Posts by mistyscout2

If I weren't already a little bit crazy, I probably would have lost my mind a long time ago...

briskgull27, from what I can gather, you seem much more grounded—honestly, just healthier—than most people out there. Most folks today feel either completely brainwashed, totally ignorant, or they're just stuck in these tiny, ridiculous little lives thinking they're somehow important when they lack any real soul or depth. They're just spiritually empty, if you know what I mean.
I try really hard not to be the type of person who jumps to conclusions based on a sliver of experience or some random thread online, but certain things are just plain obvious once you see them.

I don't really subscribe to the whole debate over what's "sane" versus what's "crazy" enough to write endless essays about it; it feels like a waste of breath. You either get it or you don't. Besides, plenty of actual experts have already covered all that ground, and since I see Brenda Cook4 is already familiar with the guys I mentioned, well, kudos to you, Brenda Cook4 👍 ...

"Heroes don't need guns or pistols; they just need a pure heart and the courage to face anything!" 😉

Is it alright if I leave this in? I figured I should probably quote him just so it doesn't look like I'm just having a one-sided conversation with myself 😁. Just shoot me a DM if you’d really rather I just delete it, though honestly, I don't see much reason to scrub it...

Anyway, no big deal, let's just keep things moving along in a lighthearted way 😁.

goranbo said:mistyscout2, you took all of that a bit too personally, and honestly, there was no reason to let it get to you like that. I might follow up on this later.
(And if you feel like an argument is turning into an "ad hominem" attack—or if anyone else feels that way—I really think it’s best just to step away rather than engaging in those kinds of back-and-forth exchanges.)

I did a little bit of editing on my post (nothing was taken out, I just added some context), specifically in the part where I quoted you saying that whether someone is an atheist or a theist doesn't matter as much as being open to new experiences. I just wanted to tweak it so the whole thought makes more sense.

I guess I did take it a little personally, mostly because you seemed to imply that knowing whether someone is an atheist or a theist is vital to the flow of the conversation. Personally, I don't see that as relevant unless someone starts making it their entire identity. Besides, I'm not even entirely sure how people define those terms these days, so... I suppose very few people actually fit perfectly into those boxes, even though everyone likes to act like they're absolutely certain about where they stand. 😬.
I felt like I had to say something, though, because one of my basic principles is that when someone tries to label you, you should probably speak up. 🙂
Best,

Taylor Campbell4 said:Yeah, I really hope you’re trying to handle this with some level of decency too, because otherwise, this whole thing just feels like mindless nitpicking—more destructive than actually helpful.

Oh, I’m definitely trying; if I wasn't, this would just be empty venting... but honestly, I don't see how any of that even connects to the actual topic. I haven't once resorted to attacking anyone personally...

Taylor Campbell4 said:Because if we’re going to be strictly consistent with that logic, you shouldn't be able to say anything about believers at all since you aren't one yourself—you don't have that state of consciousness or that lived experience. But looking at the chaos of the last few posts in this thread, it really shows how ridiculous things get when people start reasoning like that.

But what defines a believer? How can you be so sure I'm not one? And even if it turns out I'm not, how do you know I wasn't in the past? In that case, if I used to be a believer, I’d actually have a much wider range of conscious states and experiences to draw from...
On top of that, I don't see a single post here that would lead someone to conclude whether I am "this" or "that," nor am I trying to force myself into a specific little box. Is it just that you feel the need to pigeonhole every single person you talk to so you can decide which stance to take in a "debate," or do you just feel like the ground is shifting under your feet if things aren't strictly binary, like a 1 or a 0? I'm not the subject of this discussion, and frankly, that shouldn't matter. Yet, based on what you've said, you couldn't legitimately tell if I'm a believer or not—and if you think you can, then I guess you’ve found a shortcut to "Insight(tm)," albeit a slightly glitchy version, haha... but hey, no big deal.

So, you don't like the analysis? You don't like the deconstruction? You don't even like philosophy? I honestly don't know why you're even hanging out in this forum then 😉.
And again, I really don't get why you're resorting to these ad hominem attacks, especially since you're the one dragging the conversation down from high-level ideas to these petty, personal levels...
If you feel the need to label everyone as one way or another—believer or non-believer, this type or that type—maybe you've missed the point of the last century. Or maybe you haven't. But the fact that you feel the need to go on the defensive suggests there's something bothering you deep down...

