Calling all conspiracy theorists - do you believe in this one? [Archive] - Page 2

T.W.R

17th May 2018, 23:47

Foehn dude... spelling nazi hat on.

Given that I was drawing on memory of a 1hr class 36 odd years ago....a spelling faux pas is minimal....but at least you knew what was meant ;)

Did you read Sugarlites original post? plus all the subsequent ones.
Getting him to give any information about what plane he said he seen is like pulling teeth.
I am well aware of the many multiple conditions that need to be before forming a contrail, which is why i ignored it completely.

Yeah I saw Sugi's original post on it and how you & TDL zeroed in on the non identification of the plane involved like it should have been precisely logged & recorded :facepalm:

But what I'm pointing out is directed at this post of yours below and the fact that the aircraft you've identified as the possible answer to what was seen actually. Though as you would've seen whilst digging up the specs of the plane in question the max ceiling altitude is only 23500ft and what I've been trying to point out the flight altitude is a long way shy of that figure too :yes: The fact is that both the plane's max ceiling altitude & the flight altitude are well short of the altitude where contrails are generally formed.

There'll be an explanation to what was seen but trying to lock it down to what it actually was is a bit OTT, just take it for what it is rather than getting into slinging match.....just accept a bit of conjecture that there was an aircraft doing something above & beyond what is the norm

You say i m talking absolute drivel when you claim to have seen a plane doing something you didn't understand, that you claimed would be most likely only be up to nefarious means.
Now that you have given, your location, trajectory of the flight and size of plane would it surprise you that Sounds air leaves Westport and flys north along the Coast to about Karamea in order to gain altitude and save fuel by doing it slowly, before it turns and flys to Wellington 5 times a week...........it departs Westport at 645 am. What do you think would be logical conclusion of what you seen. To a resonable person.
Is it still most likely to be Top secret Cloud seeding?

husaberg

18th May 2018, 00:01

Given that I was drawing on memory of a 1hr class 36 odd years ago....a spelling faux pas is minimal....but at least you knew what was meant ;)

Yeah I saw Sugi's original post on it and how you & TDL zeroed in on the non identification of the plane involved like it should have been precisely logged & recorded :facepalm:

But what I'm pointing out is directed at this post of yours below and the fact that the aircraft you've identified as the possible answer to what was seen actually. Though as you would've seen whilst digging up the specs of the plane in question the max ceiling altitude is only 23500ft and what I've been trying to point out the flight altitude is a long way shy of that figure too :yes: The fact is that both the plane's max ceiling altitude & the flight altitude are well short of the altitude where contrails are generally formed.

There'll be an explanation to what was seen but trying to lock it down to what it actually was is a bit OTT, just take it for what it is rather than getting into slinging match.....just accept a bit of conjecture that there was an aircraft doing something above & beyond what is the norm
The plane that was "actually seen" thats up for Conjecture, Its almost like a UFO sighting no one else has came forward only Sugar.

Your part about ceilings would be relevent if mr Sugar had not flatly refused to give any indication at all thus far, of any possible altitude.:lol:

Maybe you should use your vast untaped knowledge and what tiny crumbs Sugar has finnally spilt out to find a plane that "fits in" with Sugars story then, go on....

PS foehn winds are for pussies
katabatic winds are where its at.
I guess the cloud seeder was flying over Greymouth as well........
336809

T.W.R

18th May 2018, 00:47

The plane that was "actually seen" thats up for Conjecture, Its almost like a UFO sighting no one else has came forward only Sugar.

Your part about ceilings would be relevent if mr Sugar had not flatly refused to give any indication at all, of any possible altitude.
3/10 on your troll attempt:lol:
Which Just as piss poor as you pointing out a Cesna 208 was smaller than a P3.
when i clearly stated its size in relation to a P3. Which was amusing as my response was to sugar sugesting no the plane i seen was smaller than a P3
Maybe you should use your vast untaped knowledge to find a plane that "fits in" with Sugars story then, go on....

:killingme that's really fucking sad coming from you....just spoiling for a fight :lol: you shouldn't really hit the turps that heavy during the week if you can't be civil :apint:
Wasn't any trolling involved just pointing a few things out which you yourself quite happily do with high frequency...obviously though you don't like the boot being on the other foot. But oyu r wee explosion will deem a few posts will be discarded off to pink heaven :clap:

Good to see your on form with modifying your posts too

husaberg

18th May 2018, 00:51

:killingme that's really fucking sad coming from you....just spoiling for a fight :lol: you shouldn't really hit the turps that heavy during the week if you can't be civil :apint:
Wasn't any trolling involved just pointing a few things out which you yourself quite happily do with high frequency...obviously though you don't like the boot being on the other foot. But oyu r wee explosion will deem a few posts will be discarded off to pink heaven :clap:

Good to see your on form with modifying your posts too
I had just edited it out...
You were trolling. I am just a bit disapointed i bothered to feed you.

oyu r?

sugilite

18th May 2018, 04:15

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/03/24/mh370_3587308b_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqpJliwavx4coWFCaEk Esb3kvxIt-lGGWCWqwLa_RXJU8.jpg?imwidth=450 (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj6r6qnkozbAhXCp5QKHRoqA74QjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F201 8%2F01%2F07%2Fus-company-resumes-search-missing-flight-mh370%2F&psig=AOvVaw1uKXalrcJZFQDTD2RaUggp&ust=1526625752321139)
Did it look like this?
No, it did not look like that.

sugilite

18th May 2018, 04:20

[QUOTE=husaberg;1131098448]That is your idea of what i described.
When i can be arsed i will draw what i actually described.
336800
Before you ask, its called a spiral climb very common and very efficient
That is nothing like I described, as mentioned so painfully often, simple 180 turn and back the other way. Also, the plane was way higher than the alps, so it would not have needed to perform the maneuver you are describing. The plane did not appear to gain or lose any altitude the entire time I had it under observation. I seriously doubt it came from Westport.

The plane that was "actually seen" thats up for Conjecture, Its almost like a UFO sighting no one else has came forward only Sugar.

Your part about ceilings would be relevent if mr Sugar had not flatly refused to give any indication at all thus far, of any possible altitude.:lol:

Maybe you should use your vast untaped knowledge and what tiny crumbs Sugar has finnally spilt out to find a plane that "fits in" with Sugars story then, go on.....
336809
OK, hands up all you kiwibikers that live between the sparsely populated Westport and Karamea who are reading this thread that saw what Sugilite saw?
WHAT - NO ONE? That proves it, Sugilite is making up stories :brick:

I have no idea how I'm supposed to know what altitude a unidentified plane is flying at. I'm not prepared to guess and if I did, you would most likely jump on my arse and ask me how could I possibly know! A lot higher than the Alps is all I can really say from my naked eye observation that I undertook just out of my own curiosity and was stupid enough to post about on KB. You know, your little pig tailed drawing really sums up so very well how you can look at someone elses very simple passage of writing and screw it around to support your own short sited hypothesis.
Seriously husaberg, how from a description of "I saw a plane go by, turn 180 degrees and go back from where it came do you get that pigtail turn and off on the trajectory you show? If it were to do that spiral you suggest, well the contrail would very clearly show that. Now you are attempting to intimate it is a UFO like sighting that I made up - which fits exactly with what I was saying that your modus operandi is to make people look loonier than what they may actually be to lend weight and support your own "flaky as" scenarios. Just desperate and kinda sad dude. :(

Berries

18th May 2018, 07:32

Tom Cruise was here a while back. I understand he left his fags in Queenstown so had to go back for them. Plane matches, date matches, tiki tour route matches. Sorted.

Next.

TheDemonLord

18th May 2018, 09:36

You should try making up your mind.

Or do you just like to hedge your bets?

Not at all - There's is a difference between something being technically possible and it actually being done.

Just cause it is possible doesn't mean you get to forgo the burden of proof for it actually occuring.

Katman

18th May 2018, 09:38

Not at all - There's is a difference between something being technically possible and it actually being done.

Just cause it is possible doesn't mean you get to forgo the burden of proof for it actually occuring.

Dude, stratospheric aerosol injection is real.

You should open your eyes.

Katman

18th May 2018, 09:40

And furthermore, the Pentagon's plan for full spectrum domination is real.

T.W.R

18th May 2018, 10:13

I had just edited it out...
You were trolling. I am just a bit disapointed i bothered to feed you.

oyu r?

:lol: shame I'd switched the comp off by the time you posted this

Ha 30mins after posting isn't a fucking edit :clap: I saw you make an appearance in the thread whilst I was replying as you do in the dumbfuck invisible mode....realistically what have you got to hide using that :oi-grr: you're only one of a handful that think they're sneaking around unnoticed :clap:
As for a spelling error :rolleyes: check your own posts sunshine....there's quite a consistent pattern of errors in yours....bit like mmm how do you spell Sterling...remember that
Or actually your fucking idea of what a garage is and what you think you know about the West Coast :killingme that was a hilarious PM, should actually air that to show how that peanut between your ears works.
One thing that should really be up for conjecture as another KBer was ridiculed for similar......but do you actually fucking ride a motorcycle? you post up plenty of bits n pieces which in reality aren't that hard to find on the net if you're really looking but as for actually pics of actually being on a motorcycle or riding in general you're a bit of a no show.
One or two others had you pegged pretty well and seeing how you've aired a bit of your true colours their opinions are quite well founded

husaberg

18th May 2018, 10:16

That is nothing like I described, as mentioned so painfully often, simple 180 turn and back the other way. Also, the plane was way higher than the alps, so it would not have needed to perform the maneuver you are describing. The plane did not appear to gain or lose any altitude the entire time I had it under observation. I seriously doubt it came from Westport.
As i have mentioned getting any information out of you to what you seen has taking about 10 pages thus so forgive a lack of understanding of what in your mind is clear.
What you do not realise is that you have considerabley expanaded your story in those 10 or so pages. Adding small detail on each occasion.

OK, hands up all you kiwibikers that live between the sparsely populated Westport and Karamea who are reading this thread that saw what Sugilite saw?
WHAT - NO ONE? That proves it, Sugilite is making up stories :brick:
I never said you made it up i suggested no one else had reported it.

I have no idea how I'm supposed to know what altitude a unidentified plane is flying at. I'm not prepared to guess and if I did, you would most likely jump on my arse and ask me how could I possibly know! A lot higher than the Alps is all I can really say from my naked eye observation that I undertook just out of my own curiosity and was stupid enough to post about on KB. You know, your little pig tailed drawing really sums up so very well how you can look at someone elses very simple passage of writing and screw it around to support your own short sited hypothesis.
Refer to the first part, see again you have added more detail. These details may be clear in your mind but you had not expressed them.

Seriously husaberg, how from a description of "I saw a plane go by, turn 180 degrees and go back from where it came do you get that pigtail turn and off on the trajectory you show? If it were to do that spiral you suggest, well the contrail would very clearly show that. Now you are attempting to intimate it is a UFO like sighting that I made up - which fits exactly with what I was saying that your modus operandi is to make people look loonier than what they may actually be to lend weight and support your own "flaky as" scenarios. Just desperate and kinda sad dude. :(
Refer to above.
But i have sincerely no interest in jumping on your ass or making you appear looney or paranoid.

Or actually your fucking idea of what a garage is and what you think you know about the West Coast :killingme that was a hilarious PM, should actually air that to show how that peanut between your ears works.
One thing that should really be up for conjecture as another KBer was ridiculed for similar......but do you actually fucking ride a motorcycle? you post up plenty of bits n pieces which in reality aren't that hard to find on the net if you're really looking but as for actually pics of actually being on a motorcycle or riding in general you're a bit of a no show.
One or two others had you pegged pretty well and seeing how you've aired a bit of your true colours their opinions are quite well founded

Let me see
Yes I have currently a Husaberg 501, CR500, RD350, CB350, KTM50, Lead 125. 54 FB falcon, 55 James Captain. All of them run other than the RD350.
Plus various other wrecks. Do i ride? yes but generally only the Husaberg.
I have posted pics of them all on KB l other than maybe the CB. But anyone with a long history in Cams will remember it as originally Being Bruce Wearing one.

As for the PMs would they be the ones where you tried to tell me where the as a local who has lived here pretty much all my life where the barber effects and doesn't.
or what areas flood prone and what have tornados or not.
I even politely tried to steer you clear of some of the higher crime areas.
If you wish to post them post them all, go for it, you have my express permission to do so.

Without trying to appear conceited, There would only be a select few people on the Coast that have been to more farms and tracks here than i have. Its a perk of my work.
Actually only can only think of two dairy farms and a couple of beef farms i have never been to out of the 1700 or so farms over here from Karamea to Franz.
I showed you the old garage service station solely as you said you suggested were interested in setting up a small business as you had stated previously you worked mechanical, i clearly said it had no house only a free holden.
I sincerely hope it all goes well for you, but i suspect as you believe you already know more about the place than one of the locals do, it might be a bit of a culture shock for you.

Katman

18th May 2018, 14:40

that was a hilarious PM, should actually air that to show how that peanut between your ears works.

Sounds almost as hilarious as the one you sent me - asking which side of the law I'd like a visit from.

T.W.R

18th May 2018, 16:56

Let me see
Yes I have currently a Husaberg 501, CR500, RD350, CB350, KTM50, Lead 125. 54 FB falcon, 55 James Captain. All of them run other than the RD350.
Plus various other wrecks. DO i ride yes but generally only the Husaberg.
I have posted pics of them all on KB l other than maybe the CB.

As for the PMs would they be the ones where you tried to tell me where the as a local who has lived here pretty much all my life where barber effects and doesnt.
or what areas flood prone and what have tornados or not was even funnier. If you wish to post them post them all go for it, you have my express permission to do so.
There would only be a select few people on the Coast that have been more farms and tracks here than i have.
Actually only can only think of two dairy farms and a couple of beef farms i have never been to out of the 1700 or so farms over here.
I showed you the old garage service station solely as you said you suggested were interested in setting up a small business, i clearly said it had no house only a free holden.
I sincerely hope it all goes well for you, but i suspect as you think you know more about the place than the locals do, it might be a bit of a culture shock for you.

Good for you to state what you may have

Surely you aren't that punch drunk to remember what you send in PMs :facepalm: you're the one who stated which areas are flood prone & some properties have issues with foundations, and the tornados well again you seem to forget what you write quite easily....the area you said was reasonable to look at and my response was having seen of recent years it seemed to be turning into a bit of a tornado alley, you rebuttal was the whole coast was prone.
Likewise with the Grey Barber you're the one who said about areas to look at and my response was regarding the said wind and you went on to add the place where I'd looked at a couple of properties also got a taste of it too :facepalm:

Funny you didn't mention anything regarding a house along with that link to that derelict dump and the E series Falcon stockcar; and as I reminded you in my reply I was meaning a house with a decent garage as current I'm well sick of wrestling bloody bikes up steps into a historic building/sleepout.
It was your assumption of what sort of business that sent you down that path of that sort of garage :yes:

Never implied I know more than what the locals do but having connections as far south as Fox Glacier & north Westport and places in between & beyond some of which haved lived and worked (now retired) in these places; And personally having frequented the place regularly since the 80s for all manner of pursuits & business I've got a fairly good gauge on how things tick :yes:

Sounds almost as hilarious as the one you sent me - asking which side of the law I'd like a visit from.

Glad you've got a memory though there wasn't anything hilarious about it apart from your denial of what you're upto, though the admission you put forth stupidly in a rep months earlier leaves the door open for something to happen. And some things are best served cold

Katman

18th May 2018, 17:39

Glad you've got a memory though there wasn't anything hilarious about it

Well I got a good laugh out of it anyway.

husaberg

18th May 2018, 17:41

Good for you to state what you may have

Surely you aren't that punch drunk to remember what you send in PMs :facepalm: you're the one who stated which areas are flood prone & some properties have issues with foundations, and the tornados well again you seem to forget what you write quite easily....the area you said was reasonable to look at and my response was having seen of recent years it seemed to be turning into a bit of a tornado alley, you rebuttal was the whole coast was prone.
Likewise with the Grey Barber you're the one who said about areas to look at and my response was regarding the said wind and you went on to add the place where I'd looked at a couple of properties also got a taste of it too :facepalm:

Funny you didn't mention anything regarding a house along with that link to that derelict dump and the E series Falcon stockcar; and as I reminded you in my reply I was meaning a house with a decent garage as current I'm well sick of wrestling bloody bikes up steps into a historic building/sleepout.
It was your assumption of what sort of business that sent you down that path of that sort of garage :yes:

Never implied I know more than what the locals do but having connections as far south as Fox Glacier & north Westport and places in between & beyond some of which haved lived and worked (now retired) in these places; And personally having frequented the place regularly since the 80s for all manner of pursuits & business I've got a fairly good gauge on how things tick :yes:

Post the pms like i said you have my permission so post the pm's i sent along with yours and let the public decide then, what do you have to hide?

PS I am sure Katman wont mind either ask him if hes okay with it and post them as well.

TheDemonLord

18th May 2018, 18:10

Dude, stratospheric aerosol injection is real.

You should open your eyes.

Is it? Has it been successfully implemented passed any form of Proof of Concept test? And to what end? Is it Ozone reduction? Is it rain control? Is it population control? Or is it you've got no clue and are grasping at straws?

And furthermore, the Pentagon's plan for full spectrum domination is real.

It's almost like they are continually planning on ways to win any potential conflict... Funny that... Maybe it's a conspiracy...

Katman

18th May 2018, 18:18

And to what end? Is it Ozone reduction? Is it rain control? Is it population control?

Or is it part of their plans for full spectrum dominance?

T.W.R

18th May 2018, 19:15

Post the pms like i said you have my permission so post the pm's i sent along with yours and let the public decide then, what do you have to hide?

Fine :niceone: Nothing to hide and never do hide anything nor do I hide behind a veil of secrecy

Your 1st PM

personally I would avoid Runanga Dunollie Taylorville Stillwater
Depending on where you intend to work if you do anyway.
if you go south of greymouth its better
if you are after value for money kaiata and Dobson
Kaiata has areas which flood and some with foundation issues.
It gets dryer the further north you go up the grey river ikamatua is dry 1700ml
if you choose between a place between hokitika and greymouth it leaves your options open.

My reply

Not really keen on anywhere up along the banks of the Grey.....in years gone by have had friends who have lived up near Totara flat and others who lived at Ikamatua too who then shifted to Blackball and i know peeps who have holiday batches there too.
Kaiata & Dobson would get pounded by the barber and I'm not keen of the sound of possible flood issues either
South of Greymouth doesn't really appeal as of recent it seems to be turning into tornado alley and anything further south toward Hokitika is a bit exposed also.

Fortunate enough to not have to worry about working for anyone any more hence the desire to get a acorn business underway.....just something to keep things active and a bit of coin in the pocket to play with.
If the idea I'm playing with works out I'd be mobile a lot of the time anyhow but would be covering from up near Karamea through to as far south as Bruce Bay and possibly the odd hop back over the hill around the Canterbury high country

Your response Though reading it again I see you did mention "no house" I was pretty much in shock at the hole you considered a garage :weird:

err Runanga gets the barber more than Dobson does Kaiata only gets the barber once a year
Only a few small parts of Kaiata get flooded
Plenty of places south of Grey are not anywhere near sea or floods
Tornados can happen anywhere in west side of NZ.
but don't go past a few KMs inland

anyway her is something you might have missed if you are intersted in a garage. no house never seen the inside of it comes with free holden

http://www.gregdalyrealestate.co.nz/?/property/3119293/65-packers-quay-blaketown--7805

if its the middle you want of Hasst to Karamea that might be more Hokitka?

And where I left it

Not really keen on Hokitika....there's a couple of places a few kms out from the town that aren't too bad. But I prefer up around Greymouth for accessibility to to a few area for recreational pursuits etc.

that old Blaketown garage needs bowling over lol....I was meaning a decent garage at the home property as at present I have to deal with working in a sleepout (actually an old local library...historic building) the only bonus is that it has an open fire....but wrestling bikes thru a single doorway & up steps if a bloody nuisance.

Wherever I end up over there it'll do what's needed whether it be a satellite town etc but definitely wont be out in the boonies. Basically over the tabletop flatness over here and the constant drone of SH1

husaberg

18th May 2018, 19:50

:laugh: Nah definitely not anything related to dairy that's for sure....I'm downsizing not up-sizing property thanks and having driven for an agricultural contractor for a number of years & worked in the throng of CASE IH for a few years that's as close as I'd ever want to get to the farming sector thanks.

Flick me a pm about the properties you are looking at and the areas and I will tell you how much shit the agent is talking about them if you want....
its a small place and I can tell you were the bodies are buried.........

G'day

Was over looking at a couple of places in Runanga, well they classed one as Runanga and one in Dunollie but the place is so small I think of it all as the one place :pinch:
The 1st place is on the main road but having been through it the place itself was quite good and all I need but it's bloody leasehold land so I've scratched that off immediately (bloody rates were stupid money $6k+ per yr)
But the house in Dunollie is very similar in layout but 30+ yrs younger in construction and freehold so it's looking as if it'll suit all my requirements....just got to throw a few bucks at sprucing up the garage (lining it & additional power points) and putting a front fence in.
Had looked at another couple of places a few weeks back but one a two story place with garaging underneath but christ the bloody so-called garaging/basement was like the entrance to a coal mine :facepalm: And had a loo at a place at Kumara also but waved that too as it was pretty feral.

Basic plan once here is sold is to get over the hill get everything set-up and have a bit of spend on some toys and then get a small business underway (got a couple of ideas I'm working on that I'll keep under wraps till I've scoped out what's been offered up presently on the coast) and do a bit of speculating on a few bikes for pocket money.

As it stands I've had enough of over here and just making a 'wipe the slate clean' fresh start....I've only got myself to think about now so no ties hold me back and just to get the ball rolling it a new environment :yes:

Cheers

Fine :niceone: Nothing to hide and never do hide anything nor do I hide behind a veil of secrecy

Your 1st PM

personally I would avoid Runanga Dunollie Taylorville Stillwater
Depending on where you intend to work if you do anyway.
if you go south of greymouth its better
if you are after value for money kaiata and Dobson
Kaiata has areas which flood and some with foundation issues.
It gets dryer the further north you go up the grey river ikamatua is dry 1700ml
if you choose between a place between hokitika and greymouth it leaves your options open.

My reply

Not really keen on anywhere up along the banks of the Grey.....in years gone by have had friends who have lived up near Totara flat and others who lived at Ikamatua too who then shifted to Blackball and i know peeps who have holiday batches there too.
Kaiata & Dobson would get pounded by the barber and I'm not keen of the sound of possible flood issues either
South of Greymouth doesn't really appeal as of recent it seems to be turning into tornado alley and anything further south toward Hokitika is a bit exposed also.

Fortunate enough to not have to worry about working for anyone any more hence the desire to get a acorn business underway.....just something to keep things active and a bit of coin in the pocket to play with.
If the idea I'm playing with works out I'd be mobile a lot of the time anyhow but would be covering from up near Karamea through to as far south as Bruce Bay and possibly the odd hop back over the hill around the Canterbury high country

Your response Though reading it again I see you did mention "no house" I was pretty much in shock at the hole you considered a garage :weird:

err Runanga gets the barber more than Dobson does Kaiata only gets the barber once a year
Only a few small parts of Kaiata get flooded
Plenty of places south of Grey are not anywhere near sea or floods
Tornados can happen anywhere in west side of NZ.
but don't go past a few KMs inland

anyway her is something you might have missed if you are intersted in a garage. no house never seen the inside of it comes with free holden

http://www.gregdalyrealestate.co.nz/?/property/3119293/65-packers-quay-blaketown--7805

if its the middle you want of Hasst to Karamea that might be more Hokitka?

And where I left it

Not really keen on Hokitika....there's a couple of places a few kms out from the town that aren't too bad. But I prefer up around Greymouth for accessibility to to a few area for recreational pursuits etc.

that old Blaketown garage needs bowling over lol....I was meaning a decent garage at the home property as at present I have to deal with working in a sleepout (actually an old local library...historic building) the only bonus is that it has an open fire....but wrestling bikes thru a single doorway & up steps if a bloody nuisance.

Wherever I end up over there it'll do what's needed whether it be a satellite town etc but definitely wont be out in the boonies. Basically over the tabletop flatness over here and the constant drone of SH1

I took the liberty of adding the ones you missed.
Right What part of your extensive local knowledge leads you to believe that Kaiata and Dobson get pounded by the barber?
Kaiata only gets it 2 days a year at most that i have ever seen, Dobson only sees it as it goes past generally as well.
Depending on the day the barber often even misses Taylorville now and goes over the hill to coal creek then along the river to GM and often out to Runanga.
The barber itself in GM effects the areas close to the river out to about the fountain. Plus obviously areas of Blaketown and Cobden
What part of your extensive local knowledge makes you believe that south of Greymouth area is any sort of Tornado alley?
Your top pick Runanga/Dunollie misses most of the Winter Sun due to it orientation and hills on either side, this is especially true for those against the Spring Creek side.
It also also losses the summer sun early to boot. Runanga in case you missed the rather obvious clues is surrounded by fault lines and is basically built on a sea of bottomless muck.
AS it consists of deep clay muck soil run off from the hills overtop of a ancient river that where the grey river used to run before it cut through into greymouth.
If you are well resourced and cash funded and such a buyer of means, why would you be looking at some of the cheapest areas of the Coast?
I should note that the area where you mentioned previously you were looking at was actually exposed quite often to the barber.
Also areas in Runanga and Dunollie and nearby Coal Creek also flood.
As for flooding of other areas i said areas of, which is true, often the advantage of local knowledge is actually knowing what bits do and what do not.
For instance If some ares along the banks of the grey flooded such as Dobson, Greymouth itself would already be under 30 ft of water.
Even in some areas the LIMs are next to useless and highly inaccurate.
I never asked, as i had gave up on you already but i hope you have the Agent i was going to tell you to avoid because one is totally full of shit which most of the locals avoid and will say anything to get a sale.
So in summing up, Sorry i tried to help you, but don't worry it wont be a problem in the future.

T.W.R

18th May 2018, 20:48

I took the liberty of adding the ones you missed.
Right What part of your extensive local knowledge leads you to believe that Kaiata and Dobson get pounded by the barber?
Kaiata only gets it 2 a year at most
Depending on the day it often even misses Taylorville now and goes over the hill to coal creek then along the river to GM and sometimes out to Runanga
The barber itself in GM effects the areas close to the river out to about the fountain.
What part of your extensive local knowledge makes you believe that south of Greymouth is any sort of Tornado alley?
If you are well resourced and cash funded and such a buyer of means why would you be looking at some of the cheapest areas of the coast?
I should note that the area where you mentioned previously you were looking at was actually exposed quite often to the barber.
Also areas in Runanga and Dunollie and nearby coal Creek also flood.
As for flooding of other areas i said areas of, which is true, often the advantage of local knowledge is actually knowing what bits do and what do not.
For instance If some ares along the banks of the grey flooded such as Dobson, Greymouth itself would already be under 30 ft of water.
Even in some areas the LIMs are next to useless and highly inaccurate.
So in summing up, Sorry i tried to help you, but don't worry it wont be a problem in the future.

:laugh: expressing opinions on certain areas are just that opinions and far from what you originally posted in the Optimistic sellers thread the instigated the PMs though as per usual another expression of being an authority on yet another subject :laugh:

There's a difference between a prevailing Northerly wind pattern and a localized wind that got a name for a reason by people who experienced it a long long time before you set foot on the earth :yes: the Grey Barber was due to it's path down the Grey Valley.

Did you fall off the earth over the last couple of years? seeing you so well versed in the region what part of it is considered Awatuna district mmm? remember it's only 10mins south of Greymouth to Kumara Junction (the north edge of Awatuna); And even though Arahura is closer to Hokitika it's been ripped up in the past.
And as a financially cashed up buyer why the hell would I want to put a huge chunk of coin into a single property when I can enjoy other aspects of an excess of said finances; I've been tied to shit in the past and this current crap hasn't improved my thoughts towards having a substantial liability the system can get it's hooks into.
I've looked at 5 properties in the last few weeks via a couple of trips over the hill and there's a few others further afield that spurred a bit of interest so unlike your thinking of confinement to certain areas it's only been the case of said properties creating interest worth investigating further nothing more and nothing concrete....the reality of the fact is if I wanted to I could cash everything up and head anywhere I wanted if I wished too but I'd rather follow through a couple of things I've been approached about doing in the past and enjoying what it offers up :yes:

Katman

18th May 2018, 20:53

This is what is wrong with this place. ^^^

husaberg

18th May 2018, 21:12

:laugh: expressing opinions on certain areas are just that opinions and far from what you originally posted in the Optimistic sellers thread the instigated the PMs though as per usual another expression of being an authority on yet another subject :laugh:

There's a difference between a prevailing Northerly wind pattern and a localized wind that got a name for a reason by people who experienced it a long long time before you set foot on the earth :yes: the Grey Barber was due to it's path down the Grey Valley.

Did you fall off the earth over the last couple of years? seeing you so well versed in the region what part of it is considered Awatuna district mmm? remember it's only 10mins south of Greymouth to Kumara Junction (the north edge of Awatuna); And even though Arahura is closer to Hokitika it's been ripped up in the past.
And as a financially cashed up buyer why the hell would I want to put a huge chunk of coin into a single property when I can enjoy other aspects of an excess of said finances; I've been

I posted what was said on the sellers thread?
As for the rest what are you smoking.
The barber is caused by a Katabatic wind which in case you missed it is the 100% opposite of a Foehn Wind. ie nor wester
The grey barber is named because it generally historically exits in Greymouth
Its call the barber as the cold would cut you .
Awatuna is not a district it a place name. The district its in is Westland. as all of of the coast south of the Taramakau river
One couple of highly localized tornadoes 10km apart is not a Tornado alley.

The two major tornados here were through blaketown and then on a path past the Harpin on the GM cicuit through to arround the council chambers
Like i said you know shit all about the West Coast and are too much of a idiot to listen to a local
After all how could someone who lives here possibly know about the place more than you:whistle:

husaberg

18th May 2018, 22:51

:lol: can't be as good a shit as you're on

A fucking Foehn wind is a a katabatic wind dumbass :killingme and as is easily found on meteorological sites state that they can be intensified by the geographical nature of the landscape....ie: the Grey River valley acting like a funnel

And again have a check of somewhere like google maps for a quick reference Awatuna district stretches from Kaihinu to near Kumara Junction and up as far as Turiwhate and is named as such as Awatuna is bang in the middle of the coastal frontage. Westland is a region :clap:

And again dumbass think about what you quote because as it's easily seen in the last couple of posts "seems to be turning into tornado alley" cock not fucking "it is tornado alley" ; Events over a couple of years happening consistently is the formation of a pattern :facepalm:

:not: But be a fucking authority...there's a few scraps there again for you to hook into like a demented rabid dog :first:
I give up you win the internet.

