looking for more connections

[dsayers]

The acceptance of one's own capacity for error, a willingness to improve one's self, and ability and willingness to challenge others to improve themselves seems like a rare formula in human beings. I crave the sum of these things and don't feel I have enough people in my life who meet these criteria. I fear the ways in which such things limit my own potential for growth. Especially as somebody who believes that self-knowledge isn't the end, but rather the means to an end of establishing a virtuous love.

 

So I wanted to invite anybody who fits this criteria and is looking for more quality people in their lives to make themselves known. Here or over on facebook are fine places to get started if you're interested. Look forward to meeting more of the "good ones."

[Anuojat]

So youre looking for new friends in/for your life?

[dsayers]

So youre looking for new friends in/for your life?

Pretty much. People who are interested in deep, personal conversations.

 

I wonder by what line of thinking turning to a philosophy forum that focuses on peaceful parenting for rational interpersonal relationship leads to downvotes. Some of the best relationships I have and have had in my life have come from people right here.

[algernon]

I don't quite understand all of the down votes. Apparently some people don't like your arguments.

 

How come you don't accept private messages?

[Mister Mister]

The acceptance of one's own capacity for error, a willingness to improve one's self, and ability and willingness to challenge others to improve themselves seems like a rare formula in human beings. I crave the sum of these things and don't feel I have enough people in my life who meet these criteria. I fear the ways in which such things limit my own potential for growth. Especially as somebody who believes that self-knowledge isn't the end, but rather the means to an end of establishing a virtuous love.

 

So I wanted to invite anybody who fits this criteria and is looking for more quality people in their lives to make themselves known. Here or over on facebook are fine places to get started if you're interested. Look forward to meeting more of the "good ones."

 

I don't quite understand all of the down votes. Apparently some people don't like your arguments.

 

How come you don't accept private messages?

 

I've shown a willingness to challenge you in certain areas and you don't seem interested in talking to me since then.  I know others who have had similar experiences.  That's why I downvoted, and why I assume others did as well.

[Anuojat]

Pretty much. People who are interested in deep, personal conversations.

 

I wonder by what line of thinking turning to a philosophy forum that focuses on peaceful parenting for rational interpersonal relationship leads to downvotes. Some of the best relationships I have and have had in my life have come from people right here.

 

Hmmm perhaps id be willing to give it a shot.

 

Though i say that with hesitation because in the past i, regretable used such "conversations" as way to procrastinate and thus talked and talked but did little in real life. This was around year ago. It has since changed dramatically by people holding me to account more rather than feeling guilty of doing so but i wanted to say that up front to aknowledge my flaws and shortcomings.

 

AKA to/for living counchiously. (spelling?)

[dsayers]

you don't seem interested in talking to me since then.

According to Hotmail...

 

-The first email I sent to you was on 18 Feb. I didn't receive any reply until 27 Feb.

-I replied to that email and then after hearing nothing for another couple weeks, wrote again on 15 Mar.

-After having met for lunch, I sent a follow up email on 21 Mar. After hearing nothing back for another couple of weeks, I poked you by way of text, which led to another lunch meeting on 11 Apr.

-After having met for lunch, I sent a follow up email on 12 Apr. After not hearing from you for another couple weeks, I poked you by way of text as I was about to leave Seattle, which led to one final lunch/dinner meeting on 25 Apr. The morning of my departure, you told me that you wanted to stay in touch.

-I emailed you on 6 May, 13 May, and 21 Jun. As a reaction to something else entirely, you wrote me on 1 Jul.

 

I think claiming that it was *I* who didn't seem interested in talking to YOU is dishonest. As further push back to you claim of being the neglected party, let us look at what happened on 1 Jul. I posted the following on facebook:

 

"I feel so loved right now. Many thanks to everybody in my life who has acknowledged my value and reciprocated that value. It is a wonderful feeling when people around you help pick you up and brush you off. As I continue to suffer the greatest loss that a person could, it means the world to me that others have banded together to help keep me down the path of self-love and self-care, while providing value that helps me continue to see more clearly, feel more love, and be more vulnerable. I am truly blessed and I am thrilled to know that this is the product of my own work and gains.

 

May truth, honor, integrity, and virtuous love reign supreme forevermore in my life and yours. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart."