Taylor Campbell4 said:Following your line of reasoning regarding all this complaining, one could just as easily ask why you chose to frame things this way in the first place. It seems pretty obvious to me: because it suits you. It's the same pattern with everything else.
The real crux of the matter is whether a person is truly open to new experiences or not, and to what extent. To what degree is their mind free from molds and their thoughts liberated.

If you’re going to talk about my "complaining" (and look, I'm not sitting here whining, I don't know what you think you read, but that's beside the point), you’re going to have to be more precise. Otherwise, we're just talking in circles. As for that second sentence—I wouldn't add a thing; that's exactly the whole point.

Taylor Campbell4 said:So, if I were to sum it all up, the real key is for a person—whether they’re an atheist or a believer—to just stay open to new experiences. Otherwise, I feel like we're just spinning our wheels in the same old patterns.

Yeah, that’s pretty much it. There's nothing new under the sun. Honestly, at the end of the day, I don't really identify as either an atheist or a theist. If you want to call me an "a-theist" or something, go ahead. 😁 To me, those labels feel a bit superficial; they serve a purpose in politics, sure, but they also tend to oversimplify us, reducing what should be a multidimensional human experience down to a single checkbox. It feels like a completely unnecessary dualism, too. But hey, let's move on.

Taylor Campbell4 said:And here's where it gets interesting again, like I've mentioned in other threads before: the more educated someone is, the more "knowledge" they pile up, the more raw material they actually have to build their own illusions. And it happens all the time.

That's certainly possible... though it really depends on what kind of knowledge we're talking about—is it just propositional facts or actual, lived wisdom? Knowledge isn't such a straightforward category, is it? You see these New Age groups nowadays love to brag about possessing "Knowledge" with a capital K, tossing around all these platitudes about how their insights are true "Knowledge" while everything else is just mere "information." I don't mind people doing that within the bubble of their own guru or their specific little community...

Taylor Campbell4 said:Maybe that sounded a bit too personal, or maybe it was, who knows...

Well, yeah, it did. Usually, I don't get sucked into these kinds of "debates," nor do I really intend to in the future, because I honestly think it's just a massive waste of energy and time that ends up going in circles. But I believe philosophy should primarily be about clarifying our positions—defining what we actually mean when we say certain things and working through the arguments—rather than chasing after some eternal, absolute, unchanging cosmic truths. If you look at it that way, philosophy doesn't even need to deal with the latter. History has already made its point, and it's still speaking. I suspect you might disagree with me on that, judging by your approach, but to be perfectly honest, it doesn't really bother me much. 🙂 Best,

It all sounds wonderful on paper, but I wouldn’t go jumping to any conclusions just yet... 😉 Just being cautious, you know?

In a broader sense, this was just a continuation of that somewhat clumsy—though slightly more polished—phrasing used earlier:

LNP20 said:Atheists, skeptics, and anyone else who generally opposes any kind of knowledge, all
they share one massive problem of contradiction that actually ends up undermining
themselves. It goes like this:

In claiming that one believes in nothing, there is a latent belief bubbling underneath, and that belief
is essentially the act of BELIEVING in UNBELIEF.

I’m not entirely sure if an absence of faith necessarily implies a belief in unbelief. Personally, I don't think so. I mean, you can certainly phrase it that way, but the real question here is: why choose that specific wording? Well, probably because it suits your argument. We might be better off saying it implies a belief in nonexistence—specifically regarding God. That would be a much smoother way to put it. Honestly, it all depends on what we're actually discussing, because things seem to be getting blurred between the general concept of believing and the specific act of believing in God. We really need to be clear about our terms.

At the end of the day, none of them are truly certain; they don't have foolproof knowledge, just various opinions. From there, one person might choose to believe, while another might decide it isn't such a big deal. Of course, there are atheists who are just as narrow-minded (if not more so) as some of those stubborn "believers" (using quotes there because of the point made above 😁). This third group—the fundamentalist atheist—represents a different extreme, much like the fundamentalist believer; they are just two different poles of the same system. They often emphasize their lack of belief so intensely that they become almost obsessively focused on trying to convince others of "their" way. That might be what you were aiming at with the idea of "latent belief"—a sort of negative fixation. It's like if I told you, "Don't think about a butterfly, whatever you do, don't think about a butterfly"—you'd immediately picture a butterfly, wouldn't you? Some people might see a clever opening here to pose a question in defense of faith: "Well, then what is THAT thing you're working so hard to deny?" Of course, that moves us away from pure philosophy and more toward engaged politics or religion, where it becomes a game of cat and mouse. History has shown us that secular religions exist too, like Marx even suggested (just a side note—Marx himself wasn't a Marxist), which featured individuals very similar to the ones described earlier.

