You’re not responding to me in good faith. Are you just incapable of doing so?

If you want to make a claim , provide examples, even a single example works.

All of my replies have been in direct response to your statements, with quotations to match, if you think one of those responses was in bad faith, point it out.

You can do this in real time, instead of waiting to vaguely accuse me of something without pointing to an example.

I have responded in good faith to you. Your questions aren’t really clear (many seem rhetorical) and you keep referencing things that you don’t really seem to have brought up in any real tangible, palpable meaningful way.

You have responded..sort of, yes, good faith is debatable

My questions are clear, there are a lot of statements because I’m providing context and/or my stance something to support my claims and/or follow up questions.

Again, citation on the "reference to something not previously brought up" ?

You just kind of glaze over them. And I’m really not sure what you’re getting at.

Again, citation? literally any example you wish to point at, i will address.

I've been responding almost line by line, pick any example of when that response was vague, it's not a test, i genuinely want an example.

And I’ve told you this so much over and over again and you really don’t explain yourself while I have explained myself to quite a lengthy extent which you don’t really seem to appreciate and instead insult.

There are copious examples of me explaining myself and my positions, if you want i can provide a list, or you could...just read the history.

You have explained some things and i have responded to them, again, line by line mostly.

Most of my responses have been to try and get clarification on the apparent contradictions in your explained positions.

The only vaguely insulting thing i can from my side was the last reply in the previous response and it was in response to a literal nonsense reply from your side.

And again… I can explain things to you but I can’t understand them for you. Real understanding takes a mutual dedication to try to alleviate ambiguities and not reinforce them and entrench inside of them.

If there was something you explained and i then replied with the same question again, please point it out.

Like, I’m pretty sure everyone reading this knows where my stance is but I have no fucking clue what yours is. Maybe just a clueless contrarian?

If by contrarian you mean i disagree with many of your stances, then yes, otherwise my positions have been consistent.

I've stated why i disagree, if you wish to discuss , reference an example.

For clarification my stance is:

• God's design (which you didn't mean?, so that's fine) and what is "natural" are a poor foundation for a shared framework of morals and ethics because they are subjective.
• Harm reduction includes psychological harm, to exclude that is poor reasoning.
• It's possible to use body modification as an expression of self without having an underlying mental illness or psychological issue.
• Counting Crows big yellow taxi is superior musically but Joni Mitchell’s original is better for the feels.
• Providing a whole-ass book, or series of ideologies instead of an actual position is poor conversational technique, especially if you don't even specify if it represents your position.

Your stance in general is clear, has been from the beginning, it's when I’m asking for clarification that things get contradictory or vague.

Here is a summary (of my understanding) :

• You seem to have close to fundamentalist ^0^ (in my opinion) beliefs about what people should and shouldn't be doing wrt body modifications. ^1^
• Your stance is that you don’t push this on others ^2^
• You stated "I don’t think you’re going to improve on God’s design." with no other context clues but later ( a few replies later ) said that isn't what you meant. ^3^
• You think a lot of body modifications are due to underlying mental illness or psychological issues.
• Your boundary is restoring medical function/harm reduction is fine, anything else is not.
  • When asked if psychological harm reduction counts, you have provided no actual position except for a reference to a book.
• You have your opinions on what constitutes "natural", when asked about a contradiction in clarification your response was:
  • Cite a definition with no explanation as to why it was needed
  • Ignore the contradiction entirely
  • Claim i was using a special definition without specifying what you thought it was.

`

• ^0^ See the previous reply about the definition of fundamentalism I’m using here
• ^1^ Note the words in bold, they are important.
• ^2^ I don't necessarily believe that but I’d have no way to prove anything either way, so my beliefs are irrelevant.
• ^3^ Same as ^2^