I have said what needed to be said (based on my cumulative experience in conversing with you in the past and including the above comment).
A pity here is that you are capable of better thoughts, more nuanced thoughts, and more objective and critical thoughts - but your self-righteousness, the high-opinion you seem to hold of yourself, and other factors get in the way of your being able to think critically and objectively.
You may consider the above an ad hominem attack - but you would be wrong in assuming so. An ad hominem is when a person intends to attack by claim by attacking a person instead of the claim. I am NOT attacking any of your claims here (and in my previous comment to you). I am attacking you (i.e. your personality and how it comes across in substack in these limited conversations here). Hence, the question of my comments (this and the previous one) being ad hominems does not arise (again, I'm not attacking your claim - not because I can't, but because it would be a waste of my time - as you are too steeped in your biases to even let in other perspectives into your reality.)
As per your character, you will probably not understand why my focus is on addressing your interactions instead of your claims. You might even consider such a response as "an inability to attack your claims". You can think in whatever narratives you want to make yourself feel better - that you have won - that people "seem" to attack you instead of your claims because they are unable to attack your claims, whatever. You can put up whatever defenses and shields you wish to protect your ego and your perceived self-identity. All of us do it when our identity is threatened (which is how you often seem to perceive criticisms of your opinion - that your identity is threatened by someone disagreeing with you and providing you with alternative and valid perspectives).
If you cannot understand what Caitlin continues to address over-and-over again, and that many fellow substackers continue to explain to you in so many different ways repeatedly, then you will continue to misinterpret the nuances and important distinctions between "your perceived thoughts in your head" and a deeper analysis of the subject.
You can take my comment however you want, but that's besides the point really - IMO your mannerism and communication (on substack) reflects a few qualities that make meaningful and productive conversations with you challenging...
You said: but your self-righteousness, the high-opinion you seem to hold of yourself, and other factors get in the way of your being able to think critically and objectively.
Since you cannot make a case for such claims we can put them down to opinion and projection. That which we condemn in others is that which we deny in ourselves. Perhaps some introspection and inner work is needed.
You said:. An ad hominem is when a person intends to attack by claim by attacking a person instead of the claim.
Precisely, which is what you did.
You said: I am attacking you (i.e. your personality and how it comes across in substack in these limited conversations here).
Thank you for admitting to 'how it comes across.' You cannot attack me personally because you have no personal knowledge of me. You can only attack what you believe you see or read in my comments and that is a dangerous path which does not make a case.
I have found that men, and you may not be male of course, take great umbrage when females, or those they believe are females, make sense and create arguments they are unable to refute. I have put that to the test by posting the same comments under a male name and voila, it is accepted and no-one is outraged, inraged, offended or upset by it.
You said: Hence, the question of my comments (this and the previous one) being ad hominems does not arise (again, I'm not attacking your claim - not because I can't, but because it would be a waste of my time - as you are too steeped in your biases to even let in other perspectives into your reality.)
That is an excuse, not a reason. I would humbly suggest that if you have a case to make then logic, reason and common sense would say you should make it for the sake of other readers.
You do not believe I am capable of seeing and processing any case you make but others can and will do and if you can so destroy my case, and me in the doing, then other readers will see it and learn from it.
You said: As per your character, you will probably not understand why my focus is on addressing your interactions instead of your claims.
It is a huge ego leap and a massive assumption to think anyone can read the character of posters on such threads given the complete lack of personal knowledge, information from the senses of sight, sound, body language etc., and indeed, being able to make use of any of the skills we humans have to read people in real world situations.
You might of course be highly intuitive, even psychic in terms of 'reading'or 'feeling' people on such threads, but your resort to insults makes me doubt that. I could be wrong of course.
You said: You can put up whatever defenses and shields you wish to protect your ego and your perceived self-identity. All of us do it when our identity is threatened (which is how you often seem to perceive criticisms of your opinion - that your identity is threatened by someone disagreeing with you and providing you with alternative and valid perspectives).
The only thing I have ever questioned is insults and personal abuse from people who are not in a position to know anything personally about me. I have no problem with disagreements and only ever ask people to substantiate their claims and charges. I have absolutely no problem changing my mind if someone presents a different and substantiated opinion.
No-one can threaten anyone's identity on these discussion threads because there is no known identity to threaten. You know nothing about me and present only assumptions, based on your dislike of what I say and perhaps the fact I can say it coherently and sensibly.
We can agree to disagree.
I am sure Caitlin appreciates your dedication to defending her.
Yes, you win! You are the WINNER! You are always RIGHT in your opinions. I bow down to your majesty - and your perceived wisdom. Congratulations Roslyn Ross - you are the undisputed champion and victorious winner.
(Please also copy my comment and send it back to me - as you so often like to do when you have run out of valid arguments).
