if you read me differently, you’d see I’m saying people know best for themselves, and that while ignorance is manufactured, enlightenment is inspired.

arrogant, dismissive, inconsiderate, the ideas offered not heeded... again, this seems like narcissism to me, and perhaps some kind of dementia or borderline too. it seems like narcissism in the magnanimity, like the whole narcissistic thing of apportioning blame and appropriating credit. it seems like narcissism in the absence of apparent consideration or concern of being narcissistic (same as psychopathic, narcissists and psychopaths dont care that they are that).

i elaborated piece by piece on this, closing it with depiction of your nonsequitor conclusive ends not fitting the means, as a shit sandwich, and thanked you for the bread. that did not mean it's all bread, and that i want more. i'm pointing out errors and dangers in your reasoning. i welcome counterarguments, refutations, to my arguments posed, but i do not welcome repetition of the same error reasserted as if on some superior known reality.

if you read me differently

you're not even wrong. yes, perceiving something differently can provide an interpretation as you wanted received, but, as i pointed out, there's a lot more going on there. the mere tautological fact of being able to read things differently does not negate what i pointed out. what i pointed out, was already another example of pointing out a different way to read it.

also, i'm not reading you, i'm reading what you wrote. less adhominous, more epistemologically sound ground to be on.

if you read me differently, you’d see

do you see the one-true-truth dogma arrogant certainty imposed in that phrasing? the condescension? the obtuseness?

I’m saying people know best for themselves,

risky assertion. open to abuses.

and that while ignorance is manufactured, enlightenment is inspired.

in parts, perhaps.

but that's not the meat of your open shit sandwich.

ok digit, sry you choose such insulting language. I will respect your wish to shut me down.

responding to tone, adhominously, hostile execution of a poor-me drama, accusing me of what you're doing with that very line. toxic, toxic, toxic.

for someone with a penchant for the pyramid of arguments, your responses sure are full of ad hominems…

as part of my argument, or as a result of frustration at the constancy of suck?

see how you're a troll?

okies, lets do a quick (HA!) tally of arguments of each level... and i will be using the extended version i saw recently. (and i am doing this hastily, mostly lumping whole responses (so a mere "no" as part of a response with elaboration, i of course wont count as a contradiction).

refuting the central argument
Digit Any
refutation
Digit 1 Any
counterargument
Digit 17 Any 1
contradiction
Digit Any
responding to tone
Digit 3 Any 3
adhominem
Digit Any
name-calling
Digit Any
closing the argument
Digit Any 1
violence or threats of violence
Digit Any

so, as i've counted it, I have 1 refutation, 17 counterarguments, 3 responding to tone. you have 1 counterargument, 3 responding to tone, and, i felt i had to include 1 closing the argument there too. to have so many arguments unmet, seems corroborate that, even of only weekly.

leme know if you have a different count. heh.

though that's to say nothing of the quality of the counterarguments. shall we also include counts of incoherency/ambiguity, and fallacies of all types?

and i suspect some of those counterarguments (largely on asides), could have been central refutations, had i known what was at play to refute... but instead from the start, the whole things seems a de-railment, initiated in allready off-topic ambiguity. so toxic.

and as i diligently proceed through to count these, i get to catch again where these accused adhominems come in, and indeed, they follow the counter arguments (and are not themselves used in place of a counterargument), raising points of query, invites to introspection, about what traits may be hampering your ability to communicate or contemplate the ideas. queries that seem, in the method answered, corroborated. e.g. as in, your continued evasiveness that fits the hypothesis of narcissism in the manner described, the lack of introspection. which i've always found ironic. for all the time a narcissist looks at themselves, but never mends themselves, just dementedly drives headlong into delusion, ... not that all narcissists are like this, but as a observable trend it's a fascinating irony.

also, i'll note here, my tallies were erring on the humility rather than aggrandising side, so i didnt attempt ever bump up any of my counter arguments to refutation where they were not clearly so, despite the refutation characteristic use of quotes to show where in error.