 

 

Within three HOURS, you emailed me. You expressed no curiosity, very little empathy, described your email as "blunt and even hostile," and accused me of talking as if I am an authority, which I have never done. It was hypocritical because after months of no contact, your lack of curiosity meant that it was YOU who were talking as if you were an authority. You had no frame of reference, were making no effort to establish one, but spoke on it as if you knew everything. When in fact all you knew for sure was that I felt strong, supported, and the love of others. Meaning your uncharacteristic expedience in contact made it seem to me as if you were in a rush to knock me down after broadcasting how well I was doing.

 

 

Normally, I would respond to such a thing by telling the person how their behaviors were received and how I felt. However, after the above track record of YOU showing no interest in communicating, I had every reason to believe your lack of curiosity was typical and that such vulnerability would not be received and/or would be exploited. And this was back on 1 Jul. The amount of growth I've achieved since then... Also something you've made no effort to familiarize yourself with. It did include connecting with the ways in which my abusive childhood has me judging people for the sake of isolating myself. Meaning that if such a thing were to occur today, I might be more patient and take more care in doing my part to bridge the gap.

 

 

However, your dishonesty in this quote is consistent with the intentions you've exhibited throughout. Which is a damn shame. Because we've met. I've hugged you, several, sincere times. You're an intelligent and empathetic man. In our first meeting, you recognized that I am too. AND that I am reasonable as evidenced by the way I was receptive to your criticisms, including when you shared your apprehension in starting a relationship amid my circumstances. Before I left Seattle, you witnessed first hand the ways in which I had snapped out of my Stockholm Syndrome and flourished at the very suggestion that I would be able to leave what I have very seriously referred to as the human contact deprivation tank. You've had every indication that given the care and room to grow, I will make use of those to do just that. Yet you've made no consideration for the passing of time and the healing effects it has even on somebody who is NOT committed to using that time to improve upon themselves.

 

 

YOU are missing out, brother. Half a year after I was destroyed, I had managed to build myself up to be twice the man that you first met. Why then would you want to continue to interact with that guy? Even if I were to return the favor, the you I first met is above all of this. If you ever wanted to correct for these things instead of using your access to me to harm me, you know where to find me. I won't go into how much it hurt watching you approach me just to knock me down. I consulted with several people, trying to figure out how to handle that situation. I didn't want to accept that you were not the person I met, but I also didn't want to accept erasing myself to hold onto my first impression of you. Isn't that the lesson you wanted me to learn most of all? :O

[Wuzzums]

(...)

From an outsider perspective, RoseCodex wrote 2 sentences and you replied with a whole book chapter of your autobiography. I am very amused by this.

[Danske]

Wow, 4k posts and he still hasn't learnt to take a deep breath and process his triggers.

 

A useful warning to others.

[dsayers]

Wow, 4k posts and he still hasn't learnt to take a deep breath and process his triggers.

 

A useful warning to others.

Do you know the two things that everybody I have met on a personal level from here had in common? First of all, they all thought they weren't fully living their values. Secondly, they weren't perfect despite being rational individuals. Everybody has room to grow. One of my most recent breakthroughs has to do with the way in which I would knee-jerk judge others in order to isolate myself for the benefit of my abusers. Unless the flaw I identified in another was a willingness to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals, I don't see any flaw as a deal breaker in somebody who strives to improve themselves.

 

Since it appears that you would rather avoid a quality person than help them to be even higher quality, I supposed I could say that's a useful warning to others about you. I'd rather take the time as I have here to help somebody by challenging their conclusion. I imagine it's easier to discard somebody as a foregone conclusion rather than interact with them and take the chance on the possibility that your perception was in error.

 

I don't think responding to a lie by providing the truth can be accurately described as not taking a deep breath and processing one's triggers. I don't think that even if an unwillingness to abide lies was a trigger, that it would be a character flaw. I'm guessing you understood this already as you were willing to bring up post count as if that's relevant.

 

Finally, it is curious that somebody was caught lying because they couldn't abide somebody they refused to connect with seeking connections elsewhere and tried to tear down the process by lying, and rather than addressing this destructive behavior, you would instead cast an unsavory light on the victim for defending himself.