T.W.R

18th May 2018, 23:02

I give up you win the internet.

Ha makes a change as you usually strut around like a pretentious stuck-up Jack Russell pissing on everything that others say....just can't handle getting served a bit of your own medicine :yes:

husaberg

18th May 2018, 23:31

Ha makes a change as you usually strut around like a pretentious stuck-up Jack Russell pissing on everything that others say....just can't handle getting served a bit of your own medicine :yes:
No i am strutting around on all fours practically incontinent all right, you are just too stupid to notice.
I are just trying to figure out how i am going to break it to Durham Havill .The former Westland Mayor that still lives at Awatuna. That he was living a lie that whole time he was the Westland Mayor.
Not only that the one that followed him John Drylie lives in behind Awatuna as well.
Fuck knows how we are going to raise the cash to change all those signs that indicate when we enter the only three West Coast districts.
You might notice them at Arthurs pass and the Taramakau and Haast they say Westland District
On the other side of the Taramakau they say Grey District until you get to Punakaiki and Ikimatua where they change to Buller. They flip over again at Springs junction depending on what side of the river you are on just for a bit of fun, but what would i know.

The only thing that would be better is if you tried to dig up some survey map from the 1860s to try and prove you are correct and then i would get the change to point out that originally the West Coast was in two districts North of the Grey Nelson south of the Grey Canterbury.

You have uncovered the great conspiracy of all. The Great West Coast District swindle. Well done sir.

PS a Foehn wind is not a katabatic wind nor will it ever be one.

T.W.R

19th May 2018, 00:18

No i am strutting around on all fours practically incontinent all right, you are just too stupid to notice.
I are just trying to figure out how i am going to break it to Durham Havill .The former Westland Mayor that still lives at Awatuna. That he was living a lie that whole time he was the Westland Mayor.
Not only that the one that followed him John Drylie lives in behind Awatuna as well.
Fuck knows how we are going to raise the cash to change all those signs that indicate when we enter the only three West Coast districts.
You might notice them at Arthurs pass and the Taramakau and Haast they say Westland District
On the other side of the Taramakau they say Grey District until you get to Punakaiki and Ikimatua where they change to Buller. They flip over again at Springs junction depending on what side of the river you are on just for a bit of fun, but what would i know.

The only thing that would be better is if you tried to dig up some survey map from the 1860s to try and prove you are correct and then i would get the change to point out that originally the West Coast was in two districts North of the Grey Nelson south of the Grey Canterbury.

You have uncovered the great conspiracy of all. The Great West Coast District swindle. Well done sir.

PS a Foehn wind is not a katabatic wind nor will it ever be one.

:laugh: so easily hooked.....good boy do you want a pat on the head or another scrap for you to chase :laugh: But so sad having to name drop and even a nice wee spelling mistake for keeping the consistency....Iki-where try Ikamatua seeing you're so pedantic
Such a combative nature, just like a good wee Jack Russell drop one bone and on to the next....twice in one thread you're doing well, you must suffer from RSI amongst a few other things :rolleyes:
The expression of being civil was aired and to just to leave it there but nah you have to keep chewing like a dumb dog :laugh:

And just for a wee set you straight about winds as you're spouting plenty

https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/Katabatic-winds.htm

2nd paragraph should help you a bit :msn-wink:

Actually getting a bit tired of playing games with you but at least it's been amusing to see the colours come out

R650R

19th May 2018, 00:49

I'm not sure that can be called new. Another board I watch mostly involves people who lived in Malaysia for years and the suicide/murder thing was one of the first possibilities mentioned. At the time I thought that was a bit hasty, but as further information has come to light about the fiight, it must be considered a possibility.

Y'all may be familiar with the expression "running amok". Amok is a Malay word and it referred to the occasional situation whereby a villager took his parang (machete) and started hacking anybody he could get at until the villager was himself cut down. The thought was that the Malay pilot had found a more high tech method of amok. The argument was advanced that "it was in his genes".

Seemed odd at the time and we'll probably never know, but it is starting to look as if that may be the case.

That’s still a sidetrack issue from the main reality in the post 911 world that there was a freakin airliner on radar off its course and with transponder turned off. And all this in an area of high military tension plus heaps of western military in malacca straights on pirate duty... Let’s not forget there’s a war on in Afghanistan so USA prob had carrier battle group nearby in Indian Ocean....

If he had run amok.... a slow 7 hour trip running out of fuel is a pretty lame way to die

sugilite

19th May 2018, 05:40

As i have mentioned getting any information out of you to what you seen has taking about 10 pages thus so forgive a lack of understanding of what in your mind is clear.
What you do not realise is that you have considerabley expanaded your story in those 10 or so pages. Adding small detail on each occasion.
My posts have been so simple, so the term considerably is a bit much. For the record I have never seen a plane fly lower than the alps then perform the maneuver in your image.

I never said you made it up i suggested no one else had reported it.
Then, why mention "UFO Like"?

sugilite

19th May 2018, 06:02

Sure - I said:

"If I were to TL;DR your views - you've got a suspicion of those 'in power', you subscribe to the over-population theory, you believe that there may be plans/tests/tech that has or is being trialed for some form of population control,"

You agreed with that statement, yes?
To a degree yes, though not suspicious of all people in power, that is a bit much! I do subscribe to shadowy figures having the real power, more so than the public figureheads a lot of people assume are in power. Not every country, or Government, but several yes.

From where does the Suspicion of those 'in power' come from? Note - there's a difference between healthy skepticism and suspicion. From your other comments:
From history, genocides, annexing countries, and many other atricoties still happening in the World today. Instigated by people of power. Again, just to head you off at the pass - not every person in power.

From that - I see a degree of resentment against those who you see at the top of the totem pole - you don't seem to treat them with any benefit of doubt or with a degree of civility. You state your position that according to your world view, the only alternative is a serious reduction of life - that's an a priori position I don't agree with and I don't agree with that particular theory it's in relation to (especially with what seems to happen in regards to Birth/Death rates, after womens rights, eduction etc.).
No, I do not resent people in power, or people of wealth by default as you seem to suggest I do. I do take the Worldwide view and you seem to take a very Western World view of things. I do not feel that humanity has changed that much, savagery bubbles just below the surface in all cultures just waiting for the right circumstances to boil over.

As far as assumption of Guilt - you're effectively suggesting that those people in power are researching genocide.

How about using a smaller blanket. Will some people with a considerable amount of power be looking at genocide to solve the issue? My opinion is yes. As mentioned I don't have the optimism you appear to have that humans have moved away from "We can solve this issue by killing people". As evidenced by the many, many wars going on all over the World to this very day. Some people in power just like to think and on occasion act on a much grander scale because they had the power and resources to do so - and I'm bloody sure that has not changed.

husaberg

19th May 2018, 09:55

And just for a wee set you straight about winds as you're spouting plenty
t
nice one only not correct again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind

A föhn or foehn (<small>UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_English):</small> /fɜːrn/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind#cite_note-3), <small>US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English):</small> /feɪn/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English)) is a type of dry, warm, down-slope wind that occurs in the lee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeward) (downwind side) of a mountain range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind

Not all downslope winds are katabatic. For instance, winds such as the föhn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind), chinook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind), and bergwind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergwind) are rain shadow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_shadow) winds where air driven upslope on the windward (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windward_and_leeward) side of a mountain range drops its moisture and descends leeward (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windward_and_leeward) drier and warmer. Examples of true katabatic winds include the bora (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bora_(wind)) (or bura) in the Adriatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Sea), the Bohemian Wind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Wind) or Böhmwind in the Ore Mountains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_Mountains), the Santa Ana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_wind) in southern California, the piteraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piteraq) winds of Greenland, and the oroshi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroshi) in Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan). Another example is "the Barber", an enhanced katabatic wind that blows over the town of Greymouth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greymouth) in New Zealand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand) when there is a southeast flow over the South Island. "The Barber" has a local reputation for its coldness.

https://www.britannica.com/science/katabatic-wind

Katabatic wind, also called downslope wind, or gravity wind, wind (https://www.britannica.com/science/wind) that blows down a slope because of gravity. It occurs at night, when the highlands radiate heat and are cooled. The air in contact with these highlands is thus also cooled, and it becomes denser than the air at the same elevation but away from the slope; it therefore begins to flow downhill. This process is most pronounced in calm air because winds mix the air and prevent cold pockets from forming.
 When a katabatic wind is warmed by compression during its descent into denser air, it is called a foehn (https://www.britannica.com/science/foehn)

http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind

Most widely used in mountain meteorology to denote a downslope flow driven by cooling at the slope surface during periods of light larger-scale winds; the nocturnal component of the along-slope wind systems (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Along-slope_wind_systems).

The surface cools a vertical column of the atmosphere (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Atmosphere) starting at the slope surface and reaching perhaps 10–100 m deep. This column is colder than the column at equivalent levels over the valley or plain, resulting in a hydrostatic pressure (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_pressure) excess over the slope relative to over the valley or plain. The horizontal pressure gradient (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Pressure_gradient), maximized at the slope surface, drives an acceleration (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Acceleration) directed away from the slope, or downslope. Although the pressure-gradient forcing is at its maximum at the slope, surface friction (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Surface_friction) causes the peak in the katabatic wind speeds to occur above the surface, usually by a few meters to a few tens of meters. The depth of the downslope flow layer on simple slopes has been found to be 0.05 times the vertical drop from the top of the slope. Surface-wind speeds in mountain–valley katabatic flows are often 3–4 m s-1, but on long slopes, they have been found to exceed 8 m s-1. Slopes occur on many scales, and consequently katabatic flows also occur on many scales. At local scales katabatic winds are a component of mountain– valley wind systems (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain%E2%80%93valley_wind_syste ms&action=edit&redlink=1). At scales ranging from the slopes of individual hills and mountains to the slopes of mountain ranges and massifs, katabatic flows represent the nocturnal component of mountain–plains wind systems (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain%E2%80%93plains_wind_syste ms&action=edit&redlink=1). Besides diurnal-cycle effects, surface cooling can also result from cold surfaces such as ice (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Ice) and snow cover (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Snow_cover). Katabatic flows over such surfaces have been studied as glacier winds (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Glacier_winds) in valleys and as large-scale slope flows (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Slope_flows) in Antarctica and Greenland. The large- scale katabatic wind blowing down the ice (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Ice) dome of the Antarctic continent has sometimes reached 50 m s-1 on the periphery of the continent. The persistence (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Persistence) of the surface forcing and the great extent of the slopes on these great landmasses means that the flows are subject to Coriolis deflection, and thus they are not pure katabatic flows.
See downslope wind (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Downslope_wind), gravity wind (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Gravity_wind), drainage wind (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Drainage_wind).
Occasionally used in a more general sense to describe cold air flowing down a slope or incline on any of a variety of scales, including phenomena such as the bora (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Bora), in addition to thermally forced flows as described above.

From its etymology, the term means simply "going down" or "descending," and thus could refer to any descending flow; some authors have further generalized it to include downslope flows such as the foehn (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Foehn) or chinook (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Chinook) even though they do not represent a flow of cold air. This concept has given rise to the expression katafront (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Katafront), which indicates flow down a sloped cold-frontal surface.

http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Foehn

Or föhn.) A warm, dry, downslope wind (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Downslope_wind) descending the lee side of the Alps as a result of synoptic-scale (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Synoptic_scale), cross-barrier flow over the mountain range.
The winds are often strong and gusty, sometimes forming downslope windstorms as a result of mountain wave (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Mountain_wave) activity. The air in the near-surface flow originates at or above the main crest height of the Alpine barrier, and achieves its warmth and dryness as a result of adiabatic (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Adiabatic) descent. The foehn often replaces a retreating cold air mass (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Air_mass) from a polar (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Polar_front) or arctic front (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Arctic_front), producing dramatic temperature (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Temperature) rises that reach 10°C and occasionally even 20°C or more, sometimes in a matter of minutes. This is especially true of the south foehn (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/South_foehn), which blows from northern Italy, where the air is warm, to the north of the Alps (Austria, Germany, Switzerland), where the air is cooler and could be cold arctic air (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Arctic_air) as just described. The north foehn (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/North_foehn), blowing from a cooler to a warmer region, produces less dramatic temperature changes. The air in the foehn, originating from the mid troposphere (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Troposphere), is characteristically clean. Its warm temperatures rapidly melt (or sublimate) snow (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Snow), sometimes producing flooding (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Flooding), and the extreme dryness can lead to dangerous fire weather (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Fire_weather) conditions. The Alpine foehn has been extensively studied by European scientists, and it is recognized as the type wind for similar downslope winds, resulting from cross-barrier flow, in other parts of the world. In other mountain ranges the foehn has a variety of local names, including chinook (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Chinook) in the Rocky Mountains in North America; zonda (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Zonda) for a westerly foehn from the Argentine Andes; ljuka in Carthinia (northwestern Croatia); halny wiatr (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Halny_wiatr) in Poland; austru (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Austru) in Romania; and favogn (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Favogn) in Switzerland. A northeasterly foehn descending the Massif Central in France and extending over the Garonne Plain is locally called aspre (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Aspre). A dry wind from the northwest descending the coastal hills in Majorca is named the sky sweeper (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Sky_sweeper). In New Zealand a foehn blowing from the New Zealand Alps onto the Canterbury Plains is the Canterbury northwester (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Canterbury_northwester). A cross- barrier flow that produces strong winds and cooling is called a bora (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Bora) in many parts of the world. Many authors have attempted to classify strong wind (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Wind) events as foehn (or chinook) or bora, for example, for climatologies. These studies have had mixed success: Many wind events are easy to classify, but a number of events are difficult, depending on the data available (most studies attempt to use surface data) and the method used to differentiate between the two types of events.
See foehn phase (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Foehn_phase), high foehn (http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/High_foehn).

husaberg

19th May 2018, 10:06

My posts have been so simple, so the term considerably is a bit much. For the record I have never seen a plane fly lower than the alps then perform the maneuver in your image.

A C17 From the RAAF are doing maneuvers on the Coast this week.
they are about 50mx50m
They are doing Missed approach "landings" navigational vectors.
Personally i have seen C130s on more than one occasion flying under 100Ft whist terrain flying at Haupiri.

Then, why mention "UFO Like"?
Unidentified flying object.....Unless you can name the plane type?
Is that not what it is?

T.W.R

19th May 2018, 11:10

nice one only not correct again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind

Yap Yap the bloody Jack Russell is on the job again.....usually a swift kick in the ribs or a 36 grain behind the ear fixes the problem :wacko:

:pinch: fuck you really are sad quoting wiki over a proper meteorological site :oi-grr:

You really are starting to remind me of a demented real life Sheldon Cooper with a dose of being an attention whore

husaberg

19th May 2018, 13:14

Yap Yap the bloody Jack Russell is on the job again.....usually a swift kick in the ribs or a 36 grain behind the ear fixes the problem :wacko:

:pinch: fuck you really are sad quoting wiki over a proper meteorological site :oi-grr:

You really are starting to remind me of a demented real life Sheldon Cooper with a dose of being an attention whore
Act as you wish You are still incorrect.
<cite class="citation journal" id="4" style="font-style: inherit; word-wrap: break-word;"></cite>What is funny is you are the one going on how i are wrong but you are the one who is still clearly incorrect
But feel free to take it up wth these guys.

Elvidge, Andrew D.; Renfrew, Ian A. (14 May 2015). "The Causes of Foehn Warming in the Lee of Mountains". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 97 (3): 455–466.
McKnight, TL & Hess, Darrel (2000). Katabatic Winds. In Physical Geography: A Landscape Appreciation, pp. 131–2. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-020263-0
Or the American metrological society......
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind
What you are trying to prove is a coruption of what the correct terms are ie a considerably dumbed down version for Well.....

Some broader definitions of katabatic treat the word as describing any wind flowing toward a lower elevation. In that case, foehn winds would be a class of katabatic wind, and the katabatic wind I just described would be considered a small slope flow or part of a mountain-valley circulation. These circulations usually involve anabatic flows during the daytime, when solar heating of the surface, and thereby air in contact with the surface, results in air with a lower density and pressure than surrounding air, which then flows upslope, the opposite process from that producing localized katabatic flows.

But it is as described not the correct term. only a broad generalisation.
But if you feel some incorrect dumbed down broad generalization is correct rather than the correct term yeah fine go for it....

oldrider

20th May 2018, 09:47

T.W.R

20th May 2018, 13:02

8 . 9 .10 - OUT :thud: - - - :first: T.W.R :hitcher:

Quite over him now though seeing the last post of his and taking notice of the stream of make himself feel good posts later yesterday he must have spent the afternoon licking his balls on the porch like most Jack Russells do when after they think they've done well.

Though he's wasted on this site as he's pretty much an Oracle on anything that pops up and loves making himself looks squeaky clean along the way.
Isn't really the case though as he'll hate seeing this and in reality it should've been brought to the Mods attention at the time though I'm sure the recipient most likely did; Intentional and inappropriate misuse of the rep system is a site no no, others have tried it and been reprimanded for doing so.
The thread were he had a ding-dong with Crasher is interesting too ;)

Seeing it's a conspiracy thread...it's worthwhile seeing the attempt at trying to get people to conspire with him to intentionally attack another member.

PM from 3rd of March

mr axhole
Me and a few others have been red repping old axhole
while he is on trainer wheels and can reply or see where its comming from.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...or-me-(again-)
due to a peopblem with KB that happened with an uppdate you can actually rep ten times in a row now to a single person.

Dont worry he thinks they are all from me.
Send him a few for giggles

sugilite

20th May 2018, 18:26

Oh dear, the tangled webs we weave! :laugh:

TheDemonLord

22nd May 2018, 11:12

To a degree yes, though not suspicious of all people in power, that is a bit much! I do subscribe to shadowy figures having the real power, more so than the public figureheads a lot of people assume are in power. Not every country, or Government, but several yes.

Okay, so now we are really getting into the Nuance - Where do you draw the line? i.e. what is it about one person in Power that rises your suspicion, that doesn't for another.

Secondly, with the Shadowy Figures theory - Why do you think that? I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm not saying it's right, but If you'll allow a spot of conjecture - I've observed that there is a line of thinking common with people who subscribe to that view - it's something like this:

Bad things don't seem to effect certain groups of people > Good things seem to disproportionately effect those same groups of people > This happens repeatedly and across time > There must be a causal link > Since they aren't effecting by the negative, they must have either known or actively caused it and protected themselves > They must have done this in order to disproportionately reap the benefits of the good things > The only way to do these things is to be the ones who are actively controlling society at a wider level > They must be really the ones in charge.

I should also clarify that the resentment I spoke of, is contained within that series of extrapolations.

From history, genocides, annexing countries, and many other atricoties still happening in the World today. Instigated by people of power. Again, just to head you off at the pass - not every person in power.

Fair comments - but I'd counter, it's not Power that's the issue. It's faith/Belief - whether that's of the Religious kind, the Ideological kind etc. If you want a good person to do evil things, you've got make them believe they are doing the right thing.

I'm suspicious of Faith for that reason, I'm not suspicious of Power, in of itself - although I am skeptical of those who crave power.

No, I do not resent people in power, or people of wealth by default as you seem to suggest I do. I do take the Worldwide view and you seem to take a very Western World view of things. I do not feel that humanity has changed that much, savagery bubbles just below the surface in all cultures just waiting for the right circumstances to boil over.

See above for my conjecture as to why I think you do harbor a degree of resentment, I don't think one can subscribe to such theories without it, as it is an integral part of the chain of reasoning that forms such a theory. However - if you'd like to outline what your reasoning is for subscribing to said theory - I'm happy to discuss and even retract that comment.

I agree about Savagery being ever-present, but I also look to a series of philosophical changes that have been unique to the Western world, in regards to the sovereignty of the Individual. I neither think they came about by Chance nor are they fleeting.

How about using a smaller blanket. Will some people with a considerable amount of power be looking at genocide to solve the issue? My opinion is yes.

That's still a huge assumption of guilt, given what you are hypothetically accusing them of. And it's not like we are talking about an off-the-cuff remark either.

As mentioned I don't have the optimism you appear to have that humans have moved away from "We can solve this issue by killing people". As evidenced by the many, many wars going on all over the World to this very day. Some people in power just like to think and on occasion act on a much grander scale because they had the power and resources to do so - and I'm bloody sure that has not changed.

Killing is always an option, always has been, always will be. I'm not disputing that fact, I'm disputing that it is being planned for in the way you suggest.

If we got to a position where such a scenario was more likely, there are a myriad of options before we look at Genocide - Migration for starters (such as to Mars), recycling and efficiency technologies.

And best of all - most of those options have the possibility of being very profitable and lucrative - as I said - I trust their self interest...

sugilite

22nd May 2018, 11:50

Okay, so now we are really getting into the Nuance - Where do you draw the line? i.e. what is it about one person in Power that rises your suspicion, that doesn't for another.

Secondly, with the Shadowy Figures theory - Why do you think that? I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm not saying it's right, but If you'll allow a spot of conjecture - I've observed that there is a line of thinking common with people who subscribe to that view - it's something like this:

Bad things don't seem to effect certain groups of people > Good things seem to disproportionately effect those same groups of people > This happens repeatedly and across time > There must be a causal link > Since they aren't effecting by the negative, they must have either known or actively caused it and protected themselves > They must have done this in order to disproportionately reap the benefits of the good things > The only way to do these things is to be the ones who are actively controlling society at a wider level > They must be really the ones in charge.

I should also clarify that the resentment I spoke of, is contained within that series of extrapolations.
OK, well I don't have a line, I guess it would depend on specific circumstances, and only when proven later in history. Ongoing and happening right now - how could I possibly draw a line when I do not know what is happening? You are asking me how long the proverbial piece of sting is? Maybe ask yourself the same question and you might feel the way I do lol It has been proven that people in position of power have instigated genocide as a "solution" to a perceived problem. I.e Hitler and the holocaust. So From what I can make out Hitler = bad, Queen of England, seems ok, Trump - Mad, bad, good, just plain ignorant? Don't know yet, could even be a combo.

I definitely do not think along the lines of your conjecture - not one bit. Good and bad things can happen to good and bad people, some are just in the slip stream of circumstance. Can some influence outcomes, well some would certainly have power to influence an outcome. Do all in power do that? No, Who does it? How could I possibly know with all the disinformation and conflicting information out there? Is this something you consciously do demonlord? Ask people questions that are near impossible to give accurate answers to? Because you do seem to do it an awful lot.

Fair comments - but I'd counter, it's not Power that's the issue. It's faith/Belief - whether that's of the Religious kind, the Ideological kind etc. If you want a good person to do evil things, you've got make them believe they are doing the right thing.

I'm suspicious of Faith for that reason, I'm not suspicious of Power, in of itself - although I am skeptical of those who crave power.
Fair comments back at you, however I would counter that it is people in power who's faith/belief shapes a nation more so than the plebs - naturally when enough plebs have it, they can over throw a person of power. Generally people who crave power are the least qualified to wield it - So we are in the same boat there, I think lol

I agree about Savagery being ever-present, but I also look to a series of philosophical changes that have been unique to the Western world, in regards to the sovereignty of the Individual. I neither think they came about by Chance nor are they fleeting.
OK, so lets say there is a natural or man made catastrophic disaster in any cultured western world you care to choose, like a fucking huge nuke, or meteorite - boom no food left except what is in the stores, those philosophical changes will go "poof" and be replaced by savagery to survive - absolutely.

That's still a huge assumption of guilt, given what you are hypothetically accusing them of. And it's not like we are talking about an off-the-cuff remark either.

Killing is always an option, always has been, always will be. I'm not disputing that fact, I'm disputing that it is being planned for in the way you suggest.

If we got to a position where such a scenario was more likely, there are a myriad of options before we look at Genocide - Migration for starters (such as to Mars), recycling and efficiency technologies.

And best of all - most of those options have the possibility of being very profitable and lucrative - as I said - I trust their self interest...
I think we need to agree to disagree here, going around in circles now. I feel there are definitely people contemplating genocide as a solution to over population. I agree their will also be people looking strongly to the solutions you mention - absolutely. Both lines of thinking will co-exist. I guess I should give a localized rather than worldwide example (as worldwide is impossible to substantiate right now). Lets say a certain leader who had the means to engineer a virus/antidote, that was the leader of a large religion/nation whose people are seriously pushed for resources such as good water, lands suitable for agriculture due to overpopulation - who also thinks their invisible friend is just the bestest and those other religions need to be exterminated for having the gumption for believing in their imaginary friend. Would they not be thinking considering genocide as a solution? Would you trust that leaders self interest to save the day and do the right thing?

At a worldwide level of overpopulation, reading what you are writing, all you say seems to have a very western slant on it. People in power of countries with a heavy religious slant may not share your rich and powerful peoples self interest? I do not think these countries will necessarily be looking at going to mars and implementing strong recycling options to save the day.

TheDemonLord

22nd May 2018, 13:52

OK, well I don't have a line, I guess it would depend on specific circumstances, and only when proven later in history. Ongoing and happening right now - how could I possibly draw a line when I do not know what is happening? You are asking me how long the proverbial piece of sting is? Maybe ask yourself the same question and you might feel the way I do lol It has been proven that people in position of power have instigated genocide as a "solution" to a perceived problem. I.e Hitler and the holocaust. So From what I can make out Hitler = bad, Queen of England, seems ok, Trump - Mad, bad, good, just plain ignorant? Don't know yet, could even be a combo.

It's a fair challenge - I'd start by when a person in power starts to infringe on what I can think or on the value of the individual (when they hold different sets of value for different peoples).

All the despots I can think of - violated one or both of those caveats. I'm not sure that it encompasses the entirety of the issue - and I'm certain that if we get to the point where they are doing the above, we've probably passed the point of no return.

I definitely do not think along the lines of your conjecture - not one bit. Good and bad things can happen to good and bad people, some are just in the slip stream of circumstance. Can some influence outcomes, well some would certainly have power to influence an outcome. Do all in power do that? No, Who does it? How could I possibly know with all the disinformation and conflicting information out there?

That last part for me is the issue - I'm happy to entertain a possibility and leave it open as possibility. Just because it's a possibility, doesn't mean that one can put it forward as reality without meeting a burden of proof.

Is this something you consciously do demonlord? Ask people questions that are near impossible to give accurate answers to? Because you do seem to do it an awful lot.

Absolutely - those questions are the most interesting ones to ask. And even more interesting to Answer.

And more importantly - you said near impossible - Imagine what might happen if we did answer them?

Fair comments back at you, however I would counter that it is people in power who's faith/belief shapes a nation more so than the plebs - naturally when enough plebs have it, they can over throw a person of power. Generally people who crave power are the least qualified to wield it - So we are in the same boat there, I think lol

Yay! We agree on the last part. Just a quick thought on the first part - Some have conjectured it's the other way around - That the leader gives voice to what the crowd is subconsciously thinking. I'm not sure if you consider that to be shaping it otherwise.

OK, so lets say there is a natural or man made catastrophic disaster in any cultured western world you care to choose, like a fucking huge nuke, or meteorite - boom no food left except what is in the stores, those philosophical changes will go "poof" and be replaced by savagery to survive - absolutely.

Woah! That's a thought experiment and a half - on the one hand you've got Mad Max esque survival - the law of the Strong, kill or be killed. In the short term, that's possible and I should concede - probably likely. But it's only ever a short term solution - History shows that Co-operation is much more effective - first the Family, then the Tribe, then the Village, Then the County, Then the Nation. Those Philosophical changes IMO are part of what allow us, Diverse as we are, to exist in a state of quasi-mutual co-operation. I think in such an event, enough people will survive that will remember that fact (whether that is consciously or subconsciously).

I think we need to agree to disagree here, going around in circles now. I feel there are definitely people contemplating genocide as a solution to over population. I agree their will also be people looking strongly to the solutions you mention - absolutely. Both lines of thinking will co-exist.

Okay, fair points - I've stated what I object to in that statement.

I guess I should give a localized rather than worldwide example (as worldwide is impossible to substantiate right now). Lets say a certain leader who had the means to engineer a virus/antidote, that was the leader of a large religion/nation whose people are seriously pushed for resources such as good water, lands suitable for agriculture due to overpopulation - who also thinks their invisible friend is just the bestest and those other religions need to be exterminated for having the gumption for believing in their imaginary friend. Would they not be thinking considering genocide as a solution? Would you trust that leaders self interest to save the day and do the right thing?

Well, I said I'm suspicious of Faith - for the exact reasons you've stated above. To me, an invisible friend is not a rational position - I don't expect irrational people to act rationally.

However, compare to a Business magnate - it's irrational to kill off an entire potential customer base.

At a worldwide level of overpopulation, reading what you are writing, all you say seems to have a very western slant on it. People in power of countries with a heavy religious slant may not share your rich and powerful peoples self interest? I do not think these countries will necessarily be looking at going to mars and implementing strong recycling options to save the day.

Fair enough - if we are talking about Religious thinking, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish - one that can surpass 1,000+ pages. As a final response to that - those countries with heavy religious slants IMO tend not to do so well in the long run - and I think this is related to religious dogmatic thinking - if you train a generation of people to deliberately not think on some subjects - they learn (subconsciously) to wall up certain avenues of Inquiry. This ultimately leads to philosophical stagnation.

Case in point - Ibn al-Haytham and the Golden age of Islam - when Arabia was arguably the forfront of the most cutting edge thought and ideas. Then they descended into Dogma.

Katman

22nd May 2018, 14:48

Just because it's a possibility, doesn't mean that one can put it forward as reality without meeting a burden of proof.

Nor does it mean that one can discount the possibility of it being reality.

Banditbandit

22nd May 2018, 15:21

Bored yet?

Here's a new one for you to all argue over ...

https://www.exopolitics.org/hawaii-volcanic-eruption-intentionally-triggered-to-generate-massive-tsunami/

While most assume that the earthquakes and Kilauea’s eruption are due to natural geological processes stemming from a hot spot deep under the Big Island of Hawaii, there is startling evidence linking human intervention to this recent wave of volatile activity. Examination of the fracking practices at Puna Geothermal Power Station, located in the same Puna region affected by earthquakes and volcanic activity, directly raises the strong possibility that the fracking was a direct factor in unleashing what is currently occurring.