Moving on.
The phrase "belief in unbelief" is, as I mentioned, quite a "belief-centric" way of putting things. It's as if a believer can't even conceive of (and likely can't) a state of consciousness that doesn't involve faith. That's just how they're wired, and they aren't ready to step outside their own belief system at that moment.
Again, if we only look at things from a single perspective, it's easy to walk away with a somewhat credible, yet limited, view of the whole situation.

Taylor Campbell4 said:I guess I BELIEVE that God exists.

So, a double negative basically turns into an affirmation. It’s like saying not only are the birds singing in the trees, but the branches themselves are singing too. The person above tried this "clever" little reformulation to reach the brilliant conclusion that believers don't believe in the non-existence of God, which somehow means they aren't actually believers. 🙂 They completely sidestep the actual object of belief, focusing instead on the mere act of believing. 🤣 🤣

Of course, we could get bogged down in semantics here and argue that a "believer" is anyone who holds a conviction, whereas a "theist" specifically believes in God, but in this context, it's pretty obvious they're using "believer" and "theist" interchangeably. Those are just the standard ways people talk, and honestly, I highly doubt the person above was trying to make some deep distinction about the hierarchy of those terms or their "original" definitions. A believer simply 🤣 ... Anyway, it was a pretty amusing attempt at an argument, if you can call it that 🙂))...

outoftheblue said:If we were living in the Middle Ages, she’d probably be chained to a wall right about now.

Or facing a bonfire😁.

Shayen said:I would love to read one of those books. Could you please write down "who and what"!

Thanks in advance!

The most famous "representatives" are Thomas S. Szasz, the previously mentioned Robert d. Laing, and David Cooper. There are actually quite a few books (REALLY) that have been translated into American English; they were often handled by Ljiljana Filipović, who did a lot of work in this field. Her work tends to be more theoretical compared to the others, who all come directly from within the profession itself. I actually stumbled upon these other names through her master's thesis, "philosophy and anti-psychiatry of Ronald d. Laing"... It's a fascinating area, even though most of them don't strictly consider themselves "anti-psychiatrists"—well, at least Laing doesn't, since he feels that very label was born out of the "normalcy" paradigm.

Anyway, I won't ramble too much, but I dug up a few things for you, including the publisher details:

author : Cooper, David
Title: The language of madness / David Cooper ; translated by Ljiljana Filipović
imprint : New York : Forward, 1986. (New York : " Ognjen Prica "
publishing entity: Psychological Library
Notes: psychological note : The language of madness

author : Cooper, David
Title: Psychiatry and anti-psychiatry / David Cooper ; translated by Ljiljana Bastaić
Edition: 2nd ed
imprint : New York : Forward, 1987. (New York : " Ognjen Prica "
publishing entity: Psychological Library
Notes: Translation of the work: Psychiatry and anti-psychiatry. - Print run: 3000 copies.
Other authors: Bastaić, Ljiljana

author : Szasz, Thomas S.
Title: ideology and madness : article on psychiatric dehumanization of man / Thomas S. Szasz ; [translated by Josip Đaković ]
imprint : New York : Forward, 1980

author : Szasz, Thomas S.
Title: The Making of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the mental health care movement / Thomas S. Szasz ; translation and introduction by Ljiljana Filipović
imprint : [New York] : GZH, 1982. ([New York] : GZH, printing house)

author : Masson, Jeffrey Moussaieff
Title: The Tyranny of Psychotherapy / Jeffrey M. Masson ; translated by Dubravko Torjanac
Notes: From : the tyranny of psychotherapy, Berlin, 1993. - thematic block : tyranny of psychotherapy.

