OP, if you don’t want to believe that what we hate in others is what we hate about ourselves, then don’t.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Carry On movies.
> 
> On second thoughts, you wouldn't get the humour.
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you think about my assertion (God forbid I use the term argument) that we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves and that if we fix the problems with ourselves we will hate less what we see in the world around us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assertion is absurd, if youre a caring parent.
> 
> If youre a parent, typically the folks youd hate the most are folks that seek to do harm to children.
> 
> Thats what I personally hate the MOST, and its certainly not within myself as a trait to seek to harm children.
> 
> What do you think you hate the most in others? Murder, rape, lying - molestation?
> 
> I wouldnt accuse you of those.
> 
> Thats what I personally think of your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not really me you are disagreeing with it’s Marian Keyes and Carl Jung you are disagreeing with. I just happen to agree with them.
> 
> Why It’s Important To Understand That We Hate Others For What We Hate About Ourselves
> 
> Furthermore, devaluing others makes us feel better. It’s the dunning effect all over again.
> 
> We See in Others What We Fear in Ourselves
> 
> So I can easily see why it is easy to hate others. But I don’t see how it is productive or helpful. I think it is detrimental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made points. Instead of addressing them directly, you made 2 non sequiturs.
> 
> If its not ok to disagree with your, or their, idea - cool bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t have to address your points to validate mine.
Click to expand...

My points invalidated yours. Thats the issue.

I dont hate "most" in me my desire to hate children.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> “If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.”  Hermann Hesse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because Herman Hesse says it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Because it is true.
> 
> But if you don’t want to believe it then don’t.   But in my opinion you would be missing out on a very powerful tool. According to Karl Jung, “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
Click to expand...


You're impossible to deal with.

You make assertions on non assertions.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> “If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.”  Hermann Hesse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because Herman Hesse says it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Because it is true.
> 
> But if you don’t want to believe it then don’t.   But in my opinion you would be missing out on a very powerful tool. According to Karl Jung, “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're impossible to deal with.
> 
> You make assertions on non assertions.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you looking for from me?


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you think about my assertion (God forbid I use the term argument) that we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves and that if we fix the problems with ourselves we will hate less what we see in the world around us?
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion is absurd, if youre a caring parent.
> 
> If youre a parent, typically the folks youd hate the most are folks that seek to do harm to children.
> 
> Thats what I personally hate the MOST, and its certainly not within myself as a trait to seek to harm children.
> 
> What do you think you hate the most in others? Murder, rape, lying - molestation?
> 
> I wouldnt accuse you of those.
> 
> Thats what I personally think of your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not really me you are disagreeing with it’s Marian Keyes and Carl Jung you are disagreeing with. I just happen to agree with them.
> 
> Why It’s Important To Understand That We Hate Others For What We Hate About Ourselves
> 
> Furthermore, devaluing others makes us feel better. It’s the dunning effect all over again.
> 
> We See in Others What We Fear in Ourselves
> 
> So I can easily see why it is easy to hate others. But I don’t see how it is productive or helpful. I think it is detrimental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made points. Instead of addressing them directly, you made 2 non sequiturs.
> 
> If its not ok to disagree with your, or their, idea - cool bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t have to address your points to validate mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My points invalidated yours. Thats the issue.
> 
> I dont hate "most" in me my desire to hate children.
Click to expand...

If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> “If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.”  Hermann Hesse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because Herman Hesse says it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Because it is true.
> 
> But if you don’t want to believe it then don’t.   But in my opinion you would be missing out on a very powerful tool. According to Karl Jung, “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're impossible to deal with.
> 
> You make assertions on non assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What exactly are you looking for from me?
Click to expand...


I'm not looking.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion is absurd, if youre a caring parent.
> 
> If youre a parent, typically the folks youd hate the most are folks that seek to do harm to children.
> 
> Thats what I personally hate the MOST, and its certainly not within myself as a trait to seek to harm children.
> 
> What do you think you hate the most in others? Murder, rape, lying - molestation?
> 
> I wouldnt accuse you of those.
> 
> Thats what I personally think of your assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not really me you are disagreeing with it’s Marian Keyes and Carl Jung you are disagreeing with. I just happen to agree with them.
> 
> Why It’s Important To Understand That We Hate Others For What We Hate About Ourselves
> 
> Furthermore, devaluing others makes us feel better. It’s the dunning effect all over again.
> 
> We See in Others What We Fear in Ourselves
> 
> So I can easily see why it is easy to hate others. But I don’t see how it is productive or helpful. I think it is detrimental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made points. Instead of addressing them directly, you made 2 non sequiturs.
> 
> If its not ok to disagree with your, or their, idea - cool bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t have to address your points to validate mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My points invalidated yours. Thats the issue.
> 
> I dont hate "most" in me my desire to hate children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.
Click to expand...

Are you...implying I want to hurt children? I must for your opinion to be valid.

Further, you must have some pretty fucked up thoughts if the things you hate THE MOST in others are also in you.  .like the desire to rape, murder....etc etc

Sick shit.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> “If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.”  Hermann Hesse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because Herman Hesse says it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Because it is true.
> 
> But if you don’t want to believe it then don’t.   But in my opinion you would be missing out on a very powerful tool. According to Karl Jung, “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're impossible to deal with.
> 
> You make assertions on non assertions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What exactly are you looking for from me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not looking.
Click to expand...

Then it isn’t possible for me to be impossible to deal with as there is no measure for comparison.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not really me you are disagreeing with it’s Marian Keyes and Carl Jung you are disagreeing with. I just happen to agree with them.
> 
> Why It’s Important To Understand That We Hate Others For What We Hate About Ourselves
> 
> Furthermore, devaluing others makes us feel better. It’s the dunning effect all over again.
> 
> We See in Others What We Fear in Ourselves
> 
> So I can easily see why it is easy to hate others. But I don’t see how it is productive or helpful. I think it is detrimental.
> 
> 
> 
> I made points. Instead of addressing them directly, you made 2 non sequiturs.
> 
> If its not ok to disagree with your, or their, idea - cool bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t have to address your points to validate mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My points invalidated yours. Thats the issue.
> 
> I dont hate "most" in me my desire to hate children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you...implying I want to hurt children? I must for your opinion to be valid.
> 
> Further, you must have some pretty fucked up thoughts if the things you hate THE MOST in others are also in you.  .like the desire to rape, murder....etc etc
> 
> Sick shit.
Click to expand...

No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine.  Nor do I care if you agree with mine. 

You are looking for drama where there is none.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made points. Instead of addressing them directly, you made 2 non sequiturs.
> 
> If its not ok to disagree with your, or their, idea - cool bro.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t have to address your points to validate mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My points invalidated yours. Thats the issue.
> 
> I dont hate "most" in me my desire to hate children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you...implying I want to hurt children? I must for your opinion to be valid.
> 
> Further, you must have some pretty fucked up thoughts if the things you hate THE MOST in others are also in you.  .like the desire to rape, murder....etc etc
> 
> Sick shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine.  Nor do I care if you agree with mine.
> 
> You are looking for drama where there is none.
Click to expand...

Drama?

Exchange of ideas isnt dramatic unless you make it that way, guy who disagrees about someones dog


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t have to address your points to validate mine.
> 
> 
> 
> My points invalidated yours. Thats the issue.
> 
> I dont hate "most" in me my desire to hate children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you...implying I want to hurt children? I must for your opinion to be valid.
> 
> Further, you must have some pretty fucked up thoughts if the things you hate THE MOST in others are also in you.  .like the desire to rape, murder....etc etc
> 
> Sick shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine.  Nor do I care if you agree with mine.
> 
> You are looking for drama where there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drama?
> 
> Exchange of ideas isnt dramatic unless you make it that way, guy who disagrees about someones dog
Click to expand...

Read your last post. You are invoking all kinds of fucked up shit. 

Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My points invalidated yours. Thats the issue.
> 
> I dont hate "most" in me my desire to hate children.
> 
> 
> 
> If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you...implying I want to hurt children? I must for your opinion to be valid.
> 
> Further, you must have some pretty fucked up thoughts if the things you hate THE MOST in others are also in you.  .like the desire to rape, murder....etc etc
> 
> Sick shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine.  Nor do I care if you agree with mine.
> 
> You are looking for drama where there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drama?
> 
> Exchange of ideas isnt dramatic unless you make it that way, guy who disagrees about someones dog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read your last post. You are invoking all kinds of fucked up shit.
> 
> Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.
Click to expand...

im fleshing out the logical conclusions of an idea

its a fucked up idea, so naturally that followed

of course i hate child molestors the most...so to say we hate in other what we hate THE MOST in ourselves....

alludes to that ridiculous absurdity


it also precludes you from criticizing people much because you painted yourself into the corner of saying its about yourself.

sorry you hate disagreements so much that its dramatic, ding.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you...implying I want to hurt children? I must for your opinion to be valid.
> 
> Further, you must have some pretty fucked up thoughts if the things you hate THE MOST in others are also in you.  .like the desire to rape, murder....etc etc
> 
> Sick shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine.  Nor do I care if you agree with mine.
> 
> You are looking for drama where there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drama?
> 
> Exchange of ideas isnt dramatic unless you make it that way, guy who disagrees about someones dog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read your last post. You are invoking all kinds of fucked up shit.
> 
> Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im fleshing out the logical conclusions of an idea
> 
> its a fucked up idea, so naturally that followed
> 
> of course i hate child molestors the most...so to say we hate in other what we hate THE MOST in ourselves....
> 
> alludes to that ridiculous absurdity
> 
> 
> it also precludes you from criticizing people much because you painted yourself into the corner of saying its about yourself.
> 
> sorry you hate disagreements so much that its dramatic, ding.
Click to expand...

That’s what you would call a fringe argument. But you go with that.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you...implying I want to hurt children? I must for your opinion to be valid.
> 
> Further, you must have some pretty fucked up thoughts if the things you hate THE MOST in others are also in you.  .like the desire to rape, murder....etc etc
> 
> Sick shit.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine.  Nor do I care if you agree with mine.
> 
> You are looking for drama where there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drama?
> 
> Exchange of ideas isnt dramatic unless you make it that way, guy who disagrees about someones dog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read your last post. You are invoking all kinds of fucked up shit.
> 
> Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im fleshing out the logical conclusions of an idea
> 
> its a fucked up idea, so naturally that followed
> 
> of course i hate child molestors the most...so to say we hate in other what we hate THE MOST in ourselves....
> 
> alludes to that ridiculous absurdity
> 
> 
> it also precludes you from criticizing people much because you painted yourself into the corner of saying its about yourself.
> 
> sorry you hate disagreements so much that its dramatic, ding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s what you would call a fringe argument. But you go with that.
Click to expand...

Its a logical argument.

When you invoke the "most" of something, the most extreme conclusion would be the valid one. Its.....the most. Its what the word means. 

Also, its really super common that folks ADMIRE about others what they hate in themselves. 

Too many holes for the validity of this proposition.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine.  Nor do I care if you agree with mine.
> 
> You are looking for drama where there is none.
> 
> 
> 
> Drama?
> 
> Exchange of ideas isnt dramatic unless you make it that way, guy who disagrees about someones dog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read your last post. You are invoking all kinds of fucked up shit.
> 
> Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im fleshing out the logical conclusions of an idea
> 
> its a fucked up idea, so naturally that followed
> 
> of course i hate child molestors the most...so to say we hate in other what we hate THE MOST in ourselves....
> 
> alludes to that ridiculous absurdity
> 
> 
> it also precludes you from criticizing people much because you painted yourself into the corner of saying its about yourself.
> 
> sorry you hate disagreements so much that its dramatic, ding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s what you would call a fringe argument. But you go with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a logical argument.
> 
> When you invoke the "most" of something, the most extreme conclusion would be the valid one. Its.....the most. Its what the word means.
> 
> Also, its really super common that folks ADMIRE about others what they hate in themselves.
> 
> Too many holes for the validity of this proposition.
Click to expand...

i am more than happy for you to see it that way.


----------



## gipper

Wry Catcher said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice. Needs the attention span of something more than a gnat.
> 
> Though a lot of folk on USMB just love to hate. It's nectar to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you feel about Obama, liberals, HRC?
Click to expand...

Love them!!!!!!


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> I’m
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drama?
> 
> Exchange of ideas isnt dramatic unless you make it that way, guy who disagrees about someones dog
> 
> 
> 
> Read your last post. You are invoking all kinds of fucked up shit.
> 
> Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im fleshing out the logical conclusions of an idea
> 
> its a fucked up idea, so naturally that followed
> 
> of course i hate child molestors the most...so to say we hate in other what we hate THE MOST in ourselves....
> 
> alludes to that ridiculous absurdity
> 
> 
> it also precludes you from criticizing people much because you painted yourself into the corner of saying its about yourself.
> 
> sorry you hate disagreements so much that its dramatic, ding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s what you would call a fringe argument. But you go with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a logical argument.
> 
> When you invoke the "most" of something, the most extreme conclusion would be the valid one. Its.....the most. Its what the word means.
> 
> Also, its really super common that folks ADMIRE about others what they hate in themselves.
> 
> Too many holes for the validity of this proposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more than happy for you to see it that way.
Click to expand...

Just confronting reality.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read your last post. You are invoking all kinds of fucked up shit.
> 
> Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.
> 
> 
> 
> im fleshing out the logical conclusions of an idea
> 
> its a fucked up idea, so naturally that followed
> 
> of course i hate child molestors the most...so to say we hate in other what we hate THE MOST in ourselves....
> 
> alludes to that ridiculous absurdity
> 
> 
> it also precludes you from criticizing people much because you painted yourself into the corner of saying its about yourself.
> 
> sorry you hate disagreements so much that its dramatic, ding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s what you would call a fringe argument. But you go with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a logical argument.
> 
> When you invoke the "most" of something, the most extreme conclusion would be the valid one. Its.....the most. Its what the word means.
> 
> Also, its really super common that folks ADMIRE about others what they hate in themselves.
> 
> Too many holes for the validity of this proposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more than happy for you to see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just confronting reality.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t be happier for you.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> im fleshing out the logical conclusions of an idea
> 
> its a fucked up idea, so naturally that followed
> 
> of course i hate child molestors the most...so to say we hate in other what we hate THE MOST in ourselves....
> 
> alludes to that ridiculous absurdity
> 
> 
> it also precludes you from criticizing people much because you painted yourself into the corner of saying its about yourself.
> 
> sorry you hate disagreements so much that its dramatic, ding.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what you would call a fringe argument. But you go with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a logical argument.
> 
> When you invoke the "most" of something, the most extreme conclusion would be the valid one. Its.....the most. Its what the word means.
> 
> Also, its really super common that folks ADMIRE about others what they hate in themselves.
> 
> Too many holes for the validity of this proposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more than happy for you to see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just confronting reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn’t be happier for you.
Click to expand...

Try harder.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what you would call a fringe argument. But you go with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a logical argument.
> 
> When you invoke the "most" of something, the most extreme conclusion would be the valid one. Its.....the most. Its what the word means.
> 
> Also, its really super common that folks ADMIRE about others what they hate in themselves.
> 
> Too many holes for the validity of this proposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more than happy for you to see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just confronting reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn’t be happier for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try harder.
Click to expand...

There’s absolutely no need.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a logical argument.
> 
> When you invoke the "most" of something, the most extreme conclusion would be the valid one. Its.....the most. Its what the word means.
> 
> Also, its really super common that folks ADMIRE about others what they hate in themselves.
> 
> Too many holes for the validity of this proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> i am more than happy for you to see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just confronting reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn’t be happier for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s absolutely no need.
Click to expand...

We could always establish a distinction between needs and wants and which to act upon.....but thats just boring as fuck.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m
> i am more than happy for you to see it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> Just confronting reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn’t be happier for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s absolutely no need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could always establish a distinction between needs and wants and which to act upon.....but thats just boring as fuck.
Click to expand...

Given that most people abuse their fight or flight physiology I doubt that conversation would be productive.


----------



## G.T.

They don't consider the 3rd, 4th and 5th options. Binary thought doesnt win any ballgames.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> They don't consider the 3rd, 4th and 5th options. Binary thought doesnt win any ballgames.


Every aspect of a particle can be expressed as information, and put into binary code. So you should be careful about dismissing binary thought as information is binary.  The universe could theoretically be broken down into ones and zeroes.


----------



## ding

The mistake that many people make in believing there are shades of grey of truth is that there are shades of grey of situations. Which is why the natural law can not be codified into letters of the law. There’s just to many scenarios which lead to loopholes in the letter of the law.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't consider the 3rd, 4th and 5th options. Binary thought doesnt win any ballgames.
> 
> 
> 
> Every aspect of a particle can be expressed as information, and put into binary code. So you should be careful about dismissing binary thought as information is binary.  The universe could theoretically be broken down into ones and zeroes.
Click to expand...

Binary thought is not the same thing as binary code, hollyyyyyyyyyy non sequitur ballsacksssss BATMANNNNNN


You need to learn 4d chess.


----------



## G.T.

Let me help you with your error, ding.

Binary thought refers to the concept "two of them."

Binary CODE is 1s and 0s. In any NUMBER of combinations. 

fucckkkkkinn cripeeee


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> Let me help you with your error, ding.
> 
> Binary thought refers to the concept "two of them."
> 
> Binary CODE is 1s and 0s. In any NUMBER of combinations.
> 
> fucckkkkkinn cripeeee


Right and wrong are literally binary.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you with your error, ding.
> 
> Binary thought refers to the concept "two of them."
> 
> Binary CODE is 1s and 0s. In any NUMBER of combinations.
> 
> fucckkkkkinn cripeeee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right and wrong are literally binary.
Click to expand...



If you can solve a puzzle using more than 2 methods - thats what it means to breach a binary thought process. 

Right and wrong are sometimes a dichotomy, and sometimes not.

Children can understand these things.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you with your error, ding.
> 
> Binary thought refers to the concept "two of them."
> 
> Binary CODE is 1s and 0s. In any NUMBER of combinations.
> 
> fucckkkkkinn cripeeee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right and wrong are literally binary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you can solve a puzzle using more than 2 methods - thats what it means to breach a binary thought process.
> 
> Right and wrong are sometimes a dichotomy, and sometimes not.
> 
> Children can understand these things.
Click to expand...

You do realize your condescending attitude says more about you than me, right?

That’s binary too.


----------



## ding

A *nebular opposition* (also *binary system*) is a pair of related terms or concepts that are opposite in meaning. Binary opposition is the system by which language and thought, two theoretical opposites are strictly defined and set off against one another.[1] It is the contrast between two mutually exclusive terms, such as on and off, up and down, left and right.[2]

Binary opposition - Wikipedia


----------



## ding

Something is *binary* if it contains only two parts or options. In mathematics or computing, those two parts are 1s and 0s. In *binary thinking*, a person only considers two possibilities.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you with your error, ding.
> 
> Binary thought refers to the concept "two of them."
> 
> Binary CODE is 1s and 0s. In any NUMBER of combinations.
> 
> fucckkkkkinn cripeeee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right and wrong are literally binary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you can solve a puzzle using more than 2 methods - thats what it means to breach a binary thought process.
> 
> Right and wrong are sometimes a dichotomy, and sometimes not.
> 
> Children can understand these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize your condescending attitude says more about you than me, right?
> 
> That’s binary too.
Click to expand...

Its completely necessary with you - its the way you talk to others and so its obviously your preferred means of communication.