What makes such a possibility even more disturbing is the background of the company that owns the power station, which is officially called the “Puna Geothermal Venture”. The company is financially connected to the Rothschild family which, according to the military intelligence group QAnon, forms the leadership of a worldwide Satanic cult covertly fomenting planet wide catastrophes and wars to maintain global power.

TheDemonLord

22nd May 2018, 15:35

Nor does it mean that one can discount the possibility of it being reality.

Sure, but to put it forward AS reality, requires Proof.

TheDemonLord

22nd May 2018, 15:35

Bored yet?

Come now, you know me better than that :bleh:

Katman

22nd May 2018, 16:45

Sure, but to put it forward AS reality, requires Proof.

And there's no shortage of proof that stratospheric aerosol injection is a reality.

Ocean1

22nd May 2018, 16:47

Come now, you know me better than that :bleh:

What on earth brings you to that conclusion?

The world is rather more full of people who have no idea about the relationship between cause and effect than you appear to allow for. :shifty:

Oakie

22nd May 2018, 16:49

... stratospheric aerosol injection is a reality.

That's just a fancy name for a fart huh? Or stratospheric arsehole injection...

Sorry. As you were. It's been a long day at work. My filter isn't working.

Laava

22nd May 2018, 16:49

And there's no shortage of proof that stratospheric aerosol injection is a reality.

I must admit I would be concerned if what you say is true but,
A, what are they spraying above NZ and what for and
B, can you prove it because,
C, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Katman

22nd May 2018, 16:54

I must admit I would be concerned if what you say is true but,

Don't just take my word for it - go educate yourself.

TheDemonLord

22nd May 2018, 17:07

And there's no shortage of proof that stratospheric aerosol injection is a reality.

What Reality?

Cloud Seeding?
Global Warming reduction?
Population Control?

And for and by whom?

Again - in order to move from "hey, we could do this" to "This is being done" requires Proof - which is quite lacking IMO.

ellipsis

22nd May 2018, 18:07

What Reality?

Cloud Seeding?
Global Warming reduction?
Population Control?

And for and by whom?

Again - in order to move from "hey, we could do this" to "This is being done" requires Proof - which is quite lacking IMO.

...your'e a fuckwit...no argument needed to verify the facts on that point...

Graystone

22nd May 2018, 20:07

I must admit I would be concerned if what you say is true but,
A, what are they spraying above NZ and what for and
B, can you prove it because,
C, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

It depends on the width of the definition, it's not an actual reality as it is described. But cloud seeding is done to manage rainfall, and aerosol injection is a plan put forward to manage climate change. I can see why laymen are getting confused, and then there's the conspiracy laymen who just round their confusion up to the nearest 'sky is falling' conclusion.

Katman

22nd May 2018, 20:17

But cloud seeding is done to manage rainfall, and aerosol injection is a plan put forward to manage climate change.

Cloud seeding has been going on since the late 40s - and was implemented as an aid to warfare for 5 years during the Vietnam War.

TheDemonLord

22nd May 2018, 20:32

...your'e a fuckwit...no argument needed to verify the facts on that point...

Says the person who can't spell you're...

Guess those 'facts' of yours are up to the usual conspiratorial standard...

eldog

22nd May 2018, 20:36

...your'e a fuckwit...no argument needed to verify the facts on that point...

Bugger. Another one bites the dust

Graystone

22nd May 2018, 20:54

Cloud seeding has been going on since the late 40s - and was implemented as an aid to warfare for 5 years during the Vietnam War.

And there's no conspiracy there, please try to keep it on topic.

Katman

22nd May 2018, 21:05

And there's no conspiracy there, please try to keep it on topic.

Well they did deliberately keep it secret from the public.

Katman

22nd May 2018, 21:22

https://zerogeoengineering.com/2017/rainmaking-used-weapon-se-asia/

Graystone

22nd May 2018, 21:24

Well they did deliberately keep it secret from the public.

Well it's a good thing our very own crayola kid sleuthed it out then!

Katman

22nd May 2018, 21:25

Well it's a good thing our very own crayola kid sleuthed it out then!

I'm here to help.

oldrider

22nd May 2018, 21:32

Arthur R. Thompson provides a glimpse into his newest book, "To the Victor Go the Myths & Monuments," - an interesting little video clip KB members might find informative? :scratch:

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=364cxeR5EAg )

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/364cxeR5EAg" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

R650R

23rd May 2018, 10:23

Very interesting vid oldrider... watched first few minutes, don’t have time to watch rest but expect it’s about minority groups infiltrating various irganusations to effect policy...

Well MG370 again... the new lie undone already... you can’t fly a depressurised plane at altitude...

ellipsis

23rd May 2018, 20:55

Says the person who can't spell you're...

Guess those 'facts' of yours are up to the usual conspiratorial standard...

...the fact of the matter remains, pudding puller...

TheDemonLord

23rd May 2018, 21:16

...the fact of the matter remains, pudding puller...

Keep telling yourself that...

And maybe, if you close your eyes and wish *Really* hard - it might come true.

Katman

24th May 2018, 09:06

Some further reading on cloud seeding.

http://exonews.org/tag/operation-cumulus/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/cloud-seeding-weather-control-manipulate-effects-chemicals-climate-change-a8160146.html

oldrider

25th May 2018, 11:58

How Israel Rules The World Of Cyber Security, VICE on HBO, Full Episode .[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=ca-C3voZwpM ] No shortage of money for this little country? :corn:

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ca-C3voZwpM" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

mashman

25th May 2018, 16:26

How Israel Rules The World Of Cyber Security, VICE on HBO, Full Episode .

No shortage of money for this little country? :corn:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1256/2702/1600/aluminum%20foil%20hat.0.jpg

TheDemonLord

25th May 2018, 21:42

How Israel Rules The World Of Cyber Security, VICE on HBO, Full Episode .[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=ca-C3voZwpM ] No shortage of money for this little country? :corn:

Rules is a little misleading, Certainly in terms of Firewalls - Checkpoint is THE market leader and they were founded in Israel (and bloody good bits of kit too, I might add) and there's a fair suspicion that Israel had a hand in the Stuxnet virus, however China is certainly playing catchup - in terms of Network Security, few things come close to the Great Firewall of China.

In terms of Security - All the big players are present - but also a few surprises - India has a fairly large programming base and although the code isn't always of the highest quality - they are getting better. Brazil also has a large opensource contributor base:

http://davidfischer.github.io/gdc2/#languages/All

You also have consider that almost all Networking equipment (which includes Firewall devices) will run some form of the Linux Kernal (JunOS for Juniper, Cisco IOS for Cisco, ExtremeXOS for Extreme Networks etc. etc.) and Linux comes to us from Finland, In fact TENS (which was written by the NSA and the USAF) is a highly secure Linux Distro.

From a personal level - whenever I have to deal with Hack Attempts on various boxes at work - inevitably the IPs are either Eastern european in origin or our good friends from the Orient.

So TL;DR - don't believe everything you watch ;)

BuzzardNZ

25th May 2018, 21:57

[QUOTE=
From a personal level - whenever I have to deal with Hack Attempts on various boxes at work - inevitably the IPs are either Eastern european in origin or our good friends from the Orient.

[/QUOTE]

So what action do you take then fatty? Block them unless they are from the UK? Problem with having 'imports' like you is that we don't know where your loyalty stands.

TheDemonLord

25th May 2018, 22:04

So what action do you take then fatty? Block them unless they are from the UK? Problem with having 'imports' like you is that we don't know where your loyalty stands.

Yeah...

That's totally what we do...

I'm sure you are trying to be cutting or sarcastic, problem is, you lack the required prerequisites for such commentary.

ellipsis

25th May 2018, 23:54

Yeah...

That's totally what we do...

I'm sure you are trying to be cutting or sarcastic, problem is, you lack the required prerequisites for such commentary.

...you are a self cocksucking, wanking, dribbling cunt, where's crasher and ax...knobsucks...

TheDemonLord

26th May 2018, 00:00

...you are a self cocksucking, wanking, dribbling cunt, where's crasher and ax...knobsucks...

Look, Mate.

It's clear you have some major homoerotic fixation on me. I don't swing that way, but if it helps, I'm flattered.

I think you should maybe try a trip to K'Road to discover who you really are. I think you will find that the sun shines brightest out of the Closet.

Or maybe you could visit Buzzard - he also seems to have a fetish for me - maybe you two could work out some of your frustrations together.

ellipsis

26th May 2018, 00:08

Look, Mate.

It's clear you have some major homoerotic fixation on me. I don't swing that way, but if it helps, I'm flattered.

I think you should maybe try a trip to K'Road to discover who you really are. I think you will find that the sun shines brightest out of the Closet.

Or maybe you could visit Buzzard - he also seems to have a fetish for me - maybe you two could work out some of your frustrations together.

...report me as an offensive homo then you fat dribbling, cockshaker...you seem to have a penchant for being a cunt...you don't need to try to be one...you wake up a cunt and improve your quotient on that situation throughout the day...you probably wouldn't know I was fucking you 'til you coughed...fuckwit...

BuzzardNZ

26th May 2018, 00:22

Look, Mate.

It's clear you have some major homoerotic fixation on me. I don't swing that way, but if it helps, I'm flattered.

I think you should maybe try a trip to K'Road to discover who you really are. I think you will find that the sun shines brightest out of the Closet.

Or maybe you could visit Buzzard - he also seems to have a fetish for me - maybe you two could work out some of your frustrations together.

I just think you'll find that you're probably the most despised person on this site, plain and simple!

TheDemonLord

26th May 2018, 12:20

...report me as an offensive homo then you fat dribbling, cockshaker...

Why would I do that? I find your pent-up repressed outbursts hilarious. The more I wind you up - see below:

you seem to have a penchant for being a cunt...you don't need to try to be one...you wake up a cunt and improve your quotient on that situation throughout the day...

So a Cunt is a bad thing? That you don't like? More evidence of your repressed desires...

you probably wouldn't know I was fucking you 'til you coughed...fuckwit...

And I'm sure in your dreams, that moment is the happiest day of your life, when you finally get to be the real you. I mean, I know you are a bit slow and all - but just an FYI - it's been okay to be Gay in NZ for like 32 years...

TheDemonLord

26th May 2018, 12:22

I just think you'll find that you're probably the most despised person on this site, plain and simple!

And? Your point being?

Even assuming that it's true, you've got a problem with your a priori assumption that I care about that. Furthermore, you have to demonstrate that being despised prevents me from coming here and doing what I enjoy.

And since I've stated it's to have a good argument... Oops! Oh Dear, guess your little theory needs a bit of work.

But do keep on trying, it's fun watching you try to have an original thought.

Also - your post was at 00:22 and ellipsis posted at 00:08 - I guess he must have needed the backup from you, his BumChum....

Graystone

26th May 2018, 13:30

And? Your point being?

Such a condition would suggest that perhaps your online behavior/persona is a great example of why the internet is not all it could be. Self reflection can be a wonderful thing.

carbonhed

26th May 2018, 22:07

...report me as an offensive homo then you fat dribbling, cockshaker...you seem to have a penchant for being a cunt...you don't need to try to be one...you wake up a cunt and improve your quotient on that situation throughout the day...you probably wouldn't know I was fucking you 'til you coughed...fuckwit...

Damn! The lobotomy seems to have caused some serious side effects. You should ask for your money back dude. If you have no luck I'd be prepared to chip in $2.50... which should get you a bright shiny new brain with double the capacity of your old one :facepalm:

TheDemonLord

27th May 2018, 00:00

Such a condition would suggest that perhaps your online behavior/persona is a great example of why the internet is not all it could be. Self reflection can be a wonderful thing.

Nah - on that idea, I'm exactly the same in real life - the approval of other people is of little to no concern to me.

Besides - do you think that if people cared less about what others may think and instead concentrated on being the best they could be - that too would be a recipe for greatness? I don't know about you - but I look at places online where people are free to be who and how they wish, without consideration of others, as sources of endless creativity - for sure, some of it's unsavory, but creativeness nonetheless - isn't that what makes the Internet all it could be?

I disagree with your foundational premise there (should be no surprise), I think the Internet was all it could be when it was more akin to the Wild West, than what it is now.

Madness

27th May 2018, 07:54

I just think you'll find that you're probably the second most despised person on this site, plain and simple!

Fixed it for you. We can’t have Captain Spastic thinking he’s at the top of that or any other heap now, can we? Besides, I’m pretty sure the top spot holder would end up rather aerated should he find himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Worst TDL would have to fear is probably being pissed on and left on the side of a highway somewhere to fit his own wheel.

Graystone

27th May 2018, 09:03

Nah - on that idea, I'm exactly the same in real life - the approval of other people is of little to no concern to me.

Besides - do you think that if people cared less about what others may think and instead concentrated on being the best they could be - that too would be a recipe for greatness? I don't know about you - but I look at places online where people are free to be who and how they wish, without consideration of others, as sources of endless creativity - for sure, some of it's unsavory, but creativeness nonetheless - isn't that what makes the Internet all it could be?

I disagree with your foundational premise there (should be no surprise), I think the Internet was all it could be when it was more akin to the Wild West, than what it is now.

Then I pity you.

The thing is, people like you are concentrating on their self-delusions that they are being all that they can be, the opinion of others is a necessary reality check. It's like dunning-kruger but for morality. Or a different way to put it, what have you done for society that was only possible by you being such a insufferable cunt?

And what about Incels, are those fuckwits also concentrating on being all that they can be?

Katman

27th May 2018, 09:25

Self reflection can be a wonderful thing.

Is that what prompted your reincarnation?

Graystone

27th May 2018, 09:31

Is that what prompted your reincarnation?

Nah, just a haircut, the reincarnation was prompted by those pesky romans...

oldrider

27th May 2018, 09:51

Nice to see KB'rs having such a lively friendly get together via forum exchange. :eek: Choice! :whistle: (could it simply be just another a conspiracy?) :eek5:

Laava

27th May 2018, 16:06

Nice to see KB'rs having such a lively friendly get together via forum exchange. :eek: Choice! :whistle: (could it simply be just another a conspiracy?) :eek5:

Yep. Think this thread has past it's 'use by' date.

Woodman

27th May 2018, 19:51

This thread passed its useby date 20 odd pages ago. Gayest thread on KB ever........

TheDemonLord

28th May 2018, 10:17

Then I pity you.

And? Your point being?

;)

The thing is, people like you are concentrating on their self-delusions that they are being all that they can be, the opinion of others is a necessary reality check. It's like dunning-kruger but for morality.

But you presume that the "Others" are moral? What if they aren't? I've got some lovely bits of history as to what happens when the "Moral Majority" are distinctly Amoral.

Or a different way to put it, what have you done for society that was only possible by you being such a insufferable cunt?

What an Excellent question!

And as such deserves a good answer - So I'll give you 3:

Firstly at the personality level - Being an "insufferable Cunt" - this is related to a trait called Disagreeability. And being Disagreeable is a predictor for long term success. An "insufferable Cunt" knows what they want and how they are going to get it. They are also quite prepared to take the fight (whether metaphorically or in reality) to achieve what they want to do. "insufferable Cunts" won't back down or be intimidated into going along with an idea or ideal.

Why do you think that people have this trait? Afterall, we are a social species and if the underpinnings of your premise was correct, that trait would have died an evolutionary death millenia ago - except it hasn't - it's persistence shows that at some level it's useful.

Secondly at the corporate level - Linus Torvald is widely know, by his own admission, to being an "insufferable Cunt", Has he done anything for society? What about Vince Macmahon? Donald Trump? Bill Gates?

All of these people have done something for Society - you might disagree on whether what they've done is positive or negative, but all of them are well known for being massively disagreeable or as you put it "insufferable Cunts" - and all of them have achieved a level of greatness and irrevocably impacted on Society.

Finally to answer in the context of my work - I've done shitloads that was as you say "only possible by you being such a insufferable cunt" - Mainly in relation to technical projects where something was being done that was retarded or something that needed to be done wasn't being done.

- Getting the company to purchase a payed Spam Filtering solution
- Getting the company to decommission an old at-risk Exchange server
- Undertaking the single biggest migration and disruption of service for customers to move them from a platform that ran 4 different versions of OS and 3 different versions of Control Panel onto a platform that was running the same OS and Control Panel (something along the lines of about 5000 unique Sites/Services)
- Decomissioning a Windows 2000 web server that was holding CC information in plain text, with insecure passwords

That's all in just the last 6 months - The last one is particularly relevant on your definition of Society - That box had zero-day exploits that it was vulnerable to and that were known in the wild (it was windows 2000 FFS) - it's a miracle that it wasn't compromised and had all that CC information stolen.

All of those projects as an FYI had been kicking around the company for years (in some case 5+ years) and various people had tried and failed to get enough traction to get them completed. They needed as you said an "insufferable Cunt" to get them going and to stick with it.

So there's your answer(s).

And what about Incels, are those fuckwits also concentrating on being all that they can be?

I don't know what to make of them at the moment - it seems to me that there is some serious resentment and entitlement issues with them, it also seems to me that there is a grievance of sorts that has a tiny nugget of legitimacy - but I'm not sure where the legitimacy stops and the entitlement begins. There's something to say about people who have been rejected absolutely by society - but I'm not sure as to what came first - was it self-entitlement bred rejection or that the rejection bred self-entitlement?

I'm also not sure on the hypothetical situation - assume for the moment you have a group of anti-social, resentful, angry and manipulative young men banding together - I'm sure you would agree that the potential for destruction there isn't to be scoffed at, and that it's a serious problem.

How do you deal to the serious problem? Do you tighten societal pressure upon them, in the hopes that they will fall in line? I'm not sure that will work, if anything I think it will achieve the opposite effect.
Or do you pay the hypothetical blood money - and enable them to get laid?

At face value, putting the cost of sex against the cost of mayhem they could unleash seems like a no-brainer, but then - do we break our principles and forgo the rights of a few for the good of the society? That path leads to absolute tyranny, and I'll have none of that. Do we also decide that it's acceptable to negotiate with Terrorists? As that is effectively what they propose.

So yes - I'm not sure what to make of them. The one thing I will say that I think I'm sure on - treating them with derision won't make the problem any better.

TheDemonLord

28th May 2018, 10:24

Fixed it for you. We can’t have Captain Spastic thinking he’s at the top of that or any other heap now, can we? Besides, I’m pretty sure the top spot holder would end up rather aerated should he find himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Worst TDL would have to fear is probably being pissed on and left on the side of a highway somewhere to fit his own wheel.

If only we had a way to gauge what certain members "reputation" was on this site....

If only...

And considering that compared the members above me (pages 1 and half of page 2 respectively) I've had a significantly shorter amount of time to accrue Rep, and despite Katman, Ellipsis and your efforts - I think Page 2 isn't a bad effort.

Katman

28th May 2018, 19:21

I think Page 2 isn't a bad effort.

That post would be hilarious - if it weren't so tragic.

Graystone

28th May 2018, 21:17

And? Your point being?

;)

But you presume that the "Others" are moral? What if they aren't? I've got some lovely bits of history as to what happens when the "Moral Majority" are distinctly Amoral.

What an Excellent question!

And as such deserves a good answer - So I'll give you 3:

Firstly at the personality level - Being an "insufferable Cunt" - this is related to a trait called Disagreeability. And being Disagreeable is a predictor for long term success. An "insufferable Cunt" knows what they want and how they are going to get it. They are also quite prepared to take the fight (whether metaphorically or in reality) to achieve what they want to do. "insufferable Cunts" won't back down or be intimidated into going along with an idea or ideal.

Why do you think that people have this trait? Afterall, we are a social species and if the underpinnings of your premise was correct, that trait would have died an evolutionary death millenia ago - except it hasn't - it's persistence shows that at some level it's useful.

Secondly at the corporate level - Linus Torvald is widely know, by his own admission, to being an "insufferable Cunt", Has he done anything for society? What about Vince Macmahon? Donald Trump? Bill Gates?

All of these people have done something for Society - you might disagree on whether what they've done is positive or negative, but all of them are well known for being massively disagreeable or as you put it "insufferable Cunts" - and all of them have achieved a level of greatness and irrevocably impacted on Society.

Finally to answer in the context of my work - I've done shitloads that was as you say "only possible by you being such a insufferable cunt" - Mainly in relation to technical projects where something was being done that was retarded or something that needed to be done wasn't being done.

- Getting the company to purchase a payed Spam Filtering solution
- Getting the company to decommission an old at-risk Exchange server
- Undertaking the single biggest migration and disruption of service for customers to move them from a platform that ran 4 different versions of OS and 3 different versions of Control Panel onto a platform that was running the same OS and Control Panel (something along the lines of about 5000 unique Sites/Services)
- Decomissioning a Windows 2000 web server that was holding CC information in plain text, with insecure passwords

That's all in just the last 6 months - The last one is particularly relevant on your definition of Society - That box had zero-day exploits that it was vulnerable to and that were known in the wild (it was windows 2000 FFS) - it's a miracle that it wasn't compromised and had all that CC information stolen.

All of those projects as an FYI had been kicking around the company for years (in some case 5+ years) and various people had tried and failed to get enough traction to get them completed. They needed as you said an "insufferable Cunt" to get them going and to stick with it.

So there's your answer(s).

I don't know what to make of them at the moment - it seems to me that there is some serious resentment and entitlement issues with them, it also seems to me that there is a grievance of sorts that has a tiny nugget of legitimacy - but I'm not sure where the legitimacy stops and the entitlement begins. There's something to say about people who have been rejected absolutely by society - but I'm not sure as to what came first - was it self-entitlement bred rejection or that the rejection bred self-entitlement?

I'm also not sure on the hypothetical situation - assume for the moment you have a group of anti-social, resentful, angry and manipulative young men banding together - I'm sure you would agree that the potential for destruction there isn't to be scoffed at, and that it's a serious problem.

How do you deal to the serious problem? Do you tighten societal pressure upon them, in the hopes that they will fall in line? I'm not sure that will work, if anything I think it will achieve the opposite effect.
Or do you pay the hypothetical blood money - and enable them to get laid?

At face value, putting the cost of sex against the cost of mayhem they could unleash seems like a no-brainer, but then - do we break our principles and forgo the rights of a few for the good of the society? That path leads to absolute tyranny, and I'll have none of that. Do we also decide that it's acceptable to negotiate with Terrorists? As that is effectively what they propose.

So yes - I'm not sure what to make of them. The one thing I will say that I think I'm sure on - treating them with derision won't make the problem any better.

All of those things could be done by a normal person, in fact, if you were not such a person self described as above, you could probably present the cases for those ideas more rationally and get uptake that way. I manage a team of IT type people, ensuring disagreability (which is high in that industry) is kept rational and constructive (ie, no insufferable cunts) has really helped the team's and company's expertise grow.

Won't it? we treat other bigotry and sexism with derision, and it is on the decline.

TheDemonLord

29th May 2018, 09:58

All of those things could be done by a normal person, in fact, if you were not such a person self described as above, you could probably present the cases for those ideas more rationally and get uptake that way. I manage a team of IT type people, ensuring disagreability (which is high in that industry) is kept rational and constructive (ie, no insufferable cunts) has really helped the team's and company's expertise grow.

There's one key problem with that statement - whilst they could be done by a normal person, the fact is that they weren't. And the time frame for at least 3 of them was one of 3-5 years, so it's not like multiple other people didn't have a crack at it.

I can agree with the rational and constructive part - right up until that doesn't work, that's when being an "insufferable cunt" really helps.

Why do you think Disagreeability is so high in said industry?

Won't it? we treat other bigotry and sexism with derision, and it is on the decline.

Are you sure that's a good solution?

You've got people who are bitter at the world and you want the world to mock them - Do you know what people who are in that situation do? Some of them will just commit suicide and be done with it.

But there's a certain sub-group, who will refuse to go quietly - they want to inflict upon the world, the same misery that they feel the world has inflicted upon them. They are often quite smart and find clever ways to inflict said misery.

I think those that blindly scoff at the Incels are not only not helping the issue, but may be inflaming the issue.

But as I said, although I think somewhere in their rantings there may be some form or part of legitimate grievance, I don't know where it is - and I agree with you that there is some major issues with them.

Graystone

29th May 2018, 19:29

There's one key problem with that statement - whilst they could be done by a normal person, the fact is that they weren't. And the time frame for at least 3 of them was one of 3-5 years, so it's not like multiple other people didn't have a crack at it.

I can agree with the rational and constructive part - right up until that doesn't work, that's when being an "insufferable cunt" really helps.

Why do you think Disagreeability is so high in said industry?

Are you sure that's a good solution?

You've got people who are bitter at the world and you want the world to mock them - Do you know what people who are in that situation do? Some of them will just commit suicide and be done with it.

But there's a certain sub-group, who will refuse to go quietly - they want to inflict upon the world, the same misery that they feel the world has inflicted upon them. They are often quite smart and find clever ways to inflict said misery.

I think those that blindly scoff at the Incels are not only not helping the issue, but may be inflaming the issue.

But as I said, although I think somewhere in their rantings there may be some form or part of legitimate grievance, I don't know where it is - and I agree with you that there is some major issues with them.

That's a question of motivation then, correlation does not imply causation. If rational/constructive isn't working, trying anything else is just a cop out.

You think Incels have a legitmate greivance? Are you serious? It's a hate group that people choose to be a part of. We should no more tolerate and legitimise that than any other hate groups, terrorists, etc.

TheDemonLord

29th May 2018, 22:29

That's a question of motivation then, correlation does not imply causation. If rational/constructive isn't working, trying anything else is just a cop out.

You can interpret it however you wish, but I can assure you - several of those that attempted to solve the issues before me were motivated. That wasn't what was required. When certain managerial types got cold feet and wanted to pull the plug on the projects - others kowtowed, I did not, because as you say: I'm an Insufferable Cunt (who just so happens to get shit done).

You think Incels have a legitmate greivance? Are you serious? It's a hate group that people choose to be a part of. We should no more tolerate and legitimise that than any other hate groups, terrorists, etc.

re-read what I wrote. I never said they HAVE a legitimate grievance. I deliberately included Nuance with what I said.

If you'll allow a bit of devil's advocate for a moment - even a Terrorist group has a legitimate grievance. That does not justify the methods used to put forward said grievance.

But back to what I said - I'm not sure about them. I've agreed they are angry and hate the world, I'm just not sure why.

It seems unlikely to me, that such a group would exist without some form of shared, common locus. At face value - that locus is the inability to get laid, problem is - that's been an issue for various groups of young men throughout time.

Yet this is the first time we've seen such a group form - we didn't see it with the so-called Nerds of the 1970s and 80s or other socially awkward groups for a given generation. So it seems that there is something unique within the last 10 or so years that has caused something deeper. I've got a couple of ideas of possibilities - but I'm simply not sure.

Viking01

30th May 2018, 09:21

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201805291064915633-uk-brexit-frustration/

TheDemonLord

30th May 2018, 09:30

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201805291064915633-uk-brexit-frustration/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh_Og-MjWZI

Graystone

30th May 2018, 17:11

You can interpret it however you wish, but I can assure you - several of those that attempted to solve the issues before me were motivated. That wasn't what was required. When certain managerial types got cold feet and wanted to pull the plug on the projects - others kowtowed, I did not, because as you say: I'm an Insufferable Cunt (who just so happens to get shit done).

re-read what I wrote. I never said they HAVE a legitimate grievance. I deliberately included Nuance with what I said.

If you'll allow a bit of devil's advocate for a moment - even a Terrorist group has a legitimate grievance. That does not justify the methods used to put forward said grievance.

But back to what I said - I'm not sure about them. I've agreed they are angry and hate the world, I'm just not sure why.

It seems unlikely to me, that such a group would exist without some form of shared, common locus. At face value - that locus is the inability to get laid, problem is - that's been an issue for various groups of young men throughout time.

Yet this is the first time we've seen such a group form - we didn't see it with the so-called Nerds of the 1970s and 80s or other socially awkward groups for a given generation. So it seems that there is something unique within the last 10 or so years that has caused something deeper. I've got a couple of ideas of possibilities - but I'm simply not sure.

Correlation still isn't causation, there is no 'insufferable cunt' trait that is directly linked to getting shit done.

The inference was there...
The internet is likely the common locus, whereby such individuals can connect with others to form such hate groups in echo chambers which would never have been possible elsewhere due to the derision they would get just from trying that shit.

Katman

30th May 2018, 18:58

Correlation still isn't causation, there is no 'insufferable cunt' trait that is directly linked to getting shit done.

The inference was there...
The internet is likely the common locus, whereby such individuals can connect with others to form such hate groups in echo chambers which would never have been possible elsewhere due to the derision they would get just from trying that shit.

Dude, if you're really trying to pass yourself off as someone else you really shouldn't continue to sound exactly like bogan.

husaberg

30th May 2018, 19:08

Dude, if you're really trying to pass yourself off as someone else you really shouldn't continue to sound exactly like bogan.

Yes Cassina.........

Seems to be too many riders going and spoiling those rides by going and getting themselves killed though.
I'd rather see this site make an attempt to address a problem and run the risk of not getting it absolutely right than simply burying it's head in the sand. Perhaps BRONZ should take note.

(Having said all that, I think this Group Ride Guide is spot on).

A significant percentage of group rides are still conducted in a manner that makes them indistinguishable from a road race.
So yes, trying to match the pace of others is a major contributor to crashes that occur on that type of group ride.

Graystone

30th May 2018, 19:11

Dude, if you're really trying to pass yourself off as someone else you really shouldn't continue to sound exactly like bogan.

would a lower pitch help?

Did you guys have a thing? He hasn't posted for nearly a year and you're still banging on about him...

TheDemonLord

30th May 2018, 20:29

Correlation still isn't causation, there is no 'insufferable cunt' trait that is directly linked to getting shit done.

As I said - feel free to re-interpret in ways that maintain your narrative. The reality is, I'm happy to have the shit-fight with upper-management (just as I'm happy to have shit-fights here). That was in many cases, exactly what the difference between me actually completing a project and someone else failing to complete it.

The inference was there...

It really wasn't. Maybe in your preferred interpretation, but certainly not in what I wrote.

The internet is likely the common locus, whereby such individuals can connect with others to form such hate groups in echo chambers which would never have been possible elsewhere due to the derision they would get just from trying that shit.

Interesting theory - but I don't think it's entirely right. I'm sure that the Internet has a hand in it, but Hate groups preceded the Internet. Possibly the rise of easy-access Internet Porn may have something to do with it. Neither of those however I think accounts for the absolute resentment, which makes me think there is something else.

ellipsis

30th May 2018, 20:42

...bye bye everyone...

husaberg

30th May 2018, 21:02

...bye bye everyone...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5ecvBaqHBk
If it was steve it would be the Nsync one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo-KmOd3i7s

Woodman

30th May 2018, 21:12

...bye bye everyone...

