This will be my last response to you.
It is clear who you are now, if only I could remember his/her name.
Probably an unhealthy 5 -- he/she was INTP -- gets off on convincing self that others are "responding emotionally" -- argumentative -- but doesn't actually engage with what was said -- it's all there (ha, now that I remember, he/she even ha the pot/kettle metaphor as his/her profile image -- typical).
Such a heated response. It's pretty amusing I gotta say.
Aren't you awesome Mister Enneagram 5?
Look how calm and dispassionate you are.
Others are clearly your inferior.
(nevermind the fact that you're projecting what's not actually there, and unable to actually deal with the objective points that are raised)
(really don't need to deal with a self-described shut-in incapable of getting outside his own head -- have better things to do)
Since I first replied on the previous page of this thread, I suppose you could do us all a favor and take your own advice:
Yes, well, since you first responded to me, in response to something asked of someone else, and I never responded to you, nor had any intention of doing so, it's not really on me to have read your posts beforehand, whereas it is on you to have done so to me. See the principle? If you're going to pick a fight, then actually have done the homework. If a fight is picked with you, and especially by someone who did so without having first done their homework on you, then there is certainly no onus on you to suddenly do it on them.
Amazing. Principles.
Not really.
It's actually very distinct.
Some people have that knowledge, some do not.
I just chose to address the general category of people, not the specific individuals who fit under that category.
...and comes off as hilariously holier than thou so you only have yourself to blame if one begins to infer that you reek of pomposity.
Holier and more pompous than naming yourself "Holy" and calling yourself a "PURE" type?
Watch our for that pot/kettle metaphor that you seem hell bent on using, seeing as how aptly it fits you; one might come to reason that your tendency is to go around wielding it, precisely because it's so true of you (albeit unconsciously).
I wonder what my MBTI type has to do with any part of this conversation?
Even if you had managed to type me correctly, which, you did not, it's quite irrelevant.
We're on a typology website, you don't have your type listed, and type affects why and how we perceive and judge things.
Pretty relevant, on many counts, actually.
Well, considering you missed my entire first post explaining my stance I think I can be afforded some leeway : )
No, again, you cannot.
Based on the principle, and an understandable one, laid out above.
Anything less would be uncivilized (i.e., expecting something of me that you did not do yourself, when
you were the one who initiated).
Or you could not let yourself be so emotionally ruffled and simply explain yourself...
Believe it or not, while I understand that in your unhealthy enneagram 5 mind this makes you feel superior, it's actually a completely reasonable response to get pissed off when someone who you have not said a word to, unprovoked, comes out of nowhere and calls you a hypocrite, falsely, based on a blatant and demonstrable misreading of what you've said.
In such a case, I don't feel the need treat such a person civilly, as the very first interaction
that they initiated was uncivil.
In other words, go **** yourself.
You started this, and not only did you start it, but you can't even keep up with the logical arguments that have been made, so don't fret that there's a fire in the back, when you can't even handle the logic that's up front.
/ give examples of what you mean.
I have responded completely appropriately to everything you have asked.
If you want an example of people who fall in the category of "people who know", then ask.
I will gladly fully examine your views quite objectively if only you would explain them completely.
Why are you so arrogant to think that I would even give a shit about getting your examination?
Believe it or not, your examination means absolutely nothing to me.
I understand that 5s (and TPs) get off off on this kind of shit, thinking their analysis is the most paramount thing in the universe, but, believe it or not, it's not. And, not only that, but based on your clear inability to follow what I have said, and your lack of thoroughness in surveying the evidence that does exist, and your unprincipled behavior in expecting something of me that you did not do yourself, when
you were the one who initiated with me, not I with you, I have little-to-no faith in your ability to actually be objective.
It sounds like your dismissing me because I'm hinting at the possibility that I may not completely agree with you and that's just...juvenile.
What's juvenile is everything about your behavior that I just enumerated above.
I was using it as an example. I understand that it's only one thing, but it's one thing that seems to strike me as a standout. Never anywhere did I say, at any time, that Lolita fully encompasses high culture.
And never anywhere did I say that's what you said.
You used Lolita as an example to muddle the lines between high and low culture.