also... i didnt know how to score when i merely said "fuck's sake". XD could be tone or contradiction or nothing... heh left it at nothing, since couldnt clearly discern it as being either. same with when i failed to find the characters/smilies to express my derisive incredulity at the expression offered. these arent really offering arguments of any ilk, so rightly left unscored. though, am open to them being characterised as contradictions offered. then there'd be at least 3 more from me.

if, when i characterised what you were offering as a "lie, lie, truth", ("toxic bullshit, toxic bullshit, magically paradise"), seemed like an easy opening inviting to accuse as a strawman and offer a refuting clarification... still is... happy to hear it. ... well.. i say happy to hear it. happy if genuinely trying communicate in good faith and not just pissing toxic trolling egotistic incoherent noise to disrupt my day and drive me ever closer to the ignore button on you (i think, again, right?).

also, i notice that you were that one that drove it far more adhominous than i. "if you read me differently", see that? see how you're jumping in to be the ball? see the conflation made? can you? can you?

also... again...

ok digit, sry you choose such insulting language. I will respect your wish to shut me down.

was a real doozy.

it's worth commenting again, how this is an attempt to shut down the conversation, protecting itself with an accusation of what it's doing flung at the other party to the conversation, who is clearly not trying to do that.

can you see how toxic that is? how that'd rub people the wrong way?

i imagine someone could come to this conversation and think i starting off with my responses on the wrong foot... not having seen the parade of this bs before. and when i say bs... i mean to explicitly and clearly point out the strategy of trolling. and i mean trolling in the definition of intentionally arousing inflamed negative emotions while keeping plausible deniability to get the victim of the trolling to respond in aggressive defensiveness so that they are the one who gets in trouble, despite the troll being the instigator. so you know what happens to trolls? ... they cease getting fed. lol troll me again, see how long you can keep replying and your replies stay there. ... and to be clear, that wont be the means by which i win the argument, that wont even be an argument, nor is this a threat of the violence of the ignore to win the argument, as it's not being used as a tool to coerce you to think as i do, it's a tool to prevent abuse. which is a distinctly different thing.

and to think... this level of response, when i've already been touching grass ample. lol.

woulda been nice if there'd been a nice conversation in these comments, about the poem and its content, or at least in any ways on topic. bwomp bwomp bwomp, another thread bites the agent dust. ... i say agent.

agent or asset?

I really wish we could take a breath

funny. been doing a lot of breathwork, and am really quite sanguine with ample space to think.

and maybe your asshole could dilate so that this large stick would slowly come out.

yeah.... and i'm the one flinging around adhominems am i?

tend to something of substance wud ya?

you come trolling and then act offended? 😛

Or you could take apart my statements without requiring me to somehow be toxic or bad or fascist.

you are not required to be somehow toxic nor fascist, and i'd welcome you to stop. ... and if you had inclination to not be such things, then you'd perhaps pause to reflect on what it is that's of substance in this bug report... not reject it and spit back more toxicity.

You could argue why that’s the case,

and i do.

but calling me that

by the substance of your offering, in turn i offered a way it comes across... you're welcome to entertain the idea.

and tut-tutting me

lol. i smell gaslight, in the smoke of accusing the victim.

over and over again really doesn’t become you,

yeah, condescending adhominous gaslight indeed. XD makes me reflect on my rhetorical modes, but by your bad example, lol.

nor does it lend credit to your words.

it's lines like this that keep this funny. and sad, that you dont intend it funny. or so i presume. if you dont understand why this is funny, see again my tally in the post written while you were writing this reply.

But it seems like you are intentionally trolling me,

see? you came at me bro. now you accuse me of doing what you're doing.

and I don’t want it to stop.

see?

toxic.

It’s great motivation.

for what? to feed your continued toxicity?

see how it's like a troll bot, just evoking responses, using cunningham's law and brandolini's law... maybe even some poe's law too.

lemme know when you've anything of substance about anything said here. or better yet, clarify what you said and what your intentions are, and respond to my queries in that area, if it somehow pertains to the poem, and not another ambiguous pesky derailment.