You seek conflict ~ and you declare a lot of absolutes that are demonstrably false. Of course when people do that, in discourse, it is challenged as an idea.

You said right and wrong is "literally" binary.

Thats demonsrably false - 

there are categories of these things.

moral rights and wrongs ..

right and wrong problem solving...

When you can solve a problem in more than 1 way, and fail to solve a problem in more than 1 way, right and wrong are not "literally" binary.

Conceptually, thinking theres only 1 way to solve a problem and 1 way to fail is called binary thinking ~ which indicates a disposition of poor critical thinking.

Poor critical thinking is like saying something along the lines of . ..

we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves...


without 1st considering that most folks hate the worst of humanity (folks who harm children) the most because its NOT in them to do so.....not because it is....and they hate it.

Thats binary thinking.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> Something is *binary* if it contains only two parts or options. In mathematics or computing, those two parts are 1s and 0s. In *binary thinking*, a person only considers two possibilities.


Yes, that's been established.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you with your error, ding.
> 
> Binary thought refers to the concept "two of them."
> 
> Binary CODE is 1s and 0s. In any NUMBER of combinations.
> 
> fucckkkkkinn cripeeee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right and wrong are literally binary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you can solve a puzzle using more than 2 methods - thats what it means to breach a binary thought process.
> 
> Right and wrong are sometimes a dichotomy, and sometimes not.
> 
> Children can understand these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize your condescending attitude says more about you than me, right?
> 
> That’s binary too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its completely necessary with you - its the way you talk to others and so its obviously your preferred means of communication.
> 
> You seek conflict ~ and you declare a lot of absolutes that are demonstrably false. Of course when people do that, in discourse, it is challenged as an idea.
> 
> You said right and wrong is "literally" binary.
> 
> Thats demonsrably false -
> 
> there are categories of these things.
> 
> moral rights and wrongs ..
> 
> right and wrong problem solving...
> 
> When you can solve a problem in more than 1 way, and fail to solve a problem in more than 1 way, right and wrong are not "literally" binary.
> 
> Conceptually, thinking theres only 1 way to solve a problem and 1 way to fail is called binary thinking ~ which indicates a disposition of poor critical thinking.
> 
> Poor critical thinking is like saying something along the lines of . ..
> 
> we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves...
> 
> 
> without 1st considering that most folks hate the worst of humanity (folks who harm children) the most because its NOT in them to do so.....not because it is....and they hate it.
> 
> Thats binary thinking.
Click to expand...

That’s pretty ironic that you accuse me of seeking conflict. 

I can’t help it if my beliefs create conflicts in others. That’s beyond my control. I don’t hold my beliefs because they are controversial. I hold my beliefs because there are good reasons for holding them. People who do not have well thought out positions don’t like it because I have a basis for my beliefs and they don’t. You can’t argue the merits of your beliefs so you attack my character instead.


----------



## ding

Moral relativism is be a non-binary system. Moral absolutism is a binary system.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you with your error, ding.
> 
> Binary thought refers to the concept "two of them."
> 
> Binary CODE is 1s and 0s. In any NUMBER of combinations.
> 
> fucckkkkkinn cripeeee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right and wrong are literally binary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you can solve a puzzle using more than 2 methods - thats what it means to breach a binary thought process.
> 
> Right and wrong are sometimes a dichotomy, and sometimes not.
> 
> Children can understand these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize your condescending attitude says more about you than me, right?
> 
> That’s binary too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its completely necessary with you - its the way you talk to others and so its obviously your preferred means of communication.
> 
> You seek conflict ~ and you declare a lot of absolutes that are demonstrably false. Of course when people do that, in discourse, it is challenged as an idea.
> 
> You said right and wrong is "literally" binary.
> 
> Thats demonsrably false -
> 
> there are categories of these things.
> 
> moral rights and wrongs ..
> 
> right and wrong problem solving...
> 
> When you can solve a problem in more than 1 way, and fail to solve a problem in more than 1 way, right and wrong are not "literally" binary.
> 
> Conceptually, thinking theres only 1 way to solve a problem and 1 way to fail is called binary thinking ~ which indicates a disposition of poor critical thinking.
> 
> Poor critical thinking is like saying something along the lines of . ..
> 
> we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves...
> 
> 
> without 1st considering that most folks hate the worst of humanity (folks who harm children) the most because its NOT in them to do so.....not because it is....and they hate it.
> 
> Thats binary thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s pretty ironic that you accuse me of seeking conflict.
> 
> I can’t help it if my beliefs create conflicts in others. That’s beyond my control. I don’t hold my beliefs because they are controversial. I hold my beliefs because there are good reasons for holding them. People who do not have well thought out positions don’t like it because I have a basis for my beliefs and they don’t. You can’t argue the merits of your beliefs so you attack my character instead.
Click to expand...

You literally ignored a direct refutation of your belief regarding what we hate in others, and instead employed diversionary tactics and condescendingly acting like a victim.

The problem with you is that youre literally not able to defend your beliefs, and so you go tactical like a kid, & thats coping.

Otherwise, you could begin explaining how we all must seek to harm children, because thats the most hated trait that society seems to frown upon in others....and for your theory to be true, we all must be desiring to do so ourselves since its something we hate.

That we dont, refutes your theory. Its not an absolute, check mate, its a "sometimes."

And sometimes, we ADMIRE, not HATE, in others what we hate in ourselves.

You clearly didnt think these platitudes through, and you clearly want to run from that fact and devolve into meta like usual


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something is *binary* if it contains only two parts or options. In mathematics or computing, those two parts are 1s and 0s. In *binary thinking*, a person only considers two possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's been established.
Click to expand...

Binary thinking is binary thought. 

I can solve puzzles or problems multiple ways, and usually do to check my work. That is not binary thought. An example of binary thought would be getting the answer right or getting the answer wrong. There isn’t a middle ground. The quadratic equation is a perfect example. In the quadratic equation there are multiple root solutions but only one of the two is correct.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something is *binary* if it contains only two parts or options. In mathematics or computing, those two parts are 1s and 0s. In *binary thinking*, a person only considers two possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's been established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Binary thinking is binary thought.
> 
> I can solve puzzles or problems multiple ways, and usually do to check my work. That is not binary thought. An example of binary thought would be getting the answer right or getting the answer wrong. There isn’t a middle ground. The quadratic equation is a perfect example. In the quadratic equation there are multiple root solutions but only one of the two is correct.
Click to expand...

You only repeated what I already said...

the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right and wrong are literally binary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can solve a puzzle using more than 2 methods - thats what it means to breach a binary thought process.
> 
> Right and wrong are sometimes a dichotomy, and sometimes not.
> 
> Children can understand these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize your condescending attitude says more about you than me, right?
> 
> That’s binary too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its completely necessary with you - its the way you talk to others and so its obviously your preferred means of communication.
> 
> You seek conflict ~ and you declare a lot of absolutes that are demonstrably false. Of course when people do that, in discourse, it is challenged as an idea.
> 
> You said right and wrong is "literally" binary.
> 
> Thats demonsrably false -
> 
> there are categories of these things.
> 
> moral rights and wrongs ..
> 
> right and wrong problem solving...
> 
> When you can solve a problem in more than 1 way, and fail to solve a problem in more than 1 way, right and wrong are not "literally" binary.
> 
> Conceptually, thinking theres only 1 way to solve a problem and 1 way to fail is called binary thinking ~ which indicates a disposition of poor critical thinking.
> 
> Poor critical thinking is like saying something along the lines of . ..
> 
> we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves...
> 
> 
> without 1st considering that most folks hate the worst of humanity (folks who harm children) the most because its NOT in them to do so.....not because it is....and they hate it.
> 
> Thats binary thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s pretty ironic that you accuse me of seeking conflict.
> 
> I can’t help it if my beliefs create conflicts in others. That’s beyond my control. I don’t hold my beliefs because they are controversial. I hold my beliefs because there are good reasons for holding them. People who do not have well thought out positions don’t like it because I have a basis for my beliefs and they don’t. You can’t argue the merits of your beliefs so you attack my character instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You literally ignored a direct refutation of your belief regarding what we hate in others, and instead employed diversionary tactics and condescendingly acting like a victim.
> 
> The problem with you is that youre literally not able to defend your beliefs, and so you go tactical like a kid, & thats coping.
> 
> Otherwise, you could begin explaining how we all must seek to harm children, because thats the most hated trait that society seems to frown upon in others....and for your theory to be true, we all must be desiring to do so ourselves since its something we hate.
> 
> That we dont, refutes your theory. Its not an absolute, check mate, its a "sometimes."
> 
> And sometimes, we ADMIRE, not HATE, in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> You clearly didnt think these platitudes through, and you clearly want to run from that fact and devolve into meta like usual
Click to expand...

GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers.  You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can solve a puzzle using more than 2 methods - thats what it means to breach a binary thought process.
> 
> Right and wrong are sometimes a dichotomy, and sometimes not.
> 
> Children can understand these things.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize your condescending attitude says more about you than me, right?
> 
> That’s binary too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its completely necessary with you - its the way you talk to others and so its obviously your preferred means of communication.
> 
> You seek conflict ~ and you declare a lot of absolutes that are demonstrably false. Of course when people do that, in discourse, it is challenged as an idea.
> 
> You said right and wrong is "literally" binary.
> 
> Thats demonsrably false -
> 
> there are categories of these things.
> 
> moral rights and wrongs ..
> 
> right and wrong problem solving...
> 
> When you can solve a problem in more than 1 way, and fail to solve a problem in more than 1 way, right and wrong are not "literally" binary.
> 
> Conceptually, thinking theres only 1 way to solve a problem and 1 way to fail is called binary thinking ~ which indicates a disposition of poor critical thinking.
> 
> Poor critical thinking is like saying something along the lines of . ..
> 
> we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves...
> 
> 
> without 1st considering that most folks hate the worst of humanity (folks who harm children) the most because its NOT in them to do so.....not because it is....and they hate it.
> 
> Thats binary thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s pretty ironic that you accuse me of seeking conflict.
> 
> I can’t help it if my beliefs create conflicts in others. That’s beyond my control. I don’t hold my beliefs because they are controversial. I hold my beliefs because there are good reasons for holding them. People who do not have well thought out positions don’t like it because I have a basis for my beliefs and they don’t. You can’t argue the merits of your beliefs so you attack my character instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You literally ignored a direct refutation of your belief regarding what we hate in others, and instead employed diversionary tactics and condescendingly acting like a victim.
> 
> The problem with you is that youre literally not able to defend your beliefs, and so you go tactical like a kid, & thats coping.
> 
> Otherwise, you could begin explaining how we all must seek to harm children, because thats the most hated trait that society seems to frown upon in others....and for your theory to be true, we all must be desiring to do so ourselves since its something we hate.
> 
> That we dont, refutes your theory. Its not an absolute, check mate, its a "sometimes."
> 
> And sometimes, we ADMIRE, not HATE, in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> You clearly didnt think these platitudes through, and you clearly want to run from that fact and devolve into meta like usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers.  You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.
Click to expand...

Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.

You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.

There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.

Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
Sexism, of the opposite sex.
Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.


The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something is *binary* if it contains only two parts or options. In mathematics or computing, those two parts are 1s and 0s. In *binary thinking*, a person only considers two possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's been established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Binary thinking is binary thought.
> 
> I can solve puzzles or problems multiple ways, and usually do to check my work. That is not binary thought. An example of binary thought would be getting the answer right or getting the answer wrong. There isn’t a middle ground. The quadratic equation is a perfect example. In the quadratic equation there are multiple root solutions but only one of the two is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only repeated what I already said...
> 
> the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.
Click to expand...

I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize your condescending attitude says more about you than me, right?
> 
> That’s binary too.
> 
> 
> 
> Its completely necessary with you - its the way you talk to others and so its obviously your preferred means of communication.
> 
> You seek conflict ~ and you declare a lot of absolutes that are demonstrably false. Of course when people do that, in discourse, it is challenged as an idea.
> 
> You said right and wrong is "literally" binary.
> 
> Thats demonsrably false -
> 
> there are categories of these things.
> 
> moral rights and wrongs ..
> 
> right and wrong problem solving...
> 
> When you can solve a problem in more than 1 way, and fail to solve a problem in more than 1 way, right and wrong are not "literally" binary.
> 
> Conceptually, thinking theres only 1 way to solve a problem and 1 way to fail is called binary thinking ~ which indicates a disposition of poor critical thinking.
> 
> Poor critical thinking is like saying something along the lines of . ..
> 
> we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves...
> 
> 
> without 1st considering that most folks hate the worst of humanity (folks who harm children) the most because its NOT in them to do so.....not because it is....and they hate it.
> 
> Thats binary thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s pretty ironic that you accuse me of seeking conflict.
> 
> I can’t help it if my beliefs create conflicts in others. That’s beyond my control. I don’t hold my beliefs because they are controversial. I hold my beliefs because there are good reasons for holding them. People who do not have well thought out positions don’t like it because I have a basis for my beliefs and they don’t. You can’t argue the merits of your beliefs so you attack my character instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You literally ignored a direct refutation of your belief regarding what we hate in others, and instead employed diversionary tactics and condescendingly acting like a victim.
> 
> The problem with you is that youre literally not able to defend your beliefs, and so you go tactical like a kid, & thats coping.
> 
> Otherwise, you could begin explaining how we all must seek to harm children, because thats the most hated trait that society seems to frown upon in others....and for your theory to be true, we all must be desiring to do so ourselves since its something we hate.
> 
> That we dont, refutes your theory. Its not an absolute, check mate, its a "sometimes."
> 
> And sometimes, we ADMIRE, not HATE, in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> You clearly didnt think these platitudes through, and you clearly want to run from that fact and devolve into meta like usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers.  You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.
> 
> You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.
> 
> There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.
> 
> Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
> Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
> Sexism, of the opposite sex.
> Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.
> 
> 
> The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.
Click to expand...

No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something is *binary* if it contains only two parts or options. In mathematics or computing, those two parts are 1s and 0s. In *binary thinking*, a person only considers two possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's been established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Binary thinking is binary thought.
> 
> I can solve puzzles or problems multiple ways, and usually do to check my work. That is not binary thought. An example of binary thought would be getting the answer right or getting the answer wrong. There isn’t a middle ground. The quadratic equation is a perfect example. In the quadratic equation there are multiple root solutions but only one of the two is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only repeated what I already said...
> 
> the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.
Click to expand...

We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.

This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its completely necessary with you - its the way you talk to others and so its obviously your preferred means of communication.
> 
> You seek conflict ~ and you declare a lot of absolutes that are demonstrably false. Of course when people do that, in discourse, it is challenged as an idea.
> 
> You said right and wrong is "literally" binary.
> 
> Thats demonsrably false -
> 
> there are categories of these things.
> 
> moral rights and wrongs ..
> 
> right and wrong problem solving...
> 
> When you can solve a problem in more than 1 way, and fail to solve a problem in more than 1 way, right and wrong are not "literally" binary.
> 
> Conceptually, thinking theres only 1 way to solve a problem and 1 way to fail is called binary thinking ~ which indicates a disposition of poor critical thinking.
> 
> Poor critical thinking is like saying something along the lines of . ..
> 
> we hate in others what we most hate in ourselves...
> 
> 
> without 1st considering that most folks hate the worst of humanity (folks who harm children) the most because its NOT in them to do so.....not because it is....and they hate it.
> 
> Thats binary thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s pretty ironic that you accuse me of seeking conflict.
> 
> I can’t help it if my beliefs create conflicts in others. That’s beyond my control. I don’t hold my beliefs because they are controversial. I hold my beliefs because there are good reasons for holding them. People who do not have well thought out positions don’t like it because I have a basis for my beliefs and they don’t. You can’t argue the merits of your beliefs so you attack my character instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You literally ignored a direct refutation of your belief regarding what we hate in others, and instead employed diversionary tactics and condescendingly acting like a victim.
> 
> The problem with you is that youre literally not able to defend your beliefs, and so you go tactical like a kid, & thats coping.
> 
> Otherwise, you could begin explaining how we all must seek to harm children, because thats the most hated trait that society seems to frown upon in others....and for your theory to be true, we all must be desiring to do so ourselves since its something we hate.
> 
> That we dont, refutes your theory. Its not an absolute, check mate, its a "sometimes."
> 
> And sometimes, we ADMIRE, not HATE, in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> You clearly didnt think these platitudes through, and you clearly want to run from that fact and devolve into meta like usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers.  You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.
> 
> You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.
> 
> There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.
> 
> Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
> Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
> Sexism, of the opposite sex.
> Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.
> 
> 
> The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.
Click to expand...

Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute. 

Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.

or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??

 jeeze

Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.

And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.


----------



## Mindful

What do you think of this, Ding?

Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something is *binary* if it contains only two parts or options. In mathematics or computing, those two parts are 1s and 0s. In *binary thinking*, a person only considers two possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's been established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Binary thinking is binary thought.
> 
> I can solve puzzles or problems multiple ways, and usually do to check my work. That is not binary thought. An example of binary thought would be getting the answer right or getting the answer wrong. There isn’t a middle ground. The quadratic equation is a perfect example. In the quadratic equation there are multiple root solutions but only one of the two is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only repeated what I already said...
> 
> the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.
> 
> This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.
Click to expand...

I am showing you examples of binary and non-binary thinking. Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong. 

You should look up transactional analysis to see what kind of conversations you seek with the words you use.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's been established.
> 
> 
> 
> Binary thinking is binary thought.
> 
> I can solve puzzles or problems multiple ways, and usually do to check my work. That is not binary thought. An example of binary thought would be getting the answer right or getting the answer wrong. There isn’t a middle ground. The quadratic equation is a perfect example. In the quadratic equation there are multiple root solutions but only one of the two is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only repeated what I already said...
> 
> the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.
> 
> This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am showing you examples of binary and non-binary thinking. Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.
> 
> You should look up transactional analysis to see what kind of conversations you seek with the words you use.
Click to expand...

Ding, I didn't ask for any examples of binary thinking. It wasn't even pertinent to the conversation, and if I'd really have to explain why that is for you then it's just furthering your record of being a waste of time. 

Which is fine, but it's why I avoid a pretty good handful of topics with ya that might otherwise be interesting. 

You get really flummoxed with cliches and non-sequitur and will go off on tangents and walls of texts that didn't even pertain. It's fine, but it's not my cuppa tea most of the time. When I engage in formal debates on discords and youtube, it's in voice and easier to articulate back and forth with one another.

When it's in a text chat, it's really easy to get lost in minutia over a misreading of context and intent.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s pretty ironic that you accuse me of seeking conflict.
> 
> I can’t help it if my beliefs create conflicts in others. That’s beyond my control. I don’t hold my beliefs because they are controversial. I hold my beliefs because there are good reasons for holding them. People who do not have well thought out positions don’t like it because I have a basis for my beliefs and they don’t. You can’t argue the merits of your beliefs so you attack my character instead.
> 
> 
> 
> You literally ignored a direct refutation of your belief regarding what we hate in others, and instead employed diversionary tactics and condescendingly acting like a victim.
> 
> The problem with you is that youre literally not able to defend your beliefs, and so you go tactical like a kid, & thats coping.
> 
> Otherwise, you could begin explaining how we all must seek to harm children, because thats the most hated trait that society seems to frown upon in others....and for your theory to be true, we all must be desiring to do so ourselves since its something we hate.
> 
> That we dont, refutes your theory. Its not an absolute, check mate, its a "sometimes."
> 
> And sometimes, we ADMIRE, not HATE, in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> You clearly didnt think these platitudes through, and you clearly want to run from that fact and devolve into meta like usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers.  You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.
> 
> You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.
> 
> There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.
> 
> Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
> Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
> Sexism, of the opposite sex.
> Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.
> 
> 
> The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.
> 
> Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.
> 
> or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??
> 
> jeeze
> 
> Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.
> 
> And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.
Click to expand...