[Wuzzums]

Do you know the two things that everybody I have met on a personal level from here had in common? First of all, they all thought they weren't fully living their values. Secondly, they weren't perfect despite being rational individuals. Everybody has room to grow. One of my most recent breakthroughs has to do with the way in which I would knee-jerk judge others in order to isolate myself for the benefit of my abusers. Unless the flaw I identified in another was a willingness to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals, I don't see any flaw as a deal breaker in somebody who strives to improve themselves.

 

Since it appears that you would rather avoid a quality person than help them to be even higher quality, I supposed I could say that's a useful warning to others about you. I'd rather take the time as I have here to help somebody by challenging their conclusion. I imagine it's easier to discard somebody as a foregone conclusion rather than interact with them and take the chance on the possibility that your perception was in error.

 

I don't think responding to a lie by providing the truth can be accurately described as not taking a deep breath and processing one's triggers. I don't think that even if an unwillingness to abide lies was a trigger, that it would be a character flaw. I'm guessing you understood this already as you were willing to bring up post count as if that's relevant.

 

Finally, it is curious that somebody was caught lying because they couldn't abide somebody they refused to connect with seeking connections elsewhere and tried to tear down the process by lying, and rather than addressing this destructive behavior, you would instead cast an unsavory light on the victim for defending himself.

I agree 100% with everything you had to say and I hope I'm not being offensive in any way shape or form for asking you this but... what is your preferred gender pronoun?

[Rachelle]

I obviously don't know the history here between dsayers and other members of this forum but I do find the people responding to his thread lacking curiosity and empathy. From what I'm observing it appears dsayers is being attacked for reaching out. Attacks in the form of comments like it's "amusing" for him to take a insult against his character/integrity seriously and for him take the effort to push back. I don't know what is meant by amusing but I'm experiencing it as just plain condescending. I also think it's irrational and not at all empathetic to accuse someone of negative behavior (being defensive and not processing triggers) without providing any evidence. If some members truly believe dsayers is not a man of integrity and wish to call him out or warn other members of the community, then by all means do that, but do it by providing evidence, otherwise you just look like a bully without any compassion.

[st434u]

If some members truly believe dsayers is not a man of integrity and wish to call him out or warn other members of the community, then by all means do that, but do it by providing evidence, otherwise you just look like a bully without any compassion.

 

Personal experience doesn't count? Surely someone would be interested in others' experience even if they aren't able to provide evidence. Just because they're unable to provide such evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that such interactions never took place. Should a woman avoid warning her friends that a man she went out on a date with is a rapist, just because she can't prove that the rape took place?

 

It seems to me that your problem is more with people believing every negative thing they hear about someone else even when there's no evidence. You think people are stupid and will believe anything, so you lash out against those who would give negative commentary without solid proof. The problem would not be the woman who's warning that someone is a rapist (unless he isn't), but those who would 100% believe her without a good reason to do so.

 

If you personally know dsayers and you know these things said about him are false, and are demanding proof, that's a different thing. That'd be similar to if he himself was demanding evidence. But that's not what you're doing, is it?

 

I'm not making any statements as to what dsayers is like, I'm just arguing the point you made.

[Danske]

Actually this is the first post from dsayers that has annoyed me, despite numerous people who I KNOW are good philosophers warning me about him. I suppose it's only when someone is challenged that you discover their real character.

Even demonstrated in the post is an incredible lack of curiosity and brevity. RoseCodex asks a simple question and dsayers creates a TL:DR in an attempt to overwhelm his opponent instead of having a back and forth. Rose gave him ONE point to rebut and dsayers creates a huge meandering list that would require a huge time investment to respond to or even coherently understand. It reeks to me of a fear of proper, connected engagement. Which is what he claims to be seeking.

[shirgall]

Do you know the two things that everybody I have met on a personal level from here had in common? First of all, they all thought they weren't fully living their values. Secondly, they weren't perfect despite being rational individuals.

 

 

Indeed, I fall into that category. I have finite tolerance for risk, finite time to do what I want to do, and a whole series of responsibilities that I have taken on that must be serviced.

[Wuzzums]

I obviously don't know the history here between dsayers and other members of this forum but I do find the people responding to his thread lacking curiosity and empathy.

 

True.

