Having had unexpected time available, and having spent the day reflecting on and composing this message after a few days of contemplation, I am beginning with the admission (and others might do well to realize it for themselves) that I'm far from perfect and can't write or speak what I really want to. Communication, especially that which uses words, is a very complex process plagued by misunderstandings, and good communication requires considerable time and effort. However, when I say I prefer not to argue, that is a completely true statement not subject to difficulty in its expression or understanding. My interest is not in winning arguments, but in giving ideas, so that civilization can progress, with myself benefiting also.
--
Syne, I reviewed the thread again, and I see my concentration was lacking that other day. I apologize about writing then when I was a somewhat frazzled and you were showing continued patience. Much of the portion between the hyphens should be worded in friendlier style, but I must get to other tasks.
No, it is verifiable fact,
You couldn't verify it by the way you were trying to because you don't have extra sensory perception and can't read my mind. Aside from that, it couldn't be verified because it wasn't real; I was simply being honest like usual because it really is true that I prefer not to argue.
Often times we do things that we'd rather not because we feel that we have to, and often times I realize that I'd actually prefer to have ways to skip the hassle of using words and, instead, use direct thought transfer from brain to brain (not unlike the Vulcan mind meld). Yet alas, words are the best tool available most of the time. (Often videos work well.) Now these transferred thoughts would have to be easily identifiable and accepted only with the permission of the recipient in order not to act as brainwashing or schizophrenic thoughts.
I think the hassle and conflict of argument is generally wasteful for society. I go into that elsewhere in this post, but the real proof of my sincerity lies in the intricate neural structure of my brain where no outsider has access, not even by using functional magnetic resonance imaging techniques.
and funny what your attention can suddenly afford.
It's not funny at all but reasonable, given that more formal posting takes more attention than the more casual private messaging that I had used.
In addition, cooperation, not conflict and struggle against one another, in society makes civilization possible. I try to advance civilization through cooperation. By sending the private message, I was compromising for both our sakes and society's sake, while the state of our public posting was at an equitable stopping point (according to my assessment at the time).
No one forced you to go from your claimed "presentation" to argument,
I believe self-defense should be done if the situation warrants it. Too, sometimes a comment to my post appears so far off that I have to address it. I would prefer that there be no such remark, however.
and you even invited response by asking a question:
Being a rhetorical question, an answer is in the next sentence. A response would still be OK, but it isn't really being asked for. So I wouldn't necessarily consider that an invitation.
Since asking a question directly invites response, we can see that this strictly "presentation" claim was disingenuous from the very start. And your assertion is completely pointless if you're unwilling to support it.
It was a rhetorical question. If it weren't, it much depends on whether or not a responder deserves it. If you had responded to it rudely, you might not have deserved a response on the issue, but possibly would have deserved being called out for lack of manners.
As I've said, it appears you are only making an emotional argument based solely on your "feeling", as you've only attempted to allay further challenge when pressed for some reasoning or logical support..
Everyone's posts are already affected by feeling and emotion. It is helpful for us to remember that fact about ourselves and occasionally mention it. On the other hand, I had intended my point not to be not an emotional argument but the logical notion that discussion shouldn't speculate on what happens in another's mind, and that comments attacking the person short circuit reasoned conversation. So on principle, I refused to support my idea at the time.
Civility gets enhanced when the writer adds his/her human element to a conversation while the reader honors that and does the same. Let's not forget that we all are human beings.
And you don't seem to have the good sense to bow out of an argument you've claimed you have no intent to argue...
Your not deserving a response is not justification for concession. I called you out for using an ad hominem. Someone answering my posts sets the tone that determines if they should receive further explanation.
It's good to remember that word-based communication has a variable subjective nature that differs from person to person and from time to time. That is why a lot of interpretative leeway helps to smooth the process. I'm sure that I also have suffered from weak times and so ask pardon for my lapses. Sometimes we might simply be fatigued and lose track of the thread of the discussion, but yet feel pressured to finish. (mea culpa)
(I omitted the phrase after the ellipses because I couldn't make out its meaning, but that doesn't seem to be a matter of concern.)
What is important is that "you don't seem to have the good sense" to accept someone's grace when it is offered. See what I mean? (I think you already understand, so even it is a rhetorical question answered by "Yes.") Statements about the state of conversants' minds are not permissible because they are speculation that hijacks reasoned discussion.
In retrospect, I think it is the use of the the word freewill that gets to me. I think choice is better. Freewill, IMO, is in a category that includes utopia, both connote the ideal.
.
I took so much time writing this post that although the part directed to you (Syne) is not up to my own standards for friendliness, I am going to submit it anyway. It would just be very hard to rewrite it. I never have been a stellar essayist. Try not to take offense if my writing seems rather direct. I know it often is so, since my natural style is pretty sterile. I hope that this middle section helps you see why I was troublesome to you that other day.
Syne, it has not escaped my notice that at times you try to reflect a person's shortfalls in technique, back, to serve as an example. Just letting you know that your efforts do not go unnoticed.
--
Humility of individuals in society is important for harmony. We remember the saying that no person is an island. We should appreciate that saying more.
It is a benefit to civilization for people to try to politely draw out true insights from others rather than trying to trip up the process through rude tactics. The attitude that other people are opponents is not healthy for civilization and leads to wasted individual potential or ultimately, to warfare. It is the additive nature of the individual contributions that makes civilization possible. When I call for peace, I mean it; we know peace has to be a two way process and I want to do my part.
That is a reason why I believe that competition against others is near the root of human evil, with the attitude of hate of other people possibly being the very root itself. We know the opposite of hate is love, and it involves wanting not to harm others, but only wanting to help them.
Competition
against others differs from competition
with others, although people often confuse the two terms. The presence, or not, of hate that is involved in competition
against others, differentiates them. For example, compete
with all other people
against harmful things like cancer.
Apologies to all for this long post. I really don't want to have wasted my time writing it, so please endure it the way it is.
(I got to get offline and can't spend any more time refining this post. Now, here you have it, I'm getting too tired to think.)
