I don't know. Ibrust has a talent to do that.
The Site's Comment Filter
Sort:
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I clearly offered to debate with you on any subject.
I suggested that you might like to try to give an argument as to why the paranormal is impossible. This was two days ago, roughly.
Now, an intelligent person, in your place, would not have written "you made no such offer" since you can't edit my posts the way you can edit your own.
An intelligent person would have written "I did not notice you making such an offer". Since you don't know what intelligence is, then you are not likely to display it when required, so I'll make a different suggestion. It is "please don't call me a liar, because it makes you look ridiculous".
Your first two sentences already contradict themselves.
Your statement:
I didn't think you would accept my offer of a genuine debate.
That does not meet the definition of a genuine debate, or offer of same.
1. The paranormal is unfalsifiable past a certain point that would allow you to go on forever.
2. You knew full well that you were making an offer I had no interest in entertaining when you made it. That was purely for show.
P.S. I don't need to bring anybody in to deflate your bouncy castles. Posters are free to post where they will.
No, it means that I didn't think you would accept my offer of a genuine debate. I was sure you wouldn't accept but nevertheless, if you had, I would have been impressed and would have entered into the debate with you, on whatever subject you chose. I have offered my participation in a debate of your own choosing two or three times before, over the years.
You habitually accuse others of logical contortions or whatever. Quite frankly, everyone here knows what you are. You even accuse others of projection.
I believe that you have had so much contact with the psychiatric profession that you have become adept at recognising your own characteristics, since you have them pointed out to you.
I really do not wish to speak with you any more. I don't see you as someone with whom it is possible to have a worthwhile conversation. There are many people here I enjoy talking with. As you say in your country, "go figure".
vamsim7 wrote:
Can I please ask what you are all debating about
This is a titanic struggle between those who would return us to the dark ages, and those who want better for the world...can't you tell? 
Seriously, though, here's a synopsis:
The OP is protesting his lack of "free speech" (which not applicable here) on the forums. Other trolls that feel downtrodden have shown up to try and talk about stuff that is against the forum guidelines, because that makes them feel like they are not alone and have a place to belong. The mods are not around often enough especially on weekends, and have missed the heavier religious diatribes of the past day or two, and so there's a holding pattern until they do something.
And I know that you know you need all the help you can get, because I don't think you live in such a delusory world as you would have us believe.
DiogenesDue wrote:
vamsim7 wrote:
Can I please ask what you are all debating about
This is a titanic struggle between those who would return us to the dark ages, and those who want better for the world...can't you tell?
Seriously, though, here's a synopsis:
The OP is protesting his lack of "free speech" (which not applicable here) on the forums. Other trolls that feel downtrodden have shown up to try and talk about stuff that is against the forum guidelines, because that makes them feel like they are not alone and have a place to belong. The mods are not around often enough especially on weekends, and have missed the heavily religious diatribes for a while now, and so there's a holding pattern until they do something.
Everything Dio can't get his head around is against forum guidelines. That's rather a lot!
Goodnight.
Optimissed wrote:
No, it means that I didn't think you would accept my offer of a genuine debate. I was sure you wouldn't accept but nevertheless, if you had, I would have been impressed and would have entered into the debate with you, on whatever subject you chose. I have offered my participation in a debate of your own choosing two or three times before, over the years.
You habitually accuse others of logical contortions or whatever. Quite frankly, everyone here knows what you are. You even accuse others of projection.
I believe that you have had so much contact with the psychiatric profession that you have become adept at recognising your own characteristics, since you have them pointed out to you.
I really do not wish to speak with you any more. I don't see you as someone with whom it is possible to have a worthwhile conversation. There are many people here I enjoy talking with. As you say in your country, "go figure".
[and]
And you know you need all the help you can get, because I don't think you live in such a delusory world as you would have us believe.
You definitely have no obligation to speak to me, that is all your choice. You seem to enjoy it immensely, actually, you keep coming back and taking potshots even when you have tried to quit the forums over and over.
As for accusing me of projection and saying my arguments come from having contact with the psychiatric profession...ermm...your spouse is a therapist in the field who is retiring this very week by your own admission a day or two ago. Physician, heal thyself.