When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing. 

With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You literally ignored a direct refutation of your belief regarding what we hate in others, and instead employed diversionary tactics and condescendingly acting like a victim.
> 
> The problem with you is that youre literally not able to defend your beliefs, and so you go tactical like a kid, & thats coping.
> 
> Otherwise, you could begin explaining how we all must seek to harm children, because thats the most hated trait that society seems to frown upon in others....and for your theory to be true, we all must be desiring to do so ourselves since its something we hate.
> 
> That we dont, refutes your theory. Its not an absolute, check mate, its a "sometimes."
> 
> And sometimes, we ADMIRE, not HATE, in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> You clearly didnt think these platitudes through, and you clearly want to run from that fact and devolve into meta like usual
> 
> 
> 
> GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers.  You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.
> 
> You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.
> 
> There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.
> 
> Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
> Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
> Sexism, of the opposite sex.
> Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.
> 
> 
> The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.
> 
> Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.
> 
> or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??
> 
> jeeze
> 
> Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.
> 
> And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.
> 
> With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.

It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.

GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."


Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."


Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.


To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.

When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -

There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.

And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.



What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Binary thinking is binary thought.
> 
> I can solve puzzles or problems multiple ways, and usually do to check my work. That is not binary thought. An example of binary thought would be getting the answer right or getting the answer wrong. There isn’t a middle ground. The quadratic equation is a perfect example. In the quadratic equation there are multiple root solutions but only one of the two is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> You only repeated what I already said...
> 
> the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.
> 
> This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am showing you examples of binary and non-binary thinking. Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.
> 
> You should look up transactional analysis to see what kind of conversations you seek with the words you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, I didn't ask for any examples of binary thinking. It wasn't even pertinent to the conversation, and if I'd really have to explain why that is for you then it's just furthering your record of being a waste of time.
> 
> Which is fine, but it's why I avoid a pretty good handful of topics with ya that might otherwise be interesting.
> 
> You get really flummoxed with cliches and non-sequitur and will go off on tangents and walls of texts that didn't even pertain. It's fine, but it's not my cuppa tea most of the time. When I engage in formal debates on discords and youtube, it's in voice and easier to articulate back and forth with one another.
> 
> When it's in a text chat, it's really easy to get lost in minutia over a misreading of context and intent.
Click to expand...

That was a whole lot of nothing. I don’t care what you asked for. I don’t care if you participate in conversations with me. I don’t get flummoxed. I don’t use cliques. I don’t use non-sequitur. And I don’t go off on tangents. 

I explain the basis of my beliefs in a systematic and logical fashion. For instance,  Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.  

So rather than address the basis for this belief, you went off on a tangent, you got flummoxed, you created a non-sequitur. You accused me of everything you are doing.


----------



## ding

I’ll finish this line and then respond to the other.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only repeated what I already said...
> 
> the only real question - is why you didnt realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.
> 
> This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am showing you examples of binary and non-binary thinking. Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.
> 
> You should look up transactional analysis to see what kind of conversations you seek with the words you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, I didn't ask for any examples of binary thinking. It wasn't even pertinent to the conversation, and if I'd really have to explain why that is for you then it's just furthering your record of being a waste of time.
> 
> Which is fine, but it's why I avoid a pretty good handful of topics with ya that might otherwise be interesting.
> 
> You get really flummoxed with cliches and non-sequitur and will go off on tangents and walls of texts that didn't even pertain. It's fine, but it's not my cuppa tea most of the time. When I engage in formal debates on discords and youtube, it's in voice and easier to articulate back and forth with one another.
> 
> When it's in a text chat, it's really easy to get lost in minutia over a misreading of context and intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a whole lot of nothing. I don’t care what you asked for. I don’t care if you participate in conversations with me. I don’t get flummoxed. I don’t use cliques. I don’t use non-sequitur. And I don’t go off on tangents.
> 
> I explain the basis of my beliefs in a systematic and logical fashion. For instance,  Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.
> 
> So rather than address the basis for this belief, you went off on a tangent, you got flummoxed, you created a non-sequitur. You accused me of everything you are doing.
Click to expand...

That was also a non-sequitur.

You're asking me to address a tangent about binary thoughts - and then when I'm telling you it's a tangent, you're doubling down and accuse me of not addressing its basis.

The reason it's a tangent, is that we expressly agree on what the concept "binary thought" means. 

There's no need for you to even be saying these things - and it seems autistic that you typed that much about it.


And you DO get flummoxed, VERY flummoxed. You argue with 10 people at a time in the Religious forum, name call each and every one of them in the end, infer that they're all stupid when it's typically you that's missing something and going off on tangents, and then you BEG, literally BEG like a little puppy dog for people to go over into the bullring with you as though there's some sort of bravado prize to be had. 

You can quit fooling yourself, and doing this bi-polar bullshit where you change from the guy who wants to stay on topic, to the guy moralizing against everyone, to the guy engaging in name calling for giggles........you're a completely ridiculous human on here....and blaming me ain't gunna help buck-o. I'll hold your mirror whenever I see fit, and you can continue to fuckin cry about it.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained the difference. Your position that using multiple methods to solve a problem is not an example of a refutation of binary thought. Binary thought is when you only see one of two possible outcomes. Such as right and wrong. In your morally relativistic universe you do not believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In my black and white universe, I do. And in fact, the universe is binary. It’s literally the basis for cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 
> We werent talking about my morals - you went way off topic and got really fucking confused is what you just said.
> 
> This is literally the issue with you. Youre dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am showing you examples of binary and non-binary thinking. Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.
> 
> You should look up transactional analysis to see what kind of conversations you seek with the words you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, I didn't ask for any examples of binary thinking. It wasn't even pertinent to the conversation, and if I'd really have to explain why that is for you then it's just furthering your record of being a waste of time.
> 
> Which is fine, but it's why I avoid a pretty good handful of topics with ya that might otherwise be interesting.
> 
> You get really flummoxed with cliches and non-sequitur and will go off on tangents and walls of texts that didn't even pertain. It's fine, but it's not my cuppa tea most of the time. When I engage in formal debates on discords and youtube, it's in voice and easier to articulate back and forth with one another.
> 
> When it's in a text chat, it's really easy to get lost in minutia over a misreading of context and intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a whole lot of nothing. I don’t care what you asked for. I don’t care if you participate in conversations with me. I don’t get flummoxed. I don’t use cliques. I don’t use non-sequitur. And I don’t go off on tangents.
> 
> I explain the basis of my beliefs in a systematic and logical fashion. For instance,  Non-binary thinking or thought isn’t using more than two methods to solve a problem. Non-binary thinking is believing there are more than two solutions of which being diametrically opposed to each other is not a requirement. Binary thinking or thought is believing there are only two mutually exclusive solutions;usually diametrically opposed. Like up or down, in or out, left or right, on or off, good or evil, right or wrong.
> 
> So rather than address the basis for this belief, you went off on a tangent, you got flummoxed, you created a non-sequitur. You accused me of everything you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was also a non-sequitur.
> 
> You're asking me to address a tangent about binary thoughts - and then when I'm telling you it's a tangent, you're doubling down and accuse me of not addressing its basis.
> 
> The reason it's a tangent, is that we expressly agree on what the concept "binary thought" means.
> 
> There's no need for you to even be saying these things - and it seems autistic that you typed that much about it.
> 
> 
> And you DO get flummoxed, VERY flummoxed. You argue with 10 people at a time in the Religious forum, name call each and every one of them in the end, infer that they're all stupid when it's typically you that's missing something and going off on tangents, and then you BEG, literally BEG like a little puppy dog for people to go over into the bullring with you as though there's some sort of bravado prize to be had.
> 
> You can quit fooling yourself, and doing this bi-polar bullshit where you change from the guy who wants to stay on topic, to the guy moralizing against everyone, to the guy engaging in name calling for giggles........you're a completely ridiculous human on here....and blaming me ain't gunna help buck-o. I'll hold your mirror whenever I see fit, and you can continue to fuckin cry about it.
Click to expand...




G.T. said:


> That was also a non-sequitur.


No. It wasn't a non-sequitur.  It was a response to YOUR non-sequitur.  A non-sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

In post #202 I said you should be careful about dismissing binary thought.   In post #204 you said Binary thought is not the same thing as binary code.  In post #205 you said Binary thought refers to the concept "two of them."  In post #207 you said If you can solve a puzzle using more than 2 methods - thats what it means to breach a binary thought process.

It's a tangent because you wanted to argue binary thought is not the same thing as binary code.  You literally created the tangent. 

You are 100% correct there is no need to be discussing it.  I don't dismiss binary thinking nor have a need to convince you of it.  I am more than happy for you to believe whatever you want. 



G.T. said:


> And you DO get flummoxed, VERY flummoxed. You argue with 10 people at a time in the Religious forum, name call each and every one of them in the end, infer that they're all stupid when it's typically you that's missing something and going off on tangents, and then you BEG, literally BEG like a little puppy dog for people to go over into the bullring with you as though there's some sort of bravado prize to be had.


^ see definition of non-sequitur



G.T. said:


> You can quit fooling yourself, and doing this bi-polar bullshit where you change from the guy who wants to stay on topic, to the guy moralizing against everyone, to the guy engaging in name calling for giggles........you're a completely ridiculous human on here....and blaming me ain't gunna help buck-o. I'll hold your mirror whenever I see fit, and you can continue to fuckin cry about it.


^ see definition of non-sequitur


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Mindful

Shall I leave you two to it?


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> Shall I leave you two to it?


I'm devolving my consciousness in our fantabulous 4f - you can have your thread back as we change the world for the worse.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I leave you two to it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm devolving my consciousness in our fantabulous 4f - you can have your thread back as we change the world for the worse.
Click to expand...


Who said it was mine? I didn't.

And it's me who should change. Not the world.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I leave you two to it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm devolving my consciousness in our fantabulous 4f - you can have your thread back as we change the world for the worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it was mine? I didn't.
> 
> And it's me who should change. Not the world.
Click to expand...

That's a sweet notion that we all might adopt, and then TNHarley's jokes about aborting babies with the retard gene just wouldn't work the same. : /


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


>


^ see definition of non-sequitur


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> GT, your so called refutation was so far afield as to be idiotic. You wanted to argue an idiotic point that you hate child abusers.  You needed to take such an extreme position because things like being rude or selfish or arrogant wouldn’t work. That’s why I called your argument a fring argument. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You do that a lot too.
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.
> 
> You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.
> 
> There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.
> 
> Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
> Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
> Sexism, of the opposite sex.
> Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.
> 
> 
> The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.
> 
> Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.
> 
> or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??
> 
> jeeze
> 
> Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.
> 
> And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.
> 
> With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.
> 
> It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.
> 
> GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
> Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."
> 
> 
> Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."
> 
> 
> Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.
> 
> 
> To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.
> 
> When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -
> 
> There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.
> 
> And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.
Click to expand...

Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.  

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.  The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves.  It's the reason they have such strong feelings.  So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.

In fact, let me offer even more proof....

"...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “_I'm_not terrible; _you_ are.”

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

     "We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."

The Psychology of Hate


----------



## ding

non-sequitur in 3, 2, 1....


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.
> 
> You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.
> 
> There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.
> 
> Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
> Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
> Sexism, of the opposite sex.
> Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.
> 
> 
> The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.
> 
> Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.
> 
> or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??
> 
> jeeze
> 
> Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.
> 
> And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.
> 
> With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.
> 
> It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.
> 
> GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
> Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."
> 
> 
> Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."
> 
> 
> Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.
> 
> 
> To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.
> 
> When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -
> 
> There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.
> 
> And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.
> 
> The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.  The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves.  It's the reason they have such strong feelings.  So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.
> 
> In fact, let me offer even more proof....
> 
> "...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “_I'm_not terrible; _you_ are.”
> 
> This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:
> 
> "We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."
> 
> The Psychology of Hate
Click to expand...

Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.

You agreed.

We're done, there.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.
> 
> Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.
> 
> or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??
> 
> jeeze
> 
> Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.
> 
> And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.
> 
> With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.
> 
> It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.
> 
> GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
> Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."
> 
> 
> Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."
> 
> 
> Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.
> 
> 
> To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.
> 
> When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -
> 
> There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.
> 
> And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.
> 
> The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.  The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves.  It's the reason they have such strong feelings.  So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.
> 
> In fact, let me offer even more proof....
> 
> "...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “_I'm_not terrible; _you_ are.”
> 
> This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:
> 
> "We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."
> 
> The Psychology of Hate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.
> 
> You agreed.
> 
> We're done, there.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.

The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.
> 
> Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.
> 
> or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??
> 
> jeeze
> 
> Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.
> 
> And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.
> 
> With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.
> 
> It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.
> 
> GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
> Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."
> 
> 
> Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."
> 
> 
> Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.
> 
> 
> To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.
> 
> When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -
> 
> There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.
> 
> And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.
> 
> The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.  The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves.  It's the reason they have such strong feelings.  So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.
> 
> In fact, let me offer even more proof....
> 
> "...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “_I'm_not terrible; _you_ are.”
> 
> This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:
> 
> "We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."
> 
> The Psychology of Hate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.
> 
> You agreed.
> 
> We're done, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that non-sequitur.
Click to expand...

Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.
> 
> With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.
> 
> It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.
> 
> GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
> Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."
> 
> 
> Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."
> 
> 
> Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.
> 
> 
> To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.
> 
> When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -
> 
> There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.
> 
> And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.
> 
> The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.  The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves.  It's the reason they have such strong feelings.  So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.
> 
> In fact, let me offer even more proof....
> 
> "...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “_I'm_not terrible; _you_ are.”
> 
> This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:
> 
> "We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."
> 
> The Psychology of Hate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.
> 
> You agreed.
> 
> We're done, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.
> 
> The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.
Click to expand...

I'm good without it.  It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.
> 
> It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.
> 
> GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
> Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."
> 
> 
> Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."
> 
> 
> Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.
> 
> 
> To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.
> 
> When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -
> 
> There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.
> 
> And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.
> 
> The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.  The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves.  It's the reason they have such strong feelings.  So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.
> 
> In fact, let me offer even more proof....
> 
> "...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “_I'm_not terrible; _you_ are.”
> 
> This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:
> 
> "We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."
> 
> The Psychology of Hate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.
> 
> You agreed.
> 
> We're done, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.
> 
> The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm good without it.  It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.
Click to expand...



I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> What do you think of this, Ding?
> 
> Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.


I like it, up to a point.  There are times when we are living in the present that action is required.  The key is to be able to discern when that is, right?  Too much in either direction is not necessarily good.  If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think of this, Ding?
> 
> Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.
> 
> 
> 
> I like it, up to a point.  There are times when we are living in the present that action is required.  The key is to be able to discern when that is, right?  Too much in either direction is not necessarily good.  If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.
Click to expand...


Takes too much thinking about.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.
> 
> The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.  The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves.  It's the reason they have such strong feelings.  So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.
> 
> In fact, let me offer even more proof....
> 
> "...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “_I'm_not terrible; _you_ are.”
> 
> This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:
> 
> "We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."
> 
> The Psychology of Hate
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.
> 
> You agreed.
> 
> We're done, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.
> 
> The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm good without it.  It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.
Click to expand...

You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not.  The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it.  You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think of this, Ding?
> 
> Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.
> 
> 
> 
> I like it, up to a point.  There are times when we are living in the present that action is required.  The key is to be able to discern when that is, right?  Too much in either direction is not necessarily good.  If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Takes too much thinking about.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.
> 
> You agreed.
> 
> We're done, there.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.
> 
> The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm good without it.  It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not.  The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it.  You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.
Click to expand...

The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...

it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.

I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.

You later AGREED.

Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.

You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think of this, Ding?
> 
> Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.
> 
> 
> 
> I like it, up to a point.  There are times when we are living in the present that action is required.  The key is to be able to discern when that is, right?  Too much in either direction is not necessarily good.  If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Takes too much thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you say that?
Click to expand...


Seemed a logical response.


----------



## OldLady

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.
> 
> You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.
> 
> There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.
> 
> Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
> Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
> Sexism, of the opposite sex.
> Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.
> 
> 
> The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.
> 
> Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.
> 
> or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??
> 
> jeeze
> 
> Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.
> 
> And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.
> 
> With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.
> 
> It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.
> 
> GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
> Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."
> 
> 
> Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."
> 
> 
> Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.
> 
> 
> To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.
> 
> When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -
> 
> There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.
> 
> And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.
> 
> The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.  The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves.  It's the reason they have such strong feelings.  So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.
> 
> In fact, let me offer even more proof....
> 
> "...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “_I'm_not terrible; _you_ are.”
> 
> This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:
> 
> "We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."
> 
> The Psychology of Hate
Click to expand...

I am not a power hungry bully who gets off on making the people around her feel inferior, glories in being able to order people around.  I am not cold blooded liar, either.
Jung had some immensely interesting theories, especially his dream theories and the archetypal something or others....(it's been a long time)...but that idea that EVERYTHING we hate in others is a shadow of ourselves is bullshit.  Sometimes it is true, however.  I had to train a woman once who was definitely my shadow self and I really couldn't stand her.  I couldn't help being short with her, although I tried not to be a bitch, and fortunately she couldn't take the chill for long and left the company.  I asked at least twice a day, "Is this how I come off to other people?  Is this what people think of me?"  It was horrible.  I couldn't stand her.  I know what Jung means, but it is not a 100% thing.  No matter how deeply I search my soul, I am NOT that former supervisor.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.
> 
> The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm good without it.  It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not.  The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it.  You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...
> 
> it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.
> 
> I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.
> 
> You later AGREED.
> 
> Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.
> 
> You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.
Click to expand...

No.  You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue"  it degraded from there.  My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves.  It now seems you want to agree with that.  Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.

So which is it?  Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves?  Or not? 

That is the topic of the OP, right?   Hate?


----------



## Mindful

How about changing the words around:

 I love you, _and _I hate you.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think of this, Ding?
> 
> Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.
> 
> 
> 
> I like it, up to a point.  There are times when we are living in the present that action is required.  The key is to be able to discern when that is, right?  Too much in either direction is not necessarily good.  If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Takes too much thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seemed a logical response.
Click to expand...

OK, then why do you believe it takes too much thinking?  What is there to think about?


----------



## OldLady

This is still a private conversation, I see.  I'll try again tomorrow.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think of this, Ding?
> 
> Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.
> 
> 
> 
> I like it, up to a point.  There are times when we are living in the present that action is required.  The key is to be able to discern when that is, right?  Too much in either direction is not necessarily good.  If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Takes too much thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seemed a logical response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, then why do you believe it takes too much thinking?  What is there to think about?
Click to expand...


Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.
> 
> Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.
> 
> or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??
> 
> jeeze
> 
> Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.
> 
> And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.
> 
> With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.
> 
> It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.
> 
> GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
> Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."
> 
> 
> Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."
> 
> 
> Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.
> 
> 
> To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.
> 
> When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -
> 
> There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.
> 
> And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.
> 
> The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.  The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves.  It's the reason they have such strong feelings.  So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.
> 
> In fact, let me offer even more proof....
> 
> "...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “_I'm_not terrible; _you_ are.”
> 
> This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:
> 
> "We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."
> 
> The Psychology of Hate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a power hungry bully who gets off on making the people around her feel inferior, glories in being able to order people around.  I am not cold blooded liar, either.
> Jung had some immensely interesting theories, especially his dream theories and the archetypal something or others....(it's been a long time)...but that idea that EVERYTHING we hate in others is a shadow of ourselves is bullshit.  Sometimes it is true, however.  I had to train a woman once who was definitely my shadow self and I really couldn't stand her.  I couldn't help being short with her, although I tried not to be a bitch, and fortunately she couldn't take the chill for long and left the company.  I asked at least twice a day, "Is this how I come off to other people?  Is this what people think of me?"  It was horrible.  I couldn't stand her.  I know what Jung means, but it is not a 100% thing.  No matter how deeply I search my soul, I am NOT that former supervisor.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he said everything, OL.  You are taking it to extremes.  

It seems to me that it is entirely logical that we would lash out on others for the things we see wrong in us.  It's an easier path.


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> This is still a private conversation, I see.  I'll try again tomorrow.


No.  It's not.  I'm not sitting at my computer all the time.  I'm at home doing other stuff too.  I see posts when I see them.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm good without it.  It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not.  The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it.  You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...
> 
> it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.
> 
> I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.
> 
> You later AGREED.
> 
> Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.
> 
> You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue"  it degraded from there.  My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves.  It now seems you want to agree with that.  Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.
> 
> So which is it?  Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves?  Or not?
> 
> That is the topic of the OP, right?   Hate?
Click to expand...

Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?

Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.

When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding. 

You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like it, up to a point.  There are times when we are living in the present that action is required.  The key is to be able to discern when that is, right?  Too much in either direction is not necessarily good.  If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Takes too much thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seemed a logical response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, then why do you believe it takes too much thinking?  What is there to think about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't have said it better myself.
Click to expand...

Exactly, we respond real time.  No thinking required per se.  We make split decisions all the time in real time.  But philosophies of all action or all inaction are equally bad.  Let it be doesn't mean no action.  Let it be doesn't mean all action.  How is that for vague and ambiguous?


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm good without it.  It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not.  The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it.  You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...
> 
> it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.
> 
> I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.
> 
> You later AGREED.
> 
> Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.
> 
> You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue"  it degraded from there.  My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves.  It now seems you want to agree with that.  Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.
> 
> So which is it?  Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves?  Or not?
> 
> That is the topic of the OP, right?   Hate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?
> 
> Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.
> 
> When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.
> 
> You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself already.

I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that.  You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious. 

I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification.  It is not inherently an absolute statement.  Not everyone hates others like you do, GT.  Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different.   You are one intolerant dude.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> How about changing the words around:
> 
> I love you, _and _I hate you.


How about you actually have an honest discussion?  

Why do you hate others?


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not.  The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it.  You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...
> 
> it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.
> 
> I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.
> 
> You later AGREED.
> 
> Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.
> 
> You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue"  it degraded from there.  My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves.  It now seems you want to agree with that.  Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.
> 
> So which is it?  Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves?  Or not?
> 
> That is the topic of the OP, right?   Hate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?
> 
> Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.
> 
> When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.
> 
> You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already.
> 
> I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that.  You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.
> 
> I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification.  It is not inherently an absolute statement.  Not everyone hate others like you do, GT.  Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different.   You are one intolerant dude.
Click to expand...

You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?

The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats. 

Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not.  The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it.  You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.
> 
> 
> 
> The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...
> 
> it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.
> 
> I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.
> 
> You later AGREED.
> 
> Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.
> 
> You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue"  it degraded from there.  My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves.  It now seems you want to agree with that.  Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.
> 
> So which is it?  Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves?  Or not?
> 
> That is the topic of the OP, right?   Hate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?
> 
> Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.
> 
> When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.
> 
> You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already.
> 
> I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that.  You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.
> 
> I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification.  It is not inherently an absolute statement.  Not everyone hate others like you do, GT.  Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different.   You are one intolerant dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?
> 
> The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats.
> 
> Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.
Click to expand...

I'm not mad at all.  How many times did I tell you that I wasn't trying to convince you and that I was happy for you believe whatever you wanted to believe?

This post of yours is full of non-sequiturs and tangents, GT.  This post of yours is full of anger, GT.  You are literally accusing me of what you are doing.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...
> 
> it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.
> 
> I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.
> 
> You later AGREED.
> 
> Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.
> 
> You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue"  it degraded from there.  My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves.  It now seems you want to agree with that.  Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.
> 
> So which is it?  Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves?  Or not?
> 
> That is the topic of the OP, right?   Hate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?
> 
> Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.
> 
> When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.
> 
> You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already.
> 
> I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that.  You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.
> 
> I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification.  It is not inherently an absolute statement.  Not everyone hate others like you do, GT.  Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different.   You are one intolerant dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?
> 
> The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats.
> 
> Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not mad at all.  How many times did I tell you that I wasn't trying to convince you and that I was happy for you believe whatever you wanted to believe?
> 
> This post of yours is full of non-sequiturs and tangents, GT.  This post of yours is full of anger, GT.  You are literally accusing me of what you are doing.
Click to expand...

You're useless, man. Hopefully 1 of the 30 people slinging the same comments your way in the Religious forum will seep into your Autistic daftery - cuz it doesn't seem healthy iah.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue"  it degraded from there.  My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves.  It now seems you want to agree with that.  Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.
> 
> So which is it?  Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves?  Or not?
> 
> That is the topic of the OP, right?   Hate?
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?
> 
> Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.
> 
> When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.
> 
> You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already.
> 
> I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that.  You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.
> 
> I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification.  It is not inherently an absolute statement.  Not everyone hate others like you do, GT.  Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different.   You are one intolerant dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?
> 
> The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats.
> 
> Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not mad at all.  How many times did I tell you that I wasn't trying to convince you and that I was happy for you believe whatever you wanted to believe?
> 
> This post of yours is full of non-sequiturs and tangents, GT.  This post of yours is full of anger, GT.  You are literally accusing me of what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're useless, man. Hopefully 1 of the 30 people slinging the same comments your way in the Religious forum will seep into your Autistic daftery - cuz it doesn't seem healthy iah.
Click to expand...




ding said:


> If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.





ding said:


> No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine. Nor do I care if you agree with mine.





ding said:


> Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.





ding said:


> i am more than happy for you to see it that way.





ding said:


> I couldn’t be happier for you.



See?


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?
> 
> Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.
> 
> When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.
> 
> You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.
> 
> 
> 
> Get over yourself already.
> 
> I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that.  You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.
> 
> I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification.  It is not inherently an absolute statement.  Not everyone hate others like you do, GT.  Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different.   You are one intolerant dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?
> 
> The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats.
> 
> Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not mad at all.  How many times did I tell you that I wasn't trying to convince you and that I was happy for you believe whatever you wanted to believe?
> 
> This post of yours is full of non-sequiturs and tangents, GT.  This post of yours is full of anger, GT.  You are literally accusing me of what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're useless, man. Hopefully 1 of the 30 people slinging the same comments your way in the Religious forum will seep into your Autistic daftery - cuz it doesn't seem healthy iah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine. Nor do I care if you agree with mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am more than happy for you to see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn’t be happier for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?
Click to expand...

You said you want to defend your beliefs in like 10 other posts, too, ding. Again, not sure why you play these teenaged girl games like this. Its gross sophistry, and doesnt have the effect of fooling anyone.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> cuz it doesn't seem healthy iah.



My turn.  You are here seeking conflict and drama because your real life is in shambles.  I know this because of your behaviors here.  Turn the mirror on yourself.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get over yourself already.
> 
> I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, you'd just bitch about that.  You have an ax to grind and it is sooooo obvious.
> 
> I don't need to qualify we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves because it needs no qualification.  It is not inherently an absolute statement.  Not everyone hate others like you do, GT.  Some of us just want to have discussions without being insulted for no other reason than our beliefs are different.   You are one intolerant dude.
> 
> 
> 
> You're mad at me because of your own failure - and then in your obsessive need to seek conflict, you countered my claim with non-sequiturs, in confusion, because you later agreed that it was not an absolute.....which begs the question why you were taking issue with what I said in the first place. That was you, helloo0o0o0o, in there?
> 
> The real question is, who the fuck you think you're fooling with your soap box moralizing? You're a twat, and aren't gunna escape that role magically because you suddenly have an issue with folks being twats.
> 
> Your beliefs were challenged, they were sloppily written. Don't bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not mad at all.  How many times did I tell you that I wasn't trying to convince you and that I was happy for you believe whatever you wanted to believe?
> 
> This post of yours is full of non-sequiturs and tangents, GT.  This post of yours is full of anger, GT.  You are literally accusing me of what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're useless, man. Hopefully 1 of the 30 people slinging the same comments your way in the Religious forum will seep into your Autistic daftery - cuz it doesn't seem healthy iah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that’s what you want to believe then more power to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am not implying anything other than what I previously stated which is I don’t have to address or refute your position to validate mine. Nor do I care if you agree with mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, believe whatever you want. I couldn’t care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am more than happy for you to see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn’t be happier for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said you want to defend your beliefs in like 10 other posts, too, ding. Again, not sure why you play these teenaged girl games like this. Its gross sophistry, and doesnt have the effect of fooling anyone.
Click to expand...

No.  I don't believe I did say that.  I said I have beliefs because I have basis for beliefs.  Just because I share that basis doesn't mean I am defending it, GT.  It only means I am sharing why I believe as I do.  Something you do not seem capable of doing.  You practice critical theory.  You can't define what something is.  You can only criticize what you think it isn't.  And even then you need to make extreme arguments and take statements out of context like you just did here by stating that I stated that I am here to defend my beliefs.  Show me where I did that.  I'll wait.


----------



## OldLady

It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
It could be interesting.


----------



## G.T.

bye, dingerred. untrigger


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


>


The truth usually hurts before it helps.


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.


Not everyone is all good or all bad, OL.  You treat them as they are.

Just because I challenge what people say or do or believe does not mean I am humiliating them.

Tell you what, go back and show me in this thread where you believe I did this.  Because I don't believe you can.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about changing the words around:
> 
> I love you, _and _I hate you.
> 
> 
> 
> How about you actually have an honest discussion?
> 
> Why do you hate others?
Click to expand...


Feel the love.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.


Im actually mean because Ive lost tolerance for ding inside of many otherwise cordial convoes, he comes in just to snit at people and I go into defcon 4 fireback because its gross to me. I then quit engaging him for a while, month or two, while he cools off.


----------



## Mindful

Ding. You could at least try to meet me half way.


Indirect Communication: The British are relatively indirect communicators; they strongly avoid creating conflict and therefore take all necessary measures to remain polite throughout discussion. This involves making indirect statements that vaguely communicate their message without ‘rocking the boat’ (upsetting the status quo). As a result, people often have to read between the lines since what is said is most likely an understatement of what is actually meant (e.g. “not bad” means something is in fact quite good).


----------



## OldLady

ding said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is all good or all bad, OL.  You treat them as they are.
> 
> Just because I challenge what people say or do or believe does not mean I am humiliating them.
> 
> Tell you what, go back and show me in this thread where you believe I did this.  Because I don't believe you can.
Click to expand...

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> Ding. You could at least try to meet me half way.
> 
> 
> Indirect Communication: The British are relatively indirect communicators; they strongly avoid creating conflict and therefore take all necessary measures to remain polite throughout discussion. This involves making indirect statements that vaguely communicate their message without ‘rocking the boat’ (upsetting the status quo). As a result, people often have to read between the lines since what is said is most likely an understatement of what is actually meant (e.g. “not bad” means something is in fact quite good).


That's odd because wasn't it you who criticized me for being vague and ambiguous?  Sort of ironic, don't you think?

What exactly would you like for me to meet you halfway upon?  I'm not clairvoyant.


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is all good or all bad, OL.  You treat them as they are.
> 
> Just because I challenge what people say or do or believe does not mean I am humiliating them.
> 
> Tell you what, go back and show me in this thread where you believe I did this.  Because I don't believe you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

You are going to the flame zone, OL, for your proof?

How about something from this discussion?

I would be more than happy to provide examples of where other people have done this IN THIS THREAD.  In fact, I bet I could find a dozen or so examples OF OTHERS IN THIS THREAD.  I don't believe you will find one example of me doing that IN THIS THREAD.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding. You could at least try to meet me half way.
> 
> 
> Indirect Communication: The British are relatively indirect communicators; they strongly avoid creating conflict and therefore take all necessary measures to remain polite throughout discussion. This involves making indirect statements that vaguely communicate their message without ‘rocking the boat’ (upsetting the status quo). As a result, people often have to read between the lines since what is said is most likely an understatement of what is actually meant (e.g. “not bad” means something is in fact quite good).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's odd because wasn't it you who criticized me for being vague and ambiguous?  Sort of ironic, don't you think?
> 
> What exactly would you like for me to meet you halfway upon?  I'm not clairvoyant.
Click to expand...


Why not? I expect you to  know what's going on in that rat's maze of a brain of mine.

You're not vague. You're maddeningly  obtuse. And deliberately awkward.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually mean because Ive lost tolerance for ding inside of many otherwise cordial convoes, he comes in just to snit at people and I go into defcon 4 fireback because its gross to me. I then quit engaging him for a while, month or two, while he cools off.
Click to expand...

I noticed you are following ding around like an infuriated chihuahua at the moment, but that's between you and him.  Both of you seem to enjoy it.  I'm just glad I am no longer being rudely snubbed, which really pissed me off, but I didn't HATE anyone for it.  Honest.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually mean because Ive lost tolerance for ding inside of many otherwise cordial convoes, he comes in just to snit at people and I go into defcon 4 fireback because its gross to me. I then quit engaging him for a while, month or two, while he cools off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed you are following ding around like an infuriated chihuahua at the moment, but that's between you and him.  Both of you seem to enjoy it.  I'm just glad I am no longer being rudely snubbed, which really pissed me off, but I didn't HATE anyone for it.  Honest.
Click to expand...

There's not much following of each other going on from my perspective ~ responding really. But I can see that. Im in about 4 simultaneous convoes and he was 1/4th of them and its a big board so, point taken


----------



## Valerie

ten to one odds on the one named old lady actually being an old lady


----------



## OldLady

ding said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is all good or all bad, OL.  You treat them as they are.
> 
> Just because I challenge what people say or do or believe does not mean I am humiliating them.
> 
> Tell you what, go back and show me in this thread where you believe I did this.  Because I don't believe you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are going to the flame zone, OL, for your proof?
> 
> How about something from this discussion?
> 
> I would be more than happy to provide examples of where other people have done this IN THIS THREAD.  In fact, I bet I could find a dozen or so examples OF OTHERS IN THIS THREAD.  I don't believe you will find one example of me doing that IN THIS THREAD.
Click to expand...

Ding, I made it clear I was interested in how *up here* you seem to defend one thing and then *go downstairs *and behave in the exact opposite fashion.  So of course I gave a downstairs example.
Don't be flopping around and trying to deflect like they do in Politics.
Or you can just start ignoring me again.  But I am not playing go seek/go find in this thread because it has nothing to do with my point.
You gonna try to weasel out of your own behavior in that thread?  Chickie was clearly uncomfortable and hurt by it and you soldiered on and on.  Anyway, that isn't actually the point, unless you decide to make it one.


----------



## Valerie

OldLady said:


> I'm just glad I am no longer being rudely snubbed, which really pissed me off.


----------



## OldLady

Valerie said:


> ten to one odds on the one named old lady actually being an old lady


Brilliant deduction, but you didn't read the posts, did you?


----------



## Valerie

nope.. not going to bother.


----------



## captkaos

Wry Catcher said:


> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?


I think mindful is really caught up in his own importance and wants everyone to see how Intelligent and literate he is by using big words and expressing philosophical ideas he thinks people care about watch how easy it is to get your point across to others. Here I go! Hey mindless that was really mindless drivel that only you understand STFU


----------



## captkaos

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
Click to expand...

Nah it's easier to hate! doesn't take any thought or self reflection and works on everybody I don't hate you for what you are ! I hate you because you are!


----------



## captkaos

Wry Catcher said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice. Needs the attention span of something more than a gnat.
> 
> Though a lot of folk on USMB just love to hate. It's nectar to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you feel about Obama, liberals, HRC?
Click to expand...

We don't hate them for what they are, But because they are.


----------



## Valerie

ftr i was being generous with the odds. 


ps the one named mindful is a dopey rumpswab


----------



## captkaos

Cool we all hate you too so you have that to fall back on


Mindful said:


> From a William Hazlitt essay.
> 
> 
> 
> As to my old opinions, I am heartily sick of them. I have reason, for they have deceived me sadly. I was taught to think, and I was willing to believe, that genius was not a bawd, that virtue was not a mask, that liberty was not a name, that love had its seat in the human heart. Now I would care little if these words were struck out of the dictionary, or if I had never heard them. They are become to my ears a mockery and a dream. Instead of patriots and friends of freedom, I see nothing but the tyrant and the slave, the people linked with kings to rivet on the chains of despotism and superstition. I see folly join with knavery, and together make up public spirit and public opinions. I see the insolent Tory, the blind Reformer, the coward Whig! If mankind had wished for what is right, they might have had it long ago.
> 
> The theory is plain enough; but they are prone to mischief, "to every good work reprobate." I have seen all that had been done by the mighty yearnings of the spirit and intellect of men, "of whom the world was not worthy," and that promised a proud opening to truth and good through the vista of future years, undone by one man, with just glimmering of understanding enough to feel that he was a king, but not to comprehend how he could be king of a free people!
> 
> I have seen this triumph celebrated by poets, the friends of my youth and the friends of men, but who were carried away by the infuriate tide that, setting in from a throne, bore down every distinction of right reason before it; and I have seen all those who did not join in applauding this insult and outrage on humanity proscribed, hunted down (they and their friends made a byword of), so that it has become an understood thing that no one can live by his talents or knowledge who is not ready to prostitute those talents and that knowledge to betray his species, and prey upon his fellow- man. "This was some time a mystery: but the time gives evidence of it." The echoes of liberty had awakened once more in Spain, and the mornings of human hope dawned again: but that dawn has been overcast by the foul breath of bigotry, and those reviving sounds stifled by fresh cries from the time-rent towers of the Inquisition - man yielding (as it is fit he should) first to brute force, but more to the innate perversity and dastard spirit of his own nature which leaves no room for farther hope or disappointment.
> 
> And England, that arch-reformer, that heroic deliverer, that mouther about liberty, and tool of power, stands gaping by, not feeling the blight and mildew coming over it, nor its very bones crack and turn to a paste under the grasp and circling folds of this new monster, Legitimacy! In private life do we not see hypocrisy, servility, selfishness, folly, and impudence succeed, while modesty shrinks from the encounter, and merit is trodden under foot? How often is "the rose plucked from the forehead of a virtuous love to plant a blister there!" What chance is there of the success of real passion? What certainty of its continuance?
> 
> Seeing all this as I do, and unravelling the web of human life into its various threads of meanness, spite, cowardice, want of feeling, and want of understanding, of indifference towards others, and ignorance of ourselves, - seeing custom prevail over all excellence, itself giving way to infamy - mistaken as I have been in my public and private hopes, calculating others from myself, and calculating wrong; always disappointed where I placed most reliance; the dupe of friendship, and the fool of love; - have I not reason to hate and to despise myself? Indeed I do; and chiefly for not having hated and despised the world enough.