All I stated was that because there are some pieces that muddle the lines does not mean there's no such thing as high and low culture.
Learn to follow an argument.
The kettle is getting blacker.
Your projecting is getting more evident.
And later on in this same post I believe you seem to become incensed over the notion that I did not read your posts.
I'm just noting this for my own humor and possibly others.
Yes, apparently you missed out on that principle I laid out above.
If you're actually capable of understanding it, then I'm sorry to have ruined the humor for you.
I'm sure, as an unprincipled person to begin with, you can find some other strategy to make yourself feel significant, tho.
My question was answered, just not by the person I asked.
Good for him.
That's one specific group who he thinks falls under the general category I laid out.
It's an understandable one, and many would, and I might have, laid it out, if I'd wanted to be specific.
That being said, though, they probably would not have been my first.
It seems that you are so frustrated, simply answering honest inquiries is beyond your capacity.
If honest inquiries were what you'd actually offered, I would have had no problem answering them, and pleasantly so.
But honest inquiries were not what you offered, pot.
Okay, that was really important.
See?, now I know that you are not completely unreasonable.
But see? I couldn't give two shits what you think about me.
I know who I am, and I already know that I am completely reasonable.
You, on the other hand, know nothing about me, and, as such, your opinions about me don't mean anything at all.
That's strange. Something that people practice and in some cases, try to keep themselves from falling out of the confines of a particular one doesn't say anything about that person or the rest of the people with whom they share it with in said culture?
Once again, your clearly demonstrated inability to follow an argument: "doesn't say anything about" does not equate to "equates to".
I suppose it should not be surprising that an art school drop out would make such a conflation, tho.
The latter, was rhetoric and a bit of joke ( which was easily lost on you since I made no hint at marking my sarcasm )
I have a degree in Rhetoric, so I really don't need it pointed out to me.
I got your joke, I just turned it around on you.
I wouldn't point that out to you if you didn't demonstrate that clearly it needed to be.
Oh, you know Freud. How novel.
Oh, you know sarcasm. How impressive.
I can't help it if I'm too busy snickering at your belligerence to respond to every little thing you said.
Once again, congratulations Mr. Unhealthy Enneagram 5 on maintaining that false sense of superiority.
Perhaps when you actually learn to deal with reality and the external world I will be able to give half a shit.
Taking note that this is coming from the same person that has tried to guess my MBTI in order to comfort themselves with their own inflated sense of logic.
And that's what's known as a false attribution of intention.
Nothing about my guessing your MBTI has to do with comforting myself.
I'm merely getting a read on who you are, and with each sentence it keeps getting closer and closer.
And then below proceeds to berate me based on where they think I am from.
Actually, I did not berate you based on where I thought you were from (and when I wrote that, I fully maintained the possibility you were not actually European), but based on your displaying the same type of ignorance as those types of people.
There's a difference.
(even though you're not aware enough to see it)
Man, look at the big kid using their big words and labels! Isn't it much easier to say: 'I don't agree with you' and give me an actual reason instead of using my possible social class and school of thought as your defense?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize "prototypical" and "postmodernist" were considered big words and labels anymore/on here.
And I didn't realize that someone who picks a fight, falsely calling someone a hypocrite, based on a clear and demonstrable misreading of what they have said, and lacking of reading of what else they said immediately above that blatantly contradicts your claims, was in any sort of position to state how others ought to behave.
For the record, I am not in any way European.
Thank you.
I'd already figured as much before your response.
I really wish I had blinders that worked as well as yours did.
Yes, yours seem to be on far too tight.
Again, your own advice. Take it.
I'm following some pretty damn good principles already.
You're the one who needs to learn to get on board with them.
And as far as my post count goes: quality over quantity.
Well, I gotta say, I see a lot of shit so far.
And apparently, AGAIN (not surprisingly), you missed the point of why I said that.
I had input so I gave. It's not to your liking? You have no idea how much I do not care. Really.
Oh, I assure you, I do.
Going with 5w6.
Perhaps 6w5.
That would be interesting.
I believe that's what the other one eventually typed as.
Seems to have a good dose of counterphobia (and unaware of it).
We'll see if they can actually learn to put it to good use.