"I really do not wish to speak with you any more"
Show, don't tell.
17 days ago
0
#168
Dio is the sort of person I think who feeds off of others turmoil. He's kind of a blood sucking vampire, and that's not to put him down it's my honest assessment of him, he actually feeds off of being contentious and arrogant toward people. It's why he's been locked in debate with now 4 people in this thread, it's why he keeps a long list of things people have said just to try and humiliate them (unsuccessfully but even so). I imagine he probably gets glee at the thought of having forum members banned or the thread censored. Part of it's just a need for power. At some point in his life he probably felt powerless / humiliated at the hands of the group... then back when he was a manager people had to kiss up to him, and for the first time in his life women were forced to submit to him... On another level, he's probably desperate to recover his lost innocence, which he can never regain, so he actually has to suck that life out of others. etc.. But the best you can do with a person like that is actually just to avoid them.
ibrust wrote:
Dio is the sort of person I think who feeds off of others turmoil. He's kind of a blood sucking vampire, and that's not to put him down it's my honest assessment of him, he actually feeds off of being contentious and arrogant toward people. It's why he's been locked in debate with now 4 people in this thread, it's why he keeps a long list of things people have said just to try and humiliate them (unsuccessfully but even so). I imagine he probably gets glee at the thought of having forum members banned or the thread censored. Part of it's just a need for power. At some point in his life he probably felt powerless / humiliated at the hands of the group... then back when he was a manager people had to kiss up to him, and for the first time in his life women were forced to submit to him... On another level, he's probably desperate to recover his lost innocence, which he can never regain, so he actually has to suck that life out of others. etc.. But the best you can do with a person like that is actually just to avoid them.
When you build your narrative on literally a dozen assumptions, you know it's not accurate. In fact even if each wild guess here had 50/50 odds, your odds of this narrative being right would be less than 1 in 4000.
I will continue to mirror every behavior you display back to you, so if you are feeling like you want to avoid me and find me malicious and contentious, welcome to some knowledge of self. I mean let's not pretend you yourself think you are a bed of roses here on the forums in the first place...but you don't seem to grasp that I am matching your venom in a measured manner, kind for kind.
Optimissed has never grokked that I escalate and de-escalate according to his behavior either. It's quite the blind spot. He'll say "you were finally being nice for a little while, and then you started up again" completely oblivious to his actions.
This is a very simple technique that even tantrum-prone toddlers eventually respond to when they finally recognize their own behavior. Not you, though.
Why do you choose a diseased rat as your avatar, anyway? I wouldn't want to make any assumptions. Avoiding me is also acceptable, probably preferable.
DiogenesDue wrote:
ibrust wrote:
Dio is the sort of person I think who feeds off of others turmoil. He's kind of a blood sucking vampire, and that's not to put him down it's my honest assessment of him, he actually feeds off of being contentious and arrogant toward people. It's why he's been locked in debate with now 4 people in this thread, it's why he keeps a long list of things people have said just to try and humiliate them (unsuccessfully but even so). I imagine he probably gets glee at the thought of having forum members banned or the thread censored. Part of it's just a need for power. At some point in his life he probably felt powerless / humiliated at the hands of the group... then back when he was a manager people had to kiss up to him, and for the first time in his life women were forced to submit to him... On another level, he's probably desperate to recover his lost innocence, which he can never regain, so he actually has to suck that life out of others. etc.. But the best you can do with a person like that is actually just to avoid them.
When you build your narrative on literally a dozen assumptions, you know it's not accurate. In fact even if each wild guess here had 50/50 odds, your odds of this narrative being right would be less than 1 in 4000.
I will continue to mirror every behavior you display back to you, so if you are feeling like you want to avoid me and find me malicious and contentious, welcome to some knowledge of self. I mean let's not pretend you yourself think you are a bed of roses here on the forums in the first place...but you don't seem to grasp that I am matching your venom in a measured manner, kind for kind.
Optimissed has never grokked that I escalate and de-escalate according to his behavior either. It's quite the blind spot. He'll say "you were finally being nice for a little while, and then you started up again" completely oblivious to his actions.
