NonE's call about self-ownership
Current time: 11-22-2017, 03:10 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Dionysus
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 254
Views: 166153

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NonE's call about self-ownership
10-31-2011, 08:37 PM (This post was last modified: 10-31-2011 08:43 PM by zonsb.)
Post: #47
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-31-2011 07:22 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(10-31-2011 07:12 PM)zonsb Wrote:  I think I remember your earlier "impression", and I have the thread archived. It was your clouded perception wherein you assumed wrong. Similar to when you "challenged" me not so long ago on the money, power and glory thread in your response to another member. You assumed wrong and had nothing to support your claim.

See, this is an example of where I have trouble. You are basically laying blame on me for not understanding what you believe you have clearly communicated.

Like on the money, power and glory thread where you did nothing to support your claim that I ridiculed you and claimed I didn't try to explain my position in hope of you understanding. I asked you to support your claims and you did nothing. You did nothing to clarify/support your claim/position. So I posted our dialog and it didn't support your claim. What you claimed I did was your projection. That dialog showed that you ridiculed me and I did try in several posts to clarify and explain my position to you.

Quote:But communication requires that an idea be conveyed FROM one person TO another, and if I didn't understand, it is a failure of communication.

Like in the above mentioned dialog of ours that I re-posted into the money, power and glory thread. Obviously in that re-posted dialog I failed to communicate. But it sure wasn't because I didn't try, because I did try to communicate arguments that supported my position. Nor did I ridicule you for not understanding. You ridiculed me for not understanding your position.

Quote:It is not necessarily my fault, and if you really did desire to communicate, rather than to put me down, you would see that I failed to grasp what you attempted to communicate and try to put it in a fashion which makes sense to me. Failing that you could simple say, "I see you don't grasp my intended meaning," and leave it at that, rather than blaming me for the failure.

In the much earlier thread, at that time I did tell you that you had assumed wrong and I further clarified. Fine. But you bring it up today as though I never clarified. I have no intent of putting you down. I haven't sugar coated my response. That is all.

(10-31-2011 07:22 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
zonsb Wrote:
(10-31-2011 06:05 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  That is the big issue I've had with that First Principles thing you pointed to so much for a while... it was all filled with claims and demands about HOW THINGS ARE and such

You'll need to provide evidence to support that. I don't recall ever writing about first principles here or on the old board. Seems in your mind you have me confused with someone else that wrote about first principle.

Here again, are you trying to understand my point, or are you trying to make me wrong? I don't remember exactly what you called the thing you were promoting. I remembered it as I said above. Okay I was wrong, but there is some set of rules that you have been pushing for months at the bottom of most of your posts.

Basically you're claiming I've been pushing the flying spaghetti monster. Something in your mind, apparently you don't know what it is enough to identify it with evidence -- some nebulous thing in your mind that bothers you. Provide evidence of what I wrote that troubles you and state your case for why it bothers you.

Quote:If you care to try and communicate, I'd be happy to, but it will take a little consideration on your part as well.

Do you want me to imagine/fabricate your argument for you of what bothers/troubles you about something I've written; then attribute it to you as though you created the argument rather than me having fabricated it; and have me make a counter argument to my fabricated argument? When you put forth evidence of something I wrote that bothers/troubles you and state your case for why it bothers you I will give you consideration/value in return. Until then, I don't know how I can help you. Because I'm not going to create an argument for you and then make a counter argument against it.

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 07:23 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 09:03 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:48 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-30-2011, 02:00 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 10-30-2011, 08:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - zonsb - 10-31-2011 08:37 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - soveREIGN - 11-01-2011, 04:51 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 11-08-2011, 08:42 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 11-20-2011, 04:34 AM
RE: Celebrate...celebrate... - eye2i2hear - 10-01-2012, 02:15 PM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)