Agreed. So do you.
Which is exactly why I have only ever spoken for myself.
That tells me that you have an agenda, a mission to accomplish
And you said you were only going to speak for yourself. Shame on you!
Please don't assume (as you have done so wrongly so many times on this thread) to presume to know what I think or what my agenda is. (BTW, even though you claim to have an agenda, simply by starting a topic you clearly do have one. If you think that is untrue, look up the word "agenda").
Not at all. First, turns out that the person who asked did it as a personal insult.
Again, you're assuming you know what I mean. I stated a fact that had nothing in particular to do with what you perceive as a personal attack.
I was specifically thinking of when you wrote something to mean and, when it turned out what you wrote wasn't quite what you meant, you responded with "that's not what I meant".
You absolutely are asking people to assume what you mean. You're refusing to define what you mean, you're being vague and speaking for others. Seriously, how did you think trying to have a conversation like that would go?
No true Scotsman fallacy. We are debating and I have clearly told my ideas.
Clearly you don't know what the No True Scotsman fallacy actually is. As Mr. Drake pointed out earlier, you've already made the Fallacy fallacy and now you are doing it again. I said you've not been clear. You haven't. You've been vague and gotten upset when you were asked to be clear.
Until you are and we can all figure out what you are actually saying rather than just being contrary and illogical, no real debate can happen on your idea. It's not a fallacy to say something can't happen until conditions are satisfactory for that thing to occur.
So now you're learning how to have a discussion. Step 1, if you have an idea you want to discuss, think it through and then clearly state what it is you want to discuss along with the parameters of the discussion.
Do I have to take a Master’s degree before I can start debating any of my ideas? If I had set myself up to teach others, you might rightfully accuse me of lack of preparedness.
I correctly point out your complete unpreparedness to discuss this topic now. If you feel you need a Master's degree to discuss this with me on equal footing, feel free to go get one.
But this is a public forum, not the academia, and you’re no Bertrand Russell either.
I never claimed to be. Do you have a point here other than saying I am not a dead person?
Like I said before, I’m here to learn, but not to be lectured.
You're free to start learning anytime. Sometimes it even involves a lecture.
Your resort to inflammatory, derogatory language and minimization gets tiring, but I think you do it by design, so I won’t reply to you in the same fashion. All I can say is that you’re an expert in Strawman, Red Herring, Declare Victory, Reductio ad Absurdum, use of sarcasm and patronizing techniques in debate. I really can’t compete. You win – because no other result is admissible in your way of debating.
Well, you got one thing right in that entire screed.
Don't take that to mean you are unable to compete. You are clearly intelligent, but you are also clearly not prepared to debate and are letting your emotions get involved in the discussion of your ideas. You need to be able to look at your idea objectively without emotion in it and discuss and evaluate it purely on merit. You need practice in developing and writing clear points, defining the parameters of a discussion and defining exactly what you mean.
You've clearly the ability, but no experience. You can get that here if you don't let your emotions get in the way.
