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.