----------



## OldLady

captkaos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> I think mindful is really caught up in his own importance and wants everyone to see how Intelligent and literate he is by using big words and expressing philosophical ideas he thinks people care about watch how easy it is to get your point across to others. Here I go! Hey mindless that was really mindless drivel that only you understand STFU
Click to expand...

Those were Hazlitt's words, not hers.  She hasn't produced a single thought about the OP; all she does is flirt with her boys.


----------



## G.T.

Valerie said:


> ftr i was being generous with the odds.
> 
> 
> ps the one named mindful is a dopey rumpswab


How come you're not entertaining my boredom in the 4f? Its not 5 oclock somewhere yet?


----------



## Valerie

captkaos said:


> Cool we all hate you too so you have that to fall back on




you talking to me..?


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> captkaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> I think mindful is really caught up in his own importance and wants everyone to see how Intelligent and literate he is by using big words and expressing philosophical ideas he thinks people care about watch how easy it is to get your point across to others. Here I go! Hey mindless that was really mindless drivel that only you understand STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were Hazlitt's words, not hers.  She hasn't produced a single thought about the OP; all she does is flirt with her boys.
Click to expand...

You're ruthlessly red pilling today, girl. I sometimes feel bad when I go into cocky mean mode in front of you but gaawd dayum you are fileting Ham 2day : 0


----------



## Valerie

G.T. said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ftr i was being generous with the odds.
> 
> 
> ps the one named mindful is a dopey rumpswab
> 
> 
> 
> How come you're not entertaining my boredom in the 4f? Its not 5 oclock somewhere yet?
Click to expand...




i thought of it but i am in left brain mode at the moment, so being creative gets rusty..


----------



## Mindful

captkaos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> I think mindful is really caught up in his own importance and wants everyone to see how Intelligent and literate he is by using big words and expressing philosophical ideas he thinks people care about watch how easy it is to get your point across to others. Here I go! Hey mindless that was really mindless drivel that only you understand STFU
Click to expand...



Cheers. 

Thanks for telling me.


----------



## Valerie

i only posted here cuz i thought the phony old bag was giving you a hard time, G..


i'm sure the haters HATED my posts.. which made me smile.  

carry on!


----------



## G.T.

Valerie said:


> i only posted here cuz i thought the phony old bag was giving you a hard time, G..
> 
> 
> i'm sure the haters HATED my posts.. which made me smile.
> 
> carry on!


I appreciate ya, always. 

I dont think Old Lady likes my personality when I give Ding his shit right back to him.....and she's typically very nice and so I dont get upset with her when she's judging me. I am bein a dick!! So....if shes seeing it that way, I can totally relate


----------



## Mindful

Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.

William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia

Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.

So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> captkaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> I think mindful is really caught up in his own importance and wants everyone to see how Intelligent and literate he is by using big words and expressing philosophical ideas he thinks people care about watch how easy it is to get your point across to others. Here I go! Hey mindless that was really mindless drivel that only you understand STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were Hazlitt's words, not hers.  She hasn't produced a single thought about the OP; all she does is flirt with her boys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ruthlessly red pilling today, girl. I sometimes feel bad when I go into cocky mean mode in front of you but gaawd dayum you are fileting Ham 2day : 0
Click to expand...

I don't know what red pilling means.  Is it bad?
I'm not trying to insult you, if that means anything.  I'm delighted you're back.


----------



## Valerie

G.T. said:


> They don't consider the 3rd, 4th and 5th options. Binary thought doesnt win any ballgames.





ding said:


> Every aspect of a particle can be expressed as information, and put into binary code. So you should be careful about dismissing binary thought as information is binary.  The universe could theoretically be broken down into ones and zeroes.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> captkaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> I think mindful is really caught up in his own importance and wants everyone to see how Intelligent and literate he is by using big words and expressing philosophical ideas he thinks people care about watch how easy it is to get your point across to others. Here I go! Hey mindless that was really mindless drivel that only you understand STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were Hazlitt's words, not hers.  She hasn't produced a single thought about the OP; all she does is flirt with her boys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ruthlessly red pilling today, girl. I sometimes feel bad when I go into cocky mean mode in front of you but gaawd dayum you are fileting Ham 2day : 0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what red pilling means.  Is it bad?
> I'm not trying to insult you, if that means anything.  I'm delighted you're back.
Click to expand...

Red pill is a reference to the Movie The Matrix, where he had the choice to swallow the red pill and see reality for what it actually is.

Its now used colloquially in formal philosophical debate to indicate that someone is smacking someone down with the truth.

So when I say youre red pilling, its a compliment


----------



## OldLady

Mindful said:


> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.


So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.

What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.


----------



## OldLady

Mindful said:


> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.


You can't backstab someone who is standing right in front of you, Mindful.  If I wanted to say nasty things about you in secret (which I have no interest in doing) I would do it in PM or tell it to my cat.

Duplicitous means two faced and I challenge you to show me where I've been nice to you anywhere in this thread or elsewhere in the past few months.  Unless rolling my eyes and keeping my mouth shut is considered "nice."


----------



## Mindful

OldLady said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
Click to expand...


See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.

Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.

I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.


----------



## Mindful

OldLady said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't backstab someone who is standing right in front of you, Mindful.  If I wanted to say nasty things about you in secret (which I have no interest in doing) I would do it in PM or tell it to my cat.
> 
> Duplicitous means two faced and I challenge you to show me where I've been nice to you anywhere in this thread or elsewhere in the past few months.  Unless rolling my eyes and keeping my mouth shut is considered "nice."
Click to expand...


Snide remarks about flirting, when I was being friendly. Usually, that's a male  trait.

I could, but I don't take you to task, or even comment, on some of the stuff you come out with.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> i only posted here cuz i thought the phony old bag was giving you a hard time, G..
> 
> 
> i'm sure the haters HATED my posts.. which made me smile.
> 
> carry on!
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate ya, always.
> 
> I dont think Old Lady likes my personality when I give Ding his shit right back to him.....and she's typically very nice and so I dont get upset with her when she's judging me. I am bein a dick!! So....if shes seeing it that way, I can totally relate
Click to expand...

I'm not judging, just sayin'.  There's a difference.   Maybe that's why I don't hate much:  I have trouble making judgments a lot, but once I do -- like Ding's thread about who's the better lay -- I'm a friggin' elephant.  I can put it in the closet and carry on but it's always there.   It's not hate though.
Anyway, you're the best, G.T.


----------



## Synthaholic

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
Click to expand...

For sure, most of the wingnuts on this site get personal joy from being hateful. It’s pretty obvious in every thread. A perfect example is their irrational hatred for Chelsea Clinton, who has never been in public office and hasn’t done a thing to warrant any hatred. But she’s the daughter of someone they irrationally hate, and that’s all they need.


----------



## Valerie

Mindful said:


> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.




you're projecting.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
Click to expand...

Your OP has no meat, and thats the problem.

Folks DID respond, Ive seen direct comments regarding the thoughts in the pieces and you completely ignored everyones thoughts and play some corny, coy games.

YOU never even added commentary to your OWN op.

WE did that for you.

The writer was DEPRESSED. Not everyone wakes up the way that he does, and so its an inaccurate view of the overall human condition and instead just an insight into depression. Specifically, his OWN depression.

^ thats way more words regarding the topic than YOUVE offered, which is what old lady was correctly pointing out, control freak.


----------



## Mindful

Synthaholic said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For sure, most of the wingnuts on this site get personal joy from being hateful. It’s pretty obvious in every thread. A perfect example is their irrational hatred for Chelsea Clinton, who has never been in public office and hasn’t done a thing to warrant any hatred. But she’s the daughter of someone they irrationally hate, and that’s all they need.
Click to expand...


One could apply that argument across the board.

Who really does anything to warrant irrational hatred? 

It's all around us. A sign of our cynical times, I guess.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> i only posted here cuz i thought the phony old bag was giving you a hard time, G..
> 
> 
> i'm sure the haters HATED my posts.. which made me smile.
> 
> carry on!
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate ya, always.
> 
> I dont think Old Lady likes my personality when I give Ding his shit right back to him.....and she's typically very nice and so I dont get upset with her when she's judging me. I am bein a dick!! So....if shes seeing it that way, I can totally relate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not judging, just sayin'.  There's a difference.   Maybe that's why I don't hate much:  I have trouble making judgments a lot, but once I do -- like Ding's thread about who's the better lay -- I'm a friggin' elephant.  I can put it in the closet and carry on but it's always there.   It's not hate though.
> Anyway, you're the best, G.T.
Click to expand...

Well, youre always reasonable and so when you have something to say about my behavior, I find it easier to accept and contemplate.


----------



## OldLady

Mindful said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry the on topic remarks I've made here haven't been sufficiently meaty for you.  I don't know whose "tribe" you think I'm fighting for.  I agree with G.T. and now Ding that Jung's theory--that what we hate in others is what we hate in ourselves--is not always the case.
I felt sorry for Hazlitt, reading that excerpt.  He sounded frustrated and defeated, to me.  I didn't mean any disrespect to him.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your OP has no meat, and thats the problem.
> 
> Folks DID respond, Ive seen direct comments regarding the thoughts in the pieces and you completely ignored everyones thoughts and play some corny, coy games.
> 
> YOU never even added commentary to your OWN op.
> 
> WE did that for you.
> 
> The writer was DEPRESSED. Not everyone wakes up the way that he does, and so its an inaccurate view of the overall human condition and instead just an insight into depression. Specifically, his OWN depression.
> 
> ^ thats way more words regarding the topic than YOUVE offered, which is what old lady was correctly pointing out, control freak.
Click to expand...


Whatever turns you on.


----------



## Valerie

Mindful said:


> Who really does anything to warrant irrational hatred?




hackers, data miners, and the sockaholic longcon they rode in on.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your OP has no meat, and thats the problem.
> 
> Folks DID respond, Ive seen direct comments regarding the thoughts in the pieces and you completely ignored everyones thoughts and play some corny, coy games.
> 
> YOU never even added commentary to your OWN op.
> 
> WE did that for you.
> 
> The writer was DEPRESSED. Not everyone wakes up the way that he does, and so its an inaccurate view of the overall human condition and instead just an insight into depression. Specifically, his OWN depression.
> 
> ^ thats way more words regarding the topic than YOUVE offered, which is what old lady was correctly pointing out, control freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever turns you on.
Click to expand...

This is how youve responded to ALL direct commentary on the OP.

Coy, and childish. Then you wonder why old ladys said what shes said. Its lame, but whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Mindful

OldLady said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry the on topic remarks I've made here haven't been sufficiently meaty for you.  I don't know whose "tribe" you think I'm fighting for.  I agree with G.T. and now Ding that Jung's theory--that what we hate in others is what we hate in ourselves--is not always the case.
> I felt sorry for Hazlitt, reading that excerpt.  He sounded frustrated and defeated, to me.  I didn't mean any disrespect to him.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with Ding's theory either.

But he and GT were ramming their own egos down my throat, I hardly had room to breathe, let alone find my way around their rabbit holes.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your OP has no meat, and thats the problem.
> 
> Folks DID respond, Ive seen direct comments regarding the thoughts in the pieces and you completely ignored everyones thoughts and play some corny, coy games.
> 
> YOU never even added commentary to your OWN op.
> 
> WE did that for you.
> 
> The writer was DEPRESSED. Not everyone wakes up the way that he does, and so its an inaccurate view of the overall human condition and instead just an insight into depression. Specifically, his OWN depression.
> 
> ^ thats way more words regarding the topic than YOUVE offered, which is what old lady was correctly pointing out, control freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever turns you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is how youve responded to ALL direct commentary on the OP.
> 
> Coy, and childish. Then you wonder why old ladys said what shes said. Its lame, but whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...


You want that to bother me?

You're culturally isolated. Crass and provincial.


----------



## G.T.

Valerie said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who really does anything to warrant irrational hatred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hackers, data miners, and the sockaholic longcon they rode in on.
Click to expand...

Rapists, child molestors, thieves, homophobes, racists, bad faith actors, murderers, the vindictive, folks who never practice humility, and MOST OF ALL.....


The DMV


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your OP has no meat, and thats the problem.
> 
> Folks DID respond, Ive seen direct comments regarding the thoughts in the pieces and you completely ignored everyones thoughts and play some corny, coy games.
> 
> YOU never even added commentary to your OWN op.
> 
> WE did that for you.
> 
> The writer was DEPRESSED. Not everyone wakes up the way that he does, and so its an inaccurate view of the overall human condition and instead just an insight into depression. Specifically, his OWN depression.
> 
> ^ thats way more words regarding the topic than YOUVE offered, which is what old lady was correctly pointing out, control freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever turns you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is how youve responded to ALL direct commentary on the OP.
> 
> Coy, and childish. Then you wonder why old ladys said what shes said. Its lame, but whatever floats your boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want that to bother me?
> 
> You're culturally isolated. Crass and provincial.
Click to expand...

Thats an assertion, and Id duck all of the comments on your OP and play games if I were sad and alone, too.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry the on topic remarks I've made here haven't been sufficiently meaty for you.  I don't know whose "tribe" you think I'm fighting for.  I agree with G.T. and now Ding that Jung's theory--that what we hate in others is what we hate in ourselves--is not always the case.
> I felt sorry for Hazlitt, reading that excerpt.  He sounded frustrated and defeated, to me.  I didn't mean any disrespect to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Ding's theory either.
> 
> But he and GT were ramming their own egos down my throat, I hardly had room to breathe, let alone find my way around their rabbit holes.
Click to expand...

Its text. Youre a little dramatic there....if you cant handle reading shit without feeling rammed, log off. Its a button.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> 
> 
> Your OP has no meat, and thats the problem.
> 
> Folks DID respond, Ive seen direct comments regarding the thoughts in the pieces and you completely ignored everyones thoughts and play some corny, coy games.
> 
> YOU never even added commentary to your OWN op.
> 
> WE did that for you.
> 
> The writer was DEPRESSED. Not everyone wakes up the way that he does, and so its an inaccurate view of the overall human condition and instead just an insight into depression. Specifically, his OWN depression.
> 
> ^ thats way more words regarding the topic than YOUVE offered, which is what old lady was correctly pointing out, control freak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever turns you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is how youve responded to ALL direct commentary on the OP.
> 
> Coy, and childish. Then you wonder why old ladys said what shes said. Its lame, but whatever floats your boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want that to bother me?
> 
> You're culturally isolated. Crass and provincial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats an assertion, and Id duck all of the comments on your OP and play games if I were sad and alone, too.
Click to expand...


Are you by any chance projecting?


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry the on topic remarks I've made here haven't been sufficiently meaty for you.  I don't know whose "tribe" you think I'm fighting for.  I agree with G.T. and now Ding that Jung's theory--that what we hate in others is what we hate in ourselves--is not always the case.
> I felt sorry for Hazlitt, reading that excerpt.  He sounded frustrated and defeated, to me.  I didn't mean any disrespect to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Ding's theory either.
> 
> But he and GT were ramming their own egos down my throat, I hardly had room to breathe, let alone find my way around their rabbit holes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its text. Youre a little dramatic there....if you cant handle reading shit without feeling rammed, log off. Its a button.
Click to expand...


If you're giving me an ultimatum, you can sod off. You boring little man.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry the on topic remarks I've made here haven't been sufficiently meaty for you.  I don't know whose "tribe" you think I'm fighting for.  I agree with G.T. and now Ding that Jung's theory--that what we hate in others is what we hate in ourselves--is not always the case.
> I felt sorry for Hazlitt, reading that excerpt.  He sounded frustrated and defeated, to me.  I didn't mean any disrespect to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Ding's theory either.
> 
> But he and GT were ramming their own egos down my throat, I hardly had room to breathe, let alone find my way around their rabbit holes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its text. Youre a little dramatic there....if you cant handle reading shit without feeling rammed, log off. Its a button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're giving me an ultimatum, you can sod off. You boring little man.
Click to expand...

Youre emotional because youre out of your depth and would rather play little teenager games than address all or any of the responses to your OP that youve avoided .

YOU didnt even comment on your OP. Youre not fooling anyone.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry the on topic remarks I've made here haven't been sufficiently meaty for you.  I don't know whose "tribe" you think I'm fighting for.  I agree with G.T. and now Ding that Jung's theory--that what we hate in others is what we hate in ourselves--is not always the case.
> I felt sorry for Hazlitt, reading that excerpt.  He sounded frustrated and defeated, to me.  I didn't mean any disrespect to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Ding's theory either.
> 
> But he and GT were ramming their own egos down my throat, I hardly had room to breathe, let alone find my way around their rabbit holes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its text. Youre a little dramatic there....if you cant handle reading shit without feeling rammed, log off. Its a button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're giving me an ultimatum, you can sod off. You boring little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre emotional because youre out of your depth and would rather play little teenager games than address all or any of the responses to your OP that youve avoided .
> 
> YOU didnt even comment on your OP. Youre not fooling anyone.
Click to expand...


You're not anyone. You're no one. With the intellect of a juvenile.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry the on topic remarks I've made here haven't been sufficiently meaty for you.  I don't know whose "tribe" you think I'm fighting for.  I agree with G.T. and now Ding that Jung's theory--that what we hate in others is what we hate in ourselves--is not always the case.
> I felt sorry for Hazlitt, reading that excerpt.  He sounded frustrated and defeated, to me.  I didn't mean any disrespect to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Ding's theory either.
> 
> But he and GT were ramming their own egos down my throat, I hardly had room to breathe, let alone find my way around their rabbit holes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its text. Youre a little dramatic there....if you cant handle reading shit without feeling rammed, log off. Its a button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're giving me an ultimatum, you can sod off. You boring little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre emotional because youre out of your depth and would rather play little teenager games than address all or any of the responses to your OP that youve avoided .
> 
> YOU didnt even comment on your OP. Youre not fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not anyone. You're no one. With the intellect of a juvenile.
Click to expand...

I responded to your OP.

You resorted to teenager like whimsical word games.

Just because desperate guys that are thirsty on the internet have responded to your pattycake fruit show, doesn't make it the case for other people who can see through your desperate and lonely bullshit.


You ducked your own OP in order to do your typical tit for tat neener neener. The facts on the field are there for everyone, suck it the fuck up.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Ding's theory either.
> 
> But he and GT were ramming their own egos down my throat, I hardly had room to breathe, let alone find my way around their rabbit holes.
> 
> 
> 
> Its text. Youre a little dramatic there....if you cant handle reading shit without feeling rammed, log off. Its a button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're giving me an ultimatum, you can sod off. You boring little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre emotional because youre out of your depth and would rather play little teenager games than address all or any of the responses to your OP that youve avoided .
> 
> YOU didnt even comment on your OP. Youre not fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not anyone. You're no one. With the intellect of a juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I responded to your OP.
> 
> You resorted to teenager like whimsical word games.
> 
> Just because desperate guys that are thirsty on the internet have responded to your pattycake fruit show, doesn't make it the case for other people who can see through your desperate and lonely bullshit.
> 
> 
> You ducked your own OP in order to do your typical tit for tat neener neener. The facts on the field are there for everyone, suck it the fuck up.
Click to expand...


