Our faults-Changing perspective

[ChristineM]

You confused me. I presented the OP, commented, if you didn't understand ask for clarification. If you know you disagree with me and don't care to converse, don't answer my OP. Conversations don't need to be a friction to offer opinions and ask for clarification. Don't put yourself in a conversation you know you won't finish.

How would i know when beginning a conversation that the goalposts will not be continually moving?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How would i know when beginning a conversation that the goalposts will not be continually moving?

Like this you're doing now?

Just ask for clarification. You won't ever agree with me it seems. The OP isn't addressed to you so the best I can do is offer what I believe or facts I have and clarify what I mean by the OP and posts. Take that as debate if you will, but it is not. Agree or disagree or let it be but don't undermine my intelligence.

 

[ChristineM]

Like this you're doing now?

Just ask for clarification. You won't ever agree with me it seems. The OP isn't addressed to you so the best I can do is offer what I believe or facts I have and clarify what I mean by the OP and posts. Take that as debate if you will, but it is not. Agree or disagree or let it be but don't undermine my intelligence.

You introduced both hypotheticals and the law when i queried your post then denied me discussing them.

The OP, being on a public thread is addressed to all members

As to what you meant in writing the op i have no idea. What you actually wrote was clear to me

Oh i have no intention of undermining your intelligence, it appears yours and my intelligence are on completely different wavelengths, hence the disagreement. Personally on a public forum i go by what is written and not what is meant.

And as i stated in post 19, i im trying to "let it be", maybe a bit of heeding your own words would come in handy right noe

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I get confused when I post topic about one thing and it gears off to something else. It's hard to back track and when I "do" take the time to do so, the conversation halts and it angers* the mess out of me. This is direct not indirectly talking about anyone.

You introduced both hypotheticals and the law when i queried your post then denied me discussing them.

The OP, being on a public thread is addressed to all members

As to what you meant in writing the op i have no idea. What you actually wrote was clear to me

Oh i have no intention of undermining your intelligence, it appears yours and my intelligence are on completely different wavelengths, hence the disagreement. Personally on a public forum i go by what is written and not what is meant.

And as i stated in post 19, i im trying to "let it be", maybe a bit of heeding your own words would come in handy right noe

I am lost now, in the last few posts you have presented both legal and hypothetical comments. I am not going any further with this.

I was saying people tend to blame their and/or others mortality (the imperfections of their flesh). The world would be a better place if we didn't have that blame-blame in the moral sense of the term. Of course people are legally responsibility for their own actions, but the OP case blame is in moral context not a legal one.

I clarified what I meant a good few times. If what I wrote was clear to you, I'm not sure where you're going with this though. You've always disagreed with me on things. But the manner of your disagreement doesn't sound conversational but more accusation as if I'm trying to convince you to believe something you have strong feelings against.

 

[ChristineM]

I get confused when I post topic about one thing and it gears off to something else. It's hard to back track and when I "do" take the time to do so, the conversation halts and it angers* the mess out of me. This is direct not indirectly talking about anyone.





I was saying people tend to blame their and/or others mortality (the imperfections of their flesh). The world would be a better place if we didn't have that blame-blame in the moral sense of the term. Of course people are legally responsibility for their own actions, but the OP case blame is in moral context not a legal one.

I clarified what I meant a good few times. If what I wrote was clear to you, I'm not sure where you're going with this though. You've always disagreed with me on things. But the manner of your disagreement doesn't sound conversational but more accusation as if I'm trying to convince you to believe something you have strong feelings against.

Ok, blame in the moral context is not worth the paper its written on.

I am i, how i communicate is not a problem to most people, and disagreement happens on a public thread

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ok, blame in the moral context is not worth the paper its written on.

I am i, how i communicate is not a problem to most people, and disagreement happens on a public thread

I wish I can make my points shorter but it's a hindrance of mine unfortunately. You're repeating yourself cause (I noticed) you're not actively reading my posts. If you read it, then there'd be some agreement (if that's your thing) but for some reason I think you're missing it.

That or "I am assuming" you think I'm trying to over talk you for every point you make.

I'm honestly not sure.

 

[Bird123]

What would happen to society if we-you (the reader), me, and the rest of the world stopped looking at/for and blaming our mortality and others for our/their external and/or internal faults?

This is in All religions and in societies all over the world as a whole. What if...

Very Very Good!! Blame is such a petty thing that holds everyone back from a Higher Level. If everyone concentrated on solving the problems rather than finding someone to blame, the world would change before our eyes.

No one can guaranty the actions of another, however we all have the ability to Choose our own actions.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!