I have said what needed to be said (based on my cumulative experience in conversing with you in the past and including the above comment).
A pity here is that you are capable of better thoughts, more nuanced thoughts, and more objective and critical thoughts - but your self-righteousness, the high-opinion you seem to hold of yourself, and other factors get in the way of your being able to think critically and objectively.
You may consider the above an ad hominem attack - but you would be wrong in assuming so. An ad hominem is when a person intends to attack by claim by attacking a person instead of the claim. I am NOT attacking any of your claims here (and in my previous comment to you). I am attacking you (i.e. your personality and how it comes across in substack in these limited conversations here). Hence, the question of my comments (this and the previous one) being ad hominems does not arise (again, I'm not attacking your claim - not because I can't, but because it would be a waste of my time - as you are too steeped in your biases to even let in other perspectives into your reality.)
As per your character, you will probably not understand why my focus is on addressing your interactions instead of your claims. You might even consider such a response as "an inability to attack your claims". You can think in whatever narratives you want to make yourself feel better - that you have won - that people "seem" to attack you instead of your claims because they are unable to attack your claims, whatever. You can put up whatever defenses and shields you wish to protect your ego and your perceived self-identity. All of us do it when our identity is threatened (which is how you often seem to perceive criticisms of your opinion - that your identity is threatened by someone disagreeing with you and providing you with alternative and valid perspectives).
If you cannot understand what Caitlin continues to address over-and-over again, and that many fellow substackers continue to explain to you in so many different ways repeatedly, then you will continue to misinterpret the nuances and important distinctions between "your perceived thoughts in your head" and a deeper analysis of the subject.
You can take my comment however you want, but that's besides the point really - IMO your mannerism and communication (on substack) reflects a few qualities that make meaningful and productive conversations with you challenging...
You said: but your self-righteousness, the high-opinion you seem to hold of yourself, and other factors get in the way of your being able to think critically and objectively.
Since you cannot make a case for such claims we can put them down to opinion and projection. That which we condemn in others is that which we deny in ourselves. Perhaps some introspection and inner work is needed.
You said:. An ad hominem is when a person intends to attack by claim by attacking a person instead of the claim.
Precisely, which is what you did.
You said: I am attacking you (i.e. your personality and how it comes across in substack in these limited conversations here).
Thank you for admitting to 'how it comes across.' You cannot attack me personally because you have no personal knowledge of me. You can only attack what you believe you see or read in my comments and that is a dangerous path which does not make a case.
I have found that men, and you may not be male of course, take great umbrage when females, or those they believe are females, make sense and create arguments they are unable to refute. I have put that to the test by posting the same comments under a male name and voila, it is accepted and no-one is outraged, inraged, offended or upset by it.
You said: Hence, the question of my comments (this and the previous one) being ad hominems does not arise (again, I'm not attacking your claim - not because I can't, but because it would be a waste of my time - as you are too steeped in your biases to even let in other perspectives into your reality.)
That is an excuse, not a reason. I would humbly suggest that if you have a case to make then logic, reason and common sense would say you should make it for the sake of other readers.
You do not believe I am capable of seeing and processing any case you make but others can and will do and if you can so destroy my case, and me in the doing, then other readers will see it and learn from it.
You said: As per your character, you will probably not understand why my focus is on addressing your interactions instead of your claims.
It is a huge ego leap and a massive assumption to think anyone can read the character of posters on such threads given the complete lack of personal knowledge, information from the senses of sight, sound, body language etc., and indeed, being able to make use of any of the skills we humans have to read people in real world situations.
You might of course be highly intuitive, even psychic in terms of 'reading'or 'feeling' people on such threads, but your resort to insults makes me doubt that. I could be wrong of course.
You said: You can put up whatever defenses and shields you wish to protect your ego and your perceived self-identity. All of us do it when our identity is threatened (which is how you often seem to perceive criticisms of your opinion - that your identity is threatened by someone disagreeing with you and providing you with alternative and valid perspectives).
The only thing I have ever questioned is insults and personal abuse from people who are not in a position to know anything personally about me. I have no problem with disagreements and only ever ask people to substantiate their claims and charges. I have absolutely no problem changing my mind if someone presents a different and substantiated opinion.
No-one can threaten anyone's identity on these discussion threads because there is no known identity to threaten. You know nothing about me and present only assumptions, based on your dislike of what I say and perhaps the fact I can say it coherently and sensibly.
We can agree to disagree.
I am sure Caitlin appreciates your dedication to defending her.
Yes, you win! You are the WINNER! You are always RIGHT in your opinions. I bow down to your majesty - and your perceived wisdom. Congratulations Roslyn Ross - you are the undisputed champion and victorious winner.
(Please also copy my comment and send it back to me - as you so often like to do when you have run out of valid arguments).