Yes I see that you did include the word conscious which is responsibility on your part here and I praise you for that.
But do note that unconscious reasoning and thinking might not be as haunting or objectionable as you believe. The processes that go into subliminal thought and reason are more complexed than a blanket repulsion for it!!!
Maybe you missed this part:
"In any case, even if there were, I do not ever ask you for your "reasoning and thinking", whether subjective, instinctive, conscious or unconscious. I ask you for objective facts, evidence, and controlled observations."
It's not that I find "reasoning and thinking", in any of its forms, "haunting" or "objectionable" or "repulsive". My statements are the product of extensive "reasoning and thinking" whether subjective, instinctive, unconscious, or otherwise, based on the totality of all the facts, and evidence, and observations available to the general public. If you want to influence my "reasoning and thinking" you need to supply problematic or contradictory facts, evidence, or observations. I cannot be persuaded by conclusions from an alternative "reasoning and thinking" which fails to show any weakness in mine, and which fails to show any objective facts, evidence, or controlled observations to support alternate interpretations, hypotheses, and conclusions.
That's the miracle with you, dear rekrunner. I did show you objective facts, evidences and observations but you miraculously denied all of them or turn a blind eye to them. Maybe it's you, not me???
If are baffled but you are the baffling one not me.
And, some types of reasoning and thinking does not need objective facts, evidences and observations to conclude and deduce/induce, they only need precisely deducing/inducing will do!!!
When I want to influence you to think that 'objectivity' is a form of subjectivity hence a form of morality I don't need to show you objective facts, evidences or observations that objectivity is subjectivity, I only need to deduce/induce my way to it!!!!
Philosophy/morality/spirituality or metaphysicality doesn't need objective facts, evidences and observations to arrive at, it only needs deduction/induction skill!!!
Objective facts, evidences, observations don't need so much as any skill at all, it's just lift and paste, and lift and paste, but deduction/induction requires great skill!!!!
You want to limit the rules of debate to only objective facts, evidences and observations but I'm trying to push the limits of debate to where my skills and skillsets are freely and liberally on display.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.