And Foucault certainly has something to say from a historical perspective, though naturally, it wasn't translated into American English, but rather into a different dialect:

author : Foucault, Michel
Title: History of Madness in the Age of Classicism / Michel Foucault ; [translated by Jelena Stakić]
imprint : Mexico City : Nolit, 1980
publishing entity: Sazvežđe library ; 70
Notes: Translation of the work: Histoire de la folie a l'age classique / Michel Foucault

So, that should be it. There's more out there, obviously, but the trio mentioned above is probably the most important for grasping the whole phenomenon. My apologies to the original poster if this massive wall of "just listing books" is a bit much. I hope it isn't. Cheers.

briskgull27 said:Well, I guess I started talking about myself, but hey, everyone else dealing with schizophrenia is more than welcome here.

Especially those folks taking Zyprexa, Risperdal, or Dogmatil who try to convince themselves they’re just dealing with neurosis when, let's be honest, those are clearly antipsychotics.

As for NASA and America—ah, what a beautiful truth you're grasping for, wishing this stinky little world wasn't limited to just what we "know."😁

I don't really buy into that specific version of "madness" myself. To me, the whole thing smells like the "manufacturing of insanity." It feels pretty silly and honestly inhumane to just slap an "F-22" label on someone, as you put it, or just pin a disease name on them. But I suppose the system needs that to keep running. People labeled as "crazy" tend to live on the margins or entirely outside the grid, and the system is terrified of that. They are often romantics at heart, which makes them "inefficient" by societal standards. And the system craves nothing but promptness and efficiency. Not to mention the endless pile of social syndromes out there. I'm not saying there aren't actual risks involved, or that someone isn't perfectly fine without being labeled, but what does it even mean to be "completely normal" anyway? Nobody actually knows, though everyone pretends they do—especially the people busy inventing these illnesses. They define normalcy as behaving according to certain norms, even if those norms are totally unhealthy. In a way, those "crazy" people might actually be the healthier ones. It brings up so many other questions about what actually caused someone to fall ill in the first place—not just the medical diagnosis, but the underlying reasons.

It’s also pretty interesting to note that while there are maybe twenty different "types" of schizophrenia recognized in Russia, there are at least a hundred in the USA. I might not have the exact statistics on hand, but either way, the number in the US is five to ten times higher. Is it because our medicine is more advanced? You can think that if it makes you feel better, but my guess is it's just bigger business and bigger profits.

On a side note, the work of psychiatrist Ronald Reagan is quite fascinating; he used to pull back the curtain on the secrets of his own profession, which is probably why he wasn't exactly the golden boy among his colleagues. He’s frequently linked to the concept of "anti-psychiatry." There are plenty of similar authors out there if anyone is interested and hasn't come across them yet; I’d be happy to share names and their major works. Of course, these weren't just people talking nonsense for the sake of it; they very often backed everything up with their own lived experiences, and they were known for having a much more compassionate, selfless approach to working with their patients.

Taylor Campbell4 said:That’s not quite right. Kids aren't considered people in that sense, which is why they don't have human rights and shouldn't be forced into things.

Kids aren't people? 😲 Wow, that's quite the take... Honestly, I find myself nodding along with Rebecca Cox2 on this one... And as for the whole concept of "human rights," we could probably sit here for hours and have a massive debate about how much there really is to say about that...

briskgull27 said:Love is just a biological trick designed to get us to reproduce and keep the species going.
It’s really just about affection for the sake of coexistence and survival.

I honestly can't help but smile at these deeply "intellectual" posts from some seemingly jaded young soul, haha...
And then they deliver it with such absolute certainty, acting like it's just a hard fact and there's nothing more to be said about it. 😁

So now we’re getting to the real question: which kind of Flour are we actually talking about here? 😉

Are we looking at corn, wheat, oat, barley, or something else entirely? 😁

William Gonzalez3, I really have to hand it to you—you’re absolutely right. I completely blew it, and honestly, I just don't have it in me to go that far. I was wrong about everything from the very start, and I feel pretty terrible about it. I'm really hoping you'll still be willing to chat with me, because I honestly don't know what else I'd turn to... 😢 😢 😢

William Gonzalez3 said:So, what’s the right way to actually philosophize about society?
I guess you have to observe it closely, asking those specific questions that allow you to truly decode how everything works.
For example, a good starting question might be—how on earth is it possible that people here in the States have a newer fleet of cars than the average Frenchman?
And why is that?
Is this just a case of lacking context and throwing around empty buzzwords?[/COLOR]

If I were you, I'd probably stick to holding onto my beer mug and leave the heavy philosophy to the pros. Seriously. Either that, or maybe find a job in some massive government bureaucracy where you can spend all day following strict rules and knowing exactly what the criteria are for everything... But honestly, they don't really care for the drinkers over there because we tend to mess up the system's efficiency, so I suppose using philosophy as a sort of cover is a better bet for folks like us.

