Dan: No, it's actually your feeling on the matter. There's no thinking in it that I can discern; it's purely an emotional outpouring."
Alex: Hmmm. Have you a problem in the discernment department? That is a possibility you know.
No, you have a problem in the formulating an argument department. There's nothing there but poetry and insinuation.
Your post starts on this note, your spurious determination that the ideas I expressed (there were many)
No there wasn't. Your post contained one single idea, and a silly one at that.
are not thoughts but feelings. I have no idea how you determine this, do you have some sort of meter? ;^)
I have a bullshitometer. It's alarm goes off every time I see one of your posts.
If I were expressing feelings, I can tell you this, my posts would not at all take that form.
You mean they'd be less coherent than they already are? Holy crap!
So, the way I see it---and please excuse me for this---I don't think it would be too productive to come over to a ground you have prepared for the argument you want. I am really pretty happy with that post and it clearly expressed what I think about a group of related things.
Maybe in your mind it did. To me it was just nebulous waffle that carried one single insinuation/statement. That's why I repeatedly asked you to furnish some actual evidence and argument. Something you still have failed to do. Your feelings don't constitute an argument, Alex.
Maybe you should read it a few more times
Arrh! You cruel bastard! :)
and make the effort to extract what I am attempting to communicate?
I get the idea. You think there are fascistic trends in ideas expressed here. Furnish some actual evidence of this or shut up. Calling people neo-fascists is no small matter Alex. It's very serious. I expect more than poetic waffle and insinuation from you, but so far it's not forthcoming.
But the tactic of reducing my communication to merely an emotional outburst (knowing what you think of emotions=female, etc.) is just a bad tactic.
Dude, you're the tactician here.
I assert that my post is composed of a group of ideas, and those ideas should be approached as ideas.
Your assertions don't mean much.
But to respond to your 'request': ah, well, it is because I think you are expressing and refining, and seeking agreements for and about an ideology, the ideology that you have developed and that you are interested in sharing. It is an ideology about woman. No ideology exists in a vacuum, and all ideas are related.
This is typical of your style. Poetic fluff. I cannot discern a point in that. I know what the words mean, but there's no actual connection to me that I can see.
The whole issue hinges on how successful you are in getting your definitions to stick, in fact (I opine) it doesn't really matter if they are 'true' or 'false',
Definitions cannot be true or false.
I perceive that in a general way you actually start from your own emotive platform,
Based on what? Intuition?
but dress up ideas to appear 'rational' and 'reasonable'.
But is it fair to say that the core of your ideas is in its way emotive?
No, it's not fair to say that. On what basis do you think it?
These are feelings about women, feelings about what they do, feelings about society, etc. I get the impression that you also operate from an eristical position, and I am not convinced that you are actually interested in sharing and building ideas.
That's right, I've just been discussing these issues everyday for the past ten years purely for the entertainment value.
I don't think that it is wise for any of us to assume we are not directly influenced by our psychology, and by our 'unconscious selves', and if I am not mistaken these are the seat of emotions, feeling about things.
Sure, that would not be wise, but again this is just empty insinuation.
I am not necessarily trying to 'win' here, I am interested just in getting as much on the table as possible. I wrote a while back I am not too interested in polarized, boring arguments.
You don't read your own posts then?
I have every intention of maximizing me time here to learn as much as I can about a subject of vital interest to me. I will likely get around to reading your writing, but so far (yawn) I am not at all impressed. Not at all.
Gibberish. One minute you say you haven't read my writings, the next you say you're not impressed.
My doctrines are in fact superior, and with time I will demonstrate this. I will convert you all to mu disciples and I will bring you all to the Promised Land...
Alex: "Here on this list we note certain persons whose idea structures are...well...neo-fascistic for want of a better word."
Dan: "That's a pretty big claim. Can you give examples?"
Alex: The examples I would provide are to be found in specific formulations I have encountered on this forum since I joined. My first conversations were with Leyla. Those posts are there and can be read.
They can? Get outta here! For you to distill neo-fascism from Leyla's posts requires a great deal of imagination on your part, or do you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of neo-fascism? I suspect you might.
I have seen a general similar trend in the ideas expressed here, but it would take me a while to pick through and present them to you. Do you really want me to do that, or is that an eristical tactic?
Excuse me? You accuse people of fascism and then ask me if I'm engaging in tactics when I ask that you furnish evidence? Are you insane?
Dan: "Prove it. Just asserting this is weak as piss."
Alex: My piss is capable of melting steel.
Your piss contains thermite? That must be painful.
If you keep reading my posts, and perhaps if you were to reread them (do a better reading), my ideas are expressed pretty clearly. I don't restate ideas, I prefer just to continue to work them in different ways and different contexts, using a gamut of up front and also 'devious' tactics. I prefer the angle of humor, but it has to be used sparingly.
What I'd like to see in your posts is evidence and argument rather than wafty poetry and insinuation and assertion. On lives in hope.