You are counting dsayers among them, right?

 

 

otherwise you just look like a bully without any compassion.

 

I'm ok with this. This has absolutely zero effect on me.

 

Just so you know, dsayers created this thread right after he had a series of negative interactions with a couple of members on this forum which disagreed with his stance on several issues. Now you see why several of us took his request for "more connections" not as an invitation but as a veiled insult?

[dsayers]

Thank you, Rachelle, for demonstrating that there are people who will think for themselves and not fall for sophisticated manipulation.

 

You think people are stupid and will believe anything, so you lash out against those who would give negative commentary without solid proof.

I think you poison the well when you say lash out. I also think you're projecting. Identifying a lack of curiosity is not the same as saying people will believe anything. It's pointing out that what is believed is likely the result of faulty methodology. A useful criticism.

 

Even demonstrated in the post is an incredible lack of curiosity and brevity. RoseCodex asks a simple question and dsayers creates a TL:DR in an attempt to overwhelm his opponent instead of having a back and forth. Rose gave him ONE point to rebut and dsayers creates a huge meandering list that would require a huge time investment to respond to or even coherently understand. It reeks to me of a fear of proper, connected engagement.

So much poisoning of the well here! When people poison the well, they are confessing that they understand their position unable to stand by way of its own merit.

 

If you were able to look beyond length, you would see that what ACTUALLY happened is that Rose had put forth a claim that is not only untrue of me, but is in fact true of himself. HE was the one who exhibited a lack of curiosity. HE was the one who demonstrated a lack of interest in engaging. You know, the items that you are saying are off-putting to you? For that matter, where is YOUR curiosity and engagement? Projection.

List too long for you to coherently understand? I will shorten it for you. Rose consistently took WEEKS to respond to me. Rose made an effort to knock me down HOURS after I share how good I'm feeling and how much I appreciate the people who have helped me. Rose accuses ME of showing no interest in talking to HIM (again, to knock me down as I'm trying to build myself up). Projection.

 

Thank you for being more honest this time by admitting that you were annoyed and prejudiced. Something that later occurred to me about your first post was that if something was truly a useful warning, it wouldn't have to be pointed out and overtly labeled as such. The irony here is that you've again tried to poison the well with your phrase "it's only when someone is challenged that you discover their real character." Without bias, the character that is revealed is a willingness to stand up to lies with the truth even when people such as yourself would try to cast such a thing in a negative light and isolate me further for it. I greatly respect somebody who is so committed to the truth that they do not allow social comfort to edit them. I continue to stand up to such things so that others who agree can find me.

 

Just so you know, dsayers created this thread right after he had a series of negative interactions with a couple of members on this forum which disagreed with his stance on several issues.

By negative interactions on several issues, you mean negative votes on one issue. When the topic is voting, I use logic, reason, and evidence while those who disagree do not. For example, your use of "after this therefore because of this" you've employed here. I've been actively seeking to expand my support network for years now. Notice how the conclusion you've put forth lacks curiosity and engagement?

[Rachelle]

Personal experience doesn't count? Surely someone would be interested in others' experience even if they aren't able to provide evidence. Just because they're unable to provide such evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that such interactions never took place. Should a woman avoid warning her friends that a man she went out on a date with is a rapist, just because she can't prove that the rape took place?

 

It seems to me that your problem is more with people believing every negative thing they hear about someone else even when there's no evidence. You think people are stupid and will believe anything, so you lash out against those who would give negative commentary without solid proof. The problem would not be the woman who's warning that someone is a rapist (unless he isn't), but those who would 100% believe her without a good reason to do so.

 

If you personally know dsayers and you know these things said about him are false, and are demanding proof, that's a different thing. That'd be similar to if he himself was demanding evidence. But that's not what you're doing, is it?

 

I'm not making any statements as to what dsayers is like, I'm just arguing the point you made.

Personal experience does count. The people who gave a personal experience (although a brief one) I didn't have a negative reaction to. I did not see in Wuzzum's post or in Danskes any personal experience offered, only what I saw as snarky comments. I said in my original post that I do not know the history, so I do not know whether or not dsayers has done something wrong and deserves other people's frustrations. I never said that I believe everyone will believe anything they hear or that I think they're stupid and I don't see how anything I said indicated that that's what I was implying or saying.