You're still  a boring boonies little man.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its text. Youre a little dramatic there....if you cant handle reading shit without feeling rammed, log off. Its a button.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're giving me an ultimatum, you can sod off. You boring little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre emotional because youre out of your depth and would rather play little teenager games than address all or any of the responses to your OP that youve avoided .
> 
> YOU didnt even comment on your OP. Youre not fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not anyone. You're no one. With the intellect of a juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I responded to your OP.
> 
> You resorted to teenager like whimsical word games.
> 
> Just because desperate guys that are thirsty on the internet have responded to your pattycake fruit show, doesn't make it the case for other people who can see through your desperate and lonely bullshit.
> 
> 
> You ducked your own OP in order to do your typical tit for tat neener neener. The facts on the field are there for everyone, suck it the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still  a boring boonies little man.
Click to expand...

Dont post ideas if youre unwilling to engage them, is a Novel idea Broomhilda.

Folks tried, and you slithered.


----------



## Mindful

As soon as there's the whiff of a brawl going on, they start swarming in. lmao.

GT being the chief protagonist. 


Which proves my point about the OP. The sheer pleasure. 

Toro will show up soon, with his two cents worth. He's so into spectator sports.


----------



## G.T.

"Its a troll thread"

We see who is the juvenile.

Youre always out of your depth, lady. Im not sure its a bad idea for you to just continue to cut and paste....the ideas seem conceptually out of your grasp to discuss.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're giving me an ultimatum, you can sod off. You boring little man.
> 
> 
> 
> Youre emotional because youre out of your depth and would rather play little teenager games than address all or any of the responses to your OP that youve avoided .
> 
> YOU didnt even comment on your OP. Youre not fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not anyone. You're no one. With the intellect of a juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I responded to your OP.
> 
> You resorted to teenager like whimsical word games.
> 
> Just because desperate guys that are thirsty on the internet have responded to your pattycake fruit show, doesn't make it the case for other people who can see through your desperate and lonely bullshit.
> 
> 
> You ducked your own OP in order to do your typical tit for tat neener neener. The facts on the field are there for everyone, suck it the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still  a boring boonies little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont post ideas if youre unwilling to engage them, is a Novel idea Broomhilda.
> 
> Folks tried, and you slithered.
Click to expand...


Don't jump on people's throats before they have a chance to, Torquemada.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> "Its a troll thread"
> 
> We see who is the juvenile.
> 
> Youre always out of your depth, lady. Im not sure its a bad idea for you to just continue to cut and paste....the ideas seem conceptually out of your grasp to discuss.




Is this the Jerry Springer Show, you neurotic dolt?


----------



## Valerie

G.T. said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who really does anything to warrant irrational hatred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hackers, data miners, and the sockaholic longcon they rode in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapists, child molestors, thieves, homophobes, racists, bad faith actors, murderers, the vindictive, folks who never practice humility, and MOST OF ALL.....
> 
> 
> The DMV
Click to expand...



ftr i regularly practice humility everywhere, except in the vicinity of those types  


thankful i haven't had to go to the DMV in years btw


----------



## Valerie

Mindful said:


> As soon as there's the whiff of a brawl going on, they start swarming in. lmao.


----------



## G.T.

Valerie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who really does anything to warrant irrational hatred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hackers, data miners, and the sockaholic longcon they rode in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapists, child molestors, thieves, homophobes, racists, bad faith actors, murderers, the vindictive, folks who never practice humility, and MOST OF ALL.....
> 
> 
> The DMV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ftr i regularly practice humility everywhere, except in the vicinity of those types
> 
> 
> thankful i haven't had to go to the DMV in years btw
Click to expand...

Same.

I have no reservations in being a stern ass hole when I find somebody to be ruthlessly reprehensible.

The chips can land wherever after that.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who really does anything to warrant irrational hatred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hackers, data miners, and the sockaholic longcon they rode in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapists, child molestors, thieves, homophobes, racists, bad faith actors, murderers, the vindictive, folks who never practice humility, and MOST OF ALL.....
> 
> 
> The DMV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ftr i regularly practice humility everywhere, except in the vicinity of those types
> 
> 
> thankful i haven't had to go to the DMV in years btw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same.
> 
> I have no reservations in being a stern ass hole when I find somebody to be ruthlessly reprehensible.
> 
> The chips can land wherever after that.
Click to expand...


You don't get to be judge and jury, you twit.


----------



## Valerie

^ hater's gonna hate


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who really does anything to warrant irrational hatred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hackers, data miners, and the sockaholic longcon they rode in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapists, child molestors, thieves, homophobes, racists, bad faith actors, murderers, the vindictive, folks who never practice humility, and MOST OF ALL.....
> 
> 
> The DMV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ftr i regularly practice humility everywhere, except in the vicinity of those types
> 
> 
> thankful i haven't had to go to the DMV in years btw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same.
> 
> I have no reservations in being a stern ass hole when I find somebody to be ruthlessly reprehensible.
> 
> The chips can land wherever after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to be judge and jury, you twit.
Click to expand...

In the court of my own opinion of others? What do you.....get your opinions spoon fed for you or something? Take your cues of who you like from someone elses authority? That was a really weird comment, ass hole. More from you being such a control freak.

Youre wiggin out because the dialogue isnt in your control


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> As soon as there's the whiff of a brawl going on, they start swarming in. lmao.
> 
> GT being the chief protagonist.
> 
> 
> Which proves my point about the OP. The sheer pleasure.
> 
> Toro will show up soon, with his two cents worth. He's so into spectator sports.


----------



## Moonglow

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> hackers, data miners, and the sockaholic longcon they rode in on.
> 
> 
> 
> Rapists, child molestors, thieves, homophobes, racists, bad faith actors, murderers, the vindictive, folks who never practice humility, and MOST OF ALL.....
> 
> 
> The DMV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ftr i regularly practice humility everywhere, except in the vicinity of those types
> 
> 
> thankful i haven't had to go to the DMV in years btw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same.
> 
> I have no reservations in being a stern ass hole when I find somebody to be ruthlessly reprehensible.
> 
> The chips can land wherever after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to be judge and jury, you twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the court of my own opinion of others? What do you.....get your opinions spoon fed for you or something? Take your cues of who you like from someone elses authority? That was a really weird comment, ass hole. More from you being such a control freak.
> 
> Youre wiggin out because the dialogue isnt in your control
Click to expand...

And she knows you like to wear pirate shirts..


----------



## G.T.

Moonglow said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rapists, child molestors, thieves, homophobes, racists, bad faith actors, murderers, the vindictive, folks who never practice humility, and MOST OF ALL.....
> 
> 
> The DMV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ftr i regularly practice humility everywhere, except in the vicinity of those types
> 
> 
> thankful i haven't had to go to the DMV in years btw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same.
> 
> I have no reservations in being a stern ass hole when I find somebody to be ruthlessly reprehensible.
> 
> The chips can land wherever after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to be judge and jury, you twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the court of my own opinion of others? What do you.....get your opinions spoon fed for you or something? Take your cues of who you like from someone elses authority? That was a really weird comment, ass hole. More from you being such a control freak.
> 
> Youre wiggin out because the dialogue isnt in your control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And she knows you like to wear pirate shirts..
Click to expand...

So long as its not the butt ones. : 0


----------



## Moonglow

Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> hackers, data miners, and the sockaholic longcon they rode in on.
> 
> 
> 
> Rapists, child molestors, thieves, homophobes, racists, bad faith actors, murderers, the vindictive, folks who never practice humility, and MOST OF ALL.....
> 
> 
> The DMV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ftr i regularly practice humility everywhere, except in the vicinity of those types
> 
> 
> thankful i haven't had to go to the DMV in years btw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same.
> 
> I have no reservations in being a stern ass hole when I find somebody to be ruthlessly reprehensible.
> 
> The chips can land wherever after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to be judge and jury, you twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the court of my own opinion of others? What do you.....get your opinions spoon fed for you or something? Take your cues of who you like from someone elses authority? That was a really weird comment, ass hole. More from you being such a control freak.
> 
> Youre wiggin out because the dialogue isnt in your control
Click to expand...



You seem positively orgasmic in your rantings and frothings.

You must be jumping up and down in ecstasy. 

Your poor typewriter. Having to withstand all that bashing.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rapists, child molestors, thieves, homophobes, racists, bad faith actors, murderers, the vindictive, folks who never practice humility, and MOST OF ALL.....
> 
> 
> The DMV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ftr i regularly practice humility everywhere, except in the vicinity of those types
> 
> 
> thankful i haven't had to go to the DMV in years btw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same.
> 
> I have no reservations in being a stern ass hole when I find somebody to be ruthlessly reprehensible.
> 
> The chips can land wherever after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to be judge and jury, you twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the court of my own opinion of others? What do you.....get your opinions spoon fed for you or something? Take your cues of who you like from someone elses authority? That was a really weird comment, ass hole. More from you being such a control freak.
> 
> Youre wiggin out because the dialogue isnt in your control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem positively orgasmic in your rantings and frothings.
> 
> You must be jumping up and down in ecstasy.
> 
> Your poor typewriter. Having to withstand all that bashing.
Click to expand...

You type, you don't have an auto text program?


----------



## Mindful

Moonglow said:


> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...



And here you are. With some sage advice. Go and help GT out. He's all in a heap, quivering in the corner.


----------



## Mindful

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ftr i regularly practice humility everywhere, except in the vicinity of those types
> 
> 
> thankful i haven't had to go to the DMV in years btw
> 
> 
> 
> Same.
> 
> I have no reservations in being a stern ass hole when I find somebody to be ruthlessly reprehensible.
> 
> The chips can land wherever after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to be judge and jury, you twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the court of my own opinion of others? What do you.....get your opinions spoon fed for you or something? Take your cues of who you like from someone elses authority? That was a really weird comment, ass hole. More from you being such a control freak.
> 
> Youre wiggin out because the dialogue isnt in your control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem positively orgasmic in your rantings and frothings.
> 
> You must be jumping up and down in ecstasy.
> 
> Your poor typewriter. Having to withstand all that bashing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You type, you don't have an auto text program?
Click to expand...


I don't type. He does. He's so old fashioned. Probably eats cornflakes for breakfast.


----------



## G.T.

Moonglow said:


> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...


I actually agree with that, mostly. A LOT of philosophers take what's obvious to most folks and type out what's already intuitive - and I think it seems to be people that dont contemplate things on any deeper level much that find it profound.

Its absurd to say that its the same for all philosophers, though. Its nice to find some gems that youve never contemplated before. It just sucks that youve gotta weed through so much pseudo intellectual propaganda to find it. 

This OP is a great example. There are obvious archetypes that certain humans possess, and saying things like " we love to hate" is one of those stubbornly obvious parts of a subset of humanity that it serves no utility to speak about, at length. We already thought and learned about it, at length, merely by living the human experience.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here you are. With some sage advice. Go and help GT out. He's all in a heap, quivering in the corner.
Click to expand...

He holding a g flat screaming.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here you are. With some sage advice. Go and help GT out. He's all in a heap, quivering in the corner.
Click to expand...

Do you need a tissue, or a nap or something?

The guy just dissed your OP and you were too daft to even realize it. Youre a professional dumbfuck?


----------



## Moonglow

G.T. said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...
> 
> 
> 
> I actually agree with that, mostly. A LOT of philosophers take what's obvious to most folks and type out what's already intuitive - and I think it seems to be people that dont contemplate things on any deeper level much that find it profound.
> 
> Its absurd to say that its the same for all philosophers, though. Its nice to find some gems that youve never contemplated before. It just sucks that youve gotta weed through so much pseudo intellectual propaganda to find it.
> 
> This OP is a great example. There are obvious archetypes that certain humans possess, and saying things like " we love to hate" is one of those stubbornly obvious parts of a subset of humanity that it serves no utility to speak about, at length. We already thought and learned about it, at length, merely by living the human experience.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed I am used to doing it because it's fun and I know the end will come when you can't do anything but post grumpy thoughts on USMB like Whetherman or Owel...


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here you are. With some sage advice. Go and help GT out. He's all in a heap, quivering in the corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need a tissue, or a nap or something?
> 
> The guy just dissed your OP and you were too daft to even realize it. Youre a professional dumbfuck?
Click to expand...


The way you express yourself. 

Do you come from one of those places where they grill squirrels, and play banjos and fiddles in the barn?


----------



## Erinwltr

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> 
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.
> 
> You started an argument by saying "I would argue"
> 
> Someone commented on "that argument"
> 
> Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t start an argument. You are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I would argue" - ding
> 
> "i didnt start an argument" - ding
Click to expand...


"I would argue" - ding

"i didnt start an argument" - ding

Priceless and thank you!  You win The Interwebs today (even though this was posted yesterday.)


----------



## G.T.

Moonglow said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...
> 
> 
> 
> I actually agree with that, mostly. A LOT of philosophers take what's obvious to most folks and type out what's already intuitive - and I think it seems to be people that dont contemplate things on any deeper level much that find it profound.
> 
> Its absurd to say that its the same for all philosophers, though. Its nice to find some gems that youve never contemplated before. It just sucks that youve gotta weed through so much pseudo intellectual propaganda to find it.
> 
> This OP is a great example. There are obvious archetypes that certain humans possess, and saying things like " we love to hate" is one of those stubbornly obvious parts of a subset of humanity that it serves no utility to speak about, at length. We already thought and learned about it, at length, merely by living the human experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed I am used to doing it because it's fun and I know the end will come when you can't do anything but post grumpy thoughts on USMB like Whetherman or Owl...
Click to expand...

You post some gems of wit that cut to an issue at times though so....dont give up ya fuggin Mason. Its needed in the weeds.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here you are. With some sage advice. Go and help GT out. He's all in a heap, quivering in the corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need a tissue, or a nap or something?
> 
> The guy just dissed your OP and you were too daft to even realize it. Youre a professional dumbfuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way you express yourself.
> 
> Do you come from one of those places where they grill squirrels, and play banjos and fiddles in the barn?
Click to expand...

You left out the dulcimer..


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here you are. With some sage advice. Go and help GT out. He's all in a heap, quivering in the corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need a tissue, or a nap or something?
> 
> The guy just dissed your OP and you were too daft to even realize it. Youre a professional dumbfuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way you express yourself.
> 
> Do you come from one of those places where they grill squirrels, and play banjos and fiddles in the barn?
Click to expand...

I come from the places that arent a part of your history, where they teach critical thinking and how to be cordial. 


We are also very good at shutting jerkoffs the fuck down and triggering them.


----------



## Mindful

Ding!

Come out, come out, wherever you are.


----------



## Moonglow

G.T. said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...
> 
> 
> 
> I actually agree with that, mostly. A LOT of philosophers take what's obvious to most folks and type out what's already intuitive - and I think it seems to be people that dont contemplate things on any deeper level much that find it profound.
> 
> Its absurd to say that its the same for all philosophers, though. Its nice to find some gems that youve never contemplated before. It just sucks that youve gotta weed through so much pseudo intellectual propaganda to find it.
> 
> This OP is a great example. There are obvious archetypes that certain humans possess, and saying things like " we love to hate" is one of those stubbornly obvious parts of a subset of humanity that it serves no utility to speak about, at length. We already thought and learned about it, at length, merely by living the human experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed I am used to doing it because it's fun and I know the end will come when you can't do anything but post grumpy thoughts on USMB like Whetherman or Owl...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post some gems of wit that cut to an issue at times though so....dont give up ya fuggin Mason. Its needed in the weeds.
Click to expand...

I ended up being a mason because my other trades involved working for corporations and I didn't like them fellows they tried to tell me what to do. I am the kinda guy that tells you what to do...So I run my own company and tell the slaves to enjoy their time in the pit.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here you are. With some sage advice. Go and help GT out. He's all in a heap, quivering in the corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need a tissue, or a nap or something?
> 
> The guy just dissed your OP and you were too daft to even realize it. Youre a professional dumbfuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way you express yourself.
> 
> Do you come from one of those places where they grill squirrels, and play banjos and fiddles in the barn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I come from the places that arent a part of your history, where they teach critical thinking and how to be cordial.
> 
> 
> We are also very good at shutting jerkoffs the fuck down and triggering them.
Click to expand...


lmao at the first one. I didn't know you had it in you.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Ding!
> 
> Come out, come out, wherever you are.


He's in the corner losing his religion..


----------



## Mindful

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding!
> 
> Come out, come out, wherever you are.
> 
> 
> 
> He's in the corner losing his religion..
Click to expand...


I thought he was grandstanding.


----------



## G.T.

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is philosophy, blah,,boring and over pretentious that humans write ideas down and others want to follow them....Be original and just do something really outlandish and grin about it when you're too old to move...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here you are. With some sage advice. Go and help GT out. He's all in a heap, quivering in the corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need a tissue, or a nap or something?
> 
> The guy just dissed your OP and you were too daft to even realize it. Youre a professional dumbfuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way you express yourself.
> 
> Do you come from one of those places where they grill squirrels, and play banjos and fiddles in the barn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I come from the places that arent a part of your history, where they teach critical thinking and how to be cordial.
> 
> 
> We are also very good at shutting jerkoffs the fuck down and triggering them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lmao at the first one. I didn't know you had it in you.
Click to expand...

Well its no surprise that humor and wit are foreign to you, you're not an American.

Its okay, you can continue to emulate our movies and pop culture dear.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding!
> 
> Come out, come out, wherever you are.
> 
> 
> 
> He's in the corner losing his religion..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought he was grandstanding.
Click to expand...

That guy is so old he makes bruschetta taste good and not chewy like overpriced jerky.


----------



## Mindful

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here you are. With some sage advice. Go and help GT out. He's all in a heap, quivering in the corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need a tissue, or a nap or something?
> 
> The guy just dissed your OP and you were too daft to even realize it. Youre a professional dumbfuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way you express yourself.
> 
> Do you come from one of those places where they grill squirrels, and play banjos and fiddles in the barn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I come from the places that arent a part of your history, where they teach critical thinking and how to be cordial.
> 
> 
> We are also very good at shutting jerkoffs the fuck down and triggering them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lmao at the first one. I didn't know you had it in you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well its no surprise that humor and wit are foreign to you, you're not an American.
> 
> Its okay, you can continue to emulate our movies and pop culture dear.
Click to expand...


I'm your (plural) greatest fan. I make no secret of the fact.


----------



## Mindful

I must have really upset you, GT.

Got under your  skin. 

I didn't mean to;  honestly. You silly old boy.


----------



## Mindful

I hate Ryanair.

 But  I don't enjoy hating it. I wish I didn't.


----------



## Erinwltr

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually mean because Ive lost tolerance for ding inside of many otherwise cordial convoes, he comes in just to snit at people and I go into defcon 4 fireback because its gross to me. I then quit engaging him for a while, month or two, while he cools off.
Click to expand...

No BS, dude?


----------



## Erinwltr

Valerie said:


> nope.. not going to bother.


Too bad.  It was really good.


----------



## G.T.

Erinwltr said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually mean because Ive lost tolerance for ding inside of many otherwise cordial convoes, he comes in just to snit at people and I go into defcon 4 fireback because its gross to me. I then quit engaging him for a while, month or two, while he cools off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No BS, dude?
Click to expand...

What ya mean, Erin? Naw Im not bullshittin. Happy friday!!