This is a very simple technique that even tantrum-prone toddlers eventually respond to when they finally recognize their own behavior. Not you, though.
Why do you choose a diseased rat as your avatar, anyway? I wouldn't want to make any assumptions. Avoiding me is also acceptable, probably preferable.
And that's because you escalate and de-escalate according to your own reactions, which are prompted by whatever unrelated angst you happen to be exeriencing at the time. You do that to everyone. When they challenge your inaccurate and often downright silly statements, you start off slowly and goad them into a reaction. Then, you have what you hope is going to be a legitimate reason for escalation. You've been doing it as long as I can remember, which is a long time. It's pretty silly to imagine that no-one has noticed or that I never commented on it. A troll often cannot help themselves and you stalk people, so how can they avoid you? There is definitely enough in this post of yours to get you banned from here, if those responsible here were actually competent and fair, because mirroring others' behaviour can only be their behaviour AS YOU REPRESENT IT, which is usually deliberately incorrectly. Enough said.
Optimissed wrote:
And that's because you escalate and de-escalate according to your own reactions, which are prompted by whatever unrelated angst you happen to be exeriencing at the time. You do that to everyone. When they challenge your inaccurate and often downright silly statements, you start off slowly and goad them into a reaction. Then, you have what you hope is going to be a legitimate reason for escalation. You've been doing it as long as I can remember, which is a long time. It's pretty silly to imagine that no-one has noticed or that I never commented on it. A troll often cannot help themselves and you stalk people, so how can they avoid you? There is definitely enough in this post of yours to get you banned from here, if those responsible here were actually competent and fair, because mirroring others' behaviour can only be their behaviour AS YOU REPRESENT IT, which is usually deliberately incorrectly. Enough said.
Problems with your narrative:
- I don't "start off slowly", I am direct and genuine from the get-go, but I do mirror what's being put forth towards me or others. Pretty darn hard to argue that I am sneakily pouncing or something.
- My perceptions must be fairly decent, given that for a decade now you've been driving your escalated "car" right off the cliff and been muted (many times), yet somehow, I'm always sitting at the top looking down having stopped mine in time. It's very Wile E. Coyote in nature.
- "Can't help myself" better applies to you here, as I just described.
- Between us you are the only one who has admitted, in writing no less, that you stalked someone (Elroch). I'm very sorry for you and some of the other angsty posters that find it unfair that I keep linked snippets of your behavior to remind you of later, but that is not stalking, not in any way. It's just holding you accountable for what you have freely said in "public". Here's the thing...if you didn't make such statements, I would have nothing to set aside.
I freely invite you or anyone else to try the same thing for me. You'll find it's a bit more difficult from your end due to the differences in how we express ourselves, but the method is easy, and chess.com provides the link button in the TinyMCE editor for this exact purpose, so I think you'd have a hard time selling the idea that I can't use it.
- Your assertion about my post warranting a ban is flat out ridiculous. Calling the mods incompetent for not banning me does not help your case. Rather the opposite.
- "usually deliberately incorrectly. Enough said."...indeed. I woulld come up with some pun about Tripoli to go with your triple "ly" here, but I suspect you are not in the mood for puns.
Everyone can see that you are deliberately picking arguments and being insulting on multiple threads.
Your "discussion" of my "narrative" is merely your "narrative" and it's quite obvious you are the one who invents his own narrative to suit every occasion. At the very least, you're damning yourself. You can't see that, which is the reason that discussion with you is so unrewarding.
As an example, you should probably have taken me up on my offer to debate the paranormal. You made the observation that the paranormal is unfalsifiable. That may or may not be true but it's generally accepted that an unfalsifiable thesis can have no serious basis. If a proposition cannot be shown to be false due to its inherent nature (like "multiverse" ideas or "determinism") then there can be no viable claim for the proposition to be taken seriously. Essentially, the proposition is no more than an invention or, as you might term it, "a narrative".
You might have tried to argue that the paranormal isn't falsifiable and therefore can be dismissed, but you would have to show why it's unfalsifiable. Naturally, I wouldn't accept its existence were it not for a quantity of evidence which is sufficient to make the case very strongly that it's testable in reality. Then you could have attempted to make the case that it has been tested and found to be absent or non-existent or an invention or whatever. For instance, that charlatan who offered the prize money which he was never going to pay and which he quite likely didn't have, who was all the rage 15 years ago. Nobody ever mentions him now, because he was fraudulent.
