It’s fine that most people don’t or won’t, but not ever can’t, understand (not believe) as I do. Its fine to treat people as well as you can. Yet if you and others don’t know how to recognize the importance of clearly defining a moral code or philosophy that is absolutely transparent in its path of thought progression then who are you to come and tell me that:

-an emotional response was not unexpected from me
-that I am seemingly with intent trying to arouse the ire of a mob
-that a majority will never do something
-that what you think is or isn’t possible should be enough for me

Whatever you think people are limited to is a fault in your own thinking, not mine. Do not ever confuse your own faults or failures with mine if you honestly want to engage in serious and meaningful conversation again. If you think I shouldn’t take offense at the short comings of someone tearing apart my work, starting off with a condescending remark and failing to completely recognize the entire context from which I write, especially when the individual has failed to comprehend the constructive criticism offered in the piece, then think again. Your failure to recognize the biology and chemistry of others is the problem as is evident here when you attempt to educate me on something you don’t understand in full yet.

To be clear: I’m not being hostile to you. I’m defending myself against your failures in comprehension.

When you don’t realize that you don’t know everything and come across someone like me, whom you have completely misinterpreted, I will still make time for you pending your desire to focus on your own personal growth. The key is to ensure you are ready to learn, even if you don’t think you have anything to learn from me. So tell me all about your experiences of how philosophy gets you into trouble all you like when you fail to keep in mind the biology and chemistry of others. Do you truly think I make that mistake? Do you think I don’t make time to understand the context from which I write and the context of the subject I write about?

I think you do think I make those mistakes because you don’t recognize the context from which I write. You probably haven’t read the books from which I based this OP from. And then you presume to conclude that I was berating people, nay haranguing them for doing something you think was the same as what I was writing about and accusing others of doing?

Make more time to read to comprehend instead of reply. And before you pass judgment on something you think you fully understand, why not ask questions to understand with greater certainty?

I berated no one. To do that would mean that I would speak down to them and offer no other solution but to keep their mouths shut and whimper and cower beneath me. And I certainly didn’t do that. I offered a solution. So re-read my piece as you have suggested I do for my own benefit; or move along. But don’t go on the offensive and then accuse me of being hostile to people in my OP without understanding the difference between criticism for the sake of inciting hostilities and constructive criticism to help others learn.

Once again, the only thing you have gotten right is the frustration I find in so many people. And yes, I do use many of the tools that worked for me in my own comprehension. The difference is that I use these tools to help highlight so many faults in others by also offering solutions side by side instead of simply trying to tell people how wrong they are and to gain comradely among those like minded to me by issuing cheap insults to negatively affect the mindsets of others. Nothing I say is meant to cause shock value as is that which is invoked to mock and berate others has. That is a stark difference.

Failure to offer an alternative is often the blunder, not demanding or subtly suggesting I offer some cheer or good word because you happened to stumble across the one piece I produced that is slightly different than the vast majority of all else I have created. What I have done doesn’t set people back.

Going on the offensive and not minding the context of something is the blunder. Not exploring with intent to understand all the other works I have shared at the bottom of my OP is your fault to not understand. And you have done that here I find. So too have those in my piece I discuss who mock and ridicule without any constructive criticism those who mourn the death of a man they knew little about to gain political points among their own like minded friends which only causes more division.

That was the crux of the piece I created, that you didn’t recognize at all. Let me know when you wish to ask questions to further understand more. Until then,

Have a marvelous day! Thank you so much for making time to comment.