 

I don't think it's fair for you to tell me what I think, and in the interest of being honest, it annoys me. I'll try to clarify what I thought when writing the post, and also say that before going to bed last night I had thought over my post and thought I may have come across too antagonistic and would look it over the next morning (today). After looking, I do think it was wrong of me to be so quick to label others' actions as irrational and not at all empathetic. I'm sorry. I should have been more curious and empathetic myself and asked why there were so many negative reactions instead of being accusatory. I believe I chose the latter because I was afraid to engage and thought I would be attacked (based on the already seen aggressiveness, and my history) if I did, I thought I would be attacked even posting what I did but I thought I was standing up for others that may be in a similar situation as I have been in.  I've been in situations where people have accused me of something in a group and had others gang up on me, not willing to engage in conversation and not willing to provide any proof, and that's what I saw happening.

 

One of the points I was trying to make in my original post I do still believe to be true. I was being honest when I said by all means provide evidence if he's done something wrong, and now adding onto that: or personal experiences. I do believe people look like bullies when they're posting aggressive comments on the forum without providing evidence or historical experience, because a lot of people don't know the backstory so they can only take from what they see, or question those who are involved. To be clear, I don't and never had a problem with what RoseCodex posted. That's someone who I would be more willing to question if I was curious or wanted to accept dsayers offer of connection, as he clearly states he has had past experiences and they were negative (this doesn't prove dsayers did something wrong), instead of posting short comments that appear to just be for the purpose of showing disapproval that may or may not be justified especially considering they may not even know the person or had previous experiences.

 

I don't know dsayers, if I did I imagine I would know the history here. I'm not sure why you think it's acceptable for me to ask for evidence if I know the person but not acceptable or at least not understandable if I do not. I don't need to know someone in order to want to defend someone against something that appears unjust to me based on what I'm seeing. As for the rapist example, I think it is a problem if people are accusing someone of rape if they didn't actually rape someone, but I agree with you that people are responsible for believing something/someone without evidence. My point was the one calling rape without evidence or experience looks like a bully and I would be skeptical of what they were saying.

 

To Danskes: Yes, you're right in that dsayers showed little to any curiosity towards Rose. Being an outsider and not having information I would lean more towards the conclusion that he doesn't want to engage/connect with him further at this point, even though he says he's open to it, but was more interested in defending himself. Based on what he's saying he's tried connecting in the past and it didn't go well, so if that's true and I was in his position I would be more interested in defending myself rather than connecting with someone I didn't believe was open to it at this point in time.

 

To Wuzzums: Yes, I am. I wasn't originally, but re-reading I can see that. I have no idea whether or not anyone here is justified in showing a lack of curiosity and empathy. Perhaps dsayers deserves it or others do. I honestly don't know.

 

Thank you for offering that information, it does help give some clarity and perspective, even though I don't know the details. If that indeed happened then I can definitely see why that would be taken as an insult. I just don't have any evidence for what's happening beyond the evidence in this conversation, which is very little.

[Wuzzums]

By negative interactions on several issues, you mean negative votes on one issue. When the topic is voting, I use logic, reason, and evidence while those who disagree do not. For example, your use of "after this therefore because of this" you've employed here. I've been actively seeking to expand my support network for years now. Notice how the conclusion you've put forth lacks curiosity and engagement?

 

 

I explain to you how I feel whenever I'm interacting with you and your retort by saying how I lack curiosity and engagement.

[Rachelle]

I think I clarified what I was thinking and where I stand on the matter, I think there's enough out there for people to draw their own conclusion and see any mistakes I may have made in my thinking.  I understand I'm responsible for first engaging in this conversation, and at this point I'm choosing to disengage. I'm having a fairly intense emotional reaction to the conversation due to something that happened recently that's very similar and that I'm still processing, and some other stressful things happening in my life right now causing anxiety, which is making it very difficult for me to be objective. My fear is growing which will increases the risk of myself using defenses that could potentially hurt others or myself, and that's something I wish to avoid. I do not wish to submit to the unjust out of fear and end up enabling attacks on the innocent. I'm not in the mental state to handle much conflict right now, so I'll just thank everyone for their participation in the conversation, including those who challenged me on my original post, and I'll continue to reflect and hope truth will be found and defended. Thanks.