The James Randi Educational Foundation, that's it. And people actually believed he was honest and not a propagandist out to make money.
Optimissed wrote:
Everyone can see that you are deliberately picking arguments and being insulting on multiple threads.
Your "discussion" of my "narrative" is merely your "narrative" and it's quite obvious you are the one who invents his own narrative to suit every occasion. At the very least, you're damning yourself. You can't see that, which is the reason that discussion with you is so unrewarding.
As an example, you should probably have taken me up on my offer to debate the paranormal. You made the observation that the paranormal is unfalsifiable. That may or may not be true but it's generally accepted that an unfalsifiable thesis can have no serious basis. If a proposition cannot be shown to be false due to its inherent nature (like "multiverse" ideas or "determinism") then there can be no viable claim for the proposition to be taken seriously. Essentially, the proposition is no more than an invention or, as you might term it, "a narrative".
You might have tried to argue that the paranormal isn't falsifiable and therefore can be dismissed, but you would have to show why it's unfalsifiable. Naturally, I wouldn't accept its existence were it not for a quantity of evidence which is sufficient to make the case very strongly that it's testable in reality. Then you could have attempted to make the case that it has been tested and found to be absent or non-existent or an invention or whatever. For instance, that charlatan who offered the prize money which he was never going to pay and which he quite likely didn't have, who was all the rage 15 years ago. Nobody ever mentions him now, because he was fraudulent.
I said post your own thread about the paranormal. So...do it. Are are you worried I won't be the only one taking your arguments apart at the seams?
Your "offer", once again, was disingenuous. But if you want the drama of a confrontation mano 'e mano, then pick somebody who is interested in winning, and not just debunking your nonsense as a type of public service.
How about Playerafar (if he were interested)? I'll wager he can argue you to a complete standstill even on your own "home turf" topic and in spite of your claims of superior intellect.
Funnily enough, Dio, I'm not going to make my own thread on the paranormal.
On past experience, I am not allowed to have my own threads. Wonder why that is? Also, I have you blocked so you wouldn't be able to take part. It has to be on neutral territory.
You actually back Playerafar to beat me in a debate? You must know whom he actually is, as perhaps I do too. Like you, he cannot make coherent arguments and he continually resorts to personal attacks. O-person this, O-person that etc. and all invented. So you must think there's another person behind him who can argue better or you wouldn't suggest that. The person behind him perhaps doesn't actually know when he's lost an argument and continually appeals to authority. I wouldn't mind a proper debate with him on that subject, though. I'm interested in whether he can come up with a good argument if he tries.
Unlike some people I could mention, I'm always respectful when a person uses his mind well and is also respectful in his turn. I'm always interested in the reality and if I couldn't show an incorrect argument to be bad, even when stated quite well, then I would have to rethink my own arguments and ability.
Optimissed wrote:
Funnily enough, Dio, I'm not going to make my own thread on the paranormal.
On past experience, I am not allowed to have my own threads. Wonder why that is? Also, I have you blocked so you wouldn't be able to take part. It has to be on neutral territory.
You actually back Playerafar to beat me in a debate? You must know whom he actually is, as perhaps I do too. Like you, he cannot make coherent arguments and he continually resorts to personal attacks. O-person this, O-person that etc. and all invented. So you must think there's another person behind him who can argue better or you wouldn't suggest that. The person behind him perhaps doesn't actually know when he's lost an argument and continually appeals to authority. I wouldn't mind a proper debate with him on that subject, though. I'm interested in whether he can come up with a good argument if he tries.
Unlike some people I could mention, I'm always respectful when a person uses his mind well and is also respectful in his turn. I'm always interested in the reality and if I couldn't show an incorrect argument to be bad, even when stated quite well, then I would have to rethink my own arguments and ability.
- Your threads don't go anywhere because you are insufferable, honestly. But you could actually make a real and significant effort at hosting a thread on the paranormal where you could force yourself to be even-handed and tolerant.