Where are we going?

Graystone

31st May 2018, 21:14

As I said - feel free to re-interpret in ways that maintain your narrative. The reality is, I'm happy to have the shit-fight with upper-management (just as I'm happy to have shit-fights here). That was in many cases, exactly what the difference between me actually completing a project and someone else failing to complete it.

It really wasn't. Maybe in your preferred interpretation, but certainly not in what I wrote.

Interesting theory - but I don't think it's entirely right. I'm sure that the Internet has a hand in it, but Hate groups preceded the Internet. Possibly the rise of easy-access Internet Porn may have something to do with it. Neither of those however I think accounts for the absolute resentment, which makes me think there is something else.

It is only responsible to interpret the data in ways to fit multiple narratives (it's called being open minded). Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. This isn't the 80s or 90s when it was acceptable to have combative work environments, we've learnt productivity in any sort of skilled or creative job requires respect and trust.

Lighten up, it was a jab at your prolific use of inferencing to create strawmen arguments; too subtle I guess.

Crazy fuckers have always been part of society, the internet allows them to clump together and 'validate' their craziness. Misogynistic upbringing/exposure, low success with women (see previous point for reasons why), very low portion of sanity, and online echo chambers. What more do you think is required for such absolute resentment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyGOYA-U_uc

Banditbandit

1st June 2018, 10:12

Post #87

BB / DL,
An Interesting discussion. Thanks.

One question to DL. You mention that dictatorships have always implemented
a left wing ideology. Can you give me an example or three to illustrate ?

Cheers,
Viking

This was a while ago - sorry - I missed it.

Not quite - the Communists have always implemented a dictatorship.

I cannot think of a single example of a revolution that has occurred as Marx predicted. The intellectuals have always attempted to bring in communism - not realising that they will always fail in the way they attempt it - and then they have to enforce their ideas on the people - at gunpoint - a dictatorship.

TheDemonLord

5th June 2018, 10:21

Sorry - I missed your last response - how rude of me:

It is only responsible to interpret the data in ways to fit multiple narratives (it's called being open minded).

Except there are multiple data points that you are not privy to, that I am - which I cannot expand upon here which invalidate those other narratives.

As I said, you are free to handwaive things to maintain what you wish to be true, but to assert that it is a responsible interpretation of data, based solely on your preconceived notions is what we call Bias.

Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one.

Oh no you don't - I've been at my current company for not that long - all of the problems to which I speak of predate my arrival (some by several years), you're simply making shit up to fit the reality you wish to project onto me.

But to talk quickly about the preferable option - you are putting the cart before the horse my friend. The preferable option would be that I had time, resources and authority to complete all the outstanding tasks that I have the skills, experience and drive to fix.

There are issues at this company that have not been dealt with because of certain personalities in upper management. These issues (with the passage of time) have grown more and more pressing (as OSes go from LTS to Zero support). With a good number of them, I've looked at them, come up with solutions, presented those solutions and then proceeded with them. When you are moving a service from a server that is 18 years old and running a server version that is 7 major releases behind the current OS version - you are going to have issues.

Now, in the presentation to Management I'd accounted for this and set the expectation we are going to get some issues and some of those will generate complaints. It is an inevitability with the scale of the work that we are doing. However, after a couple of high-profile complaints and to give you an idea of scale - on one particular project - of the ~6000 sites and services that we needed to move, we had about 10-20 complaints that resulted in a credit, and of those 5 were escalated up to senior management.

Based on those 5 - certain managers wanted to stop the project "Too much risk", "Problem with the process" - when we had about ~600 sites and services left to migrate.

This is the key part that you need to understand: There is a causal link here - the reason that the problems had grown to the point where heavy-handed migration was required, was because of an unhealthy aversion to risk. Systems had been left in half-migrated states because of Risk aversion, this risk aversion in turn makes the problem worse and worse over time.

This is where, once all other options have been exhausted, the Insufferable Cunt comes in to play - I'm happy to have the shit-fight required to tell those certain management types in no uncertain terms to piss off and let us finish the work as intended.

Now, as I'm sure most of KB is aware of now - I happen to be rather good at tenaciously arguing a point, much more-so than any of my predecessors. And that is why I was the only one who actually completed the work and those that came before more weren't able to. Because I'm an insufferable Cunt (when required).

For the final piece of the puzzle (to try and give you a clear understanding) because of the greater principle I was working towards, I've made our T1 teams job much easier - they are no longer trying to support services across 5 different versions of OS, the services have been deployed using automated scripts so that each server within the platform is identically (and correctly) setup.

We've been able to deploy additional features for our customer base that we weren't able to do so before (due to problems with one or 2 of the older servers within the previous environment).

That is the outcome that is preferable. The goal is, and always will be, providing the most reliable, feature-rich, price competitive product to the Customer, in a manner that our support teams can provide the best possible support, with the shortest delay to resolution.

And sometimes, the only way to achieve THAT goal, is to be an insufferable cunt. Some of the time.

This isn't the 80s or 90s when it was acceptable to have combative work environments, we've learnt productivity in any sort of skilled or creative job requires respect and trust.

It's interesting to look at the number of companies that were reported to have a combative element in the work place - a good number of them were also very successful.

Lighten up, it was a jab at your prolific use of inferencing to create strawmen arguments; too subtle I guess.

Bull.
Shit.
You got caught.
You got called.

Crazy fuckers have always been part of society, the internet allows them to clump together and 'validate' their craziness.

There's a flaw in your logic, whilst I concede the internet makes it easier to clump together, there are multiple groups of 'crazy fuckers' who clumped together well before the advent of the internet. So I don't entirely buy that.

Misogynistic upbringing/exposure,

Are you saying that society is more Misogynistic than say 50 years ago? or 100 years ago? Cause that's what you need to claim in order for that statement to be true. Compared to every other society that has ever existed (so not a hypothetical utopia) we are the least Misogynistic society that has ever been. So I don't buy that.

low success with women (see previous point for reasons why), very low portion of sanity, and online echo chambers. What more do you think is required for such absolute resentment?

I think (and I'll preface this with I'm far from certain) - that those grounds aren't enough for resentment. disheartening, sure. But not resentment.

I'm going to go on a tangent for a second - but assume you are a Prisoner in a camp and you have a guard who is determined to torment you. They force you to build a wall. Even though the conditions may be appalling, they may be abusive etc. you can still take a degree of pride in seeing the finished product, the fruits of your labour.

And so, truly malevolent guards who want to torture prisoners in every aspect would force the prisoners to work, but it wouldn't be work in aid of a goal (such as carrying heavy bags from one end of the courtyard, then back again etc. till they collapsed) - denying them the satisfaction of job well done.

Back to the Incels - I believe the above phenomana may explain the resentment. Assume you are a young man - you are told that to get a Companion (because I suspect that underneath the sexual desire, there is a deep desire for companionship) you've got to follow the rules of the dating game: Dress nicely, work out etc. etc. and there is a social contract of sorts that by successfully completing these requirements, you will become a desirable companion.

Assume for the moment that you devote a good proportion of your time and effort to play by the rules of this game, only to be continually rebuffed and rebuked - this is where I think the true resentment comes, because you've upheld your end of the implied social contract but society hasn't upheld their end.

I also think that a shift in what is being touted a desirable in Men has a lot to answer for. There's been a move away from traditionally 'Manly Men' (think the 80's action movie classics), to something more 'tame' and dare I say it more 'effeminate' - there's been some serious scientific research on this http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122412472340 and from the abstract:

debate about the consequences of shifts to more egalitarian relationships, and media interest in the debate has crystallized around claims that men who participate in housework get more sex.

Results show that both husbands and wives in couples with more traditional housework arrangements report higher sexual frequency, suggesting the importance of gender display rather than marital exchange for sex between heterosexual married partners.

I think in those 2 statements is the resentment - young men are being told to play by a set of rules that don't work.

But to re-clarify, I'm not certain on this - it does seem to me that this cultural shift in the last 10-15 years does somewhat line up with the formative years of the people who are now calling themselves incels and it is a change that we haven't seen before and so may explain a phenomena that we haven't seen before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyGOYA-U_uc

Hmm, a quasi-political show, with a focus on entertainment as opposed to hard facts and data - what an excellent source for information.

However - the comments section is some rather interesting reading - a large number of people are echoing my original statement - treating them with derision won't solve the issue.

There's some other comments that talk about if we discuss this as a purely mental health issue, there's a blatant double standard - we wouldn't be laughing and deriding this group if it was made of Women. We'd be taking the issue seriously. I happen to think that this phenomena is part of the problem.

Katman

5th June 2018, 11:39

Assume for the moment that you devote a good proportion of your time and effort to play by the rules of this game, only to be continually rebuffed and rebuked - this is where I think the true resentment comes, because you've upheld your end of the implied social contract but society hasn't upheld their end.

Or maybe they're just insufferable cunts.

TheDemonLord

5th June 2018, 12:39

Or maybe they're just insufferable cunts.

Maybe - but again, Insufferable Cunts have existed long before the rise of Incels.

Katman

5th June 2018, 12:56

Maybe - but again, Insufferable Cunts have existed long before the rise of Incels.

Maybe they're just New Age insufferable cunts then.

TheDemonLord

5th June 2018, 13:34

Maybe they're just New Age insufferable cunts then.

So what changed?

Every other group of insufferable cunts throughout history hasn't produced something akin to the Incels.

Something within our western society has changed to produce this reaction.

Katman

5th June 2018, 13:51

Banditbandit

5th June 2018, 14:25

So what changed?

Every other group of insufferable cunts throughout history hasn't produced something akin to the Incels.

Something within our western society has changed to produce this reaction.

Yeah - they developed a sense of entitlement - "I can't get laid - Oh Oh Oh - I'm entitled .. I will set up an under-privileged position .. "

Well fuck me ... actually no - I don't want to fuck them either ..

TheDemonLord

5th June 2018, 15:06

Society is becoming over-run by whiny little fucks.

It's not just this place.

And why do you think that is?

FWIW - I think you are partly correct, but I also think you are describing the symptom, not the cause, I think it's deeper than that.

TheDemonLord

5th June 2018, 15:09

Yeah - they developed a sense of entitlement - "I can't get laid - Oh Oh Oh - I'm entitled .. I will set up an under-privileged position .. "

Well fuck me ... actually no - I don't want to fuck them either ..

Same question to you Bandit - why do you think they developed said sense of entitlement?

I think Entitlement has something to do with it, but I think it's a very shallow explanation of the behaviour. As I've said - I think that there is something much more fundamentally wrong here.

Katman

5th June 2018, 15:36

And why do you think that is?

It's all part of the Zionist plans.

TheDemonLord

5th June 2018, 15:42

It's all part of the Zionist plans.

And how do you get from Whiny fucks to Zionist plans?

Personally, I don't think Zionism has got anything remotely to do with it, but as I above - I think you are partly right on the whiny part, I'm interested in where you go from there.

Katman

5th June 2018, 16:07

And how do you get from Whiny fucks to Zionist plans?

Everything comes back to Zionist plans.

TheDemonLord

5th June 2018, 16:49

Everything comes back to Zionist plans.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/facepalm.gif

Graystone

6th June 2018, 20:41

Sorry - I missed your last response - how rude of me:

Except there are multiple data points that you are not privy to, that I am - which I cannot expand upon here which invalidate those other narratives.

As I said, you are free to handwaive things to maintain what you wish to be true, but to assert that it is a responsible interpretation of data, based solely on your preconceived notions is what we call Bias.

Oh no you don't - I've been at my current company for not that long - all of the problems to which I speak of predate my arrival (some by several years), you're simply making shit up to fit the reality you wish to project onto me.

But to talk quickly about the preferable option - you are putting the cart before the horse my friend. The preferable option would be that I had time, resources and authority to complete all the outstanding tasks that I have the skills, experience and drive to fix.

There are issues at this company that have not been dealt with because of certain personalities in upper management. These issues (with the passage of time) have grown more and more pressing (as OSes go from LTS to Zero support). With a good number of them, I've looked at them, come up with solutions, presented those solutions and then proceeded with them. When you are moving a service from a server that is 18 years old and running a server version that is 7 major releases behind the current OS version - you are going to have issues.

Now, in the presentation to Management I'd accounted for this and set the expectation we are going to get some issues and some of those will generate complaints. It is an inevitability with the scale of the work that we are doing. However, after a couple of high-profile complaints and to give you an idea of scale - on one particular project - of the ~6000 sites and services that we needed to move, we had about 10-20 complaints that resulted in a credit, and of those 5 were escalated up to senior management.

Based on those 5 - certain managers wanted to stop the project "Too much risk", "Problem with the process" - when we had about ~600 sites and services left to migrate.

This is the key part that you need to understand: There is a causal link here - the reason that the problems had grown to the point where heavy-handed migration was required, was because of an unhealthy aversion to risk. Systems had been left in half-migrated states because of Risk aversion, this risk aversion in turn makes the problem worse and worse over time.

This is where, once all other options have been exhausted, the Insufferable Cunt comes in to play - I'm happy to have the shit-fight required to tell those certain management types in no uncertain terms to piss off and let us finish the work as intended.

Now, as I'm sure most of KB is aware of now - I happen to be rather good at tenaciously arguing a point, much more-so than any of my predecessors. And that is why I was the only one who actually completed the work and those that came before more weren't able to. Because I'm an insufferable Cunt (when required).

For the final piece of the puzzle (to try and give you a clear understanding) because of the greater principle I was working towards, I've made our T1 teams job much easier - they are no longer trying to support services across 5 different versions of OS, the services have been deployed using automated scripts so that each server within the platform is identically (and correctly) setup.

We've been able to deploy additional features for our customer base that we weren't able to do so before (due to problems with one or 2 of the older servers within the previous environment).

That is the outcome that is preferable. The goal is, and always will be, providing the most reliable, feature-rich, price competitive product to the Customer, in a manner that our support teams can provide the best possible support, with the shortest delay to resolution.

And sometimes, the only way to achieve THAT goal, is to be an insufferable cunt. Some of the time.

It's interesting to look at the number of companies that were reported to have a combative element in the work place - a good number of them were also very successful.

Bull.
Shit.
You got caught.
You got called.

There's a flaw in your logic, whilst I concede the internet makes it easier to clump together, there are multiple groups of 'crazy fuckers' who clumped together well before the advent of the internet. So I don't entirely buy that.

Are you saying that society is more Misogynistic than say 50 years ago? or 100 years ago? Cause that's what you need to claim in order for that statement to be true. Compared to every other society that has ever existed (so not a hypothetical utopia) we are the least Misogynistic society that has ever been. So I don't buy that.

I think (and I'll preface this with I'm far from certain) - that those grounds aren't enough for resentment. disheartening, sure. But not resentment.

I'm going to go on a tangent for a second - but assume you are a Prisoner in a camp and you have a guard who is determined to torment you. They force you to build a wall. Even though the conditions may be appalling, they may be abusive etc. you can still take a degree of pride in seeing the finished product, the fruits of your labour.

And so, truly malevolent guards who want to torture prisoners in every aspect would force the prisoners to work, but it wouldn't be work in aid of a goal (such as carrying heavy bags from one end of the courtyard, then back again etc. till they collapsed) - denying them the satisfaction of job well done.

Back to the Incels - I believe the above phenomana may explain the resentment. Assume you are a young man - you are told that to get a Companion (because I suspect that underneath the sexual desire, there is a deep desire for companionship) you've got to follow the rules of the dating game: Dress nicely, work out etc. etc. and there is a social contract of sorts that by successfully completing these requirements, you will become a desirable companion.

Assume for the moment that you devote a good proportion of your time and effort to play by the rules of this game, only to be continually rebuffed and rebuked - this is where I think the true resentment comes, because you've upheld your end of the implied social contract but society hasn't upheld their end.

I also think that a shift in what is being touted a desirable in Men has a lot to answer for. There's been a move away from traditionally 'Manly Men' (think the 80's action movie classics), to something more 'tame' and dare I say it more 'effeminate' - there's been some serious scientific research on this http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122412472340 and from the abstract:

I think in those 2 statements is the resentment - young men are being told to play by a set of rules that don't work.

But to re-clarify, I'm not certain on this - it does seem to me that this cultural shift in the last 10-15 years does somewhat line up with the formative years of the people who are now calling themselves incels and it is a change that we haven't seen before and so may explain a phenomena that we haven't seen before.

Hmm, a quasi-political show, with a focus on entertainment as opposed to hard facts and data - what an excellent source for information.

However - the comments section is some rather interesting reading - a large number of people are echoing my original statement - treating them with derision won't solve the issue.

There's some other comments that talk about if we discuss this as a purely mental health issue, there's a blatant double standard - we wouldn't be laughing and deriding this group if it was made of Women. We'd be taking the issue seriously. I happen to think that this phenomena is part of the problem.

Ah, how convenient. Pretty sure there is an 'argument from' for that bullshit. It's a notion based on the data presented... you cry that only you are privy to the 'real data', bit of a cop out there.

TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that.

The whole premise that if you 'play the game' you will get a 'companion' sounds like misogynistic bullshit to me. Women are not prizes or rewards, they're our equals, don't treat them like a commodity.

We deride feminist extremists, is this not much the same thing?

TheDemonLord

8th June 2018, 09:21

Ah, how convenient. Pretty sure there is an 'argument from' for that bullshit. It's a notion based on the data presented... you cry that only you are privy to the 'real data', bit of a cop out there.

I'm pretty sure it's not - it's impossible for me to relay the thousands of interactions I have with the staff members at my company, then to give the context, history etc. Only I can know that.

Those details invalidate one of your premises. Since I am an authority on my life, it's not an Argument from Authority - that's the nth time you've tried to use that fallacy and failed. You really should learn how it works.

You can try and argue something for which you do not have the data for if you wish, just that it's a piss-weak argument, and you know it.

TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that.

The problem predates my arrival at the company - therefore that entire statement is false. I tried to explain it to you, but clearly you don't want to read something which invalidates you premises.

The whole premise that if you 'play the game' you will get a 'companion' sounds like misogynistic bullshit to me. Women are not prizes or rewards, they're our equals, don't treat them like a commodity.

Nice Bait and Switch there - re-read what I said, I was rather careful on the wording:

"you will become a desirable companion"

That is not the same as "you will get a 'companion'". And the difference is very important.

Maybe you are hearing "misogynistic bullshit" because that's what you want to hear...

The point that was made is what is being touted as desirable, really isn't desirable - and so in effect, the game is corrupt - there's no way to win. What do people do when a system is Corrupt? They want to destroy it - Enter stage left, Incels.

We deride feminist extremists, is this not much the same thing?

Do we? To the same degree? Can you provide proof of that, from a major TV show - like the one you posted?

Graystone

8th June 2018, 20:05

I'm pretty sure it's not - it's impossible for me to relay the thousands of interactions I have with the staff members at my company, then to give the context, history etc. Only I can know that.

Those details invalidate one of your premises. Since I am an authority on my life, it's not an Argument from Authority - that's the nth time you've tried to use that fallacy and failed. You really should learn how it works.

You can try and argue something for which you do not have the data for if you wish, just that it's a piss-weak argument, and you know it.

The problem predates my arrival at the company - therefore that entire statement is false. I tried to explain it to you, but clearly you don't want to read something which invalidates you premises.

Nice Bait and Switch there - re-read what I said, I was rather careful on the wording:

"you will become a desirable companion"

That is not the same as "you will get a 'companion'". And the difference is very important.

Maybe you are hearing "misogynistic bullshit" because that's what you want to hear...

The point that was made is what is being touted as desirable, really isn't desirable - and so in effect, the game is corrupt - there's no way to win. What do people do when a system is Corrupt? They want to destroy it - Enter stage left, Incels.

Do we? To the same degree? Can you provide proof of that, from a major TV show - like the one you posted?

Then your datapoint is inadmissible.

Simply repeating you assertions may comfort you that you are 'right', but as per the capital gains tax, unless you are willing to reopen the discussion, all it shows is how irrational your way of thinking is.

There was ambiguity, let me clarify that. TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously now a part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that.

What game and what touting? What system is corrupt? It sounds awfully like you are inferring a bunch of shit again, I'd make a subtle jab about that, but apparently you don't understand those...

"you are told that to get a Companion (because I suspect that underneath the sexual desire, there is a deep desire for companionship) you've got to follow the rules of the dating game: Dress nicely, work out etc. etc." that is the sentence to which I inferred said premise. The following one specifies by doing things you will be a desirable companion, but does not negate the premise as told.

The degree is clearly subjective, it doesn't seem like a point worth debating given your obvious bias. You always ask Katman, what is your burden of proof, and deride him for going off on the next point when this is provided, perhaps turn that around and elaborate on what your burden of proof for this would be, so it isn't so subjective...

TheDemonLord

9th June 2018, 14:04

Then your datapoint is inadmissible.

Not at all, think of it as Eye witness testimony. Perfectly Admissible.

Simply repeating you assertions may comfort you that you are 'right', but as per the capital gains tax, unless you are willing to reopen the discussion, all it shows is how irrational your way of thinking is.

And simply repeating your conjecture (despite being told it's incorrect) is clearly of equal Comfort to you.

In regards to to Capital Gains - depends, are you willing to accept we use a FRBS yet? Are you willing to accept the correct definition of income (from your own sources), not the made up one you used to bolster your argument?

There was ambiguity, let me clarify that. TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously now a part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that.

Maybe if you read it, you'd understand why you are both wrong and why it's a justification.

Let me be blunt - since I've arrived, I've fixed a lot of of those pre-existing problems (and hopefully this monday will finally get to decommission another Server 2000 instance) - you can try some manager waffle about toxic culture, but without living my life - it's all baseless conjecture.

The bottom line is (back to your original point) is the only way that has been successful to achieve some of the projects that have been on the company's risk registers, project lists etc. etc. in some cases for 5+ years - was for me to be an insufferable Cunt.

Linking back to your above rejection of my experience of my own life (something I happen to be the world leading authority on), the only reason to do so is to avoid conceding that sometimes Insufferable Cunts are the only ones who can get certain shit done.

What game and what touting? What system is corrupt? It sounds awfully like you are inferring a bunch of shit again, I'd make a subtle jab about that, but apparently you don't understand those...

The Dating game. And the shift in what has been portrayed as the ideal of Masculinity. Compare say Dutch from the Predator film (an example of Hyper-Masculinity) to Fin in The force awakens, Or compare the likes of the trains from Thomas the Tank engine (the original books) to something like the case of Daniel Tiger. Hell - there's even a theory for it "Crisis of Masculinity".

If you really want to delve deep - the Archetypal Hero (the "Ideal" man) has remained relatively unchanged across cultures and across time (this is where we get the meta-narrative of the Hero's Journey from)

In recent times, we've seen a major push back against that - such as the Bechdal test, the rise in "Toxic Masculinity" claims, various groups of men declaring themselves "allies" to various activist causes - with grand gestures and proclamations that they are "safe" and "harmless" (which is doubly hilarious when it turns out that many of them are just trying to mask their predatory urges)

The ideal man has changed from "the Soldier who tends to his garden" to something weak, non-threatening and harmless. And it is that system that is corrupt, because the majority of Women don't find that attractive - case in point, the biggest selling Erotic novel EVER was about a powerful, dominant man who gets civilized/tamed by the female protagonist (eerily similar to the meta-tale of Beauty and the Beast - and that isn't a coincidence).

In short - if you present Men an ideal, telling them that if they manifest aspects of that Ideal, that they will become more desirable to their desired partner - and that this is true. Then those who fail to manifest that ideal can only blame themselves. The game is fair, the rules are fair.

If, however, you present Men an ideal, with the same premise, but manifesting these traits DOESN'T make them more desirable (in fact, it makes them less desirable) - then the game is corrupt, the rules of the game ensure that you loose the game.

"you are told that to get a Companion (because I suspect that underneath the sexual desire, there is a deep desire for companionship) you've got to follow the rules of the dating game: Dress nicely, work out etc. etc." that is the sentence to which I inferred said premise. The following one specifies by doing things you will be a desirable companion, but does not negate the premise as told.

It absolutely does not follow, because (and here's the kicker) that door swings both ways - Are women Misandrist for putting on Makeup or provocative outfits (you know - things which will make them a desirable companion)?

Cause that's what you are essentially arguing, just in reverse.

I'll break it down real simple like: Men and Women do things to increase their chances of both getting laid and finding a partner.

The men as Misogynistic as the women are misandrist for wanting to do so. I'll let you decide how much you think that is.

The degree is clearly subjective, it doesn't seem like a point worth debating given your obvious bias. You always ask Katman, what is your burden of proof, and deride him for going off on the next point when this is provided, perhaps turn that around and elaborate on what your burden of proof for this would be, so it isn't so subjective...

Gender portrayals of Men over the last 20-30 years, Increase in Male suicide rates, Male abandonment of education (and the education system in general being more and more tilted towards Girls), The global phenomena of Jordan Peterson, Articles in major news publications that push demonstrably false data (see the articles about women finding men doing housework sexy, when the reverse is true), The gender reading gap (and some of the theories on it's cause), the continued pushing of the Gender Pay Gay (which pretty much vanishes when all the measurable metrics that account for a difference in earning are factored in), The promotion of the 1 in 4 campus Rape Myth (which got to the point where the author of the Study that this claim was sourced from had to tell people to stop abusing her study), Compulsory Sexual consent courses (only for men though), Any advertisement for Domestic Violence (where the perpetrator is almost 100% shown to be a Man beating a women, despite the fact that Women hit their partners more often in a relationship).

Is that enough for you? Or is that all just bias?

Now, I'll grant you - it's a massively complex social issue, and I don't have discrete data points for the overall claim. However, there have been studies done based on this emerging social phenomena (such as the Housework study) - coupled with other data points which suggest a degree of Causation.

In regards to Subjectivity - I'll concede some of it has a more broad interpretation than others and some of it is does have a degree of Conjecture. Compared to all the other explanations, it's the only one that fits the timeline and is the only one that has changed recently.

Katman

9th June 2018, 14:35

The global phenomena of Jordan Peterson,

Really? I'd never heard of him until you started raving on about him.

He probably features somewhere on the Autism spectrum as well.

TheDemonLord

9th June 2018, 16:22

Really? I'd never heard of him until you started raving on about him.

He probably features somewhere on the Autism spectrum as well.

Well, considering he's probably not featured high in Conspiracies Monthly, doesn't surprise me.

As for Autism, hah - if you'd watched any of his stuff, you'd understand why that's so laughable

- Also, the fact you have heard of him (even if it is through me) kinda proves the point...

Katman

9th June 2018, 18:15

Also, the fact you have heard of him (even if it is through me) kinda proves the point...

Really?

You think the fact that you've mentioned him on KB confirms your claim that he's a 'global phenomenon'?

Maybe it's just another manifestation of your neurological disorder.

Graystone

9th June 2018, 19:30

Not at all, think of it as Eye witness testimony. Perfectly Admissible.

And simply repeating your conjecture (despite being told it's incorrect) is clearly of equal Comfort to you.

In regards to to Capital Gains - depends, are you willing to accept we use a FRBS yet? Are you willing to accept the correct definition of income (from your own sources), not the made up one you used to bolster your argument?

Maybe if you read it, you'd understand why you are both wrong and why it's a justification.

Let me be blunt - since I've arrived, I've fixed a lot of of those pre-existing problems (and hopefully this monday will finally get to decommission another Server 2000 instance) - you can try some manager waffle about toxic culture, but without living my life - it's all baseless conjecture.

The bottom line is (back to your original point) is the only way that has been successful to achieve some of the projects that have been on the company's risk registers, project lists etc. etc. in some cases for 5+ years - was for me to be an insufferable Cunt.

Linking back to your above rejection of my experience of my own life (something I happen to be the world leading authority on), the only reason to do so is to avoid conceding that sometimes Insufferable Cunts are the only ones who can get certain shit done.

The Dating game. And the shift in what has been portrayed as the ideal of Masculinity. Compare say Dutch from the Predator film (an example of Hyper-Masculinity) to Fin in The force awakens, Or compare the likes of the trains from Thomas the Tank engine (the original books) to something like the case of Daniel Tiger. Hell - there's even a theory for it "Crisis of Masculinity".

If you really want to delve deep - the Archetypal Hero (the "Ideal" man) has remained relatively unchanged across cultures and across time (this is where we get the meta-narrative of the Hero's Journey from)

In recent times, we've seen a major push back against that - such as the Bechdal test, the rise in "Toxic Masculinity" claims, various groups of men declaring themselves "allies" to various activist causes - with grand gestures and proclamations that they are "safe" and "harmless" (which is doubly hilarious when it turns out that many of them are just trying to mask their predatory urges)

The ideal man has changed from "the Soldier who tends to his garden" to something weak, non-threatening and harmless. And it is that system that is corrupt, because the majority of Women don't find that attractive - case in point, the biggest selling Erotic novel EVER was about a powerful, dominant man who gets civilized/tamed by the female protagonist (eerily similar to the meta-tale of Beauty and the Beast - and that isn't a coincidence).

In short - if you present Men an ideal, telling them that if they manifest aspects of that Ideal, that they will become more desirable to their desired partner - and that this is true. Then those who fail to manifest that ideal can only blame themselves. The game is fair, the rules are fair.

If, however, you present Men an ideal, with the same premise, but manifesting these traits DOESN'T make them more desirable (in fact, it makes them less desirable) - then the game is corrupt, the rules of the game ensure that you loose the game.

It absolutely does not follow, because (and here's the kicker) that door swings both ways - Are women Misandrist for putting on Makeup or provocative outfits (you know - things which will make them a desirable companion)?

Cause that's what you are essentially arguing, just in reverse.

I'll break it down real simple like: Men and Women do things to increase their chances of both getting laid and finding a partner.

The men as Misogynistic as the women are misandrist for wanting to do so. I'll let you decide how much you think that is.

Gender portrayals of Men over the last 20-30 years, Increase in Male suicide rates, Male abandonment of education (and the education system in general being more and more tilted towards Girls), The global phenomena of Jordan Peterson, Articles in major news publications that push demonstrably false data (see the articles about women finding men doing housework sexy, when the reverse is true), The gender reading gap (and some of the theories on it's cause), the continued pushing of the Gender Pay Gay (which pretty much vanishes when all the measurable metrics that account for a difference in earning are factored in), The promotion of the 1 in 4 campus Rape Myth (which got to the point where the author of the Study that this claim was sourced from had to tell people to stop abusing her study), Compulsory Sexual consent courses (only for men though), Any advertisement for Domestic Violence (where the perpetrator is almost 100% shown to be a Man beating a women, despite the fact that Women hit their partners more often in a relationship).