[dsayers]

he's tried connecting in the past and it didn't go well, so if that's true and I was in his position I would be more interested in defending myself rather than connecting with someone I didn't believe was open to it at this point in time.

An accurate description. Thank you again for sharing your thoughts and for demonstrating humility in your thoughtful posts. If you wanted to talk more about it in private, reach out to me on facebook please.

 

I explain to you how I feel whenever I'm interacting with you and your retort by saying how I lack curiosity and engagement.

The only feeling you expressed was amusement, and at something as arbitrary as length. You poison the well when you say retort. What I did was push back on the falsehoods you were putting forward, while identifying a thinking error you engaged in. Your post here deflects from all of that, to accuse me of not being curious. Here's the thing about curiosity and engagement: They are not virtues! They're like any other item of my property; Mine to dispense with as I please.

 

If I'm meeting somebody for the first time, I am curious about them. If they demonstrate first a lack of curiosity and then that the lack of curiosity is typical, I'm not so curious then. This is rational, contributes to my own health, and I stand by that policy. For as long as you're going to make false claims and deflect, I am not going to show you any curiosity. I only brought it up because others are putting it forth as a standard while exempting themselves, which demonstrates that they only bring it up to control, manipulate, or shame others. It's an artificial way of elevating one's self and is reminiscent of 1st grade playground behavior of traumatized children.

[Toys4]

You're so eloquent and mean well. I really hope you find what you're searching for. I'm kind of a goofy dude, so I don't know if I could fulfill what you're searching for, but I like your facebook post.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I think what is lacking in this thread is a lack of courage. If you really have a problem with dsayers, if you think he has really harmed your interests or is harming the interests of others; if you think he a black mar of hypocrisy on this community - then speak up about it! And I don't mean one or two lines.

 

Otherwise you come across as petty and a bit of a hypocrite yourself. 

 

I have personally negative reactions to certain posts or posters, sometimes so voluminous in the anger and passion I feel against what they are saying, that I feel helpless to express it at all. I sort of succumb to fear. When you have passion, and you feel that passion is burning in the moment you express it, you make yourself vulnerable. Those moments are all or nothing in how you express yourself. There is no middle ground, in my opinion, between vulnerability and self censorship. If you self censor, no matter how well you try to hide it, you will be forgotten in enough time because no one will care enough to connect to what you're saying and carry it on to their family, friends, or children.

 

It's not always the case, but it's a tendency I notice in myself that I want to fight back against, to squelch this fire against what I despise about what a person is saying. It's self censorship of the worst order, because it harms the person self censoring, but it also takes away the opportunity of the recipient to hear what you really feel.

 

Passive aggression is like a bottling of the soul. All the passion, anger, and rage against evil, hypocrisy, and despair is quickly dispersed like a gas into the atmosphere, unless the energy is harnessed and directed exactly at the deserving idea. 

 

When I really put a lot of emphasis into a post, I worry about it for days after. I feel paranoid, self conscious, and obsessive about all the ways in which I could be attacked for it. For me, burying my rage, bottling it into terse, predictable, cliched (for my standards) one-liners or clever insults is a source of lost opportunity to acknowledge how deep my fear of being my unfiltered self is. It's far too easy a habit to fall into; the comfort of being nearly quiet. 

 

If you have something to say, say it with emphasis and attitude. Drill into an idea until its spouting out oil as if you punctured a great beast, and its thick blood is the food and energy for everyone who has participated in the effort. Simply flicking your wrist at some idea you find deplorable, like personal hypocrisy, is not enough. If anything, it invigorates the other person to double down on their hypocrisy because they will see you as a fresh example to make a victim of their delusions. 

 

Stefan really turns up the heat against his enemies. If he wasn't willing to unleash his anger when he saw fit, in every conversation or debate he has had where it was necessary for the world that he push back with unrelenting vigor for consistency, we would be left with the monotony of boring evil and its platitudinous, dry, lengthy distractions that it puts forward every time it's challenged, because it expects and relies on good people to shut up and not have the courage to call out their feigned attempts to be genuine and truthful. 