I have to admit, I wasn't feeling even a tiny bit of negativity while I was typing that out. I just don't waste my emotional energy on people I don't know; I learned a long time ago that trying to do that over the internet is a pretty fool's errand.

William Gonzalez3 said:Sure, and now why don't you be a pal and explain to us exactly what constitutes philosophy and where its boundaries lie.

It seems like you weren't reading very closely again. You tend to interpret things however you want them to be—which I think everyone does to some extent, though you seem to have a real knack for it. How on earth am I supposed to tell anyone else what counts as philosophy or claim any kind of authority on the subject???! You’re basically handing me an authority that I simply don't possess, and honestly, I have no desire to hold it, because no one should be claiming that kind of status. Did you catch that part where Nietzsche wrote that a philosopher must constantly redefine what philosophy actually is? If you did, maybe it just didn't quite register in your brain, and therefore, it hasn't really reached you either.

William Gonzalez3 said:Regarding taking things out of context, I don't think all those emojis you posted change much of the situation.
Actually, if the topic just didn't align with your philosophical sensibilities, you could have just nicely said—this topic doesn't fit my philosophical sensibilities.
But you didn't say that, instead you claimed it wasn't "real" philosophy and that you felt like doing some actual philosophizing 😁 😉 (which feels insulting, demeaning, and patronizing no matter how many emojis you throw behind it or what tone you use)
so I'm asking you nicely—what is "real" philosophy and how does one actually philosophize?

Taking something out of context is taking something out of context, and once you strip away the surrounding meaning (and it wasn't just about the emojis here, but whatever), the meaning of what was taken changes fundamentally. Another thing is that I’m just a user here, just like you and everyone else; I just happen to have the ability to delete posts I find inappropriate. I have the privilege of clearing out a Viagra ad or moving a post that belongs more in Politics or Religion to the right section. I wrote that post as a regular user. If I were to go through and list all the nonsense you write and pull it out of context, I could probably make it sound like you're a pedophile or an arsonist or something, just by picking and choosing. If you were a moderator, would you deny your own constant chatting? Or would you realize that you're still just a user who can write whatever you want? My opinion isn't the final word on anything, but those who find issues with the things I write as a USER might find things in their own posts too, just like I find things in theirs. That's the whole point. The fact that you don't grasp certain things, or won't understand because you don't want to, or that you're bothered by a specific phrase because you're acting like a tough guy... that's not on me...
I'm not offended, and nobody can offend me unless I allow it. But if something turns my stomach, it's because someone isn't trying, when they take things out of context, or when they're generally being inconsistent—not because of my principles, but because they aren't putting in the effort to reach the truth. They care more about silly things like "authority," image, or what others think. Well, alright, considering we're dealing with someone who's clearly a fan of American teen movies, I guess I can't blame you.🙂.

William Gonzalez3 said:and I’d really prefer if you didn't just send me a private message about this, but instead posted it here where everyone can see. I honestly feel like all our members deserve to understand what constitutes a philosophical discussion, so they can use those same standards when starting new threads. That way, nobody ends up looking unphilosophical by posting topics that don't quite hit that mark.
It would also go a long way in improving the overall quality of the forum itself.

On my end, if you actually have an issue with me being "patronizing" or if you have something against me personally, I’d ask that you please approach me with some actual constructive criticism—which I’ll be happy to listen to if I find it helpful (assuming you truly care about improving how we communicate; otherwise, there isn't much point in us talking). Or, if you'd rather, you can just take your complaints about my "tone" straight to one of the administrators and let them handle it, while you continue playing the hero and defending this sub-forum against those incredibly dominant moderators who constantly push their own agendas (just look at their post counts).

William Gonzalez3 said:p.s. my opening post wasn't meant to be hostile in the slightest.
It felt more resigned and sad. [/COLOR]

I’d describe it more as pseudo-critical and unoriginaly cynical.
If you were feeling resigned because of THAT specific thing, well, that says more about your own personality than anything else. I don't know what kind of hang-ups you might be dealing with, and frankly, it's none of my business, but if you keep "criticizing" me this way by cherry-picking my words to suit your own narrative, we're going to have a problem. It feels like I have nothing better to do than spend my time justifying myself to someone who's basically just waiting for a gap in the conversation so they can head out for their weekly ritual of hitting the local pub every last Thursday of the month. I've made my position clear, and how things proceed from here is entirely up to you. And look, I don't have a personal vendetta against you—don't go making this into some huge psychological drama, especially since you seem pretty hypersensitive—but I definitely have an issue with this particular way of interacting. I'm not sure where the line for a "philosophical" debate is drawn, but I certainly know where my limit for tolerance lies 😉.