Is that enough for you? Or is that all just bias?

Now, I'll grant you - it's a massively complex social issue, and I don't have discrete data points for the overall claim. However, there have been studies done based on this emerging social phenomena (such as the Housework study) - coupled with other data points which suggest a degree of Causation.

In regards to Subjectivity - I'll concede some of it has a more broad interpretation than others and some of it is does have a degree of Conjecture. Compared to all the other explanations, it's the only one that fits the timeline and is the only one that has changed recently.

Eye witness testimony is often pretty shit and inadmissible when bias is shown, so yes, I will think of it as that :sunny:

I'm willing to further discuss it to a conclusion, are you willing to do that same? Or just continue to make self delusional assertions and demand I agree to them...

TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously now a part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that. A pre existing problem means the thing only an insufferable cunt can do, should not need doing in the first place; band aid at best, not a solution.

You're reading to much into it, there is no 'dating game' presented to men as you describe, there's shit around which is suggestive of those things, and shit which is suggestive of other things as well. Incels have no rational justification for their hatred of women, I maintain these fuckwits should be exposed and met only with derision as other hate groups and terrorists.

Stop inferencing bullshit. Misogyny has nothing to do with the desire to get laid; it has everything to do with the treatment of the opposite sex in this endeavor.

That's all drivel, what is your actual burden of proof, something that can be established before finding it, to avoid confirmation bias (like that big list of drivel).

TheDemonLord

9th June 2018, 20:14

Really?

You think the fact that you've mentioned him on KB confirms your claim that he's a 'global phenomenon'?

Maybe it's just another manifestation of your neurological disorder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Rules_for_Life#release

Number 1 bestselling book in Amazon for the US and Canada, number 4 in the UK.

A Viral interview with Cathy Newman, doing a global tour selling out 1,000+ seat venues, ranked number 9 on the list of Patreon creators: https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators

He's appeared on various MSM programming - including Bill Maher's show, Channel 4 in the UK, BBC programs, Australian programs, even did an interview for RadioNZ, He's hitting nearly 6 million views a month on Youtube, he's been on the Joe Rogan experience 3 times (which is the most widely listened to Podcast)

So yeah, it's clearly another manifestion of YOUR "neurological disorder(s)"

MarkH

10th June 2018, 12:28

Maybe it's just another manifestation of your neurological disorder.

LOL - Katman talking about someone else's neurological disorder?
I can just taste the irony!

TheDemonLord

11th June 2018, 10:09

Eye witness testimony is often pretty shit and inadmissible when bias is shown, so yes, I will think of it as that :sunny:

Actually - I had a look (cause I was interested) there is nothing I could find where a judge is allowed to rule eye witness testimony inadmissible due to Bias.

There's a lot of literature about Juries being instructed on how they should evaluate eye witness testimony, but nothing about it being inadmissible.

I'm willing to further discuss it to a conclusion, are you willing to do that same? Or just continue to make self delusional assertions and demand I agree to them...

You've demonstrated you don't understand either how the NZ economy works or how basic accounting works, What conclusion could you seek? It's the same as trying to have a conclusion when discussing Physics with my cat.

The problem is 2fold, not only do you think you're right (when your own sources clearly contradict your argument) but more importantly, you don't understand WHY they contradict your argument.

When you take the word of someone who has: Never held a finance job, Never obtained a degree in any finance related field, Never worked in a government department with a focus on Money over the word of someone who has: A PHD in Economics, a life-long career in Finance and was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (the highest financial office in the country) for nearly 15 years as to what type of banking system we have in NZ - That's cognitive dissonance on a level I've not seen since Yokel.

Ask yourself this - If we don't use a FRBS - why does the OCR effect interest rates?

TLDR: Your company clearly has a pre-existing problem (which you are obviously now a part of), if having a shit-fight with upper management has not only become an option, but a preferable one. A big wall of text is no justification for that. A pre existing problem means the thing only an insufferable cunt can do, should not need doing in the first place; band aid at best, not a solution.

Argumentum ad Nauseum. Simply repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true. Reality is, sometimes in life, only an insufferable Cunt can get certain things done. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with the necessity of it - but you do have to concede the reality of it. Which invalidates your original point. I've used myself as an example, there are many Hyper-successful people who are well known for being Insufferable Cunts - and a review of their life stories often reveal numerous times when they had the option to quit or take the easier road - but through sheer force of personality (aka being an Insufferable Cunt) they didn't, and continued to be successful.

You're reading to much into it, there is no 'dating game' presented to men as you describe, there's shit around which is suggestive of those things, and shit which is suggestive of other things as well.

How do you define a game? Something played between more than one individuals, with a set of rules and a known objective that constitutes a win and a loss condition.

What is dating? Something that is 'played' between more than one individuals, with a set of rules (Both Legal rules and Societal rules) and a known objective, that constitutes a win and a loss condition.

Like all games, you can play well, adhere the rules - and still loose. Interestingly enough - there's a group (known as Pickup Artists) who have attempted to extract the meta-game from dating (which is an aggregate of the most successful strategies) in order to boost their chances of winning said game.

Incels have no rational justification for their hatred of women, I maintain these fuckwits should be exposed and met only with derision as other hate groups and terrorists.

Even terrorists have (at least to themselves and their beliefs) a rational justification for their actions. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but to state it doesn't exist is to completely fail to understand them.

You can treat them with derision and try and expose them as much as you want - I think this will only make them more violent - and history shows quite clearly that angry young men who have rejected society are ever so creative in how they can manifest their absolute misanthropy.

I put forward that the way to deal with them is to give them a game where the societal rules will help them win the game, not help them loose the game. Give them an ideal to live up to that Women find attractive. I also think showing them a bit of compassion might actually help ease their feelings that society has utterly rejected them.

Stop inferencing bullshit. Misogyny has nothing to do with the desire to get laid; it has everything to do with the treatment of the opposite sex in this endeavor.

So women are Misandrist for wearing Makeup then? Or Pushup bras? Or high heels? What is your standard as to exactly where behaviour stops being acceptable and starts being unacceptable?

That's all drivel, what is your actual burden of proof, something that can be established before finding it, to avoid confirmation bias (like that big list of drivel).

Or is that all just bias?

Called it. You just went full creationist there...

"What is your burden of proof"
"Here it is"
"I don't like that, Where is your burden of proof"
"..."

Edit - okay, try this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf12daa4b1a7

This is an opinion piece, In the Washington Post (a major global news outlet). Advocating for the Hate of a particular group. Now, I want to draw your attention to this line:

Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.

This is being advocated by a minority of people - but it's being published in something as widespread and prestigious as the Washington Post. This is the standard for masculinity that this minority is trying to push. You might point out it's a single article - but I'd point to 2 things:

1: Imagine if the headline of the article didn't mention Men, it said Jews or Blacks or Immigrants or any other group of people - Do you honestly think it would be published in a million years by something as mainstream as the Washington Post? Of course it wouldn't, which means that within a mainstream viewpoint - a message like this has Tacit approval.
2: This is inline (although this is the most overt, black and white utterance I've yet seen) with other messages that are being distributed by other Media sources of similar standing, distribution and prestige.

Back to the Incels - The reality is that the majority of women quite simple don't find that attractive - the majority of women happen to like Men who are powerful and confident (see 50 shades of Grey or Mills and Boon).

Graystone

11th June 2018, 18:17

Actually - I had a look (cause I was interested) there is nothing I could find where a judge is allowed to rule eye witness testimony inadmissible due to Bias.

There's a lot of literature about Juries being instructed on how they should evaluate eye witness testimony, but nothing about it being inadmissible.

You've demonstrated you don't understand either how the NZ economy works or how basic accounting works, What conclusion could you seek? It's the same as trying to have a conclusion when discussing Physics with my cat.

The problem is 2fold, not only do you think you're right (when your own sources clearly contradict your argument) but more importantly, you don't understand WHY they contradict your argument.

When you take the word of someone who has: Never held a finance job, Never obtained a degree in any finance related field, Never worked in a government department with a focus on Money over the word of someone who has: A PHD in Economics, a life-long career in Finance and was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (the highest financial office in the country) for nearly 15 years as to what type of banking system we have in NZ - That's cognitive dissonance on a level I've not seen since Yokel.

Ask yourself this - If we don't use a FRBS - why does the OCR effect interest rates?

Argumentum ad Nauseum. Simply repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true. Reality is, sometimes in life, only an insufferable Cunt can get certain things done. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with the necessity of it - but you do have to concede the reality of it. Which invalidates your original point. I've used myself as an example, there are many Hyper-successful people who are well known for being Insufferable Cunts - and a review of their life stories often reveal numerous times when they had the option to quit or take the easier road - but through sheer force of personality (aka being an Insufferable Cunt) they didn't, and continued to be successful.

How do you define a game? Something played between more than one individuals, with a set of rules and a known objective that constitutes a win and a loss condition.

What is dating? Something that is 'played' between more than one individuals, with a set of rules (Both Legal rules and Societal rules) and a known objective, that constitutes a win and a loss condition.

Like all games, you can play well, adhere the rules - and still loose. Interestingly enough - there's a group (known as Pickup Artists) who have attempted to extract the meta-game from dating (which is an aggregate of the most successful strategies) in order to boost their chances of winning said game.

Even terrorists have (at least to themselves and their beliefs) a rational justification for their actions. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but to state it doesn't exist is to completely fail to understand them.

You can treat them with derision and try and expose them as much as you want - I think this will only make them more violent - and history shows quite clearly that angry young men who have rejected society are ever so creative in how they can manifest their absolute misanthropy.

I put forward that the way to deal with them is to give them a game where the societal rules will help them win the game, not help them loose the game. Give them an ideal to live up to that Women find attractive. I also think showing them a bit of compassion might actually help ease their feelings that society has utterly rejected them.

So women are Misandrist for wearing Makeup then? Or Pushup bras? Or high heels? What is your standard as to exactly where behaviour stops being acceptable and starts being unacceptable?

Called it. You just went full creationist there...

"What is your burden of proof"
"Here it is"
"I don't like that, Where is your burden of proof"
"..."

Edit - okay, try this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf12daa4b1a7

This is an opinion piece, In the Washington Post (a major global news outlet). Advocating for the Hate of a particular group. Now, I want to draw your attention to this line:

This is being advocated by a minority of people - but it's being published in something as widespread and prestigious as the Washington Post. This is the standard for masculinity that this minority is trying to push. You might point out it's a single article - but I'd point to 2 things:

1: Imagine if the headline of the article didn't mention Men, it said Jews or Blacks or Immigrants or any other group of people - Do you honestly think it would be published in a million years by something as mainstream as the Washington Post? Of course it wouldn't, which means that within a mainstream viewpoint - a message like this has Tacit approval.
2: This is inline (although this is the most overt, black and white utterance I've yet seen) with other messages that are being distributed by other Media sources of similar standing, distribution and prestige.

Back to the Incels - The reality is that the majority of women quite simple don't find that attractive - the majority of women happen to like Men who are powerful and confident (see 50 shades of Grey or Mills and Boon).

Lucky there is no judges here then...

I've demonstrated nothing of the sort, that claim is a cop out to avoid continued discussion, it is one a lot of conspiracy theorists, religious types, and other irrational people use though. The RBE is more of a grey area because while we don't use one, we used to, and what we do use can appear similar to one in form, but it is not in function. The 'simple economics' however, still bears much discussion, from memory you defined capital income as something which is not income based on capital growth; but utterly failed to provide any source to back up that assertion, even after I provided sources to back up the assertion that capital income, is income generated from appreciation of a capital asset. My sources did not contradict my own argument at all, you keep asserting they do but refuse to show how; again these are traits of an irrational mind.

The reality is that because of some cunts, insufferable cunts can get shit done, the original question was
what have you done for society that was only possible by you being such a insufferable cunt? and the answer to that is some IT drudgery which any company with decent management would have already done, or been able to do in a far less combative manner, so what has that done for society then? fuck all. Which still supports the idea that being an insufferable cunt is not a character attribute worth having...

All in the perception, people who 'play' said 'game' choose the 'rules' they 'play' by, then get frustrated cos they lost? Get a life, make better choices, and grow up I say.

To the irrational everything seems rational, that does not make it so. Terrorists and Incels do not have rational justification for their actions of hatred.

As explained, it's the treatment of the opposite sex, you just listed a bunch of things women do.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, what is your standard for your burden of proof "something that can be established before finding it". Then you instead listed a bunch more shit that you found. Unless we agree on what the standard for that burden of proof is, there is little point in examining it. You should not struggle with this concept as you have demanded similar of conspiracy theorists on this site many times, is it your 'rationality' ends when you are asked to construct a coherent point rather than tearing others' down?

Katman

11th June 2018, 19:34

Terrorists and Incels do not have rational justification for their actions of hatred.

Many 'terrorists' have a perfectly rational justification for their actions.

Remember the saying 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'?

Graystone

11th June 2018, 19:40

Many 'terrorists' have a perfectly rational justification for their actions.

Remember the saying 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'?

That's just media bias, terrorists are the ones doing terrorism, attacking civilians en mass etc; that shit is just not rational.

Katman

11th June 2018, 19:59

That's just media bias, terrorists are the ones doing terrorism, attacking civilians en mass etc; that shit is just not rational.

You really do have a narrow view on worldly affairs.

Almost childlike.

husaberg

11th June 2018, 20:08

You really do have a narrow view on worldly affairs.

Almost childlike.
That's an interesting narrative, considering your own point of view on any subject, appears to be is solely based on the conclusion that everything is the work a international cartel of boogeyman

Graystone

11th June 2018, 20:31

You really do have a narrow view on worldly affairs.

Almost childlike.

Or, just one in which the ends do not justify the means. Without exception, once you start making exceptions, where does it end? Kill a few for 'the good of the people' in a false flag attack, is that rational? How about a hundred, a thousand?

Katman

11th June 2018, 20:48

Or, just one in which the ends do not justify the means. Without exception, once you start making exceptions, where does it end? Kill a few for 'the good of the people' in a false flag attack, is that rational? How about a hundred, a thousand?

So in your eyes no-one should ever stand up against an oppressor?

Graystone

11th June 2018, 21:15

So in your eyes no-one should ever stand up against an oppressor?

Where do you get that idea? I said that terrorism and the attacks on civilians is irrational and unjustified. Standing up to oppressors do not require either of those things.

Katman

11th June 2018, 22:02

Where do you get that idea? I said that terrorism and the attacks on civilians is irrational and unjustified. Standing up to oppressors do not require either of those things.

For a start, not all acts of 'terrorism' are perpetrated on civilians.

And what if the oppressor summarily executes anyone who stands up to them?

TheDemonLord

11th June 2018, 22:29

Lucky there is no judges here then...

Quite, that would require impartiality and wisdom

I've demonstrated nothing of the sort, that claim is a cop out to avoid continued discussion, it is one a lot of conspiracy theorists, religious types, and other irrational people use though. The RBE is more of a grey area because while we don't use one, we used to, and what we do use can appear similar to one in form, but it is not in function. The 'simple economics' however, still bears much discussion, from memory you defined capital income as something which is not income based on capital growth; but utterly failed to provide any source to back up that assertion, even after I provided sources to back up the assertion that capital income, is income generated from appreciation of a capital asset. My sources did not contradict my own argument at all, you keep asserting they do but refuse to show how; again these are traits of an irrational mind.

Funny... You don't address the bulk of my rebuttal, instead choosing to address the other part. It's almost like you know that you lost on that point, so are trying the classic misdirection.

Even funnier is that you accuse me of employing the typical Conspiracy/Religious argumentation - when that is precisely what you are doing. I invoke Sargon's law.

The reality is that because of some cunts, insufferable cunts can get shit done,

Glad you agree, thanks for proving my point and invalidating your own. The rest of your waffle is inconsequential as I've proved my Insufferable Cuntness to be something of worth (and in case you are wondering, I did get to shut down that server 2000 box today, so only 2 left to go - guess that means 2 more doses of Insufferable Cuntyness coming right up....)

All in the perception, people who 'play' said 'game' choose the 'rules' they 'play' by, then get frustrated cos they lost? Get a life, make better choices, and grow up I say.

Demonstrably false. People don't choose which rules they play by - that is dictated by Society. At the highest levels we have Laws - very literal rules that everyone has to play by or risk the tyranny of the state. Then you have societal rules - for example if someone is cheating in a relationship - does society go "Fuck yeah! You go you! Double Dip WOOOOO!", or is it generally met with condemnation? For sure, certain groups may express delight at cheating, but on the whole, it's viewed dimly, even though it's not against the law.

When a person is growing up, they don't know the societal rules, this is why you see Toddlers having temper tantrums that well-socialized, older children don't have - they've learnt the societal rules about what constitutes proper behavior in a public place (again, not against the law).

My point is, if you tell an entire generation of Boys that they are corrupt members of the Patriarchy, that any expression of competence is just power and dominance over everyone else, and that they are all potential rapists - They will grow up with a set of rules on how to court women that don't work. This will lead to repeated rejection. Then they will decide the game is corrupt and seek to enact revenge.

To the irrational everything seems rational, that does not make it so. Terrorists and Incels do not have rational justification for their actions of hatred.

Well, I have to hand it to you, you've managed to do something I didn't think was possible, you've found something both Me and Katman agree on - so kudos to you.

Let me put it this way - you can make an entirely rational, internally logcally consistent case for Terrorism, given a number of a priori positions (which themselves will be irrational, but I'll get to that in moment).

Terrorists, no matter how vile or cowardly or strongly I disagree with them, are still Human - they still have a degree of Rationality, Just as the Kamikaze pilots of Japan had a degree of Rationality. To discuss their actions without acknowledging or understanding that fact is a path of pure ignorance.

Now, we can critique the a priori assumption as irrational (such as a belief in Allah and 77 virgins) but that does not make their actions or reasoning for their actions irrational.

As explained, it's the treatment of the opposite sex, you just listed a bunch of things women do.

Except... I only ever listed a bunch of things Men do...

Which you called Misogynistic,

Yet...

When I listed a bunch of things Women do, it's not Misandrist...

It's like you are treating Men and Women differently, based solely on their Sex....

I'm sure there's a word for that....

Perhaps I should have been more clear, what is your standard for your burden of proof "something that can be established before finding it". Then you instead listed a bunch more shit that you found. Unless we agree on what the standard for that burden of proof is, there is little point in examining it. You should not struggle with this concept as you have demanded similar of conspiracy theorists on this site many times, is it your 'rationality' ends when you are asked to construct a coherent point rather than tearing others' down?

Okay - the burden of proof is to find instances (in print, in film, in extrapolated data) that show that Men are being encouraged not to fulfill the traditional Masculine virtues, but instead being encourage to fulfill a different set of Virtues.

These Virtues would have to be shown to be distributed widely enough to have a cultural impact.

Then it would be to provide proof that the different set of virtues is not a quality that the majority of Women seek in a Partner.

It would also need to be shown that this change has occurred recently (approx 10-15 years) to account for the emerging of the Incel movement.

Finally, it would also need to be weighed against other competing theories and demonstrated as to why they are either false, or that they don't have the same merit(s).

I believe that I've got enough evidence to fulfill all those criteria.

Now - I've granted that some of the proof is subjective, some of it has a strong circumstantial element - but overall, each bit of evidence aligns with each other, to produce a single unified conclusion.

Graystone

12th June 2018, 19:42

Quite, that would require impartiality and wisdom

Funny... You don't address the bulk of my rebuttal, instead choosing to address the other part. It's almost like you know that you lost on that point, so are trying the classic misdirection.

Even funnier is that you accuse me of employing the typical Conspiracy/Religious argumentation - when that is precisely what you are doing. I invoke Sargon's law.

Glad you agree, thanks for proving my point and invalidating your own. The rest of your waffle is inconsequential as I've proved my Insufferable Cuntness to be something of worth (and in case you are wondering, I did get to shut down that server 2000 box today, so only 2 left to go - guess that means 2 more doses of Insufferable Cuntyness coming right up....)

Demonstrably false. People don't choose which rules they play by - that is dictated by Society. At the highest levels we have Laws - very literal rules that everyone has to play by or risk the tyranny of the state. Then you have societal rules - for example if someone is cheating in a relationship - does society go "Fuck yeah! You go you! Double Dip WOOOOO!", or is it generally met with condemnation? For sure, certain groups may express delight at cheating, but on the whole, it's viewed dimly, even though it's not against the law.

When a person is growing up, they don't know the societal rules, this is why you see Toddlers having temper tantrums that well-socialized, older children don't have - they've learnt the societal rules about what constitutes proper behavior in a public place (again, not against the law).

My point is, if you tell an entire generation of Boys that they are corrupt members of the Patriarchy, that any expression of competence is just power and dominance over everyone else, and that they are all potential rapists - They will grow up with a set of rules on how to court women that don't work. This will lead to repeated rejection. Then they will decide the game is corrupt and seek to enact revenge.

Well, I have to hand it to you, you've managed to do something I didn't think was possible, you've found something both Me and Katman agree on - so kudos to you.

Let me put it this way - you can make an entirely rational, internally logcally consistent case for Terrorism, given a number of a priori positions (which themselves will be irrational, but I'll get to that in moment).

Terrorists, no matter how vile or cowardly or strongly I disagree with them, are still Human - they still have a degree of Rationality, Just as the Kamikaze pilots of Japan had a degree of Rationality. To discuss their actions without acknowledging or understanding that fact is a path of pure ignorance.

Now, we can critique the a priori assumption as irrational (such as a belief in Allah and 77 virgins) but that does not make their actions or reasoning for their actions irrational.

Except... I only ever listed a bunch of things Men do...

Which you called Misogynistic,

Yet...

When I listed a bunch of things Women do, it's not Misandrist...

It's like you are treating Men and Women differently, based solely on their Sex....

I'm sure there's a word for that....

Okay - the burden of proof is to find instances (in print, in film, in extrapolated data) that show that Men are being encouraged not to fulfill the traditional Masculine virtues, but instead being encourage to fulfill a different set of Virtues.

These Virtues would have to be shown to be distributed widely enough to have a cultural impact.

Then it would be to provide proof that the different set of virtues is not a quality that the majority of Women seek in a Partner.

It would also need to be shown that this change has occurred recently (approx 10-15 years) to account for the emerging of the Incel movement.

Finally, it would also need to be weighed against other competing theories and demonstrated as to why they are either false, or that they don't have the same merit(s).

I believe that I've got enough evidence to fulfill all those criteria.

Now - I've granted that some of the proof is subjective, some of it has a strong circumstantial element - but overall, each bit of evidence aligns with each other, to produce a single unified conclusion.

It was an argument from authority with no source given, there's no room for an in-depth rebutal on that, so I chose to address the part that was addressable.

Nowhere did I say that insufferable cunts couldn't do anything, somewhere along the way you've tried to lower the bar from "what have you done for society that was only possible by you being such a insufferable cunt?" to "I did something, yay me!" You've neither shown that it was only possible because of who you are, nor that it offers worth to society. I fail to see how you see that as invalidating my point?

The societal rules are not universal (as you say by the condemnation/celebration of infidelity both shown), so people can choose which ones they follow. If someone can choose to promote hatred, they can also choose to promote peace; or are you saying that people who cannot find a partner have no choice but to become bitter at the opposite sex?

What I called misogynistic was not what they did, but their expectation that by doing those things they would somehow be entitled to a woman. Women are not misandrist for putting on makeup, but if they think doing so entitles them to a man, then of course they are. Like I keep saying, it's the treatment of the opposite sex, not the actions or the gender itself.

Where do you establish causality in that burden of proof?

TheDemonLord

12th June 2018, 22:12

It was an argument from authority with no source given, there's no room for an in-depth rebutal on that, so I chose to address the part that was addressable.

No. It's not. For the umpteenth time, learn how the fallacy actually works. I've explained it to you multiple times and you STILL manage to fail to use it correctly.

Nowhere did I say that insufferable cunts couldn't do anything, somewhere along the way you've tried to lower the bar from "what have you done for society that was only possible by you being such a insufferable cunt?" to "I did something, yay me!" You've neither shown that it was only possible because of who you are, nor that it offers worth to society. I fail to see how you see that as invalidating my point?

Oh, I see we are shifting the goal posts, rather than conceding reality, GJ, Carry on.

Incidentally, I've shown it was possible because of who I am (because multiple others tried and failed - that bit is kinda crucial) and the fact that someone is willing to pay 6 figures for me to do it, proves that it has a worth to Society.

Or would you like to try the next field over?

The societal rules are not universal (as you say by the condemnation/celebration of infidelity both shown), so people can choose which ones they follow. If someone can choose to promote hatred, they can also choose to promote peace; or are you saying that people who cannot find a partner have no choice but to become bitter at the opposite sex?

There is a majority ruleset - one that is held by the majority of the population - that is the one that trumps other rules. People can choose to follow other rulesets, but they will face social pressure/stigmatization for doing so.

What I'm saying is that if the game is fair, people can accept that they are loosing fairly. If the game has been rigged, people get bitter.

What I called misogynistic was not what they did, but their expectation that by doing those things they would somehow be entitled to a woman. Women are not misandrist for putting on makeup, but if they think doing so entitles them to a man, then of course they are. Like I keep saying, it's the treatment of the opposite sex, not the actions or the gender itself.

You are the one that said Entitled, not me - it's a Strawman of your own making. Not anything I said. And I was quite careful on that point.

Also - it's funny how quick you are with cries of Misogyny, yet only begrudgingly will accept partial Misandry.

Again, it's almost like you treat people differently, based on sex...

Where do you establish causality in that burden of proof?

With a government grant of tens of Thousands of dollars, a Research team and petabytes of statistical data.

But since that's a little out of reach, we'll have to settle for the burden of proof as I've laid it out.

Graystone

13th June 2018, 17:55

No. It's not. For the umpteenth time, learn how the fallacy actually works. I've explained it to you multiple times and you STILL manage to fail to use it correctly.

Oh, I see we are shifting the goal posts, rather than conceding reality, GJ, Carry on.

Incidentally, I've shown it was possible because of who I am (because multiple others tried and failed - that bit is kinda crucial) and the fact that someone is willing to pay 6 figures for me to do it, proves that it has a worth to Society.

Or would you like to try the next field over?

There is a majority ruleset - one that is held by the majority of the population - that is the one that trumps other rules. People can choose to follow other rulesets, but they will face social pressure/stigmatization for doing so.

What I'm saying is that if the game is fair, people can accept that they are loosing fairly. If the game has been rigged, people get bitter.

You are the one that said Entitled, not me - it's a Strawman of your own making. Not anything I said. And I was quite careful on that point.

Also - it's funny how quick you are with cries of Misogyny, yet only begrudgingly will accept partial Misandry.

Again, it's almost like you treat people differently, based on sex...

With a government grant of tens of Thousands of dollars, a Research team and petabytes of statistical data.

But since that's a little out of reach, we'll have to settle for the burden of proof as I've laid it out.

Your logic was that dude has phd on subject, dude says thing about subject, therefore thing must be correct. It's like the exact defintion of argument from authority.

The original post was very clear, something something sargons law... also, very much sargon's law on ignoring the discussion around capital income btw...

Sample size of fuck all.

Exactly, people can choose to follow other rulesets, thanks for proving my point.

Let's be clear than, anyone who thinks they are entitled to another person's affection is a fuckwit. Genderless enough for you? Look back at your own posting and see just how many times you brought up one gender as a reward vs the other...

So your burden of proof doesn't show causality? Have you even heard the saying, 'correlation does not imply causation'? This is why I didn't reply to your long winded drivelous examples, because with one simple question, they are rendered utterly irrelevant.

TheDemonLord

14th June 2018, 10:19

Your logic was that dude has phd on subject, dude says thing about subject, therefore thing must be correct. It's like the exact defintion of argument from authority.

What's the one exception to the Argument from Authority?

When the person being cited is a recognized Authority on the subject. A PHD in that field would qualify someone to be regarded as an authority. 15 years as the Governor of the RBNZ further qualifies him as an Authority.

So no, it's the exact definition of the EXCEPTION to the fallacy. Like I've told you on numerous occasions and you still have yet to use it correctly.

The original post was very clear, something something sargons law... also, very much sargon's law on ignoring the discussion around capital income btw...

Again - when you demonstrate you actually understand basic Economics (and logical fallacies for that matter) I will take you up on that.

Sample size of fuck all.

Lol, So it's the next field over then...

When you are asking a question about an individual, then you complain it's a small sample size....

Exactly, people can choose to follow other rulesets, thanks for proving my point.

Did you miss the part about Social Stigma?

Let's be clear than, anyone who thinks they are entitled to another person's affection is a fuckwit. Genderless enough for you? Look back at your own posting and see just how many times you brought up one gender as a reward vs the other...

Except - it was only ever you that brought one gender up AS A REWARD...

So your burden of proof doesn't show causality? Have you even heard the saying, 'correlation does not imply causation'? This is why I didn't reply to your long winded drivelous examples, because with one simple question, they are rendered utterly irrelevant.

Do any of your theories have proven Causality attached?

They don't?

Oh Dear...

The point being is that neither of us have the relevant data to prove absolute Causality - and so on that basis we are both arguing from a position what is more highly correlated.

Katman

14th June 2018, 10:31

When the person being cited is a recognized Authority on the subject. A PHD in that field would qualify someone to be regarded as an authority. 15 years as the Governor of the RBNZ further qualifies him as an Authority.

And yet anyone with qualifications in immunology, epidemiology, neurology etc, who question the safety or efficacy of vaccines, you automatically label as a quack.

What hilariously hypocritical standards you hold.

TheDemonLord

14th June 2018, 10:58

And yet anyone with qualifications in immunology, epidemiology, neurology etc, who question the safety or efficacy of vaccines, you automatically label as a quack.

What hilariously hypocritical standards you hold.

Not quite, the difference is in the detail.

But I know that Logical fallacies aren't your strong suit, so I'll let it slide.

Katman

14th June 2018, 11:07

....so I'll let it slide.

Of course you will.

It's hit too close to the bone.

TheDemonLord

14th June 2018, 11:28

Of course you will.

It's hit too close to the bone.

Sure, except the bone is one in a Mummy, in the Cairo museum, thousands of Kilometers away from the point.

As I said - the difference is in the detail.

TheDemonLord

14th June 2018, 12:29

To Graystone - Further to the Incel discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm4miiUY_PM

So this was from a Podcast today, predating anything you or I have said - but I want to focus on Joe's Sentiment:

"They have to become Men"

And I think Joe is talking about the traditionally Masculine virtues as to what constitutes Men, He's talking about competence and confidence, and how Women find that attractive.