----------



## Moonglow

G.T. said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually mean because Ive lost tolerance for ding inside of many otherwise cordial convoes, he comes in just to snit at people and I go into defcon 4 fireback because its gross to me. I then quit engaging him for a while, month or two, while he cools off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No BS, dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ya mean, Erin? Naw Im not bullshittin. Happy friday!!
Click to expand...

Ding tried that shit with me but I blew him off since I had a sister who was way better at it then he is..


----------



## Erinwltr

G.T. said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually mean because Ive lost tolerance for ding inside of many otherwise cordial convoes, he comes in just to snit at people and I go into defcon 4 fireback because its gross to me. I then quit engaging him for a while, month or two, while he cools off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No BS, dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ya mean, Erin? Naw Im not bullshittin. Happy friday!!
Click to expand...

Happy Friday, cheers!  Drinking George with a little lime and Sprite.
  I read this thread from 1 to 30 or so early this morning.   Came back and read the last of it. 

How can anybody be such a glutton for punishment?   ding got her ass handed to her.  I lost count.  It was really embarrassing, for ding.


----------



## G.T.

Erinwltr said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually mean because Ive lost tolerance for ding inside of many otherwise cordial convoes, he comes in just to snit at people and I go into defcon 4 fireback because its gross to me. I then quit engaging him for a while, month or two, while he cools off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No BS, dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ya mean, Erin? Naw Im not bullshittin. Happy friday!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy Friday, cheers!  Drinking George with a little lime and Sprite.
> I read this thread from 1 to 30 or so early this morning.   Came back and read the last of it.
> 
> How can anybody be such a glutton for punishment?   ding got her ass handed to her.  I lost count.  It was really embarrassing, for ding.
Click to expand...

lol true.

To be fair I was kinda embarrassed that I was responding to so many alerts. : 0

I am really hyper active....I just keep shit rolling I dunno.

Im drinking girl beer tonight, lol. I wont say which tho : 0


----------



## Erinwltr

G.T. said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually mean because Ive lost tolerance for ding inside of many otherwise cordial convoes, he comes in just to snit at people and I go into defcon 4 fireback because its gross to me. I then quit engaging him for a while, month or two, while he cools off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No BS, dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ya mean, Erin? Naw Im not bullshittin. Happy friday!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy Friday, cheers!  Drinking George with a little lime and Sprite.
> I read this thread from 1 to 30 or so early this morning.   Came back and read the last of it.
> 
> How can anybody be such a glutton for punishment?   ding got her ass handed to her.  I lost count.  It was really embarrassing, for ding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol true.
> 
> To be fair I was kinda embarrassed that I was responding to so many alerts. : 0
> 
> I am really hyper active....I just keep shit rolling I dunno.
> 
> Im drinking girl beer tonight, lol. I wont say which tho : 0
Click to expand...

Well , all beer is good beer, in my humble opinion. GT.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about changing the words around:
> 
> I love you, _and _I hate you.
> 
> 
> 
> How about you actually have an honest discussion?
> 
> Why do you hate others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel the love.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding. You could at least try to meet me half way.
> 
> 
> Indirect Communication: The British are relatively indirect communicators; they strongly avoid creating conflict and therefore take all necessary measures to remain polite throughout discussion. This involves making indirect statements that vaguely communicate their message without ‘rocking the boat’ (upsetting the status quo). As a result, people often have to read between the lines since what is said is most likely an understatement of what is actually meant (e.g. “not bad” means something is in fact quite good).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's odd because wasn't it you who criticized me for being vague and ambiguous?  Sort of ironic, don't you think?
> 
> What exactly would you like for me to meet you halfway upon?  I'm not clairvoyant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? I expect you to  know what's going on in that rat's maze of a brain of mine.
> 
> You're not vague. You're maddeningly  obtuse. And deliberately awkward.
Click to expand...

Not a clue other than you like to play games. The real question would be why. That I only have ideas about.


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually mean because Ive lost tolerance for ding inside of many otherwise cordial convoes, he comes in just to snit at people and I go into defcon 4 fireback because its gross to me. I then quit engaging him for a while, month or two, while he cools off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed you are following ding around like an infuriated chihuahua at the moment, but that's between you and him.  Both of you seem to enjoy it.  I'm just glad I am no longer being rudely snubbed, which really pissed me off, but I didn't HATE anyone for it.  Honest.
Click to expand...

I didn’t snub you.


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be interesting, ding , to have an honest discussion with you about hate.  You certainly seem to enjoy humiliating and hurting people sometimes, and I don't think it is because you don't know the difference.  G.T. is being far too kind blaming it on autism.
> You come up here and argue endlessly about Pure Good and how God exists, which would make me jump to the assumption that you try to be Good People, but then you go downstairs and act like a total fuckhead, Lucifer's minion, and refuse to be shamed by it, no matter how many of us scold you.
> So maybe you understand hate better than most of us who bury that emotion deep inside and deny it most of the time.  Most of us would be terrified to look at what lies in the darkness of our souls, and we no doubt should be.  But you celebrate it.
> It could be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is all good or all bad, OL.  You treat them as they are.
> 
> Just because I challenge what people say or do or believe does not mean I am humiliating them.
> 
> Tell you what, go back and show me in this thread where you believe I did this.  Because I don't believe you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are going to the flame zone, OL, for your proof?
> 
> How about something from this discussion?
> 
> I would be more than happy to provide examples of where other people have done this IN THIS THREAD.  In fact, I bet I could find a dozen or so examples OF OTHERS IN THIS THREAD.  I don't believe you will find one example of me doing that IN THIS THREAD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding, I made it clear I was interested in how *up here* you seem to defend one thing and then *go downstairs *and behave in the exact opposite fashion.  So of course I gave a downstairs example.
> Don't be flopping around and trying to deflect like they do in Politics.
> Or you can just start ignoring me again.  But I am not playing go seek/go find in this thread because it has nothing to do with my point.
> You gonna try to weasel out of your own behavior in that thread?  Chickie was clearly uncomfortable and hurt by it and you soldiered on and on.  Anyway, that isn't actually the point, unless you decide to make it one.
Click to expand...

I’m not deflecting. I go to the FZ for humor and sometimes to stir up trouble.

I don’t believe I was ever ignoring you. I like having discussions with you. You are polite.  And super judgmental.


----------



## ding

captkaos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah it's easier to hate! doesn't take any thought or self reflection and works on everybody I don't hate you for what you are ! I hate you because you are!
Click to expand...

Hating others does not harm the ones you hate per se. at least not as much as it harms the one hating. It’s just not worth it. But you be you. Everything works itself out eventually.


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> captkaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> I think mindful is really caught up in his own importance and wants everyone to see how Intelligent and literate he is by using big words and expressing philosophical ideas he thinks people care about watch how easy it is to get your point across to others. Here I go! Hey mindless that was really mindless drivel that only you understand STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were Hazlitt's words, not hers.  She hasn't produced a single thought about the OP; all she does is flirt with her boys.
Click to expand...

She’s not a very good flirt.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry the on topic remarks I've made here haven't been sufficiently meaty for you.  I don't know whose "tribe" you think I'm fighting for.  I agree with G.T. and now Ding that Jung's theory--that what we hate in others is what we hate in ourselves--is not always the case.
> I felt sorry for Hazlitt, reading that excerpt.  He sounded frustrated and defeated, to me.  I didn't mean any disrespect to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Ding's theory either.
> 
> But he and GT were ramming their own egos down my throat, I hardly had room to breathe, let alone find my way around their rabbit holes.
Click to expand...

It’s not ding’s theory, it’s Freud’s and Jung’s.  And common sense. Of course it isn’t the only motivation for hate. Never said it was.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> Ding!
> 
> Come out, come out, wherever you are.


Sorry life was calling. 

I probably don’t seem so bad in comparison anymore. Too bad you couldn’t have seen that before.


----------



## ding

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding!
> 
> Come out, come out, wherever you are.
> 
> 
> 
> He's in the corner losing his religion..
Click to expand...

I’ve chosen the better portion.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding. You could at least try to meet me half way.
> 
> 
> Indirect Communication: The British are relatively indirect communicators; they strongly avoid creating conflict and therefore take all necessary measures to remain polite throughout discussion. This involves making indirect statements that vaguely communicate their message without ‘rocking the boat’ (upsetting the status quo). As a result, people often have to read between the lines since what is said is most likely an understatement of what is actually meant (e.g. “not bad” means something is in fact quite good).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's odd because wasn't it you who criticized me for being vague and ambiguous?  Sort of ironic, don't you think?
> 
> What exactly would you like for me to meet you halfway upon?  I'm not clairvoyant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? I expect you to  know what's going on in that rat's maze of a brain of mine.
> 
> You're not vague. You're maddeningly  obtuse. And deliberately awkward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a clue other than you like to play games. The real question would be why. That I only have ideas about.
Click to expand...


Not my problem.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> captkaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> I think mindful is really caught up in his own importance and wants everyone to see how Intelligent and literate he is by using big words and expressing philosophical ideas he thinks people care about watch how easy it is to get your point across to others. Here I go! Hey mindless that was really mindless drivel that only you understand STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were Hazlitt's words, not hers.  She hasn't produced a single thought about the OP; all she does is flirt with her boys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She’s not a very good flirt.
Click to expand...


Because I'm not doing that. 

Strange people you are. Relics of a bygone age.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Lady: will you knock it off, with your duplicitous backstabbing. Please.
> 
> William Hazlitt was an English essayist, drama and literary critic, painter, social commentator, and philosopher. He is now considered one of the greatest critics and essayists in the history of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell. Wikipedia
> 
> Died: September 18, 1830, Soho, London, United Kingdom.
> 
> So he was a man of his time. He also wrote a book about plain speaking. Something you do not do, instead,resorting to mean  spirited sideswipes.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry the on topic remarks I've made here haven't been sufficiently meaty for you.  I don't know whose "tribe" you think I'm fighting for.  I agree with G.T. and now Ding that Jung's theory--that what we hate in others is what we hate in ourselves--is not always the case.
> I felt sorry for Hazlitt, reading that excerpt.  He sounded frustrated and defeated, to me.  I didn't mean any disrespect to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Ding's theory either.
> 
> But he and GT were ramming their own egos down my throat, I hardly had room to breathe, let alone find my way around their rabbit holes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not ding’s theory, it’s Freud’s and Jung’s.  And common sense. Of course it isn’t the only motivation for hate. Never said it was.
Click to expand...


GT' s the best motivation for hate. Evah!


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can see me!   I figured I was on ignore.
> 
> What have you to say about the Great Man's ideas, Mindful?  It's your OP.  I honestly haven't seen you do anything but Mindlessly quip nonsense with ding and G.T.   If I missed something of substance, I apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? You did it again. You just can't help yourself. Judgemental and sanctimonious.
> 
> Neither of them, as yet,  have put any meat on the table, for me to get my teeth into.  Nor have  you.The narrative has to be on their terms. With a sprinkling of gotcha games.
> 
> I realise you are all tribal. Hostile to interlopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry the on topic remarks I've made here haven't been sufficiently meaty for you.  I don't know whose "tribe" you think I'm fighting for.  I agree with G.T. and now Ding that Jung's theory--that what we hate in others is what we hate in ourselves--is not always the case.
> I felt sorry for Hazlitt, reading that excerpt.  He sounded frustrated and defeated, to me.  I didn't mean any disrespect to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Ding's theory either.
> 
> But he and GT were ramming their own egos down my throat, I hardly had room to breathe, let alone find my way around their rabbit holes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not ding’s theory, it’s Freud’s and Jung’s.  And common sense. Of course it isn’t the only motivation for hate. Never said it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GT' s the best motivation for hate. Evah!
Click to expand...

I don’t hate GT. Why would I?

The clique is never going to accept you no matter how far you bend. Their minds and judgment is made up. 

That’s just the way it is.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> captkaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> I think mindful is really caught up in his own importance and wants everyone to see how Intelligent and literate he is by using big words and expressing philosophical ideas he thinks people care about watch how easy it is to get your point across to others. Here I go! Hey mindless that was really mindless drivel that only you understand STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were Hazlitt's words, not hers.  She hasn't produced a single thought about the OP; all she does is flirt with her boys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She’s not a very good flirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm not doing that.
> 
> Strange people you are. Relics of a bygone age.
Click to expand...

It seems that way. Maybe not that way to you but to others. Probably because you use a lot of double entendres and you gravitate to the male posters. The women in the clique don’t seem to like you very much.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding. You could at least try to meet me half way.
> 
> 
> Indirect Communication: The British are relatively indirect communicators; they strongly avoid creating conflict and therefore take all necessary measures to remain polite throughout discussion. This involves making indirect statements that vaguely communicate their message without ‘rocking the boat’ (upsetting the status quo). As a result, people often have to read between the lines since what is said is most likely an understatement of what is actually meant (e.g. “not bad” means something is in fact quite good).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's odd because wasn't it you who criticized me for being vague and ambiguous?  Sort of ironic, don't you think?
> 
> What exactly would you like for me to meet you halfway upon?  I'm not clairvoyant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? I expect you to  know what's going on in that rat's maze of a brain of mine.
> 
> You're not vague. You're maddeningly  obtuse. And deliberately awkward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a clue other than you like to play games. The real question would be why. That I only have ideas about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
Click to expand...

And it’s not my problem that you believe I am maddeningly obtuse and deliberately awkward. 

I simply don’t care what the people who post here believe about me. It’s their loss not mine. 

I’m not going to Dave about it like they want me to.  

Do you know what a robber bird is?  That’s the clique in a nutshell.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> captkaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> I think mindful is really caught up in his own importance and wants everyone to see how Intelligent and literate he is by using big words and expressing philosophical ideas he thinks people care about watch how easy it is to get your point across to others. Here I go! Hey mindless that was really mindless drivel that only you understand STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were Hazlitt's words, not hers.  She hasn't produced a single thought about the OP; all she does is flirt with her boys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She’s not a very good flirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm not doing that.
> 
> Strange people you are. Relics of a bygone age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems that way. Maybe not that way to you but to others. Probably because you use a lot of double entendres and you gravitate to the male posters. The women in the clique don’t seem to like you very much.
Click to expand...


Not my problem. 

Must be a territory thing.

The male posters are mostly the only ones around. Doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding. You could at least try to meet me half way.
> 
> 
> Indirect Communication: The British are relatively indirect communicators; they strongly avoid creating conflict and therefore take all necessary measures to remain polite throughout discussion. This involves making indirect statements that vaguely communicate their message without ‘rocking the boat’ (upsetting the status quo). As a result, people often have to read between the lines since what is said is most likely an understatement of what is actually meant (e.g. “not bad” means something is in fact quite good).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's odd because wasn't it you who criticized me for being vague and ambiguous?  Sort of ironic, don't you think?
> 
> What exactly would you like for me to meet you halfway upon?  I'm not clairvoyant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? I expect you to  know what's going on in that rat's maze of a brain of mine.
> 
> You're not vague. You're maddeningly  obtuse. And deliberately awkward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a clue other than you like to play games. The real question would be why. That I only have ideas about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it’s not my problem that you believe I am maddeningly obtuse and deliberately awkward.
> 
> I simply don’t care what the people who post here believe about me. It’s their loss not mine.
> 
> I’m not going to Dave about it like they want me to.
> 
> Do you know what a robber bird is?  That’s the clique in a nutshell.
Click to expand...


You mean a cuckoo?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> captkaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think mindful is really caught up in his own importance and wants everyone to see how Intelligent and literate he is by using big words and expressing philosophical ideas he thinks people care about watch how easy it is to get your point across to others. Here I go! Hey mindless that was really mindless drivel that only you understand STFU
> 
> 
> 
> Those were Hazlitt's words, not hers.  She hasn't produced a single thought about the OP; all she does is flirt with her boys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She’s not a very good flirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm not doing that.
> 
> Strange people you are. Relics of a bygone age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems that way. Maybe not that way to you but to others. Probably because you use a lot of double entendres and you gravitate to the male posters. The women in the clique don’t seem to like you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Must be a territory thing.
> 
> The male posters are mostly the only ones around. Doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.
Click to expand...

You haven’t shown the proper deference and you got sideways with the alpha female. 

But you keep trying so I wonder if at some level you believe it is your problem.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's odd because wasn't it you who criticized me for being vague and ambiguous?  Sort of ironic, don't you think?
> 
> What exactly would you like for me to meet you halfway upon?  I'm not clairvoyant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? I expect you to  know what's going on in that rat's maze of a brain of mine.
> 
> You're not vague. You're maddeningly  obtuse. And deliberately awkward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a clue other than you like to play games. The real question would be why. That I only have ideas about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it’s not my problem that you believe I am maddeningly obtuse and deliberately awkward.
> 
> I simply don’t care what the people who post here believe about me. It’s their loss not mine.
> 
> I’m not going to Dave about it like they want me to.
> 
> Do you know what a robber bird is?  That’s the clique in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean a cuckoo?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those were Hazlitt's words, not hers.  She hasn't produced a single thought about the OP; all she does is flirt with her boys.
> 
> 
> 
> She’s not a very good flirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm not doing that.
> 
> Strange people you are. Relics of a bygone age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems that way. Maybe not that way to you but to others. Probably because you use a lot of double entendres and you gravitate to the male posters. The women in the clique don’t seem to like you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Must be a territory thing.
> 
> The male posters are mostly the only ones around. Doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven’t shown the proper deference and you got sideways with the alpha female.
> 
> But you keep trying so I wonder if at some level you believe it is your problem.
Click to expand...


Hadn't you noticed? I'm not there anymore.

I got chased off by the resident alpha hippopotamus.

But back to the topic, perhaps?

This up close and personal stuff doesn't gel well with my culture.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> She’s not a very good flirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm not doing that.
> 
> Strange people you are. Relics of a bygone age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems that way. Maybe not that way to you but to others. Probably because you use a lot of double entendres and you gravitate to the male posters. The women in the clique don’t seem to like you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Must be a territory thing.
> 
> The male posters are mostly the only ones around. Doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven’t shown the proper deference and you got sideways with the alpha female.
> 
> But you keep trying so I wonder if at some level you believe it is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hadn't you noticed? I'm not there anymore.
> 
> I got chased off by the resident alpha hippopotamus.
> 
> But back to the topic, perhaps?
> 
> This up close and personal stuff doesn't gel well with my culture.
Click to expand...

And yet the same people that were there are here as well. I believe at some unconscious level you believe opposing me will improve your standing. Ordinarily that’s a great tactic. I’ve actually seen it work several times but it won’t work for you.  Their verdict is already been handed down with no possibility of parole. No matter how much you prostrate yourself.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> She’s not a very good flirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm not doing that.
> 
> Strange people you are. Relics of a bygone age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems that way. Maybe not that way to you but to others. Probably because you use a lot of double entendres and you gravitate to the male posters. The women in the clique don’t seem to like you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Must be a territory thing.
> 
> The male posters are mostly the only ones around. Doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven’t shown the proper deference and you got sideways with the alpha female.
> 
> But you keep trying so I wonder if at some level you believe it is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hadn't you noticed? I'm not there anymore.
> 
> I got chased off by the resident alpha hippopotamus.
> 
> But back to the topic, perhaps?
> 
> This up close and personal stuff doesn't gel well with my culture.
Click to expand...