Bradley Fisher20 said:I’d say nothing really exists just for its own sake, and philosophy is no different. What’s the point of it all? It’s about organizing your thoughts. And why would you need to organize them? I honestly don't know. Personally, I tend to lean on that organization whenever I feel the need to justify my own emotions—and my emotions usually feel pretty revolutionary.

To be honest, philosophy hasn't really been my go-to tool for sorting through my thoughts. I mean, we’ve had the brain and our own way of using it since we first became aware of ourselves, right? If I'm looking to organize my mental clutter, I usually turn to things like mnemonic devices, various tarot decks, or even stuff like those Tree of Life diagrams. Maybe what you were getting at was more about clarifying concepts, definitions, or judgments. For me, among other things, I see philosophy as a way to poke holes in things that seem perfectly obvious or self-evident at first glance...

Man, between being totally wiped out and dealing with that somewhat cynical opening post—not to mention getting my words twisted in a pretty unethical way by the executioner on one hand and two decent responses on the other (you'll have to find those yourselves)—I really don't feel the need to go deep on this topic. As for that whole OCD thing where I feel compelled to reply to every single thread, I try my best not to feed into the hype, and when I do, it’s usually just enough to make my point, often accompanied by a little smiley face here and there.

Like N & N mentioned, it makes sense that the moderators are the ones who decide where a thread belongs. In terms of my process, if I think a topic is in the wrong place, I’ll move it to the appropriate subforum (so far, nobody has complained, and even if they did, I think we could settle it politely) along with an explanation if I feel it’s necessary. Sometimes things are just obvious, like spam threads or topics about the nature of LJS, where the place for them is clear. I don't really feel the need to justify myself to anyone who thinks an explanation is required, but apparently, the threads I haven't moved are still hovering on the edge of that famous philosophy the executioner was talking about with such lovely cynicism.

So, executioner, by separating the person from the deed in that classic philosophical way—and as someone who has learned enough about forgiveness to not feel the need to write a manifesto about it on a thread that doesn't quite fit his current philosophical vibe—I would kindly ask you to stop taking my words out of context. I don't like it when people do that because it ruins any sense of consistency, but I honestly don't have the time or the desire to jump around correcting everyone else's misunderstandings. I'm responding now specifically because this feels like a blatant provocation (though I won't get into the weeds regarding whether that's intended for good or bad).

For the same reason, I know exactly why I wrote what I wrote, and I know why the thread stayed in the "Philosophy" subforum. In other words, I know why I left it here despite saying—in a fairly "serious" tone, mind you—that it "isn't exactly much philosophy." If you really want to play devil's advocate and dig for details, I can write you a long report about it via private message. Though, I hope you don't expect me to put something like that on my daily to-do list. It's not like I owe anyone an explanation, nor am I looking to prove myself to anyone—especially if that person isn't trying to be a decent conversationalist or anything close to it.

Otherwise, the topic is perfectly legitimate and falls almost into the meta-theoretical realm. That's the job of philosophy, after all: to constantly re-examine itself... in a strange, almost inexplicable way. To a layman, that might imply a sort of constant fluidity that sounds negative, but you don't truly know what philosophy is until you experience it. It's like music; you can't just describe it using amplitudes, frequencies, or other technical jargon.
The second thing is that we are all here together, trying to shed light on things for one another through dialogue, "illuminating" each other both consciously and unconsciously. Not in a dogmatic sense, but in the sense that we try to draw the best out of one another, almost maieuticallly. At least, that's what I'm aiming for, though I can't speak for you. So, here is a partial answer—the best I can do right now since I'm just a human being and not a 100% concentration of Logos—to your question and, secondly, to your "not-exactly-ethical-communication" approach. If you're asking which textbook teaches that kind of approach and what its criteria are, the answer is found in a healthy human heart. Best.

I honestly think Glad is the absolute best cook out there. 😁