I think it's interesting that we both have reached the same conclusion, based on our separate perspectives on things.

Graystone

14th June 2018, 17:49

What's the one exception to the Argument from Authority?

When the person being cited is a recognized Authority on the subject. A PHD in that field would qualify someone to be regarded as an authority. 15 years as the Governor of the RBNZ further qualifies him as an Authority.

So no, it's the exact definition of the EXCEPTION to the fallacy. Like I've told you on numerous occasions and you still have yet to use it correctly.

Again - when you demonstrate you actually understand basic Economics (and logical fallacies for that matter) I will take you up on that.

Lol, So it's the next field over then...

When you are asking a question about an individual, then you complain it's a small sample size....

Did you miss the part about Social Stigma?

Except - it was only ever you that brought one gender up AS A REWARD...

Do any of your theories have proven Causality attached?

They don't?

Oh Dear...

The point being is that neither of us have the relevant data to prove absolute Causality - and so on that basis we are both arguing from a position what is more highly correlated.

There is no exception to it. That's kind of the point, the whole idea is that nobody is exempt from proving their point rationally.

Basic economics like understanding what capital income is? I'll give you a hint, it is income generated by capital assets.

I mean the sample size of people who didn't get that stuff done, there could be a myriad of other reasons and confounding factors. Hell, some of them could have been insufferable cunts; you're not even at correlation stage and still claiming causation!

There's plenty of social stigma about being a hate filled piece of shit too... They choice their rules/games/etc, just as they choose to be incels. You were right in one part though, social stigma does prevent some choices, so lets social stigma the fuck out of these incel pieces of shit so the world is a nicer place :sunny:

"Assume you are a young man - you are told that to get a Companion (because I suspect that underneath the sexual desire, there is a deep desire for companionship) you've got to follow the rules of the dating game: Dress nicely, work out etc. etc. and there is a social contract of sorts that by successfully completing these requirements, you will become a desirable companion." That'd be you bringing up one gender as a reward. If there is no expectation of the reward then your entire argument following that falls flat, what right do incels have to be angry about not getting a companion if they did not expect it as a reward for their actions?

I never tried to provided a burden of proof for mine. That's the key, please stop overstating your drivel as anything more than an opinion; it doesn't fly.

TheDemonLord

14th June 2018, 20:42

There is no exception to it. That's kind of the point, the whole idea is that nobody is exempt from proving their point rationally.

There is an exception to it, which is if the Authority being cited is regarded by their peers as being an authority on the subject.

From Wikipedia:

If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument.

Don Brash is objectively an expert on the NZ Economy because of his years as the Governor of the RBNZ.

For the 99th time, learn how to use the fallacy properly.

Basic economics like understanding what capital income is? I'll give you a hint, it is income generated by capital assets.

Except your link never said "Capital income", did it? That's what you deliberately misinterpreted it as (to form a false a priori position, in order to bolster your argument that capital gains is a form of income therefore should be taxed as income). So, I'll give you a hint - ah fuck it, I've already given you multiple ones and you still can't get it right...

I mean the sample size of people who didn't get that stuff done, there could be a myriad of other reasons and confounding factors. Hell, some of them could have been insufferable cunts; you're not even at correlation stage and still claiming causation!

Have you caught those straws yet? On one of the projects I think there were something like 15 people or so before me who tried to get it completed. Some of them are still at the company - and do you know what they said? They said they tried to do it, but gave up, not because of the technical challenges, but because of other challenges - the ones where being an Insufferable Cunt directly helped me deal with.

There's plenty of social stigma about being a hate filled piece of shit too... They choice their rules/games/etc, just as they choose to be incels. You were right in one part though, social stigma does prevent some choices, so lets social stigma the fuck out of these incel pieces of shit so the world is a nicer place :sunny:

Your theory has one teeny tiny flaw - It assumes people want to be accepted by Society, you see - when you push a certain type of person (who is typically young and male) sometimes, they decide rather than be crushed by something, they'd rather be the one doing the destroying.

Then they find ways and means to inflict on society all the misery and suffering they feel that Society has inflicted on them. In America, we refer to them as "School Shooters" - Is that what you want? Because it's what you'll get.

I counter they didn't choose (initially) the rules of the game - This is where I think Joe Rogan is dead on the money - quite simply, they've never been taught how to be a Man. They were given an ideal of Masculinity that was fundamentally flawed.

"Assume you are a young man - you are told that to get a Companion (because I suspect that underneath the sexual desire, there is a deep desire for companionship) you've got to follow the rules of the dating game: Dress nicely, work out etc. etc. and there is a social contract of sorts that by successfully completing these requirements, you will become a desirable companion."

That'd be you bringing up one gender as a reward. If there is no expectation of the reward then your entire argument following that falls flat, what right do incels have to be angry about not getting a companion if they did not expect it as a reward for their actions?

Please point, in that excerpt from me where I mentioned Reward.

Oh I didn't?

Hmmmm, that's a bit of a problem for your strawman isn't it...

Read it again, properly this time, see if you can work out what is actually being said, instead of the Strawman you are feverishly constructing.

I'll give you a hint (cause you clearly need them) - I added the clarification that the goal is to be a desirable companion. That idea, combined with the first shows there is still an element of chance and risk and that nothing is guaranteed.

Of course - in your haste to paint me in your preferred colours, you ignored that, despite even quoting it.

I never tried to provided a burden of proof for mine. That's the key, please stop overstating your drivel as anything more than an opinion; it doesn't fly.

It's opinion, backed with a timeline that matches the phenomena and a fair amount of circumstantial evidence.

I've accepted that it's not proving Causality to the degree as required by a scientific paper - but it's got more substance than your "they are just angry men" rhetoric.

Graystone

14th June 2018, 21:05

There is an exception to it, which is if the Authority being cited is regarded by their peers as being an authority on the subject.

From Wikipedia:

Don Brash is objectively an expert on the NZ Economy because of his years as the Governor of the RBNZ.

For the 99th time, learn how to use the fallacy properly.

Except your link never said "Capital income", did it? That's what you deliberately misinterpreted it as (to form a false a priori position, in order to bolster your argument that capital gains is a form of income therefore should be taxed as income). So, I'll give you a hint - ah fuck it, I've already given you multiple ones and you still can't get it right...

Have you caught those straws yet? On one of the projects I think there were something like 15 people or so before me who tried to get it completed. Some of them are still at the company - and do you know what they said? They said they tried to do it, but gave up, not because of the technical challenges, but because of other challenges - the ones where being an Insufferable Cunt directly helped me deal with.

Your theory has one teeny tiny flaw - It assumes people want to be accepted by Society, you see - when you push a certain type of person (who is typically young and male) sometimes, they decide rather than be crushed by something, they'd rather be the one doing the destroying.

Then they find ways and means to inflict on society all the misery and suffering they feel that Society has inflicted on them. In America, we refer to them as "School Shooters" - Is that what you want? Because it's what you'll get.

I counter they didn't choose (initially) the rules of the game - This is where I think Joe Rogan is dead on the money - quite simply, they've never been taught how to be a Man. They were given an ideal of Masculinity that was fundamentally flawed.

Please point, in that excerpt from me where I mentioned Reward.

Oh I didn't?

Hmmmm, that's a bit of a problem for your strawman isn't it...

Read it again, properly this time, see if you can work out what is actually being said, instead of the Strawman you are feverishly constructing.

I'll give you a hint (cause you clearly need them) - I added the clarification that the goal is to be a desirable companion. That idea, combined with the first shows there is still an element of chance and risk and that nothing is guaranteed.

Of course - in your haste to paint me in your preferred colours, you ignored that, despite even quoting it.

It's opinion, backed with a timeline that matches the phenomena and a fair amount of circumstantial evidence.

I've accepted that it's not proving Causality to the degree as required by a scientific paper - but it's got more substance than your "they are just angry men" rhetoric.

I do not agree to that exception. In addition to that, all parties clearly do not agree on the authority; especially since you neglected to mention who the 'authority' was :facepalm:

Which link? This one http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/income.html where capital is shown as a form of income? To what else would capital income refer to? Capital (interest or profit) is listed as a type of income right there, in that link.

Still seems like a sample size of fuck all, with no strong correlation to being an insufferable cunt shown. Not to mention we're still at the lowered bar end, exactly what have those things done for society again?

But they do choose it, you mention before they had to choose it because of social stigma, are you going back on that?

Strongly inferred I would say :laugh: So, given you just explained the rules of the game show an element of chance/risk, how can the game possibly frustrate its 'players' if they do not find a companion? Those elements mean the game works and is not corrupt at all. You're trying to have it both ways again, sorry mate, this double standard logic you keep presenting doesn't fly either.

Does it? The difference is I know it is subjective and your bias shall prevent you from accepting my subjective arguments. The important bit, is I don't overstate that and push some correlation forward as a burden of proof, that's just remarkably irrational. I expect now that's it coming to the bit where you're running out of wiggle room and have to face your irrationality to continue the discussion; toys will be thrown...

TheDemonLord

15th June 2018, 09:32

I do not agree to that exception.

I never asked you to, I simply stated it's existence and provided evidence - You may as well be disagreeing that the earth is a Sphere...

In addition to that, all parties clearly do not agree on the authority; especially since you neglected to mention who the 'authority' was :facepalm:

I've mentioned Don Brash on multiple occassions. And in this case, his PHD, Work experience and most importantly his role as the Governor of the RBNZ OBJECTIVELY make him an expert - your agreement is not required.

Which link? This one http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/income.html where capital is shown as a form of income? To what else would capital income refer to? Capital (interest or profit) is listed as a type of income right there, in that link.

Nope. Stop being dishonest.

Still seems like a sample size of fuck all, with no strong correlation to being an insufferable cunt shown. Not to mention we're still at the lowered bar end, exactly what have those things done for society again?

Your desperation is telling, keep reaching for the straws...

At least one of them has prevented a sizeable portion of New Zealanders (about several thousand) from falling victim to Credit Card fraud. On top of that, I've got a dollar value that society has placed upon my work - which means at some level, Society deems it a worthy endevour to spend money on.

But they do choose it, you mention before they had to choose it because of social stigma, are you going back on that?

It's a complex issue and you are conflating different stages of socialization, development and mental states. Not everyone starts by hating society and wanting to destroy it - with a few exceptions everyone wants to be accepted by Society to a degree. This is the first stage, It's here were the ideals and values of society are taught to the younger generation and it is here that they do not have the mental reasoning, the fortitude and the will to really rebel against it. As one gets older and more mature and more "rebellious", then they have the means to make a conscious choice - to accept Society or to reject it.

Strongly inferred I would say :laugh:

Of course you would - it's the basis for your strawman - but I'm glad you've conceded I never said it.

So, given you just explained the rules of the game show an element of chance/risk, how can the game possibly frustrate its 'players' if they do not find a companion? Those elements mean the game works and is not corrupt at all. You're trying to have it both ways again, sorry mate, this double standard logic you keep presenting doesn't fly either.

Again, re-read what I've written. If the game is fair, people can loose fairly and not get resentful. If the rules of the game are such that it actively causes you to loose the game, then the game is corrupt. And THAT is what is causing the resentment.

They've been given an ideal of Masculinity that women do not find attractive. That is rigging the game. Give them an ideal of traditional Masculinity (which currently is referred to as "Toxic Masculinity" - that should be a hint to the problem) and watch them play a fair game, sure some will fail - but they will fail because they are not living up to the ideal presented, as opposed to failing because they are living up to the ideal presented.

That is the difference.

Does it? The difference is I know it is subjective and your bias shall prevent you from accepting my subjective arguments. The important bit, is I don't overstate that and push some correlation forward as a burden of proof, that's just remarkably irrational. I expect now that's it coming to the bit where you're running out of wiggle room and have to face your irrationality to continue the discussion; toys will be thrown...

Not at all, there's no irrationality, except on the part of the person who continues to read things I never wrote - that's truly irrational....

oldrider

16th June 2018, 15:14

Per thread title:- Read/heard about this years ago during USA deep freeze Antarctic program saw it on YouTube so posted it here on this thread? :scratch:

<iframe width="280" height="158" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NOBBqtxSP7Q" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

husaberg

16th June 2018, 17:20

george formby

16th June 2018, 17:26

Graystone

16th June 2018, 17:54

I never asked you to, I simply stated it's existence and provided evidence - You may as well be disagreeing that the earth is a Sphere...

I've mentioned Don Brash on multiple occassions. And in this case, his PHD, Work experience and most importantly his role as the Governor of the RBNZ OBJECTIVELY make him an expert - your agreement is not required.

Nope. Stop being dishonest.

Your desperation is telling, keep reaching for the straws...

At least one of them has prevented a sizeable portion of New Zealanders (about several thousand) from falling victim to Credit Card fraud. On top of that, I've got a dollar value that society has placed upon my work - which means at some level, Society deems it a worthy endevour to spend money on.

It's a complex issue and you are conflating different stages of socialization, development and mental states. Not everyone starts by hating society and wanting to destroy it - with a few exceptions everyone wants to be accepted by Society to a degree. This is the first stage, It's here were the ideals and values of society are taught to the younger generation and it is here that they do not have the mental reasoning, the fortitude and the will to really rebel against it. As one gets older and more mature and more "rebellious", then they have the means to make a conscious choice - to accept Society or to reject it.

Of course you would - it's the basis for your strawman - but I'm glad you've conceded I never said it.

Again, re-read what I've written. If the game is fair, people can loose fairly and not get resentful. If the rules of the game are such that it actively causes you to loose the game, then the game is corrupt. And THAT is what is causing the resentment.

They've been given an ideal of Masculinity that women do not find attractive. That is rigging the game. Give them an ideal of traditional Masculinity (which currently is referred to as "Toxic Masculinity" - that should be a hint to the problem) and watch them play a fair game, sure some will fail - but they will fail because they are not living up to the ideal presented, as opposed to failing because they are living up to the ideal presented.

That is the difference.

Not at all, there's no irrationality, except on the part of the person who continues to read things I never wrote - that's truly irrational....

The evidence is insufficient (one line on a wikipedia page), and very poorly interpreted if you think my agreement with what constitutes an expert is not required (am I somehow not one of 'all parties'?). Also not just two lines down "One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else." When your own source disagrees with your interpretation of it, perhaps find the correct one?

Dishonest about what? you are free to correct me, but I feel my honesty prevents you from doing so...

There are far bigger fish to fry with credit card fraud than a few thousand, and certainly been done so often as to be statistically sure that they were not all insufferable cunts that did it. Likewise the salary, unless you're well into the 6 figures it is nothing of note.

Sounds like the issue is just 'complex' enough in just the right ways to fit your narrative while discounting mine. Bottom line is they have choices on which rules to follow, by becoming incels they go against the majority of societal pressures, far more so than by not conforming to your idea of masculinity.

To neither say nor infer it is to render your argument invalid, as unless you do those things, they have no right to be frustrated by 'losing the game' as you put it.

They are given both ideals, and women find both attractive, they are free to choose which they use. Your subjective notion than one is rigged and the other corrupt is just that, a subjective notion.

You described a burden of proof but forgot about causality, which most certainly is irrational.

husaberg

16th June 2018, 18:31

Not had a look in here for a bit but contrails seem to be off the agenda.

My current conspiracy thing.

The chemical attack on Douma in Syria, the subsequent air strikes. Chemical weapons investigation, samples from victims etc.

The media has been exceedingly quite on this one.

The attack (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/13/chemical-weapons-inspectors-to-investigate-syria-attack-site)

The response (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/syria-airstrikes-britain-us-and-france-attack-assads-chemical-weapons-facilities-after-douma-a3813921.html)

A journalist on the ground (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html)

If any inquisitive KB'ers can update me on the investigation results I would be appreciative.

Despite their assurences they would the Russians and the Syrians repeatedly refused opcw access to the sites of the attacks.
they were delayed until 22 April.
W are now still waiting for results of the chemical samples.
But they did release that Chlorine (Vessles)was again used in FEB.
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-fact-finding-mission-confirms-likely-use-of-chlorine-in-saraqib-syria/
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-fact-finding-mission-visits-second-site-in-douma-syria/
The dotor who gave Fisk the interview never by his own admission never saw any of the victims
Fisk also has a history of writing stories that are not in any way true........

oldrider

16th June 2018, 19:21

TheDemonLord

16th June 2018, 21:37

The evidence is insufficient (one line on a wikipedia page),

This is neither the first time I've pulled you up on incorrect usage of this Fallacy, nor is that the same link. The fact you don't seem to be able to learn after repeated attempts is rather telling...

and very poorly interpreted if you think my agreement with what constitutes an expert is not required (am I somehow not one of 'all parties'?).

Oh no, I completely expected you to piss and whine that you didn't agree, hence why I stated that objectively he's an expert in Economics in general and the NZ Banking system in particular. Of course - to maintain your narrative requires you to disregard reality.

Also not just two lines down "One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else." When your own source disagrees with your interpretation of it, perhaps find the correct one?

Science =/= Economics.

Dishonest about what? you are free to correct me, but I feel my honesty prevents you from doing so...

See above for evidence of your dishonesty, but if it makes you happy, the link you posted was the second link you produced, after I ridiculed you on the point we are actually discussing.

There are far bigger fish to fry with credit card fraud than a few thousand,

Moving the Goalpost Fallacy.

and certainly been done so often as to be statistically sure that they were not all insufferable cunts that did it. Likewise the salary, unless you're well into the 6 figures it is nothing of note.

Moving the Goalpost Fallacy.

Sounds like the issue is just 'complex' enough in just the right ways to fit your narrative while discounting mine. Bottom line is they have choices on which rules to follow, by becoming incels they go against the majority of societal pressures, far more so than by not conforming to your idea of masculinity.

Not at all, there's a myriad of factors - and I even stated at the beginning that I'm not 100% sure - however, with the advent of things like Netflix, some rather interesting things can be done - you can directly compare Cartoon/Childrens TV of 20-30 years ago with Cartoon/Childrens TV of today - now, I'm not saying TV is the be-all and end-all of culture, but as one datapoint that is a product of its time, a comparison can be made. Then you can look at academic discourse (which often predates changes in culture) - I believe Toxic Masculinity as an Idea first saw the light of day in the mid-nineties - give such an idea about 20 years to gestate (which is the time it takes to first be propagated in Academia, then to be propagated to a generation) and we are getting eerily close to the current day - it could be coincidence, but again - it aligns with a shift that has been observable within our culture.

I'm putting forward that the current crop of young men who regard themselves as Incels are products of that Cultural Shift - when they were young, they weren't presented with a traditionally manly archetype (such as Biggles or Tintin or G.I. Joe or similar), but with something different - something less domineering, less violent, less assertive, less powerful and less decisive. They've grown up and got to a point where they enter the Dating market - and Women don't find their lack of masculine qualities attractive. At this point (ie sexual maturity) in men, is accompanied by several Peaks - rebelliousness, creativity, aggression - and this is when they decide to reject and destroy that which tried to reject and destroy them.

To neither say nor infer it is to render your argument invalid, as unless you do those things, they have no right to be frustrated by 'losing the game' as you put it.

Only if you accept your irrational presuppositions, which I don't.

I'll try again: In a fair game, if you don't win - it's because either someone else was better on the day, or you didn't play the game properly.

In a rigged game, playing by the rules automatically results in you loosing the game. That's the difference and that's where true resentment lies. The harder you try to play by the rules (as you know them) the quicker you loose.

They are given both ideals, and women find both attractive, they are free to choose which they use. Your subjective notion than one is rigged and the other corrupt is just that, a subjective notion.

Actually (on average), no, Women don't find both attractive - and that is the lie. Thanks for proving my entire point - that you believe it to be so is proof that my theorizing and chain of logic is correct.

There's been both serious research on this (the Housework vs Manly work study) and even more convincingly - what was the fastest selling Paperback in the UK of all time? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't about a meek, submissive indecisive Man.... There's also the Bad-boy Trope, in fact - a large number of Female-centric fantasies are explicitly about sleeping with Powerful Men (Fucking the Boss, Gangbangs, often with Gang members, Men in Uniform, Pirates, 'Daddy' fetishes, Rape fetishes etc. etc.).

You described a burden of proof but forgot about causality, which most certainly is irrational.

Nope, I'm self-aware enough to know that I don't have the research to prove a Causal link (in the scientific sense) but I believe the evidence I do have is sufficient for a strong, inductive argument that is more fully formed and accurate when compared to any competing theory.

oldrider

16th June 2018, 23:07

You do realise that the north pole is not the south pole or Antarctica......

No kidding Einstein - It may help for you to know that Admiral Byrd was involved with both areas - the common denominator was Byrd. :rolleyes:

husaberg

17th June 2018, 00:23

No kidding Einstein - It may help for you to know that Admiral Byrd was involved with both areas - the common denominator was Byrd. :rolleyes:
Your video was about the North pole its even in the title. Yet your post is not. Is the video anything to do with the south pole or not?

- Read/heard about this years ago during USA deep freeze Antarctic program
Einstein so was he pat of your jewish conspiracy as well?

Graystone

17th June 2018, 10:50

This is neither the first time I've pulled you up on incorrect usage of this Fallacy, nor is that the same link. The fact you don't seem to be able to learn after repeated attempts is rather telling...

Oh no, I completely expected you to piss and whine that you didn't agree, hence why I stated that objectively he's an expert in Economics in general and the NZ Banking system in particular. Of course - to maintain your narrative requires you to disregard reality.

Science =/= Economics.

See above for evidence of your dishonesty, but if it makes you happy, the link you posted was the second link you produced, after I ridiculed you on the point we are actually discussing.

Moving the Goalpost Fallacy.

Moving the Goalpost Fallacy.

Not at all, there's a myriad of factors - and I even stated at the beginning that I'm not 100% sure - however, with the advent of things like Netflix, some rather interesting things can be done - you can directly compare Cartoon/Childrens TV of 20-30 years ago with Cartoon/Childrens TV of today - now, I'm not saying TV is the be-all and end-all of culture, but as one datapoint that is a product of its time, a comparison can be made. Then you can look at academic discourse (which often predates changes in culture) - I believe Toxic Masculinity as an Idea first saw the light of day in the mid-nineties - give such an idea about 20 years to gestate (which is the time it takes to first be propagated in Academia, then to be propagated to a generation) and we are getting eerily close to the current day - it could be coincidence, but again - it aligns with a shift that has been observable within our culture.

I'm putting forward that the current crop of young men who regard themselves as Incels are products of that Cultural Shift - when they were young, they weren't presented with a traditionally manly archetype (such as Biggles or Tintin or G.I. Joe or similar), but with something different - something less domineering, less violent, less assertive, less powerful and less decisive. They've grown up and got to a point where they enter the Dating market - and Women don't find their lack of masculine qualities attractive. At this point (ie sexual maturity) in men, is accompanied by several Peaks - rebelliousness, creativity, aggression - and this is when they decide to reject and destroy that which tried to reject and destroy them.

Only if you accept your irrational presuppositions, which I don't.

I'll try again: In a fair game, if you don't win - it's because either someone else was better on the day, or you didn't play the game properly.

In a rigged game, playing by the rules automatically results in you loosing the game. That's the difference and that's where true resentment lies. The harder you try to play by the rules (as you know them) the quicker you loose.

Actually (on average), no, Women don't find both attractive - and that is the lie. Thanks for proving my entire point - that you believe it to be so is proof that my theorizing and chain of logic is correct.

There's been both serious research on this (the Housework vs Manly work study) and even more convincingly - what was the fastest selling Paperback in the UK of all time? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't about a meek, submissive indecisive Man.... There's also the Bad-boy Trope, in fact - a large number of Female-centric fantasies are explicitly about sleeping with Powerful Men (Fucking the Boss, Gangbangs, often with Gang members, Men in Uniform, Pirates, 'Daddy' fetishes, Rape fetishes etc. etc.).

Nope, I'm self-aware enough to know that I don't have the research to prove a Causal link (in the scientific sense) but I believe the evidence I do have is sufficient for a strong, inductive argument that is more fully formed and accurate when compared to any competing theory.

The others were just as poorly interpreted, you seem to be confusing the 'argument from authority' with the 'argument from false authority' falacy. In eithe case, your locig is flawed as I am one of the parties, which does not agree "on the reliability of an authority in the given context". Furthermore, there is no caveats for economics in that article, so as your interpretation does not work in all fields, it is illogical.

It is possible to post supplementary links on a topic. If you would like to address either of them, I am happy to do so... After all, since one of us has a basic understanding of economics, it should be a simple matter to find out which :sunny:

Look back to the original post and my assertion in it, it was simply that being an insufferable cunt is not a virtue worth having as they cannot do anything special which cannot be done in a more harmonious fashion. You've now shifted the goalposts so that getting paid somehow satisfies that? And you seek to call me out on goalpost shifting :laugh: sargon's law indeed.

See I don't buy into the alpha male is the only attractive male thing, to use your words, it's an irrational presupposition. And you just used gangbang fantasies as support of that? What the fuck is wrong with you?

And yet, a strong inductive argument does not form a burden of proof. Supplying it as such remains irrational.

oldrider

17th June 2018, 11:16

Oh well - here is something more in line with your obvious interests and it's political to boot! - http://www.svijmedia.com/2018/06/06/michelle-obamas-doctor-goes-on-record-i-know-what-i-saw/ :yawn:

pritch

17th June 2018, 12:45

[QUOTE=oldrider;1131101361]Per thread title:- Read/heard about this years ago during USA deep freeze Antarctic program saw it on YouTube so posted it here on this thread? :scratch:

That reads more like Heinlein than Byrd. I saw Byrd in the fifties when he was doing the Deep Freeze thing, he didn't mention the flying saucers. Not that I would have expected him to. I was only 10 or 11.

That was a good read - if you approach it as science fiction, although the reader made some distracting mistakes.

husaberg

17th June 2018, 15:28

Oh well - here is something more in line with your obvious interests and it's political to boot! - http://www.svijmedia.com/2018/06/06/michelle-obamas-doctor-goes-on-record-i-know-what-i-saw/ :yawn:
https://www.truthorfiction.com/dr-rafael-espinanzo-confirms-that-michelle-obama-is-a-man-fiction/

oldrider

17th June 2018, 16:41

TheDemonLord

17th June 2018, 21:28

The others were just as poorly interpreted, you seem to be confusing the 'argument from authority' with the 'argument from false authority' falacy. In eithe case, your locig is flawed as I am one of the parties, which does not agree "on the reliability of an authority in the given context". Furthermore, there is no caveats for economics in that article, so as your interpretation does not work in all fields, it is illogical.

They are very clear on the interpretation - an Authority on a subject can be used. It's why we allow expert testimony in our Legal system. To try and re-interpret it as anything else is simply you doing Mental backflips.

In regards to Don Brash - you're simply not accepting of his credentials because you know it invalidates your entire point, since you are clearly biased and Don Brash's credentials are well documented and recognized by his peers.

It is possible to post supplementary links on a topic. If you would like to address either of them, I am happy to do so... After all, since one of us has a basic understanding of economics, it should be a simple matter to find out which :sunny:

And yet - you are the one that keeps in insisting I pick it back up - but since you are both being biased and Insincere, I'm not inclined to go hunting to re-prove my point.

Look back to the original post and my assertion in it, it was simply that being an insufferable cunt is not a virtue worth having as they cannot do anything special which cannot be done in a more harmonious fashion. You've now shifted the goalposts so that getting paid somehow satisfies that? And you seek to call me out on goalpost shifting :laugh: sargon's law indeed.

Except reality is such that Insufferable Cunts do MANY special things which did not get done in a more harmonious fashion. There's a reason why there are numerous stories of of high power CEOs being rather contentious to work with - these 2 things are related (despite your claims that they aren't).

You then asked how it benefited society - the fact that I get paid to do it means that society finds it to be of an objective worth.

Then you had a sook and a winge - and I simply pointed out you've shifted the goal posts.

See I don't buy into the alpha male is the only attractive male thing, to use your words, it's an irrational presupposition. And you just used gangbang fantasies as support of that? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Firstly I never said the ONLY attractive male thing - your repeated strawmen through deliberate re-wording of what I've said is not going to work. If your argument and debating skills were up to par, you wouldn't need to repeatedly resort to such blatantly bad tactics.

Secondly - I don't need or require your buy in. It's well documented what Women like, in fact - there's even an Evolutionary based argument that states since it is women who sexually select (Human females, in comparison to other primates, will not mate indiscriminately) - they are (by proxy) responsible for what constitutes an Alpha Male.

So no, it's not an irrational presupposition - it's the very basis for what is considered the ideal Male. As for Gangbangs - Women like dominant Men - I thought it was obvious what it proves...

And yet, a strong inductive argument does not form a burden of proof. Supplying it as such remains irrational.

It's the burden of proof for what I put forward, I'm aware of the limits (with the data available) and I believe it addresses points which other competing theories fail to adequately address.

Graystone

17th June 2018, 22:23

They are very clear on the interpretation - an Authority on a subject can be used. It's why we allow expert testimony in our Legal system. To try and re-interpret it as anything else is simply you doing Mental backflips.

In regards to Don Brash - you're simply not accepting of his credentials because you know it invalidates your entire point, since you are clearly biased and Don Brash's credentials are well documented and recognized by his peers.

And yet - you are the one that keeps in insisting I pick it back up - but since you are both being biased and Insincere, I'm not inclined to go hunting to re-prove my point.

Except reality is such that Insufferable Cunts do MANY special things which did not get done in a more harmonious fashion. There's a reason why there are numerous stories of of high power CEOs being rather contentious to work with - these 2 things are related (despite your claims that they aren't).

You then asked how it benefited society - the fact that I get paid to do it means that society finds it to be of an objective worth.

Then you had a sook and a winge - and I simply pointed out you've shifted the goal posts.

Firstly I never said the ONLY attractive male thing - your repeated strawmen through deliberate re-wording of what I've said is not going to work. If your argument and debating skills were up to par, you wouldn't need to repeatedly resort to such blatantly bad tactics.

Secondly - I don't need or require your buy in. It's well documented what Women like, in fact - there's even an Evolutionary based argument that states since it is women who sexually select (Human females, in comparison to other primates, will not mate indiscriminately) - they are (by proxy) responsible for what constitutes an Alpha Male.

So no, it's not an irrational presupposition - it's the very basis for what is considered the ideal Male. As for Gangbangs - Women like dominant Men - I thought it was obvious what it proves...

It's the burden of proof for what I put forward, I'm aware of the limits (with the data available) and I believe it addresses points which other competing theories fail to adequately address.

