Editing Openai/6973e373-2b8c-800d-84b7-d7001cfc6bac (section)

=== User: All of those questions show they didn't put in the effort and/or have the skill to think critically enough before belie… ===
All of those questions show they didn't put in the effort and/or have the skill to think critically enough before believing and speaking. If you take all of the parts of the meta-cluster and add "effectively" before it... that's what matters, including "effectively lying to oneself (unconsciously)"

The initial benefit of the doubt allows for miscalibration, but after the opportunity is given for them to see where they've been wrong logically or premise-wise and they are grossly negligent with it, that's no longer a lone possibility. They are showing a need to keep that miscalibration within a blindspot.

SReflection was the one who started with xRegardsx regarding the moral, continuing on the previous thread for the other commenter, giving xRegardsx no benefit of the doubt himself and narrowmindedly taking the previous commenter's side despite the counter-arguments that were available in their full reading of the comment thread prior to Reflection's first comment.

When the person first assumes (or doubles down for someone else) "Defensive much?" they are the first person bringing ego (pride, selfishness, defense) into it. Pointing out the projection is fair game at that point after the discourse is provenly doomed (a point at which "mindreading" for the sake of explaining how there is more than enough evidence to end the conversation and remove them from the sub is allowed).

You're reading my argument as "therefore pride-driven" even though I can explain the much longer dot connections in each case premise by premise to get from one to the other. I can prove this by challenging you to challenge yourself.

First give me a hypothetical example that you don't think can eventually lead to all parts of the original meta-cluster being hit, and then we'll go from there...