>"Brother, it sounds like your ideas are fixed and immune to external review."

Not at all, you're missing my point; If you're not even awake enough to actually correctly read the sense of myth I cited or take on board anything I've said about concepts then you're giving me no indication that you're trying for anything but to troll with feigned ignorance and strawman arguments.

>"I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical."

I didn't say they were*, I'm saying you're (possibly deliberately) misreading what I've said and asking for proof that belongs in a different conversation ("Is everything an illusion?")

>"These labels - “materialist,” “dualist,” “idealist” - that you have shrugged off are not primarily membership tokens, but rather a shorthand for communicating belief in ideas, ideas that are at the heart of philosophical study!"

Yes, but you're clearly not understanding why I shrug them off in terms of this conversation.

>"That is to say, if someone who believes in materialism is a “materialist,” this means only that she believes in the idea of materialism, not that she values the solidarity of others who believe in materialism as well, or that she derives authority of belief from the number of materialists. This lack of mission or purpose is unlike a club to me."

What do I care? I'm saying I don't care what club you're in in terms of this conversation because that has no bearing on there being inconsistencies in what I've said.

>"In addition, the objectivity of morality, which you have asserted without argument, is a hotly contested topic!"

I know but what do I care? Rape is objectively evil, it still would be if there were only two lifeforms in the universe or zero lifeforms in the universe. And I've more or less said that already so it was decidedly not without argument.

>"Do you really figure your conclusions to be so bulletproof to the collective scrutiny of humanity, past and present?"

That depends on which conclusion is in question.

>"For the record, I did not skim your response to merely clamp down on what I perceived as weak points in an effort to produce “gotchas” and make myself seem smarter."

I didn't say you were doing that particularly or for that particular reason.

>"I wasn’t prompting you to mansplain or break down rudimentary concepts to spin your wheels either."

I didn't say you prompted me to break down any rudimentary concepts for you so that's more (deliberate?) misreading from you. I said "prompting me to mansplain myth and concept, and my use of horse and pegasus, and even regurgitate the very point our conversation started on; me not misusing the word myth."

In other words, I had already broken down the rudimentary concept of myth.

>"I just tried to pinpoint the crux of our disagreement so that we might communicate more efficiently.".

That crux is you've been Mr Magoo from the getgo and all throughout and never getting to any actual inconsistencies due to just trying to invoke neighboring but irrelevant philosophical issues.

In other words: Brother, you asked me to prove horses are real. So asking I prove atoms and radiation are real when I was saying breaking a mirror unleashing seven years bad luck is not the same as splitting the atom unleashing radiation, the former is a fiction and a myth. You said "I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical." You said this with a straight face?

• Until now.