Yes, it's bi-directional. Conversation is meant to be multidirectional. What You consider carrots need to be what I consider carrots in order to achieve communication.

Well, I think we should hit the basics first. We need to establish communication. So far, I'm unsure whether You'd bring what I consider carrots if I sent You to bring the carrots from the grocery.

How do You know there is me at all?

Here, again You're being inconclusive at best.
You say there is this invisible being... that only I can see. Is this being invisible, or isn't?
Also, I never said God is invisible, nor that I ever saw Him.
Here, an example: prove to me, with Your words, that You exist.
I could easily dismiss any of Your claims and say that I'm imagining things, that You're a manifestation of my psyche et cetera.
However, I can choose to believe that You are actually another human being talking to me.

But if You can say:"No, that's not the way it is", there should be an argument behind that. Especially if it's about a touchy subject. Otherwise You appear immature.
If You don't understand any of my claims, ask for a clarification. If You just ignore them and pull out a sword, we're not having a dialogue, we're just outshouting each other.
And if we agree on very little, consider I'm a member of some alien race and that we're making a first contact. Assume You don't know anything about me, my culture, my habits et cetera, don't just stomp on things I might hold dear.

Well, I know it can sounds like that, but I assure You it wasn't my intention.
However, I can be a prick when people skim through my post and claim something that was either addressed in seven posts above, or wasn't addressed at all in my post.
If You were insulted in any way, accept my apologies.

Well, it is always necessary to stick to a definition of a word, which assumes You know it, before arguing something someone said using it as a punch-line, so to say, to their point.
And if You use some, say, 7th definition of a word, You should provide that You meant that particular definition in that case. Otherwise, You get to spend seven posts explaining what You meant... and stuff.

In real life situations, I might react a similar way. I'm just talking about hypothetical situations. But the reason why I believe I had a reason to tell the truth is, even the interrogators are human just like you and me. Even though he has malicious intent of hurting/killing the Jews, until he commits to an action or is part of a group that actually physically commits the action, it renders him to be worthy of basic human rights. Thus, I cannot lie to this person. However, after he commits the killing of Jewish people, I am no longer obligated to tell the truth.

We have a progress here. Thank You for at least considering the definitions a bit.
Now, go read about what axioms are, if You're interested about more. That's not an order, it's a suggestion.

No lying itself is intrinsically wrong. However, I would tell the truth but at the same time, twist the words so that the interrogators would not know. I would do this not because I am thinking about the consequences of saving people, rather I would do this to uphold my moral obligation to tell the truth, however twisted the words may be.
There are definitely ways of working around the categorical imperatives. Just have to be clever about it, I think.

opposed to deontological ethics like moral absolutism. There is also virtuism. In the case that I described to you, I would personally not kill that 1 person because it goes against the categorical imperitive that murder is wrong in every situation regardless of the consequences.

It's a fact. Here, faulty definition of faith
I'm merely telling You to get Your definitions straight before engaging in a serious argument. You can't just throw words around and ask people to take You seriously.

I think I noticed other people telling You that You stop reading other people's post after the first line... here, one example... And You seriously do behave like that. And I think I told You to consult the dictionary at least once in our conversations, it was You who had faulty definitions all along... For all I know, You probably don't know the definition of vague either...

I spent a few days trying to make You use reason, and Your only response was window shopping. I'm sorry, how to call that but childish? You don't even care to read what I post, Your only answer to anything anyone posts is:"Okay, let's ignore everything, and start from 'You're wrong'."
I didn't mean to insult You, but I hand everything on a platter to You and the very next moment You're back to... whatever that state You revert to is called. Call it sincere mindfulness for all I care.

	Originally Posted by S.H.
	"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

Don't take this as adressing that post of Yours directly, that response was childish at best. I'm telling You, that if You are seriously interested, to use reason. If You don't want to, I most certainly won't force feed You.

Haha, I can kinda see why.

I'll definitely look over the data. It's a very interesting topic but I can't say that I am fully versed in the hypothesis or theories. It should be a lot of fun.

Thanks for letting me know. I don't blame you about ignoring VP. I usually ignore him by glossing over his posts and laughing at them like it's a stand up comedy routine. Sometimes all you can do is laugh when you see things that are profoundly hypocritical or stupid.

Eh, it's pretty common knowledge by now that he displays consistent patterns of intellectual dishonesty and/or scientific incompetence.

Except in one or two extreme cases, I just skip over people's posts if I want to ignore them. If I block them all out I might miss their hilariousness, or some opposing arguments, or the chance to flex my critical thinking muscles trying to figure out how someone can believe two completely contradictory statements at the same time.

Yet, the persistence throughout the last 23 pages, and others, has been admirable.

I'm trying to formulate a solid answer for you. Be a bit patient. Answers will be forthcoming.