Bob Seidensticker: Hard to imagine that this is confusing, but OK. [A reasonable request for clarification is used to deliver an underhanded insult.]
A: I never said that this is confusing and I resent the implication. Where your statements or intentions are vague or unclear, I prefer to ask rather than to speculate or settle with unchecked beliefs. I am not a mind reader. [This is the reasoning of a critical thinker concerned with the truth.]
Unfortunately, your answer does not clarify your position. I don’t know what “getting nowhere” means to you and also, I don’t know if you have “getting somewhere” in mind as an alternative or how you might imagine that. What I do know, is that I told you that my focus is truth and understanding and that I am not interested in competition. I also made it clear that I do not feel it worthwhile to continue if you persist with using ‘tactics’, sarcasm, and other disingenuous methods. Furthermore, I suggested that your persistent and aggressive questioning about my personal affairs was inappropriate. In other words, I let you know my conditions for the possibility of “getting somewhere” to remain open. I do not recall any agreement or response from you with even a hint of sincerity, only disregard, diversions, and mockery. Saturday, I elaborated a bit more on considerations for a constructive discussion and I called you on an insinuation. It is noted that you neither acknowledged nor responded to that either.
Do you have more clarity about the ‘impasse’ now, or is it still unclear?
What is unclear to me is on what grounds you have publicly defamed and condemned me. If you are a man of reason, you will have a reason, and I see no reason why it should be withheld from me.
Bob Seidensticker: [not responding to any of the issues being addressed…] OK [to what?]. Not much I can do to push this conversation forward, I’m afraid. [Avoidance tactic. “Pushing the conversation forward” is not the issue.]
A: There is plenty you can do if you want to.
A good start would be to explain your evaluations of Gayatri as rational and me as irrational. If your own thinking is rational, you will have come to these conclusions using reason and logic applied to sufficient relevant information. If you cannot validate with reason, then your conclusion is based on distorted thinking and beliefs. Reject this simple challenge and you are admitting defeat.
I insist on an explanation to why you publicly defamed and condemned me.
Bob Seidensticker: Sure, there’s plenty I can do (but won’t), but it wouldn’t be productive. (= of benefit to number one) Your charge (standard DARVO abuser/victim role reversal tactic: ignoring the issue of his abusive behavior, the aggressor attempts to redefine his role as the “victim” being subjected to a “charge”.) that I publicly defamed and condemned me (typo, presumably) is a tantalizing one that I’d like to understand, for example, but we’ve already seen how much progress we make. (We’ve already seen arrogant avoidance and contempt.)
Yes, I’m admitting defeat based on your interpretation of rationalism. (DARVO diversion tactic. Her “interpretation of rationalism,” though unknown and irrelevant, is now implicated as the problem to detract from the issue of his abusive behavior.)
A: Are you denying that you publicly (I mean to ‘the group’) defamed and condemned me? . . .
Never mind my interpretation of rationalism, whatever you imagine that to be. Explain yourself based on your own interpretation of rationalism and be forthcoming with what that is, too.
The arrogant abuser enjoys the power and feeling of superiority that comes from abusing with impunity. He will not be honest or cooperative. Why would he? Try holding him accountable and like a slippery snake he will slither out of your grasp.
- Why Critical Thinking Is Important (ethicalrealism.wordpress.com)
- Unreasonable Forms of Persuasion & Manipulation (ethicalrealism.wordpress.com)