You never really seemed interested in discussing the topic. I know because I tried.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm not doing that.
> 
> Strange people you are. Relics of a bygone age.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that way. Maybe not that way to you but to others. Probably because you use a lot of double entendres and you gravitate to the male posters. The women in the clique don’t seem to like you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Must be a territory thing.
> 
> The male posters are mostly the only ones around. Doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven’t shown the proper deference and you got sideways with the alpha female.
> 
> But you keep trying so I wonder if at some level you believe it is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hadn't you noticed? I'm not there anymore.
> 
> I got chased off by the resident alpha hippopotamus.
> 
> But back to the topic, perhaps?
> 
> This up close and personal stuff doesn't gel well with my culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the same people that were there are here as well. I believe at some unconscious level you believe opposing me will improve your standing. Ordinarily that’s a great tactic. I’ve actually seen it work several times but it won’t work for you.  Their verdict is already been handed down with no possibility of parole. No matter how much you prostrate yourself.
Click to expand...


Make believe psychology.

Try something else. 

I have to leave now. For something more edifying than lying prostate on the floor.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm not doing that.
> 
> Strange people you are. Relics of a bygone age.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that way. Maybe not that way to you but to others. Probably because you use a lot of double entendres and you gravitate to the male posters. The women in the clique don’t seem to like you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Must be a territory thing.
> 
> The male posters are mostly the only ones around. Doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven’t shown the proper deference and you got sideways with the alpha female.
> 
> But you keep trying so I wonder if at some level you believe it is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hadn't you noticed? I'm not there anymore.
> 
> I got chased off by the resident alpha hippopotamus.
> 
> But back to the topic, perhaps?
> 
> This up close and personal stuff doesn't gel well with my culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never really seemed interested in discussing the topic. I know because I tried.
Click to expand...


Lies. All lies.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that way. Maybe not that way to you but to others. Probably because you use a lot of double entendres and you gravitate to the male posters. The women in the clique don’t seem to like you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Must be a territory thing.
> 
> The male posters are mostly the only ones around. Doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven’t shown the proper deference and you got sideways with the alpha female.
> 
> But you keep trying so I wonder if at some level you believe it is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hadn't you noticed? I'm not there anymore.
> 
> I got chased off by the resident alpha hippopotamus.
> 
> But back to the topic, perhaps?
> 
> This up close and personal stuff doesn't gel well with my culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the same people that were there are here as well. I believe at some unconscious level you believe opposing me will improve your standing. Ordinarily that’s a great tactic. I’ve actually seen it work several times but it won’t work for you.  Their verdict is already been handed down with no possibility of parole. No matter how much you prostrate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make believe psychology.
> 
> Try something else.
> 
> I have to leave now. For something more edifying than lying prostate on the floor.
Click to expand...

I agree that prostrating one’s self to be accepted into the pack is not edifying. It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to be an observation. 

There’s nothing make believe about the psychology of the pack or the psychology of outsiders trying to join the pack. It’s fascinating stuff to watch. 

I’m not trying to do anything. I am offering my observations. Do with them what you will. My obligation has been satisfied.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that way. Maybe not that way to you but to others. Probably because you use a lot of double entendres and you gravitate to the male posters. The women in the clique don’t seem to like you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Must be a territory thing.
> 
> The male posters are mostly the only ones around. Doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven’t shown the proper deference and you got sideways with the alpha female.
> 
> But you keep trying so I wonder if at some level you believe it is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hadn't you noticed? I'm not there anymore.
> 
> I got chased off by the resident alpha hippopotamus.
> 
> But back to the topic, perhaps?
> 
> This up close and personal stuff doesn't gel well with my culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never really seemed interested in discussing the topic. I know because I tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies. All lies.
Click to expand...

No. Observation.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Must be a territory thing.
> 
> The male posters are mostly the only ones around. Doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven’t shown the proper deference and you got sideways with the alpha female.
> 
> But you keep trying so I wonder if at some level you believe it is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hadn't you noticed? I'm not there anymore.
> 
> I got chased off by the resident alpha hippopotamus.
> 
> But back to the topic, perhaps?
> 
> This up close and personal stuff doesn't gel well with my culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the same people that were there are here as well. I believe at some unconscious level you believe opposing me will improve your standing. Ordinarily that’s a great tactic. I’ve actually seen it work several times but it won’t work for you.  Their verdict is already been handed down with no possibility of parole. No matter how much you prostrate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make believe psychology.
> 
> Try something else.
> 
> I have to leave now. For something more edifying than lying prostate on the floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that prostrating one’s self to be accepted into the pack is not edifying. It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to be an observation.
> 
> There’s nothing make believe about the psychology of the pack or the psychology of outsiders trying to join the pack. It’s fascinating stuff to watch.
> 
> I’m not trying to do anything. I am offering my observations. Do with them what you will. My obligation has been satisfied.
Click to expand...


I didn't know there was a pack.

I'm not a pack animal. I went there to join somebody else.

But he didn't stay long, and left.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven’t shown the proper deference and you got sideways with the alpha female.
> 
> But you keep trying so I wonder if at some level you believe it is your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hadn't you noticed? I'm not there anymore.
> 
> I got chased off by the resident alpha hippopotamus.
> 
> But back to the topic, perhaps?
> 
> This up close and personal stuff doesn't gel well with my culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the same people that were there are here as well. I believe at some unconscious level you believe opposing me will improve your standing. Ordinarily that’s a great tactic. I’ve actually seen it work several times but it won’t work for you.  Their verdict is already been handed down with no possibility of parole. No matter how much you prostrate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make believe psychology.
> 
> Try something else.
> 
> I have to leave now. For something more edifying than lying prostate on the floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that prostrating one’s self to be accepted into the pack is not edifying. It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to be an observation.
> 
> There’s nothing make believe about the psychology of the pack or the psychology of outsiders trying to join the pack. It’s fascinating stuff to watch.
> 
> I’m not trying to do anything. I am offering my observations. Do with them what you will. My obligation has been satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was a pack.
> 
> I'm not a pack animal. I went there to join somebody else.
> 
> But he didn't stay long, and left.
Click to expand...

Humans are effectively pack creatures.


----------



## Moonglow

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven’t shown the proper deference and you got sideways with the alpha female.
> 
> But you keep trying so I wonder if at some level you believe it is your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hadn't you noticed? I'm not there anymore.
> 
> I got chased off by the resident alpha hippopotamus.
> 
> But back to the topic, perhaps?
> 
> This up close and personal stuff doesn't gel well with my culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the same people that were there are here as well. I believe at some unconscious level you believe opposing me will improve your standing. Ordinarily that’s a great tactic. I’ve actually seen it work several times but it won’t work for you.  Their verdict is already been handed down with no possibility of parole. No matter how much you prostrate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make believe psychology.
> 
> Try something else.
> 
> I have to leave now. For something more edifying than lying prostate on the floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that prostrating one’s self to be accepted into the pack is not edifying. It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to be an observation.
> 
> There’s nothing make believe about the psychology of the pack or the psychology of outsiders trying to join the pack. It’s fascinating stuff to watch.
> 
> I’m not trying to do anything. I am offering my observations. Do with them what you will. My obligation has been satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was a pack.
> 
> I'm not a pack animal. I went there to join somebody else.
> 
> But he didn't stay long, and left.
Click to expand...

He meant a pack of Trojans..


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hadn't you noticed? I'm not there anymore.
> 
> I got chased off by the resident alpha hippopotamus.
> 
> But back to the topic, perhaps?
> 
> This up close and personal stuff doesn't gel well with my culture.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the same people that were there are here as well. I believe at some unconscious level you believe opposing me will improve your standing. Ordinarily that’s a great tactic. I’ve actually seen it work several times but it won’t work for you.  Their verdict is already been handed down with no possibility of parole. No matter how much you prostrate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make believe psychology.
> 
> Try something else.
> 
> I have to leave now. For something more edifying than lying prostate on the floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that prostrating one’s self to be accepted into the pack is not edifying. It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to be an observation.
> 
> There’s nothing make believe about the psychology of the pack or the psychology of outsiders trying to join the pack. It’s fascinating stuff to watch.
> 
> I’m not trying to do anything. I am offering my observations. Do with them what you will. My obligation has been satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was a pack.
> 
> I'm not a pack animal. I went there to join somebody else.
> 
> But he didn't stay long, and left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans are effectively pack creatures.
Click to expand...


----------



## leecross

Mindful said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mindful really believes anyone will read his work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice. Needs the attention span of something more than a gnat.
> 
> Though a lot of folk on USMB just love to hate. It's nectar to them.
Click to expand...


The Trump hatred deserves it's own thread, I think.

There are several facets of it which should be identified and recognized.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the same people that were there are here as well. I believe at some unconscious level you believe opposing me will improve your standing. Ordinarily that’s a great tactic. I’ve actually seen it work several times but it won’t work for you.  Their verdict is already been handed down with no possibility of parole. No matter how much you prostrate yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make believe psychology.
> 
> Try something else.
> 
> I have to leave now. For something more edifying than lying prostate on the floor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that prostrating one’s self to be accepted into the pack is not edifying. It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to be an observation.
> 
> There’s nothing make believe about the psychology of the pack or the psychology of outsiders trying to join the pack. It’s fascinating stuff to watch.
> 
> I’m not trying to do anything. I am offering my observations. Do with them what you will. My obligation has been satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was a pack.
> 
> I'm not a pack animal. I went there to join somebody else.
> 
> But he didn't stay long, and left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans are effectively pack creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 243798
Click to expand...

Yep. It’s probably the root cause of why you try so hard to ingratiate yourself with the clique.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make believe psychology.
> 
> Try something else.
> 
> I have to leave now. For something more edifying than lying prostate on the floor.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that prostrating one’s self to be accepted into the pack is not edifying. It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to be an observation.
> 
> There’s nothing make believe about the psychology of the pack or the psychology of outsiders trying to join the pack. It’s fascinating stuff to watch.
> 
> I’m not trying to do anything. I am offering my observations. Do with them what you will. My obligation has been satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was a pack.
> 
> I'm not a pack animal. I went there to join somebody else.
> 
> But he didn't stay long, and left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans are effectively pack creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 243798
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. It’s probably the root cause of why you try so hard to ingratiate yourself with the clique.
Click to expand...


Who are they?

Am I trying to ingratiate myself with you?

You're too depressing.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that prostrating one’s self to be accepted into the pack is not edifying. It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to be an observation.
> 
> There’s nothing make believe about the psychology of the pack or the psychology of outsiders trying to join the pack. It’s fascinating stuff to watch.
> 
> I’m not trying to do anything. I am offering my observations. Do with them what you will. My obligation has been satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was a pack.
> 
> I'm not a pack animal. I went there to join somebody else.
> 
> But he didn't stay long, and left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans are effectively pack creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 243798
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. It’s probably the root cause of why you try so hard to ingratiate yourself with the clique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are they?
> 
> Am I trying to ingratiate myself with you?
> 
> You're too depressing.
Click to expand...

You know very well who they are, and you accuse me of being obtuse? 

No, you aren’t trying to ingratiate yourself with me. You are trying to use me to ingratiate yourself with the clique. 

Do you mean to say I am depressing you?  That would be giving me control of you.  Are you sure you want to go that route?


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was a pack.
> 
> I'm not a pack animal. I went there to join somebody else.
> 
> But he didn't stay long, and left.
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are effectively pack creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 243798
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. It’s probably the root cause of why you try so hard to ingratiate yourself with the clique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are they?
> 
> Am I trying to ingratiate myself with you?
> 
> You're too depressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know very well who they are, and you accuse me of being obtuse?
> 
> No, you aren’t trying to ingratiate yourself with me. You are trying to use me to ingratiate yourself with the clique.
> 
> Do you mean to say I am depressing you?  That would be giving me control of you.  Are you sure you want to go that route?
Click to expand...


It's not going anywhere. I'm not into up close and personal. I can't relate to it. And I don't see the point of it. If you don't want to discuss abstract ideas, then I'm done.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are effectively pack creatures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 243798
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. It’s probably the root cause of why you try so hard to ingratiate yourself with the clique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are they?
> 
> Am I trying to ingratiate myself with you?
> 
> You're too depressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know very well who they are, and you accuse me of being obtuse?
> 
> No, you aren’t trying to ingratiate yourself with me. You are trying to use me to ingratiate yourself with the clique.
> 
> Do you mean to say I am depressing you?  That would be giving me control of you.  Are you sure you want to go that route?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not going anywhere. I'm not into up close and personal. I can't relate to it. And I don't see the point of it. If you don't want to discuss abstract ideas, then I'm done.
Click to expand...

What abstract idea are you wishing to discuss?


----------



## Mindful

Can you do self deprecation? 

I doubt it.


----------



## Mindful

Look at it this way, Ding:


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> Can you do self deprecation?
> 
> I doubt it.


There’s nothing special about me.

I have no idea why people keep thinking I believe there is. It is probably because they believe they are special.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you do self deprecation?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> There’s nothing special about me.
> 
> I have no idea why people keep thinking I believe there is. It is probably because they believe they are special.
Click to expand...


Still trying to fry brains, with your convolutions?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you do self deprecation?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> There’s nothing special about me.
> 
> I have no idea why people keep thinking I believe there is. It is probably because they believe they are special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still trying to fry brains, with your convolutions?
Click to expand...

I don’t possess that power. 

You should stop trying to give it to me.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you do self deprecation?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> There’s nothing special about me.
> 
> I have no idea why people keep thinking I believe there is. It is probably because they believe they are special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still trying to fry brains, with your convolutions?
Click to expand...

Do you believe that you are special?


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you do self deprecation?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> There’s nothing special about me.
> 
> I have no idea why people keep thinking I believe there is. It is probably because they believe they are special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still trying to fry brains, with your convolutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe that you are special?
Click to expand...


You can stop that crap, for a start.


----------



## Mindful

The *Ding Show.

*


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you do self deprecation?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> There’s nothing special about me.
> 
> I have no idea why people keep thinking I believe there is. It is probably because they believe they are special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still trying to fry brains, with your convolutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe that you are special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can stop that crap, for a start.
Click to expand...

I’ll take that as a yes you do believe you are special and on some level you know it is inherently wrong to do so.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> The *Ding Show.
> 
> *


It’s a real shame that the clique rejects you. You would fit right in.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *Ding Show.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a real shame that the clique rejects you. You would fit right in.
Click to expand...


You think I'm special though, don't you?


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *Ding Show.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a real shame that the clique rejects you. You would fit right in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think I'm special though, don't you?
Click to expand...

No one is. Sorry.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *Ding Show.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a real shame that the clique rejects you. You would fit right in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think I'm special though, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Such a relief.

But you're doing it all wrong.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *Ding Show.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a real shame that the clique rejects you. You would fit right in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think I'm special though, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a relief.
> 
> But you're doing it all wrong.
Click to expand...

That wouldn’t be the first time and it probably won’t be the last. 

Pray tell, what is the right way?


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *Ding Show.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a real shame that the clique rejects you. You would fit right in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think I'm special though, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a relief.
> 
> But you're doing it all wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wouldn’t be the first time and it probably won’t be the last.
> 
> Pray tell, what is the right way?
Click to expand...


When I find out, I'll let you know.


----------



## Mindful

Don't you dare thank me, Ding.


----------



## Mindful

*The People You Hate Are Determined by How Intelligent You Are*







Prejudice is as old as humanity itself. Every day we find our minds leaning to hating others for many reasons.

The People You Hate Are Determined by How Intelligent You Are


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> Don't you dare thank me, Ding.


Too late.


----------



## midcan5

"The remarkable thing is that we really love our neighbors as ourselves: we do unto others as we do unto ourselves. We hate others when we hate ourselves. We are tolerant of others when we tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we forgive ourselves." Eric Hoffer

"Humans universally make Us/Them dichotomies along lines of race, ethnicity, gender, language group, religion, age, socioeconomic status, and so on. And it’s not a pretty picture. We do so with remarkable speed and neurobiological efficiency; have complex taxonomies and classifications of ways in which we denigrate Thems; do so with a versatility that ranges from the minutest of microaggression to bloodbaths of savagery; and regularly decide what is inferior about Them based on pure emotion, followed by primitive rationalizations that we mistake for rationality. Pretty depressing."

Overcoming Us vs. Them

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst'  by Robert M. Sapolsky 

"The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together."   Hannah Arendt

What did Hannah Arendt really mean by the banality of evil? | Aeon Ideas


----------



## Bonzi

Philosophically speaking, no one loves to hate.

People hate because they are angry that their worldview is incorrect.  Then, they hate anyone or anything that might "upset" their desired version of reality.


----------



## Billo_Really

Mindful said:


> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).


Walk your talk.


----------



## Mindful

Billo_Really said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> Walk your talk.
Click to expand...


You must be positively orgasmic, the wallowing in hate you do.


----------



## Billo_Really

Mindful said:


> You must be positively orgasmic, the wallowing in hate you do.


Don't change the subject.  You're the one who started a thread about understanding "hate".  Yet you do none of that with me.  You don't even try.  You hate my guts so much, we can't even have a civil conversation.


----------



## Mindful

Billo_Really said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be positively orgasmic, the wallowing in hate you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't change the subject.  You're the one who started a thread about understanding "hate".  Yet you do none of that with me.  You don't even try.  You hate my guts so much, we can't even have a civil conversation.
Click to expand...


So you lost the will to live?


----------



## Billo_Really

Mindful said:


> So you lost the will to live?


See what I mean?  You won't even try.


----------



## Mindful

Billo_Really said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you lost the will to live?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean?  You won't even try.
Click to expand...


Nothing  is ever your responsibility, is it?

Not for your type.


----------



## ding

Billo_Really said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be positively orgasmic, the wallowing in hate you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't change the subject.  You're the one who started a thread about understanding "hate".  Yet you do none of that with me.  You don't even try.  You hate my guts so much, we can't even have a civil conversation.
Click to expand...

She knows all about hate.


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be positively orgasmic, the wallowing in hate you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't change the subject.  You're the one who started a thread about understanding "hate".  Yet you do none of that with me.  You don't even try.  You hate my guts so much, we can't even have a civil conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She knows all about hate.
Click to expand...


Troll post.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be positively orgasmic, the wallowing in hate you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't change the subject.  You're the one who started a thread about understanding "hate".  Yet you do none of that with me.  You don't even try.  You hate my guts so much, we can't even have a civil conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She knows all about hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll post.
Click to expand...

Which you never do, right?


----------



## Mindful

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be positively orgasmic, the wallowing in hate you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't change the subject.  You're the one who started a thread about understanding "hate".  Yet you do none of that with me.  You don't even try.  You hate my guts so much, we can't even have a civil conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She knows all about hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which you never do, right?
Click to expand...


This is not the thread to try to drag me down to your level. 

I was interested in algebra and geometry.


----------



## ding

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be positively orgasmic, the wallowing in hate you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't change the subject.  You're the one who started a thread about understanding "hate".  Yet you do none of that with me.  You don't even try.  You hate my guts so much, we can't even have a civil conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She knows all about hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which you never do, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not the thread to try to drag me down to your level.
> 
> I was interested in algebra and geometry.
Click to expand...

But every other thread you try and do it to me is?


----------



## Jonathan McCreevey

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.
> 
> "That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.
> 
> Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.
> 
> So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen  that argument many times.
> 
> But the premise here is about enjoying it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times?  Enjoy what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i would argue" you said.
> 
> she said, "ive seen that argument"
> 
> you responded, "which argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What conversation?
Click to expand...

Are you circling the abyss or the drain like a succubus?


----------