The use in science part does make it clear on the interpretation, and it remains inconsistent with yours. An expert witness makes their case directly to the courts, and can be argued against by other expert witnesses too. So your interpretation of that part is erroneous as well.

As is my right, a rational discussion is the correct result of one party questioning the 'authority' for whatever the reason. You should take more time to think of that rational discussion than irrationally jumping to conclusions...

It would be trivial to 're-prove' your point had you effectively made it, but as we both know you never did, so it amuses me to keep calling you out on it and watching the piss poor excuses that follow :laugh:

'did not'? There's that shifting of the goalpost again, I've repeatedly said could not, as was my original question asking what was not possible to be done in other ways...

Then what's the problem? Both versions of the game have 'win conditions' where females find the males embodying said traits attractive. So it is not rigged or corrupt. As for bad 'debating tactics' that'd be sayonara's law saying fuck off mate :laugh:

It proves you do not understand women at all.

You put forward a theory, then offered a burden off proof which could not prove the theory. Thus it remains irrational. Try owning your fuckups once in a while mate, you are allowed and encouraged to learn from them you know...

TheDemonLord

17th June 2018, 22:43

Another perspective - particularly interesting points about the Internet dating data and the double standard between Men and Women in the Dating game...:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J93U-iokyw

oldrider

18th June 2018, 10:58

Adage: If you don't know where you are going - how do you know when you get there? - Bilderberg - representing the man with the plan? :corn:

<iframe width="558" height="314" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2frpU6nkb_I" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

TheDemonLord

19th June 2018, 15:07

The use in science part does make it clear on the interpretation, and it remains inconsistent with yours. An expert witness makes their case directly to the courts, and can be argued against by other expert witnesses too. So your interpretation of that part is erroneous as well.

Argument by Pigheadedness

As is my right, a rational discussion is the correct result of one party questioning the 'authority' for whatever the reason. You should take more time to think of that rational discussion than irrationally jumping to conclusions...

Willed Ignorance Fallacy

It would be trivial to 're-prove' your point had you effectively made it, but as we both know you never did, so it amuses me to keep calling you out on it and watching the piss poor excuses that follow :laugh:

Asking the opponent to re-prove something already stated.

'did not'? There's that shifting of the goalpost again, I've repeatedly said could not, as was my original question asking what was not possible to be done in other ways...

Strawman, wishful thinking and Willed Ignorance Fallacies

Then what's the problem? Both versions of the game have 'win conditions' where females find the males embodying said traits attractive. So it is not rigged or corrupt. As for bad 'debating tactics' that'd be sayonara's law saying fuck off mate :laugh:

Strawman Fallacy

It proves you do not understand women at all.

Moralistic Fallacy and Ad Hominem fallacies

You put forward a theory, then offered a burden off proof which could not prove the theory. Thus it remains irrational. Try owning your fuckups once in a while mate, you are allowed and encouraged to learn from them you know...

Nirvana Fallacy

Graystone

19th June 2018, 18:18

Argument by Pigheadedness

Willed Ignorance Fallacy

Asking the opponent to re-prove something already stated.

Strawman, wishful thinking and Willed Ignorance Fallacies

Strawman Fallacy

Moralistic Fallacy and Ad Hominem fallacies

Nirvana Fallacy

There go the toys I guess. Let me know if you change you mind and decide to try a rational approach...

TheDemonLord

19th June 2018, 21:27

There go the toys I guess. Let me know if you change you mind and decide to try a rational approach...

No, I just got tired of your denialism, strawmanning and generally disingenuous, fallacious arguments.

If you want the "rational approach" you claim, then it helps to be rational.

Graystone

20th June 2018, 18:51

No, I just got tired of your denialism, strawmanning and generally disingenuous, fallacious arguments.

If you want the "rational approach" you claim, then it helps to be rational.

If your toys had stayed in the cot, you could rationally highlight exactly what parts of my arguments were those things (and understand what those things actually mean). Instead I've confronted you with logical explanations of why you are wrong, and your only approach is to delude yourself into believing I am irrational instead of addressing those explanations. The hypocrisy and irony are almost palatable, which is a pity but not unexpected.

Katman

20th June 2018, 19:03

The hypocrisy and irony are almost palatable, which is a pity but not unexpected.

I think you mean palpable, bogan.

Graystone

20th June 2018, 19:09

I think you mean palpable, bogan.

Both work quite well actually, crayolla kid.

Mod still angry with me, so can't edit the previous post anyway.

TheDemonLord

20th June 2018, 20:13

If your toys had stayed in the cot, you could rationally highlight exactly what parts of my arguments were those things (and understand what those things actually mean). Instead I've confronted you with logical explanations of why you are wrong, and your only approach is to delude yourself into believing I am irrational instead of addressing those explanations. The hypocrisy and irony are almost palatable, which is a pity but not unexpected.

That presumes that you read and understood what I wrote. However, on multiple responses that's clearly not been the case. Either you don't understand (and I give you more credit than that) or you are deliberately misinterpreting (AKA Cathy Newman "So your Saying...").

Here's an idea - if you want the rational discourse you so desperately claim to want - go back to my last post where I responded to you properly and rebut what I actually wrote (not what you wished me to write) - then we can go from there.

Otherwise - my toys remain happily in my Cot and your arguments remain entirely fallacious.

Graystone

20th June 2018, 20:25

That presumes that you read and understood what I wrote. However, on multiple responses that's clearly not been the case. Either you don't understand (and I give you more credit than that) or you are deliberately misinterpreting (AKA Cathy Newman "So your Saying...").

Here's an idea - if you want the rational discourse you so desperately claim to want - go back to my last post where I responded to you properly and rebut what I actually wrote (not what you wished me to write) - then we can go from there.

Otherwise - my toys remain happily in my Cot and your arguments remain entirely fallacious.

Or you are being ambiguous, in all three of those cases, the rational response is to correct the interpretation. You have ample chance to learn to do that. Even if we take one example to start you off:

They are very clear on the interpretation - an Authority on a subject can be used. It's why we allow expert testimony in our Legal system. To try and re-interpret it as anything else is simply you doing Mental backflips.

The use in science part does make it clear on the interpretation, and it remains inconsistent with yours. An expert witness makes their case directly to the courts, and can be argued against by other expert witnesses too. So your interpretation of that part is erroneous as well.

To which I properly rebutted what you wrote, the interpretation is clearly not in your favor, as I illustrated by referring to the scientific example on the page you were interpreting from; where they clearly specify that an Authority on the subject cannot be used. Likewise I pointed out that expert testimony is allowed in the legal system because it (the content of it) can be argued against. Should I further qualify that by saying that is inconsistent with an Argument From Authority where the content cannot be argued against?

TheDemonLord

20th June 2018, 21:06

Or you are being ambiguous, in all three of those cases, the rational response is to correct the interpretation. You have ample chance to learn to do that. Even if we take one example to start you off:

Sure, but you didn't try to get a correct interpretation - you went off constructing an army of Strawmen.

To which I properly rebutted what you wrote, the interpretation is clearly not in your favor, as I illustrated by referring to the scientific example on the page you were interpreting from;

1: This is not a Scientific matter (I already pointed this out), so a strict adherence to the Scientific method isn't appropriate.
2: The modifier does not invalidate the definition.

It's the latter part where you are being deliberately disingenuous - I've given you, from multiple sources, the definition of the fallacy - all of which point out that an expert in the field can be cited as a valid inductive argument. That you continue to ignore this reality is an Argument by Pigheadedness.

where they clearly specify that an Authority on the subject cannot be used. Likewise I pointed out that expert testimony is allowed in the legal system because it (the content of it) can be argued against. Should I further qualify that by saying that is inconsistent with an Argument From Authority where the content cannot be argued against?

You can argue against what Don Brash has said about the NZ Economy - but you'd need to provide some form of evidence that what he said was incorrect. Your original article linked back to a white paper by the Bank of England (which is certainly a respectable financial institution) which argued that since money that was lent out by banks is often deposited back into accounts that are also owned by the bank, that the traditional fractional reserve model wasn't entirely accurate.

That white paper made no mention of New Zealand and it didn't invalidate the FRB Model - merely modified it, because with multiple banking institutions - there is not perfect parity between that which is lent out and that which is deposited - which means that the banks are still operating with a fraction of the reserves that they require - ergo your original article NEVER disproved what Don Brash was saying.

So, at the moment - we have Don Brash (with his PHD in economics, decades of experience in the Financial industry and 14 years experience as the Governor of the RBNZ) who has accurately described the NZ Banking system (because we can verify that what he said was correct - both from the mission statement on the RBNZ's website and multiple other sources) - and then we have you and a piss weak article that doesn't actually prove what you claim it does.

The TL;DR of all of this is - We use the Fractional Reserve Banking system, you are objectively wrong on this point and you've provided XERO evidence that we don't (Pun fully intended).

There's then a follow up argument that is an inductive argument: Since you don't know how the NZ Economy works - and I clearly have a better understanding (since myself and Don Brash agree on the basic financial model that NZ operates under) - any subsequent claims where it boils down to my word (and interpretation) vs yours, I've got the stronger case.

Graystone

20th June 2018, 21:37

Sure, but you didn't try to get a correct interpretation - you went off constructing an army of Strawmen.

1: This is not a Scientific matter (I already pointed this out), so a strict adherence to the Scientific method isn't appropriate.
2: The modifier does not invalidate the definition.

It's the latter part where you are being deliberately disingenuous - I've given you, from multiple sources, the definition of the fallacy - all of which point out that an expert in the field can be cited as a valid inductive argument. That you continue to ignore this reality is an Argument by Pigheadedness.

You can argue against what Don Brash has said about the NZ Economy - but you'd need to provide some form of evidence that what he said was incorrect. Your original article linked back to a white paper by the Bank of England (which is certainly a respectable financial institution) which argued that since money that was lent out by banks is often deposited back into accounts that are also owned by the bank, that the traditional fractional reserve model wasn't entirely accurate.

That white paper made no mention of New Zealand and it didn't invalidate the FRB Model - merely modified it, because with multiple banking institutions - there is not perfect parity between that which is lent out and that which is deposited - which means that the banks are still operating with a fraction of the reserves that they require - ergo your original article NEVER disproved what Don Brash was saying.

So, at the moment - we have Don Brash (with his PHD in economics, decades of experience in the Financial industry and 14 years experience as the Governor of the RBNZ) who has accurately described the NZ Banking system (because we can verify that what he said was correct - both from the mission statement on the RBNZ's website and multiple other sources) - and then we have you and a piss weak article that doesn't actually prove what you claim it does.

The TL;DR of all of this is - We use the Fractional Reserve Banking system, you are objectively wrong on this point and you've provided XERO evidence that we don't (Pun fully intended).

There's then a follow up argument that is an inductive argument: Since you don't know how the NZ Economy works - and I clearly have a better understanding (since myself and Don Brash agree on the basic financial model that NZ operates under) - any subsequent claims where it boils down to my word (and interpretation) vs yours, I've got the stronger case.

It is not a scientific matter, but the interpretation you make of the fallacy must cover scientific matters as well. Otherwise you have multiple interpretations of the same fallacy, but just for different fields, which I have certainly not seen justified anywhere as part of how fallacies work, have you?

Some sources allow the possibility they can be used as an inductive argument (which you should note, is never to be considered conclusive), only if all parties agree on the validity of considering them to be an expert on the required matter. So when I disagree on validity of your expert, seeking to push through his opinion as correct both invalidates the inductive nature of the argument, and constitutes an argument from authority fallacy.

There is no point gish galloping on to an example and plethora of links etc until we can agree on what an argument on authority is.

If we take "argument from authority fallacy" as the search term, wiki being the second one as we are covering. The first is:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

Which is quite clear that authorities should only ever be deffered to, rather than appealed to.

And the third is:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Which again, makes it quite simple, and mentions nothing about an exclusion for a legit authority; quite the opposite in fact when you read the example.

So at best, you're 1/3, but given the rather questionable interpretations of the plain english written in the wiki, it has to be 0 for 3... If you wish to supply me these other 'multiple sources' (which I dispute were ever supplied as you describe them) I'll be happy to read them, just start with your best three and we can go from there :sunny:

TheDemonLord

21st June 2018, 15:02

It is not a scientific matter, but the interpretation you make of the fallacy must cover scientific matters as well. Otherwise you have multiple interpretations of the same fallacy, but just for different fields, which I have certainly not seen justified anywhere as part of how fallacies work, have you?

Some sources allow the possibility they can be used as an inductive argument (which you should note, is never to be considered conclusive), only if all parties agree on the validity of considering them to be an expert on the required matter. So when I disagree on validity of your expert, seeking to push through his opinion as correct both invalidates the inductive nature of the argument, and constitutes an argument from authority fallacy.

There is no point gish galloping on to an example and plethora of links etc until we can agree on what an argument on authority is.

If we take "argument from authority fallacy" as the search term, wiki being the second one as we are covering. The first is:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

Which is quite clear that authorities should only ever be deffered to, rather than appealed to.

And the third is:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Which again, makes it quite simple, and mentions nothing about an exclusion for a legit authority; quite the opposite in fact when you read the example.

So at best, you're 1/3, but given the rather questionable interpretations of the plain english written in the wiki, it has to be 0 for 3... If you wish to supply me these other 'multiple sources' (which I dispute were ever supplied as you describe them) I'll be happy to read them, just start with your best three and we can go from there :sunny:

Now, go read your link, the section titled "Exceptions". Which clearly describes what I've been trying to impress upon you (and thus far you've been denying).

As for your disagreement about the nature of Don Brash's expertise, That's the Willed Ignorance Fallacy - in this instance, it is sufficient that he is recognized by his Peers as an authority.

You are no different than the New Earth creationist stating "Well, I don't think Dawkins knows what he's talking about" and then using that as the basis of ignoring everything that follows.

Edit - as for your last link (which is a dictionary entry) that would be the Appeal to Definition fallacy:

"The dictionary definition of X does not mention Y.

Therefore, Y must not be part of X."

Or in your case: "Wiktionary mentions nothing about an exclusion for a legit authority, therefore there are no exclusions"

Graystone

21st June 2018, 18:44

Now, go read your link, the section titled "Exceptions". Which clearly describes what I've been trying to impress upon you (and thus far you've been denying).

As for your disagreement about the nature of Don Brash's expertise, That's the Willed Ignorance Fallacy - in this instance, it is sufficient that he is recognized by his Peers as an authority.

You are no different than the New Earth creationist stating "Well, I don't think Dawkins knows what he's talking about" and then using that as the basis of ignoring everything that follows.

Edit - as for your last link (which is a dictionary entry) that would be the Appeal to Definition fallacy:

"The dictionary definition of X does not mention Y.

Therefore, Y must not be part of X."

Or in your case: "Wiktionary mentions nothing about an exclusion for a legit authority, therefore there are no exclusions"

The exception is deferring to an authority, as I mentioned in my post. And from that exception "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally" which is appealing to an authority by saying things like, this guy is an expert so what he says is correct, still fits the argument from authority fallacy.

The second definition was supplied to show that I'm not just 'appealing' to one or two definitions, none of the ones we have covered show the exception as you are trying to use it. I'll re-state the main point I made on the wiki article as you missed that it would seem; the interpretation you make of the fallacy must cover scientific matters as well. Otherwise you have multiple interpretations of the same fallacy, but just for different fields, which I have certainly not seen justified anywhere as part of how fallacies work, have you?

TheDemonLord

25th June 2018, 12:49

The exception is deferring to an authority, as I mentioned in my post. And from that exception "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally" which is appealing to an authority by saying things like, this guy is an expert so what he says is correct, still fits the argument from authority fallacy.

Wait a minute....

There is no exception to it.

So, which is it? Or is it that you've been wrong this whole time and are desperately scrabbling to try and mitigate your error?

The second definition was supplied to show that I'm not just 'appealing' to one or two definitions, none of the ones we have covered show the exception as you are trying to use it. I'll re-state the main point I made on the wiki article as you missed that it would seem; the interpretation you make of the fallacy must cover scientific matters as well. Otherwise you have multiple interpretations of the same fallacy, but just for different fields, which I have certainly not seen justified anywhere as part of how fallacies work, have you?

Now you are just flip-flopping, let me be clear - in some fields a strict adherence to the Scientific method is entirely appropriate, in other fields, it is not appropriate. Since those fields where a scientific method isn't appropriate, the Fallacy (and it's exception) is transformed by the levels of proof within the field. For example - a scientific method is inappropriate for Theological studies.

You're just trying to re-interpret your failed understanding and shoe-horn it into a scenario where you can claim that you were right all along....

And I'm having none of it.

Laava

25th June 2018, 15:07

Pretty sure this will fit in nicely with the conversations that go on in here...

https://youtu.be/9UMedd03JCA

Graystone

25th June 2018, 18:08

Wait a minute....

So, which is it? Or is it that you've been wrong this whole time and are desperately scrabbling to try and mitigate your error?

Now you are just flip-flopping, let me be clear - in some fields a strict adherence to the Scientific method is entirely appropriate, in other fields, it is not appropriate. Since those fields where a scientific method isn't appropriate, the Fallacy (and it's exception) is transformed by the levels of proof within the field. For example - a scientific method is inappropriate for Theological studies.

You're just trying to re-interpret your failed understanding and shoe-horn it into a scenario where you can claim that you were right all along....

And I'm having none of it.

Sorry, I should have used air quote for the 'exception' and it's not an exception for the appeal part of it anyway. Do you understand the difference? That deferring to an authority is not the same as appealing to one. Ie, you defer to one on a point cause neither party cares to discuss the details, but when one party would like to discuss the details, you cannot appeal to an authority to avoid a logical discussion around said point.

So, your interpretation does require a different (and subjective) meaning be applied based on what field is being discussed? Is there any evidence this is common or even acceptable?

Have you got any sources clearing showing the use as you describe it, without reading so much into to sub-clauses etc that it becomes inconsistent within the source?

There's no need to become emotional or egotistical, let's just keep the toys in the cot, and continue a rational discussion on this one, simple, point.

TheDemonLord

26th June 2018, 09:45

Sorry, I should have used air quote for the 'exception' and it's not an exception for the appeal part of it anyway

Hark! Thy hills resoundeth with the sound of furious backpeddling...

Do you understand the difference? That deferring to an authority is not the same as appealing to one. Ie, you defer to one on a point cause neither party cares to discuss the details, but when one party would like to discuss the details, you cannot appeal to an authority to avoid a logical discussion around said point.

Clearly I understand better than you - since you've spent half this thread and the other thread proclaiming with wild abandon that there was no exceptions, even when quoting from a source with a big ol' chunk o' text under the title "Exceptions".

But back to the original point - you never proved that we don't use a FRBS, I've pointed to the presence of a Reserve bank (bit of a give away), I've referred to multiple references to the NZ economy as "a FRBS", I've pointed to the Reserve bank website which states that it sets a limit as to what the banks must have on hand (which means it's a fraction - less than 1, greater than 0), and from your own source - you've got Billy-no-economics pointing to a white paper from the Bank of England, and using that as a basis to proclaim (absent ANY evidence - which is ironic as fuck given your protestations) that we don't use the FRBS, whereas reading the white paper in detail shows that we still, in fact, use a FRBS. Then to top all that off, you've got Don Brash describing the NZ financial system.

Given the level of evidence you submitted and the mountain that you are dismissing - I'm deferring to Don Brash, from your article as yet another data point to prove that we use that system.

So, your interpretation does require a different (and subjective) meaning be applied based on what field is being discussed? Is there any evidence this is common or even acceptable?

Not at all - how on earth did you interpret what I said in that way? The standards of proof are predefined in the field of reference. Take for example - Theology - the Scientific method isn't applicable - so does that mean that in a theological debate, no one can commit that fallacy? Because that's the extension of the drivel you are spouting...

Have you got any sources clearing showing the use as you describe it, without reading so much into to sub-clauses etc that it becomes inconsistent within the source?

Look at the source you posted - it gives a context (the Tour guide example) where a strict adherence the scientific method would be inappropriate. Just like above.

There's no need to become emotional or egotistical, let's just keep the toys in the cot, and continue a rational discussion on this one, simple, point.

When you start being rational and concede that which by your own sources, you are objectively wrong on - then sure, but you are trying to re-invent the wheel to avoid conceding that both you are wrong on the usage of the fallacy and that you are wrong about the original statement.

Graystone

26th June 2018, 18:54

Hark! Thy hills resoundeth with the sound of furious backpeddling...

Clearly I understand better than you - since you've spent half this thread and the other thread proclaiming with wild abandon that there was no exceptions, even when quoting from a source with a big ol' chunk o' text under the title "Exceptions".

But back to the original point - you never proved that we don't use a FRBS, I've pointed to the presence of a Reserve bank (bit of a give away), I've referred to multiple references to the NZ economy as "a FRBS", I've pointed to the Reserve bank website which states that it sets a limit as to what the banks must have on hand (which means it's a fraction - less than 1, greater than 0), and from your own source - you've got Billy-no-economics pointing to a white paper from the Bank of England, and using that as a basis to proclaim (absent ANY evidence - which is ironic as fuck given your protestations) that we don't use the FRBS, whereas reading the white paper in detail shows that we still, in fact, use a FRBS. Then to top all that off, you've got Don Brash describing the NZ financial system.

Given the level of evidence you submitted and the mountain that you are dismissing - I'm deferring to Don Brash, from your article as yet another data point to prove that we use that system.

Not at all - how on earth did you interpret what I said in that way? The standards of proof are predefined in the field of reference. Take for example - Theology - the Scientific method isn't applicable - so does that mean that in a theological debate, no one can commit that fallacy? Because that's the extension of the drivel you are spouting...

Look at the source you posted - it gives a context (the Tour guide example) where a strict adherence the scientific method would be inappropriate. Just like above.

When you start being rational and concede that which by your own sources, you are objectively wrong on - then sure, but you are trying to re-invent the wheel to avoid conceding that both you are wrong on the usage of the fallacy and that you are wrong about the original statement.

If you are looking to prove a point, there are no exceptions. As deferring to an authority is never conclusive, and if said authority is questioned, the exception is nullified anyway. In either case, it would be a surely be a fallacy to assume since one small part of my argument was open to interpretation the whole of it must be wrong... perhaps think on that before getting too egotistical.

What about the exemption though, does it apply for theology as well? how about economics? Of course people can commit the fallacy in theology, or in any debate; that is why my interpretation of it works. You're poking holes in your own interpretation since that is the one dependent on the field in question.

The tour guide is not in the context of argumentation, ie, it is not being appealed to so obviously the fallacy doesn't apply.

You have yet to show any objective wrongness from my own sources. At best they can also be interpreted (with some mental gymnastics) to support your interpretation of it, but none of them make that interpretation clear so I question if you have any other sources that do...

TheDemonLord

27th June 2018, 14:42

If you are looking to prove a point, there are no exceptions.

So, all the descriptions of the Fallacy are wrong and only Graystone really knows how it works...

As deferring to an authority is never conclusive, and if said authority is questioned, the exception is nullified anyway. In either case, it would be a surely be a fallacy to assume since one small part of my argument was open to interpretation the whole of it must be wrong... perhaps think on that before getting too egotistical.

My point on this issue was simply "You don't know what you are talking about" - as evidenced by your continued misuse of the fallacy, contradiction of your own sources refusal to accept reality.

I did link that back to Economics, more as a pointed jab at you, as opposed to formal argument.

What about the exemption though, does it apply for theology as well? how about economics? Of course people can commit the fallacy in theology, or in any debate; that is why my interpretation of it works. You're poking holes in your own interpretation since that is the one dependent on the field in question.

...

Do you even read what I wrote?

Take for example - Theology - the Scientific method isn't applicable - so does that mean that in a theological debate, no one can commit that fallacy?

Which is clearly a rhetorical question, ridiculing your position, you've in effect proved my point. People can commit the fallacy in Theology which is a realm where the scientific method isn't applicable. Therefore - your interpretation of the Fallacy and it's exception in terms of ONLY the scientific standard of proof is clearly incorrect, which therefore makes my interpretation correct.

Congrats - you've disproved your own point and proved mine...

The tour guide is not in the context of argumentation, ie, it is not being appealed to so obviously the fallacy doesn't apply.

Then why is it given in an example, in a description of the Fallacy that you yourself cited?

You have yet to show any objective wrongness from my own sources. At best they can also be interpreted (with some mental gymnastics) to support your interpretation of it, but none of them make that interpretation clear so I question if you have any other sources that do...

See above - where you denied (again) that there is no exception to the fallacy, whilst there clearly is an exception that is described in the description of the fallacy.

The only Mental Gymnastics are to be found there.

Graystone

27th June 2018, 19:40

So, all the descriptions of the Fallacy are wrong and only Graystone really knows how it works...

My point on this issue was simply "You don't know what you are talking about" - as evidenced by your continued misuse of the fallacy, contradiction of your own sources refusal to accept reality.

I did link that back to Economics, more as a pointed jab at you, as opposed to formal argument.

...

Do you even read what I wrote?

Which is clearly a rhetorical question, ridiculing your position, you've in effect proved my point. People can commit the fallacy in Theology which is a realm where the scientific method isn't applicable. Therefore - your interpretation of the Fallacy and it's exception in terms of ONLY the scientific standard of proof is clearly incorrect, which therefore makes my interpretation correct.

Congrats - you've disproved your own point and proved mine...

Then why is it given in an example, in a description of the Fallacy that you yourself cited?

See above - where you denied (again) that there is no exception to the fallacy, whilst there clearly is an exception that is described in the description of the fallacy.

The only Mental Gymnastics are to be found there.

All the 'exceptions' show deferral/inductive arguments which as we know, cannot be used to prove a point. Thus my statement that if you wish to prove a point, there are no exceptions.

It was not clearly a rhetorical question imo, hence why I asked you to clarify, there is no need to get angry when asked to clarify your point. My interpretation is global, in any field, an argument from authority is insufficient and fallacious, including theology. I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion I need to interpret it differently based on the field as you do. The wiki article you linked to clearly agrees with my interpretation at least for science, so you clearly disagree with the global nature of it as you put forward an interpretation and exemptions which violate Sagan's quote from the wiki "One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

I'm really struggling to see how you could possibly misinterpret my points, and the articles on this fallacy, to quite this extent. Are you overstressed at work or home or something? even when showing your sexism around Jacinda it was an internally consistent logic built around a core of delusion, the stuff this week has instead just been way out in the weeds and all over the place...

Graystone

27th June 2018, 20:31

Then why is it given in an example, in a description of the Fallacy that you yourself cited?

Forgot this one, quoting the paragraph in full

The appeal to authority is more about claims that require evidence than about facts. For example, if your tour guide told you that Vatican City was founded February 11, 1929, and you accept that information as true, you are not committing a fallacy (because it is not in the context of argumentation) nor are you being unreasonable.

We can conclude 100% that the meaning of this is to show:
a) it is not commiting the fallacy
b) because it is not in the context of argumentation
Surely you can also draw such conclusions when they are written right there in plain english? I'm not sure what else you are trying to read into it?

Katman

27th June 2018, 21:02

Are you two trying to out-mental disorder each other?

husaberg

28th June 2018, 00:09

Are you two trying to out-mental disorder each other?
Don't worry you are out of their league
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-narcissus-in-all-us/200809/paranoia-and-the-roots-conspiracy-theories
https://www.geek.com/science/new-study-links-conspiracy-theorists-with-a-mental-disorder-1720483/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3482408/Believe-conspiracy-theories-probably-narcissist-People-doubt-moon-landings-likely-selfish-attention-seeking.html

Katman

28th June 2018, 12:06

Don't worry you are out of their league
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-narcissus-in-all-us/200809/paranoia-and-the-roots-conspiracy-theories
https://www.geek.com/science/new-study-links-conspiracy-theorists-with-a-mental-disorder-1720483/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3482408/Believe-conspiracy-theories-probably-narcissist-People-doubt-moon-landings-likely-selfish-attention-seeking.html

Well now that someone's finally worked the thread back to the subject of conspiracy theories, let's take a closer look at those links.

They mention......

Flat earth theory. Have you ever seen me make any comment on that theory?

Faked moon landings. Have you ever seen me make any comment on that theory?

Vaccines are a plot for mind control. Have you ever seen me make a comment that supports that theory?

Shadowy government agencies hiding alien technology in hidden bunkers? Have you ever seen me make a comment on that theory?

The only subject that they mention, that I have offered up any commentary on, is 9/11. And I comment on that subject simply because there is a great deal of questions that need to be asked about 9/11.

And considering that over half the world's population questions the validity of the official details of 9/11, I'm in the majority there.

So I'm not quite sure what you think your links are trying to prove.

TheDemonLord

28th June 2018, 16:09

All the 'exceptions' show deferral/inductive arguments which as we know, cannot be used to prove a point. Thus my statement that if you wish to prove a point, there are no exceptions.

What lovely mental backlips you are doing...

Let me be clear - the Fallacy has an Exception. It's there in black and white. As I've said all along.

It was not clearly a rhetorical question imo, hence why I asked you to clarify, there is no need to get angry when asked to clarify your point. My interpretation is global, in any field, an argument from authority is insufficient and fallacious, including theology. I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion I need to interpret it differently based on the field as you do. The wiki article you linked to clearly agrees with my interpretation at least for science, so you clearly disagree with the global nature of it as you put forward an interpretation and exemptions which violate Sagan's quote from the wiki "One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

My God. It's really Simple:

When applied to a Scientific subject - the Scientific standard of evidence is applicable.
When applied to something that has a different standard of evidence - That standard of evidence is applicable.

The Fallacy itself doesn't change.

All you've done there is talk yourself in a circle and come back to trying to apply a Scientific standard of evidence to everything, which is inappropriate.

I'm really struggling

Quite.

to see how you could possibly misinterpret my points, and the articles on this fallacy, to quite this extent. Are you overstressed at work or home or something? even when showing your sexism around Jacinda it was an internally consistent logic built around a core of delusion, the stuff this week has instead just been way out in the weeds and all over the place...

Oh I see, you're still butthurt about that - Sounds like you need to watch some Frozen and....

https://media1.tenor.com/images/6a977311adafc1bcecb13f3226511082/tenor.gif?itemid=3597315

Forgot this one, quoting the paragraph in full

We can conclude 100% that the meaning of this is to show:
a) it is not commiting the fallacy
b) because it is not in the context of argumentation
Surely you can also draw such conclusions when they are written right there in plain english? I'm not sure what else you are trying to read into it?