- Precision is not your strong suit. Read the wager more carefully.
- Your "everybody is in a secret club that wants to get me" cabal mindset is creeping in again...you really should stop using it as a crutch for convincing yourself you are right. You routinely think that a bunch of posters, mods and staff are uniquely singling you out to "keep you down". If that's not overblown ego, what is?
- You have not once re-thought your own arguments, or ability, in a decade here. When people are nice, you cheerily steamroll over them with your "my arguments are better because I am smarter" outlook, and then fail to notice that they go away. "Good chap, wonder why we don't see more of them...".
That's the avoidance-driven way of dealing with you. The problem with that course of action is that it protects only one person, and leaves you free to cheerily move on to the next, unfettered by understanding.
16 days ago
0
#178
Why would he question his belief in the paranormal when he's correct? You're the one who knows nothing about the topic, you should be questioning yourself. I've seen these phenomenon happen with my own eyes, tens of thousands of times. Infact, I've never seen it not work. And no, I am not the only one - clearly. It's like I told you, there is a whole subculture of people who know this and do this, and have for thousands of years. The fact modern science hasn't told you about it - well you mocked and dismissed the MIT research I cited earlier, but you know what? You can't learn everything going by what modern society tells you is true.
I've composed an entire piece of music via rolling dice 300 times. Every note fell into place perfectly and coherently, the final result sounded like it was written by a master composer. I didn't write a note of it, and I still have the song. It is so deliberately, intricately organized, you wouldn't be able to tell a human being didn't write it to sound cogent in a million years...
I love the idea of this debate, its exciting, though I'm not sure the mods would allow it for very long. But in reality... it's hard for me to imagine Dio making a substantive argument against the paranormal. I don't think he's actually even thought about why he disbelieves it - he has no idea what he'd say. The mental outline you gave him for what his argument could be was actually a clearer one than he'd thought of up to that point... I think the debate would unfortunately be very low quality, probably alot of insults, or just dogmatic insistence magnified by force of will basically. Like what we see here...
I don't necessarily mind insults when they're interlaced with a substantive argument, however when the argument is just dogmatic insistence and dismissals, plus insults... the conversation is not interesting, it just becomes very tiring.
ibrust wrote:
Why would he question his belief in the paranormal when he's correct? You're the one who knows nothing about the topic, you should be questioning yourself. I've seen these phenomenon happen with my own eyes, tens of thousands of times. Infact, I've never seen it not work. And no, I am not the only one - clearly. It's like I told you, there is a whole subculture of people who know this and do this, and have for thousands of years. The fact modern science hasn't told you about it - well you mocked and dismissed the MIT research I cited earlier, but you know what? You can't learn everything going by what modern society tells you is true.
I've composed an entire piece of music via rolling dice 300 times. Every note fell into place perfectly and coherently, the final result sounded like it was written by a master composer. I didn't write a note of it, and I still have the song. It is so deliberately, intricately organized, you wouldn't be able to tell a human being didn't write it to sound cogent in a million years...
I love the idea of this debate, its exciting, though I'm not sure the mods would allow it for very long. But in reality... it's hard for me to imagine Dio making a substantive argument against the paranormal. I don't think he's actually even thought about why he disbelieves it - he has no idea what he'd say. The mental outline you gave him for what his argument could be was actually a clearer one than he'd thought of up to that point... I think the debate would unfortunately be very low quality, probably alot of insults, or just dogmatic insistence magnified by force of will basically. Like what we see here...
I don't necessarily mind insults when they're interlaced with a substantive argument, however when the argument is just dogmatic insistence and dismissals, plus insults... the conversation is not interesting, it just becomes very tiring.
You can write great sounding music by just picking a background chord progression in a key, randomly choosing any notes (and/or chords) off the pentatonic scale for that key, and just playing in the proper time signature. That's how jazz musicians can come up great sounding music off the top of their head for hours on end or guitarists can do a solo off the cuff.
If your claim is that you randomly rolled 300 notes off an 88 key piano without regard to what key you are playing in and just made a concerto via "intervention", then you're not being truthful, either with us and/or with yourself.
Seriously, since when did this become an argument between philosophy majors?