It is the only obligation available since you were addressing my reply to QoN and you have to follow what my reply to.
My reply was contextual to the discussion underway and the "obligation" you chose wasn't the only one available since another was just indicated.
If you cannot keep up with the conversation, you shouldn't feel such an obligation to make a reply to every post made.
Falsely insinuating such when my replies have been contextual to discussions responded to is a weak diversionary tactic on your part.
I have fully qualified every statement I have made -- where it was warranted. I am not elusive at all ...
Denying that you prevaricate, when there is extant evidence of you doing so, (in your on words, unless your elusive squirrels have been posting in your stead), is disingenuous.
I just did tell you, though, so deal with it junkie.
Junkie? Where did that random ad hominem come from, a realization that you lost an argument and resorted to simple name-calling?
I shared how I was able to consider it and expressed where I was having difficulty understanding how I would assume she was viewing it. You do know how to recognized posited empathy don't you? I find it often the best way to contrast and compare subject matter with another by directly lending how one would actually view the case from their side. Again you are entirely missing the point and you seem unable to grasp the flow of the dialog.
If I were unable to "grasp the flow of the dialog", how is it that some portions of my replies have reflected and expanded upon what QoN has also posted in reply to the same "flow of dialog"? Are you implicitly suggesting that she cannot follow that "flow", even though the replies from both of us have manifestly shown otherwise? It's unclear whether you've marked this week on your calendar as "make false accusations & ad homs" week or, if this is merely the tactic you resort to when you've painted yourself into corners. Either way, it's irrational and not indicative of critical thinking skills in action.
I am taking every measure I can muster to be as clear and simple in my replies as I am able. If you don't understand exactly what I am saying ...
I never suggested that I didn't understand what you're saying, (or implying/insinuating or prevaricating about); that's your false insinuation.
You so love to be critical of faith and tack on the word 'blind' to it every time you use the word, but here you display even a greater blindness.
Your accusation is demonstrably false; critical thinking doesn't "blind" one to the active pursuit of accurate knowledge - that's the purview of blind religious faith. Btw, such a 'do whatever you want' narcisstic philosophy you mention is exactly the same premise of the church of satan, (and even they proceed under secular laws so as not to end up imprisoned for any crimes).
It isn't false at all.
Your simple denial runs contrary to the extant evidence of your posts in this thread.
You are very critical of others (well in areas you don't agree with them -- but less so in areas you do) and especially those with faith or religious beliefs.
More precisely, I am very critical of the specious beliefs
that others hold, (not specifically of those holding them).
If you are not aware of this ...
My reply indicates that I am aware of consistently applying critical thinking to the concepts of 'belief-sans-evidence' therefore, any conclusions drawn from a premise of being unaware of this do not follow.
Why would you bend your knee to secular law (which would actually qualify the same as a religion in regards to enforcing its doctrines of control measures upon your freedoms).
Secular laws do not require blind faith in them, nor worship, nor an unreasonable expectation that they are structured upon a lack
of evidentiary procedures. Conversely, religious belief systems, precepts and strictures are
exclusively dependent upon blind faith in their basis in order to induce a measure of control over 'believers'. If you are unable to discern the differences between the two, your self-declared "critical thinking skills" would fall significantly short in this regard.
You mention fear and you hint with this, but fear is an irrational response to the prepared and capable.
No, QoN mentioned fears in context. If you are unable to follow the ebb and flow of who posted what, learn to correctly discern attributions.
It is good to be back to a more adversarial exchange as we fair rather poorly when displaying niceties and it is always short lived and terse...
It was not I who was operating under any false pretense, nor was I being sought when your squirrels were looking for nuts.