I'm not twisting your words, I said I can't agree with the statement "I worship knowledge more than anything". Worshipping knowledge is a religion, because it leads to the belief that knowledge always is true. For example, if people believe to know that planet Earth is flat and worship that "knowledge", nobody can convince them that they could be mistaken. Knowledge becomes holy, and holy means untouchable. But knowledge must be touchable, because nobody is perfect.

"Where you come off antagonistic here is tying me only to that one specific statement when I've said many times before that love is not the answer to removing this prison planet, it only feeds the fallen, truth is."

Well, then you worship truth more than knowledge, which means your statement that you worship knowledge more than anything contradicts your previous statements – or you think that truth and knowledge are the same, which is exactly my point. It think they are not the same.

Me not agreeing with you makes me the bad person. It's always the same story.

I don't make you look bad. I just quoted something you said and didn't agree with it. Why do you think you look bad?

"Why would I need to punish you?"

To answer that rhetorical question: Many humans think that all harm is a punishment, because most parents choose harm to punish their children. For example, imagine a playing child is about to run into traffic because it doesn't recognize the danger. The parent graps the child and hits it. The rationale is to make the child feel the danger, so it will remember. But from the view of the child, it was a punishment for playing, because it doesn't understand the bigger context yet.

The alternative is to grap the child without punishing it. The child may interpret that as a punishment as well, but in reality, it's an act of defense against an imminent danger. It's not a punishment, and the child will understand that eventually.

It is a question of subjective perspective: for you, it may be their (wrong) opinion, for them it is true. There are so many examples for that. UFOs and academic reputations, leaving Islam in Saudi Arabia, heretics in the middle ages, CO2 Climate change, the Covid Judge freeing the kids from the masks, and so on
And your example is totally wrong. one does not need to hit a kid to teach it. It is enough to pull it away from the danger and explain why you did it. It will see that you are worried or shocked from the situation. If you hit it, it will not understand why it has been punished. It will cry and have strong negative emotions which will even hinder it from real learning. It just wanted to see the nice red car over there. But it will learn how to beat somebody else to release fear. Or -even worse- to control the natural drive to enjoy and go close to a desired object and to explore the world, to not be beaten and rejected from the loved one, it is also totally dependent on. From the Kid's perspective the relationship to you is of existential importance! Better teach it how powerful cars are and how the driver cannot see small kids and keep it at hand for a few times when cars are close. Explain why you do that. Repeat it the next couple of times going to the parking lot and also in other "car situations". Explain again, and ask to repeat what might happen before giving it more freedom again.

"It is a question of subjective perspective: for you, it may be their (wrong) opinion, for them it is true."

Which is called belief. So the question is: When does a belief become true knowledge? And we already know that concept, it's called "proof". Proof means there are no holes, which means there are no logical contradictions. So the actual problem is: People who don't accept logic as a higher standard actually have no standard of proving something right or wrong. It's the people who want things to be true that aren't true in reality. And that type of belief is called ignorance.

"And your example is totally wrong. one does not need to hit a kid to teach it."

I didn't say that you need to hit a kid to teach it. I said it's the rationale of the parents who believe that.

"It is enough to pull it away from the danger and explain why you did it. It will see that you are worried or shocked from the situation. If you hit it, it will not understand why it has been punished."

Exactly.

"Explain why you do that. Repeat it the next couple of times ... Explain again ..."

This is the reason why most parents don't do it. They don't want to explain it again and again. They want the child to get it immediately. It's impatience because of a lack of knowledge of how children actually learn.

"I've yet to see admit you were ever wrong."

That's because I only argue with people who are not using logic. I then can use logic to explain why they are wrong. I don't argue with people who are logically correct, because there's no point in doing so.

"As for accepting other's experiences that goes back to how many others find the same experience thereby confirming it."

Yes, but confirming an experience is not the same as confirming reality, because as I explained, experience is not the same as reality, it's just the interpretation. Everybody can interpret reality the same way and still be wrong, like when everybody believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth. They were interpreting reality in the wrong way and confirming their interpretation.

I put the debate from the other thread into this one because it's off topic there and on topic here.

"Not just this one. You've done this many times before"

Yes, and for the same reason.

I only discount contradictions. If you violate the Law of Identity, I will argue with you.

You're the one who's afraid, because I'm disrupting the harmony of your narrative/religion.

"So unless Courtney bans you this will never end."

It's sad that you believe that censorship will solve your problem. Yet another statement proving that you're on the side of evil.

I know. Nothing will work, because what you "know" is a dogmatic religion. If it was true knowledge, you would be willing to answer my questions in order to "expand truth", as you call it.