Andreas

Yes. We have two radically different opinions. You don't know if you are right, I don't know If I am right. The way we find that out is through a discussion built upon reason. Not through me telling you you are a devil and you telling me I am deeply unconscious. So far your arguments have in my view not stood up to any scrutiny. I might be wrong, but I am happy to be convinced otherwise.

Oh you don't know that and you will not understand that even if I explain it to you because you are too unconscious to be reasoned with. Sorry!

Yes. They refer to similarities within your behaviour, which I see as worthy of strong criticism. There was a similarity in the way you, him and many other people on here constantly dismiss anyone who disagrees with your opinion without explaining anything. Also known as stonewalling. The main theme is not the issue here. The term is irrelevant. The issue is how you choose to communicate with your consumers. Many of them even pay you money and buy the life purpose course.

I respectfully disagree. There is nothing good coming from stigmatizing the world because it is to "unconscious". The deeper irony is that what this forum is about is becoming critical of your own biases and opinions, yet they as the creators of this site, fail to do that with themselves. Once someone takes their advise to the degree of becoming critical of the creators own beliefs, it is of course because he or she is deeply unconscious or egotistical. I find this way of weaponizing the field of epistemology to be highly dysfunctional.

You have most certainly not explained why my argument is wrong. Your entire strategy to preserve your ideology is based upon reducing my credibility which in return creates an illusion that my logical arguments are weaker. My prediction is that you are going to attempt to reduce my credibility once again because you fail to explain why you did not not argue in the realm of ethos while I was presenting original arguments in the realm of logos. My sense is that you do this again and again because your opposing views simply cannot be defended. There is your problem. A deep contradiction to your argument is that you do not consider yourself being closeminded about me being closeminded, which I am trying to point at. This contradiction is of course irrational because it is in itself contradicting itself. But the reason I use this is an example is not to try to stigmatize you into blindly believing my opinion, but to attempt to show you the limitations of what I consider to be stigmatization, through reason.

We don’t need to agree on everything, just the stuff that is relevant for the discussion. I think the main difference is that toxic femininity is concerned with making you look like you are incompetent and inferior to make your points seem weaker while toxic masculinity is concerned with making yourself look superior and make people look up to you because your points seem stronger. They are just labels pointing at a deeper problem. I think the key takeaway here is trying to be more aware of this mechanism and how is uses your ego to suck you into all kinds of ideas. It is kind of like indoctrinating children into a christianity.

Well my criticism has been interpreted in a lot of different ways. It makes it necessary to defend it in multiple ways. I think there are a lot of people who feel this way. But it can be hard to express oneself against 10 people strawmaning you at the same time. https://www.quora.com/Is-Leo-Gura’s-Actualized-org-a-scam

We were arguing about the limitations of how we give feedback on actualized.org. This turned into another argument about how to have an objective discussion. This turned into yet another argument about how we percieve what’s true. Finally it turned into an argument about me attempting to make an argument while someone else tried to focus on something they percieved as wrong in the way I was interpreting their opposing views.

The war of stigmatization. What I am trying to tell you is that Id like you to address my argument. Please?

Well I am sorry if you feel that way. This thread is not about me though. I was trying to make a point about actualized.org. If you don't want to address that directly then I am not interested in having you as my therapist.

Why do you need "evidence" if I am straight up telling you that I understood the concept?

Well in your context that is true. If I was not listening to you I would keep disagreeing with you while you hold the truth. In my context it's just the opposite. You are not listening to me and this makes it challenging to get a point across. Constantly having to defend myself, not the meaning of my statements.

Did not forget that, that's why I used it in quotation marks. I was implying the opposite.

I quoted an assistant professor which you seemed to agree with. You were pointing out that the guy is a chiropractor which I responded to. I agreed with you and called him irrelevant. I am arguing in terms of what I personally believe is right, if someone does that back we get into a discussion and try to figure out who is right. Not how to "win". Very different from yourself. Constantly attacking for being closeminded, unconscious, a devil etc. You have still not addressed my point about actualized.org, but continue to focus on a different thread with a different topic in order to make me look unconscious, which in return makes my point about actualized.org weaker.

As I said, I was disagreeing with your opinion. I did not turn anything into a confrontation. I was trying to figure out how what I cited is wrong. I was not telling you that you are wrong because of X, I was trying to figure out why what you think what you think. In my view the evidence speaks for itself.

As I said, I was trying to figure out why I was wrong. Quoting a professor is where I got the information from to begin with, that is the reason I believed it. Quoting a professor is apparently necessary because of this style of argument we are having here. 90% of our arguments are in the context of ethos.

Yes. My point being, there are professors with the same level of status disagreeing with your opinion. To me, their point makes more sense. I was mostly trying to figure out how I was wrong. Yet again, the theme of showing why YOU are wrong. Not why your argument or your opinion is wrong.

I attacked your argument, not you. I apologize if I offended you in any way. I used the word "cultish" to try to refer to a spectrum, not the black and white definition of a cult. To me, your argument represented a general theme of what I call toxic femininity.

Seems like a highly egotistical pursuit. This is really not about me or genetics, this is about actualized.org. This is about what's true and I have yet to be convinced. So far, these ideas have not stood up to any scrutiny. It all boils down to this: Take our ideas (which are highly unconventional) and spend your life actualizing them, if you do you will be happy and have a nice life. If you do not, you are egotistical and unconscious. Here, buy our life purpose course and spend your life doing that, but not too much because you need to do work on enlightenment. Do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that. No time for independent thinking. For if you do disagree, you need to do more work on yourself. And hat is your fault, you are not taking responsibility.

Then why is it not wrong to say that there is no such thing as Santa Claus if some kid tells me so? Am I being unconscious?

You might be trying to solve the problem from the wrong angle. Try checking if the problem is psychological, not physiological. What is driving you towards distraction? What are you escaping?

If this is such a great and advanced truth, why is it so that only you understand but not the greatest mathematicians working in number theory? Are they just too unconscious? Why should I, from my perspective, spend what seems like a very long time to try to figure out a question not even the greatest mathematicians know the answer to? Can you see how this might be perceived as cultlike behaviour?

Well I think there are certain things we can understand as truths. Such as 2+2=4. But some things such as "Is this a nice drawing?" is something we can judge. But we cannot judge someone to not be able to understand something. Transcend and include logic. Not repress logic.

iNfInItE iNtElLiGeNcE

Haha nice one! I was asking you questions to reflect on your own dogmas. And when you don’t feel comfortable doing that you try to turn it on it’s head by stigmatizing me. As usual. I did not defend any idea. If your beliefs was true they would be able to stand up to scrutiny.