 

I am reminded of a guy like Peter Joseph, who on the surface isn't some raging lunatic, but in my opinions expresses this type of extreme dissociation from the truth with verbal acrobatics that drone on continuously. It takes the same effort and skill and amount of courage (more courage actually) to match his every word that he drones on in predictable fashion, with real-time, energetic, and passionate expressions of anger and rage at the level of inconsistency and dissociation that he is expressing.

 

That's something I thought of when I was reading this thread. I was tempted to respond about the people in this thread, but I couldn't get over how petty and what a wasted effort that would have been by my standards. Either I am going to try and bring it to the level of principle where it hits my conscience deepest, or I am not going to try at all. 

[Wuzzums]

The only feeling you expressed was amusement, and at something as arbitrary as length. You poison the well when you say retort. What I did was push back on the falsehoods you were putting forward, while identifying a thinking error you engaged in. Your post here deflects from all of that, to accuse me of not being curious. Here's the thing about curiosity and engagement: They are not virtues! They're like any other item of my property; Mine to dispense with as I please.

 

If I'm meeting somebody for the first time, I am curious about them. If they demonstrate first a lack of curiosity and then that the lack of curiosity is typical, I'm not so curious then. This is rational, contributes to my own health, and I stand by that policy. For as long as you're going to make false claims and deflect, I am not going to show you any curiosity. I only brought it up because others are putting it forth as a standard while exempting themselves, which demonstrates that they only bring it up to control, manipulate, or shame others. It's an artificial way of elevating one's self and is reminiscent of 1st grade playground behavior of traumatized children.

 

Gimme a fucking break.

You made it more than clear in other interactions with me you had no interest in what I had to say. You keep claiming nobody here rebutted your arguments yet in the post I did so you replied with a 'tl;dr", or how you call it a "poisoning the well".

I never asked for your curiosity or empathy, you did. I pointed out your hypocrisy.

All your posts are marred in compliments to yourself and insults for others.

From this single reply I concluded that:

- I poison wells

- I spew falsehoods

- you're far more knowledgeable about my thinking than me

- I deflect

- you show curiosity in every first interaction you have

- I'm too stupid to understand how property works so thankfully I have a generous guru to enlighten me

- you are rational in your behavior therefore anyone not repeating said behavior is irrational

- I am irrational and undeserving of curiosity

- you are healthier than me

- I am manipulative

- I shame others

- I pull others down in order to raise myself up

- I have a 1st grader mentality

- I was traumatized as a child

 

Dsayers, I have made up my mind about you.

[Iron Horse]

Why do you not try chat?

[dsayers]

Why do you not try chat?

I had tried chat before. Most of the time, there weren't any personal conversations taking place. And when there was, most people either avoided it or tried to talk over it. I don't know how deep a connection you could establish with somebody while there's half a dozen other people trying to have other conversations or otherwise behaving in a way that would make some people not comfortable being vulnerable. Does that answer your question?

[Jaeger]

I have befriended dsayers and found him to be a wonderful person.  He is committed to perusing self knowledge and improving himself.  When I first contacted him I thought I was providing him help with the issues he was having at the time, and that perhaps he may be too needy.  I was so wrong, he has reciprocated many times and I am a better person for knowing him.

 

He has said I was "poisoning the well" a few times or being deterministic and so on.  If I disagree with him, I tell him so, and that leads to further discussion.  I think talking to him on the phone verses posting on the forum makes a big difference.  He is not abrasive as his post makes him seem like, but in fact very caring and loving person.  Does he have a few rough edges?  Yes.  They are the scars from his abuser.

 

He has been talking about wanting to make more friends for months now and I'm so happy to see that he has taken steps to do so.

 

If anybody wants to contact me just PM me. I'm always looking for friends myself.  

[Weeds]

I do not know the past experiences of the people posting within this forum and will not be 'taking sides' in these interactions, but from my perspective they express a relationship that simply was/is not healthy for either party (for whatever reasons that are their own) and both acknowledge that truth and are capable of moving on from there.

 

Staying true to the intentions of the original post, I am also interested in culturing a friendship focused on the expectations mentioned.

 

That said, I am still quite new to this community and have not donated to the show yet so I am limited in my ability to interact (no chat, etc) and would prefer to plant the seed here. C: