You don't get to decide if you're arrogant, other people determine it for you.
No. Other people can jump to as many ridiculous conclusions as they'd like but that doesn't necessarily make any of them true.
As I've said, you can claim the world is flat as many times as you want, get as many people to join you in making that claim as you want, jump up and down and scream it over and over again for as long as you want, and it still won't be any more true than it was to begin with. It's the same thing people are doing here by claiming I am arrogant, and that's not any more true now than it ever was, as I've never said anything out of arrogance.
People want to believe it is arrogant because it allows them to not only play the victim to my arrogance but also to dismiss the inherent truth in what I'm saying. It plays a convenient role for them, so they embrace it. It's also served to distract from the main argument they were losing, also a convenient move for them. I must say the smoke screen of creating a side debate about phantom ignorance which exists only in their own minds has served them well.
Very few people want to admit to negative character traits.
I'm very honest about my traits, both good and bad. I tell it like it is. For example, I'm aware I am sometimes cold and insensitive to certain issues that seem to make others emotional, while strangely enough I respond to things some others do not.
However, I know I am not arrogant. Nothing I've said was intended as a show of arrogance, and nothing I've said should have been interpreted as such unless someone deliberately wanted to do so, which is exactly what has happened here, as it fits in their agenda on multiple levels I've already discussed.
If everyone else says you're arrogant, guess what? You are.
As I already explained, it doesn't work that way. Everyone can say anything that isn't true as much as they want and it doesn't make it true. Let's stop with these illogical ideas please.
If you come across to literally everyone else as arrogant you ARE arrogant. That's how arrogance is determined.
These people are misinterpreting - I believe deliberately so - in order to make that judgment.
Their assumptions are in error, meaning the interpretation is incorrect. The fact that the misinterpretation is shared doesn't make it any more valid.
Nobody can engage you in a debate because you won't concede any middle ground.
On the contrary. I am happy to concede middle ground should it be presented. The problem is no one is presenting middle ground and is determined to sidetrack everything into debates about non-existent arrogance they assume is there because it is convenient.
The majority of your arguments are still either unsubstantiated or built on a wildly unrealistic view of human nature, and the fact that you can't even concede a possibility that anything you say is flawed - a HUGE sign of arrogance - makes it impossible to hold a meaningful discussion with you.
I've asked repeatedly to be shown these supposed "flaws" in my ideas and am open to the possibility they exist - but I have to see the evidence of it. If you can't show me the evidence, there is zero reason for me to believe in a flaw that isn't shown to be there.
If you think having justified confidence in my position is arrogance, you really do need to try thinking of it from another perspective. Remember in order for something to be an arrogant statement, it must be an exaggeration and not simply the truth.
Let's try a sports analogy and see if that helps (I doubt it, but I'll give it a try).
If you strolled through an otherwise empty gym and noticed Michael Jordan was casually shooting a basketball, you might have a conversation with him if you could. If he told you "I used to be a really great basketball player" or challenged you to a game of one on one and bet he could beat you, there is no way you would consider him to be arrogant for saying these things, as they are true statements and not exaggerations.
If you took batting practice with Albert Pujols and he said he could hit several balls out of the park if he wanted, you wouldn't call him arrogant because he probably could do it.
If you were a goaltender and Sidney Crosby wanted to score on you in hockey and said he could do it just about every time, he probably could unless you're an incredibly good goaltender. You wouldn't call him arrogant because his statement is probably true.
In the same way, the things I've said are probably true, so they do not represent arrogance. I hope that little analogy helps, but I doubt it because everyone calling me arrogant is so determined to have it be true because it fits their agenda and without it they have nothing.