I don't know how many ways you can try and mitigate the fact that you originally explicitly stated there was no Exception, only to quote a definition that has a rather large section under the heading "Exceptions"

The point remains - your attributing of the Fallacy and your understanding of the Fallacy are both incorrect.

Graystone

28th June 2018, 19:28

What lovely mental backlips you are doing...

Let me be clear - the Fallacy has an Exception. It's there in black and white. As I've said all along.

My God. It's really Simple:

When applied to a Scientific subject - the Scientific standard of evidence is applicable.
When applied to something that has a different standard of evidence - That standard of evidence is applicable.

The Fallacy itself doesn't change.

All you've done there is talk yourself in a circle and come back to trying to apply a Scientific standard of evidence to everything, which is inappropriate.

Quite.

Oh I see, you're still butthurt about that - Sounds like you need to watch some Frozen and....

https://media1.tenor.com/images/6a977311adafc1bcecb13f3226511082/tenor.gif?itemid=3597315

I don't know how many ways you can try and mitigate the fact that you originally explicitly stated there was no Exception, only to quote a definition that has a rather large section under the heading "Exceptions"

The point remains - your attributing of the Fallacy and your understanding of the Fallacy are both incorrect.

The 'exception' can not prove anything, and can only be used as an inductive argument. Do you understand that? If you cared to apply context to my claim there was no exception, it would be clear I'm talking about proving something. Yes there's an exception to the fallacy if you don't want to prove anything.

It's even simpler than that:
Nobody is exempt from proving their point rationally.
54 Characters, you used 111 (which is relevant, cos your arguments are flat-lining, call a doctor, stat :laugh: )

Exactly what circles have I gone in? I've never suggested applying the fallacy differently depending on the field as you are. Nor do I think there are differing standard of proof between fields, some (like theology) simply cannot satisfy the scientific burden of proof, so there is no proof, we don't just lower the bar for them and say old popey has a big hat, his beliefs are proven, that would be absurd.

I felt it a relevant example, I do not think I am the only one who has noted a decline in you rational lately.

So what else were you trying to read into it? Exceptions are not relevant to that discussion point unless you are intent on committing the Fallacy of the Non Sequitur...

TheDemonLord

29th June 2018, 00:16

The 'exception' can not prove anything, and can only be used as an inductive argument. Do you understand that? If you cared to apply context to my claim there was no exception, it would be clear I'm talking about proving something. Yes there's an exception to the fallacy if you don't want to prove anything.

I'm loving your attempts at backtracking. We've gone from "There is no Exception" to "There is an exception, but it's not relevant" back to "There is no Exception" and finally onto "There's an exception, but it doesn't apply to what I actually meant"

It's almost like you don't know what you are talking about, whereas I've been very clear on this point: There's an Exception, always has been, and you are wrong.

It's even simpler than that:
Nobody is exempt from proving their point rationally.
54 Characters, you used 111 (which is relevant, cos your arguments are flat-lining, call a doctor, stat :laugh: )

And how do you define Rationally? Because thus far, you've attested that the Scientific method of proof is the only standard. Which is false. It's also why you are twisting yourself up in knots trying to backflip your way out of conceding that which is blatantly obvious.

Exactly what circles have I gone in? I've never suggested applying the fallacy differently depending on the field as you are. Nor do I think there are differing standard of proof between fields, some (like theology) simply cannot satisfy the scientific burden of proof, so there is no proof, we don't just lower the bar for them and say old popey has a big hat, his beliefs are proven, that would be absurd.

If there is no proof, then by an extension, this fallacy cannot be applied - since absent proof, all that is left is appeals to authority - which means that statement is fundamentally false. However didn't you say:

Of course people can commit the fallacy in theology,

That would be the Circles you are going in. All you need to do is stop, accept the correct definition of the fallacy, concede the point - and move on.

I felt it a relevant example, I do not think I am the only one who has noted a decline in you rational lately.

Ah yes - the old "I agree with you on one thing, but disagree with you on another, therefore you are suddenly stupid" argument - it would work really well if your opinion of me mattered - have you forgotten that I'm an Insufferable Cunt that doesn't care about how I'm perceived?

So what else were you trying to read into it? Exceptions are not relevant to that discussion point unless you are intent on committing the Fallacy of the Non Sequitur...

It's a demonstration of your lack of basic understanding, which is rather relevant.

Graystone

29th June 2018, 20:28

I'm loving your attempts at backtracking. We've gone from "There is no Exception" to "There is an exception, but it's not relevant" back to "There is no Exception" and finally onto "There's an exception, but it doesn't apply to what I actually meant"

It's almost like you don't know what you are talking about, whereas I've been very clear on this point: There's an Exception, always has been, and you are wrong.

And how do you define Rationally? Because thus far, you've attested that the Scientific method of proof is the only standard. Which is false. It's also why you are twisting yourself up in knots trying to backflip your way out of conceding that which is blatantly obvious.

If there is no proof, then by an extension, this fallacy cannot be applied - since absent proof, all that is left is appeals to authority - which means that statement is fundamentally false. However didn't you say:

That would be the Circles you are going in. All you need to do is stop, accept the correct definition of the fallacy, concede the point - and move on.

Ah yes - the old "I agree with you on one thing, but disagree with you on another, therefore you are suddenly stupid" argument - it would work really well if your opinion of me mattered - have you forgotten that I'm an Insufferable Cunt that doesn't care about how I'm perceived?

It's a demonstration of your lack of basic understanding, which is rather relevant.

Seems you're intent on the Non Sequitur thing then. I do find it quite ironic you do not accept my word as an authority on what I write/mean while promoting the notion that the exception to the argument from authority fallacy is if the authority is valid ;)

Rationally is by reasonable means, when talking proof, it requires deduction. What else would you use to prove something?

It's also worth noting I've not attested the scientific method is the only method (please stop the attempts at straw-manning me), I mentioned the scientific burden of proof, by that I simply mean systematic, rational, deductive, evidence based reasoning; supplied by the one who makes the claim.

Why can the fallacy not be applied if there is no proof? Where does that notion come from?

Nah, it's more the old 'check yourself before you wreck yourself'.

Is it though? All you have demonstrated is your ability to interpret things to fit your narrative. I could equally take a quote from you out of context to 'demonstrate' the same, but I recognise it is a irrelevant to the fallacy's meaning and unnecessarily combative anyway.

Berries

1st July 2018, 20:48

Here you go then. Mosgiel yesterday just before sundown. Heading west to north west so Te Anau/Queenstown general direction but who knows where from or where to.

All I know is my toad in the hole tasted funny last night..........

TheDemonLord

2nd July 2018, 16:52

Seems you're intent on the Non Sequitur thing then. I do find it quite ironic you do not accept my word as an authority on what I write/mean while promoting the notion that the exception to the argument from authority fallacy is if the authority is valid ;)

Not at all, you aren't an Authority on English...

It's not a non-sequitur to point out to where you've contradicted yourself AND the evidence that you provided, in fact, it's rather pertinent.

Rationally is by reasonable means, when talking proof, it requires deduction. What else would you use to prove something?

Maths would be a start, Where a proof is an "Inferential argument for a mathematical statement."

It's also worth noting I've not attested the scientific method is the only method (please stop the attempts at straw-manning me), I mentioned the scientific burden of proof, by that I simply mean systematic, rational, deductive, evidence based reasoning; supplied by the one who makes the claim.

So, if the Scientific method isn't the only method, then it's acceptable to use something that doesn't fit the scientific standard of proof - which has been my claim all along, whereas you have been dismissing it because it doesn't fit that standard of proof.

If you are conceding that there are other levels of proof, that are acceptable to use - then by all means, you'll just have to withdrawn your criticism.

Why can the fallacy not be applied if there is no proof? Where does that notion come from?

Follow the fallacy through to it's logical conclusion and consider the following - if there is nothing objective, then it must be wholly subjective.

Nah, it's more the old 'check yourself before you wreck yourself'.

Says the person who has contradicted themselves multiple times in this thread...

Check yo' self indeed.

Is it though? All you have demonstrated is your ability to interpret things to fit your narrative. I could equally take a quote from you out of context to 'demonstrate' the same, but I recognise it is a irrelevant to the fallacy's meaning and unnecessarily combative anyway.

Again, we've gone from "There are no exceptions" to "There are exceptions but I'm ignoring them" back to "There no exceptions".

This started because you cited a fallacy, I pointed out that you were incorrect in your usage because of the very exception that you denied existed - then after much back and forth, you post a link with a lengthy section outlining the Exception I spoke of.

This is really tiresome, if you can't understand from your sources, what hope have I of convincing you?

Graystone

2nd July 2018, 18:41

Not at all, you aren't an Authority on English...

It's not a non-sequitur to point out to where you've contradicted yourself AND the evidence that you provided, in fact, it's rather pertinent.

Maths would be a start, Where a proof is an "Inferential argument for a mathematical statement."

So, if the Scientific method isn't the only method, then it's acceptable to use something that doesn't fit the scientific standard of proof - which has been my claim all along, whereas you have been dismissing it because it doesn't fit that standard of proof.

If you are conceding that there are other levels of proof, that are acceptable to use - then by all means, you'll just have to withdrawn your criticism.

Follow the fallacy through to it's logical conclusion and consider the following - if there is nothing objective, then it must be wholly subjective.

Says the person who has contradicted themselves multiple times in this thread...

Check yo' self indeed.

Again, we've gone from "There are no exceptions" to "There are exceptions but I'm ignoring them" back to "There no exceptions".

This started because you cited a fallacy, I pointed out that you were incorrect in your usage because of the very exception that you denied existed - then after much back and forth, you post a link with a lengthy section outlining the Exception I spoke of.

This is really tiresome, if you can't understand from your sources, what hope have I of convincing you?

Yes but I am an authority I what I mean.

Is it though? Does it in any way diminish my point about the fallacy to keep pointing to another point of contention about it?

Maths is covered by 'reasonable means, when talking proof, it requires deduction'.

Moving goalposts much? Your claim has been that there is an exception to the fallacy where the 'authority' is a really good one. I dismiss that because it's pretty much the thing the fallacy is entirely about. You confuse it with the argument from false authority fallacy. I am certainly not conceding there are other levels of proof, what is always required is a "systematic, rational, deductive, evidence based reasoning; supplied by the one who makes the claim." as evidence by the example in the wiki you linked to, I mean, if you can't understand from your sources, what hope have I of convincing you?

If there is nothing objective, then there are no true authorities and every appeal to authority commits the fallacy, arguably it is the subtype, appeal to false authority, but it is acceptable to use the main one for obvious reasons.

Actually we've gone from, there are no exceptions (in the context of proof) to nowhere else, we're still there, nothing you have shown supports the notion that 'legit' authorities are exempt. And many thing's I've shown support the notion they are not...

"An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context."

and

"Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources, with some holding that it is a strong argument which "has a legitimate force", and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy where, on a conflict of facts, "mere appeal to authority alone had better be avoided"."

Which shows, at best you have the 'agree to disagree' option, but the notion my interpretation of the fallacy is outright wrong is utterly baseless.

TheDemonLord

2nd July 2018, 22:18

Yes but I am an authority I what I mean.

Sure, but since I'm not a mind reader, I'm going off what you've actually written and what you've refused to retract. It's the last part that is particularly telling, your refusal to accept that an original statement was incorrect tells me that this is not a matter of a poorly worded post.

Is it though? Does it in any way diminish my point about the fallacy to keep pointing to another point of contention about it?

Not another point, THE point.

Maths is covered by 'reasonable means, when talking proof, it requires deduction'.

And yet, it's a perfectly valid proof, using "Inferential argument"...

Moving goalposts much? Your claim has been that there is an exception to the fallacy where the 'authority' is a really good one. I dismiss that because it's pretty much the thing the fallacy is entirely about. You confuse it with the argument from false authority fallacy. I am certainly not conceding there are other levels of proof, what is always required is a "systematic, rational, deductive, evidence based reasoning; supplied by the one who makes the claim." as evidence by the example in the wiki you linked to, I mean, if you can't understand from your sources, what hope have I of convincing you?

There's no movement of my Goal posts - the reason you think they are moving is because you keep running around in circles - to avoid conceding the now patently obvious.

If there is nothing objective, then there are no true authorities and every appeal to authority commits the fallacy, arguably it is the subtype, appeal to false authority, but it is acceptable to use the main one for obvious reasons.

You were so close in that train of logic, then you missed the station and ended up in the wrong destination.

Actually we've gone from, there are no exceptions (in the context of proof) to nowhere else, we're still there, nothing you have shown supports the notion that 'legit' authorities are exempt. And many thing's I've shown support the notion they are not...

We've gone from no exceptions to imaginative and inventive ways to diminish the fact that there is (by your own sources) an exception.

"An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context."

and

"Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources, with some holding that it is a strong argument which "has a legitimate force", and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy where, on a conflict of facts, "mere appeal to authority alone had better be avoided"."

Hmmm - whats that?

though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.

Thanks for again proving my point and disproving yours.

Now, you'll cry that you don't accept the reliability, but since you've proved yourself unwilling to engage with any semblance of intellectual honesty - you'll never accept his reliability - to do so would require you to concede the multitude of points you've been disingenuously arguing against. I've simply settled on the fact that as judged by his Peers (they appointed him to the job), he is a reliable authority on Financial and Economic matters and ESPECIALLY on the NZ Financial system.

Which shows, at best you have the 'agree to disagree' option, but the notion my interpretation of the fallacy is outright wrong is utterly baseless.

Turns out, yet again, by your own quoted material - that I was right all along.

This is not agree to disagree - this is you need to learn the correct application of your fallacies, along with some Economics.

Graystone

3rd July 2018, 18:01

Sure, but since I'm not a mind reader, I'm going off what you've actually written and what you've refused to retract. It's the last part that is particularly telling, your refusal to accept that an original statement was incorrect tells me that this is not a matter of a poorly worded post.

Not another point, THE point.

And yet, it's a perfectly valid proof, using "Inferential argument"...

There's no movement of my Goal posts - the reason you think they are moving is because you keep running around in circles - to avoid conceding the now patently obvious.

You were so close in that train of logic, then you missed the station and ended up in the wrong destination.

We've gone from no exceptions to imaginative and inventive ways to diminish the fact that there is (by your own sources) an exception.

Hmmm - whats that?

Thanks for again proving my point and disproving yours.

Now, you'll cry that you don't accept the reliability, but since you've proved yourself unwilling to engage with any semblance of intellectual honesty - you'll never accept his reliability - to do so would require you to concede the multitude of points you've been disingenuously arguing against. I've simply settled on the fact that as judged by his Peers (they appointed him to the job), he is a reliable authority on Financial and Economic matters and ESPECIALLY on the NZ Financial system.

Turns out, yet again, by your own quoted material - that I was right all along.

This is not agree to disagree - this is you need to learn the correct application of your fallacies, along with some Economics.

Since you're not a mind reader, perhaps accept my correction to your interpretations then...

Which is/was it then? that there is an exception to the fallacy where the 'authority' is a really good one vs "it's acceptable to use something that doesn't fit the scientific standard of proof"

I rationalized my train of logic, please do the same to show where I have 'gone off the rails'.

Is there an exception to the fallacy (in the context of proof)?

It's a convincing argument if all sides agree on their authority. It is not a proof, especially not when there is disagreement on authority. You are trying to create another exception where one does not exist by saying my disagreement is inadmissible.

Are you still going on the non-sequitur gish gallop, come back around eh! Mind you it is being addressed at the top of this post so...

TheDemonLord

3rd July 2018, 21:46

Since you're not a mind reader, perhaps accept my correction to your interpretations then...

I'll accept retractions to your own statements, they are a bit more convincing - and since they've not been forthcoming...

Which is/was it then? that there is an exception to the fallacy where the 'authority' is a really good one vs "it's acceptable to use something that doesn't fit the scientific standard of proof"

It's the same as it always was, how are you still not grasping this?

I rationalized my train of logic, please do the same to show where I have 'gone off the rails'.

How can one appeal an authority if, as you rightly point out, there are no authorities?

Is there an exception to the fallacy (in the context of proof)?

There's an exception to the fallacy.

It's a convincing argument if all sides agree on their authority. It is not a proof, especially not when there is disagreement on authority. You are trying to create another exception where one does not exist by saying my disagreement is inadmissible.

No, I'm saying you aren't being intellectual honest, and are denying the qualifications out of a combination of Spite and to avoid conceding the point. I'm dismissing that because it's got no merit.

Are you still going on the non-sequitur gish gallop, come back around eh! Mind you it is being addressed at the top of this post so...

Just stop trying to use logical terms, until you can use them correctly.

This is not a Gish Gallop, both in terms of the actual definition and compared to the length of post I normally write, in fact - it is positively curt.

Graystone

3rd July 2018, 22:38

I'll accept retractions to your own statements, they are a bit more convincing - and since they've not been forthcoming...

It's the same as it always was, how are you still not grasping this?

How can one appeal an authority if, as you rightly point out, there are no authorities?

There's an exception to the fallacy.

No, I'm saying you aren't being intellectual honest, and are denying the qualifications out of a combination of Spite and to avoid conceding the point. I'm dismissing that because it's got no merit.

Just stop trying to use logical terms, until you can use them correctly.

This is not a Gish Gallop, both in terms of the actual definition and compared to the length of post I normally write, in fact - it is positively curt.

No retraction is warranted, there are no exceptions to the fallacy when proof is demanded.

The complete change in wording I guess, but I'll accept your clarification on what you wrote. And point out the science or not standard of proof is not relevant since your original claim, and others since, have not shown support for distinct applications of the fallacy based on the feild.

There are no 'true authorities' is what I said, but there are plenty of others who peopl would try to give the title to. Telling the difference is not always so simple. This is why the argument from false authority is not really distinguished from its parent one.

So what is the exception, where an argument from authority can prove a point? All you have is a few disputed inductive reasoning lines so far, not good enough tbh.

And I could believe you are strawmaning me by ascribing those motivations so you can avoid conceding the point. Bottom line is there is no exception for both parties agreeing to the validity of the authority. So one could argue by proving you seek to create an exception where none exists, it supports the notion you are doing the same for the main fallacy; but of course that would be a non sequitur ;) not to mention a gish gallop :laugh:

Berries

3rd July 2018, 22:44

Get a room.

TheDemonLord

3rd July 2018, 23:24

No retraction is warranted, there are no exceptions to the fallacy when proof is demanded.

And that is why I stand by my observation. You're not willing to retract a series of what were objectively false statements.

The complete change in wording I guess, but I'll accept your clarification on what you wrote. And point out the science or not standard of proof is not relevant since your original claim, and others since, have not shown support for distinct applications of the fallacy based on the feild.

Standards of proof are self-contained within the field.

Would you use a Mathematical proof in Philosophy? Of course not. Therefore, you wouldn't use the scientific method of proof for Economics.

There are no 'true authorities' is what I said, but there are plenty of others who peopl would try to give the title to. Telling the difference is not always so simple. This is why the argument from false authority is not really distinguished from its parent one.

Except it is distinguished, in that it has a different name and different definition...

So what is the exception, where an argument from authority can prove a point? All you have is a few disputed inductive reasoning lines so far, not good enough tbh.

It's exactly as I, and your sources, have said, all this time.

And I could believe you are strawmaning me by ascribing those motivations so you can avoid conceding the point. Bottom line is there is no exception for both parties agreeing to the validity of the authority. So one could argue by proving you seek to create an exception where none exists, it supports the notion you are doing the same for the main fallacy; but of course that would be a non sequitur ;) not to mention a gish gallop :laugh:

1: This is not a Strawman, since it's my opinion of you. Not a representation of your arguments Yet again, you fail at calling a fallacy
2: Can you provide an objective reason why it would be incorrect to consider Don Brash an expert in Economics, Finance and specifically the NZ Financial system? That is something you've not done. If his credentials were in dispute, it would be easy to dismiss, and yet you can't. So, we are left with the only possible conclusion as to your continued denial - either you are delusional or you know you've lost the point ages ago, but are trying to save face.
3: This is not a Gish Gallop Yet again, you fail at calling a fallacy. A Gish Gallop, in the written form (bearing in mind that I was the one that introduced that term to this forum) is where you tell someone to either read or watch an overly long source and claim that all the proof is contained within that source.

As is clear, I've not done either, hence why Yet again, you fail at calling a fallacy

Laava

3rd July 2018, 23:33

It's bed time guys. Don't forget to brush your teeth!

husaberg

4th July 2018, 08:02

The only subject that they mention, that I have offered up any commentary on, is 9/11. And I comment on that subject simply because there is a great deal of questions that need to be asked about 9/11.

And considering that over half the world's population questions the validity of the official details of 9/11, I'm in the majority there.

So I'm not quite sure what you think your links are trying to prove.
It would take a few more paragraphs to cover all the conspiracy theories you have posted on KB. maybe you might consider that you are no different than the other conspiracy idiots mentioned.

'Narcissists think that they are better than other people. At the same time, they are convinced that others are constantly trying to undermine them.

Viking01

4th July 2018, 11:17

.... back it comes again ....

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/431630-uk-skripal-case-failure/

Is it a quiet news week ?

Or is there an important Russian sports event on somewhere ?

Maybe a Russian summit meeting coming up soon ? We wouldn't
want Mr Trump to declare peace with the Russians.

I'm sure all will soon become obvious.

Katman

4th July 2018, 11:30

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/431630-uk-skripal-case-failure/

And the story had just about been out of the public's view for long enough for those who swallowed it hook, line and sinker to begin hoping that no-one would ever bring it up again.

Viking01

4th July 2018, 12:54

And the story had just about been out of the public's view for long enough for those who swallowed it hook, line and sinker to begin hoping that no-one would ever bring it up again.

Oops ! Did I do something wrong?

Oh well, I suppose that ardent young Mr Husaberg will be along soon enough
to correct me, and to advise me that since it didn't come from an "official
source", I should pay no attention to it.

But, is it still a "conspiracy theory" if it has not been "officially" denied ?

Have I been posting in the wrong thread ? I find it all so confusing.

Oh well, better go and finish some more chores before the "boss" gets home.
You have a good day.

Graystone

4th July 2018, 19:52

And that is why I stand by my observation. You're not willing to retract a series of what were objectively false statements.

Standards of proof are self-contained within the field.

Would you use a Mathematical proof in Philosophy? Of course not. Therefore, you wouldn't use the scientific method of proof for Economics.

Except it is distinguished, in that it has a different name and different definition...

It's exactly as I, and your sources, have said, all this time.

1: This is not a Strawman, since it's my opinion of you. Not a representation of your arguments Yet again, you fail at calling a fallacy
2: Can you provide an objective reason why it would be incorrect to consider Don Brash an expert in Economics, Finance and specifically the NZ Financial system? That is something you've not done. If his credentials were in dispute, it would be easy to dismiss, and yet you can't. So, we are left with the only possible conclusion as to your continued denial - either you are delusional or you know you've lost the point ages ago, but are trying to save face.
3: This is not a Gish Gallop Yet again, you fail at calling a fallacy. A Gish Gallop, in the written form (bearing in mind that I was the one that introduced that term to this forum) is where you tell someone to either read or watch an overly long source and claim that all the proof is contained within that source.

As is clear, I've not done either, hence why Yet again, you fail at calling a fallacy

Let's just trim the chaff, so as not to commit the fallacy of lost prophets.

The primary contention being discussed is that even for a proof, you believe there is an exception where an appeal to authority can be used to prove a point. Though you agree that for scientific matters this exception is not to be applied. For other matters, the sources are quite clear on the inductive nature of such appeals, so to satisfy your side of the contention two premises must be fulfilled.

1) The fallacy should be interpreted differently (if an exception is only applied in some cases this is a different interpretation) based on the field being discussed.
2) That an inductive argument is a valid form of proof.

Now a simple question, since at least one of us knows the value of ensuring correct interpretation of wording during a discussion, do you agree with the quantification of your contention and the two premises it relies on? Note that I'm not asking if you agree with the premises themselves, just if you find the summary I have written valid.

Katman

4th July 2018, 23:01

Oh well, I suppose that ardent young Mr Husaberg will be along soon enough to correct me, and to advise me that since it didn't come from an "official source", I should pay no attention to it.

It would appear you're not important enough to him.

Viking01

5th July 2018, 14:03

It would appear you're not important enough to him.

Afternoon. Apologies for my tardy response. Been busy all morning.

Actually, I did think that he might "still be licking his wounds" after
the mauling he received on this subject last time, but perhaps you
are right after all.

But I see this hasn't stopped the press worldwide from casting some
doubt on the latest episode.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201807041066039937-uk-media-blame-russia-for-amesbury/

You'd think that after their first effort, they wouldn't rush things,
and that they would apply just a little more time and effort with the
next version. But No ! Rush, rush, rush.

They say that "lightning never strikes the same place twice" (unless
of course you're talking about lightning rods). But this second event
was close to Porton Downs (again). I mean, how likely was that ?

I was going to ask DL and GS whether this qualified as "the exception
that disproved the rule", but I saw that they'd moved on to phalluses
and induction motors in their debate this morning (post #470). And I
wasn't going to risk getting caught up in the middle of that one.

But for my money, the big question (that no-one is asking) has to be:

Who is selling all the "poor quality" Novichuk ?

You'd think that any assassin worth his salt would get it right after
the first failure. It is not going to look good on the CV.

I mean, you're just not going to get "repeat business" with statements
like "almost killed the victims" or "made the victims decidedly unwell".

It's just not good enough. I'd definitely be going back to the supplier
asking for a refund. And seriously thinking about changing supplier.

Anyway, must rush. Things still to get done.

Cheers,
Viking

TheDemonLord

5th July 2018, 14:55

Let's just trim the chaff, so as not to commit the fallacy of lost prophets.

The primary contention being discussed is that even for a proof, you believe there is an exception where an appeal to authority can be used to prove a point. Though you agree that for scientific matters this exception is not to be applied. For other matters, the sources are quite clear on the inductive nature of such appeals, so to satisfy your side of the contention two premises must be fulfilled.

1) The fallacy should be interpreted differently (if an exception is only applied in some cases this is a different interpretation) based on the field being discussed.
2) That an inductive argument is a valid form of proof.

Now a simple question, since at least one of us knows the value of ensuring correct interpretation of wording during a discussion, do you agree with the quantification of your contention and the two premises it relies on? Note that I'm not asking if you agree with the premises themselves, just if you find the summary I have written valid.

Short answer - no, I don't find it valid.

On your first statement - you are trying to put the cart before the horse. The definition of the fallacy remains the same, what changes is self-contained within the field of discussion. If inductive arguments are valid for a field, then citing a recognized expert, in a discussion within that field is not fallacious. If inductive arguments are not valid (such as science), then citing a recognized expert would be fallacious. The definition has not changed for the fallacy, The changing variable is the field itself and the appropriate standard of proof therein.

On the second statement, it's missing a qualifier (which happens to be very important) - it depends on the field - in some fields, inductive arguments are valid.

So your first statement is fundamentally false, the second statement needs to be clarified.

Graystone

5th July 2018, 18:50

Short answer - no, I don't find it valid.

On your first statement - you are trying to put the cart before the horse. The definition of the fallacy remains the same, what changes is self-contained within the field of discussion. If inductive arguments are valid for a field, then citing a recognized expert, in a discussion within that field is not fallacious. If inductive arguments are not valid (such as science), then citing a recognized expert would be fallacious. The definition has not changed for the fallacy, The changing variable is the field itself and the appropriate standard of proof therein.

On the second statement, it's missing a qualifier (which happens to be very important) - it depends on the field - in some fields, inductive arguments are valid.

So your first statement is fundamentally false, the second statement needs to be clarified.

So your premises are:

1) The fallacy's exception is when a recognized expert's opinion counts as proof
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof

Right?

TheDemonLord

6th July 2018, 11:08

So your premises are:

1) The fallacy's exception is when a recognized expert's opinion counts as proof
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof

Right?

The fallacy's exception is exactly what it says in the description.
And your second statement is still incorrect.

Please stop trying to play word games to avoid conceding the point.

Graystone

6th July 2018, 19:28

The fallacy's exception is exactly what it says in the description.
And your second statement is still incorrect.

Please stop trying to play word games to avoid conceding the point.

It is important to create clarification on our premises and points. I have noticed you tend to avoid this in order to spin up many other points only vaguely related to the topic at hand to try to 'prove' your point, obviously it works with your normal associates but it is not a rational approach. What is rational, is distilling down the argument into only a few points of contention or premises to examine.

It is clear you do not want to do this as you know your point does not stand up to a simple logical examination, so I'll thank you in future to not make stupid claims about what fallacy is what when clearly you lack the ability to rationalise your interpretation of them, let alone prove somebody else's interpretation is wrong.

You are also free to put those contentions into your own words if you still believe you interpretation is a rational one...

TheDemonLord

6th July 2018, 21:31

It is important to create clarification on our premises and points. I have noticed you tend to avoid this in order to spin up many other points only vaguely related to the topic at hand to try to 'prove' your point, obviously it works with your normal associates but it is not a rational approach. What is rational, is distilling down the argument into only a few points of contention or premises to examine.

It is clear you do not want to do this as you know your point does not stand up to a simple logical examination, so I'll thank you in future to not make stupid claims about what fallacy is what when clearly you lack the ability to rationalise your interpretation of them, let alone prove somebody else's interpretation is wrong.

You are also free to put those contentions into your own words if you still believe you interpretation is a rational one...

You're right I don't want to do this - not because I haven't got confidence in the point I'm making, but because of your clear intent to re-interpret reality - namely you are trying to come up with a scenario where that which was clearly defined by your own sources doesn't mean what I said it did.

Graystone

7th July 2018, 09:47

You're right I don't want to do this - not because I haven't got confidence in the point I'm making, but because of your clear intent to re-interpret reality - namely you are trying to come up with a scenario where that which was clearly defined by your own sources doesn't mean what I said it did.

Reinterpreting reality actually becomes more and more difficult when premises are examined and simplified (clearly why you shy from doing so, time and time again). For example, your premise that my sources say what you think, is clearly false when the sources say things like:

"If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument."

"There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong"

Yet your contention is that the word of a valid authority (which does not require both parties to agree on the validity) forms a valid proof (in some fields), is it not?

See how when your base assertions do not stack up, it is only logical to examine the premise behind them?

mashman

7th July 2018, 10:12

Reinterpreting reality actually becomes more and more difficult when premises are examined and simplified (clearly why you shy from doing so, time and time again). For example, your premise that my sources say what you think, is clearly false when the sources say things like:

"If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument."

"There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong"

Yet your contention is that the word of a valid authority (which does not require both parties to agree on the validity) forms a valid proof (in some fields), is it not?

See how when your base assertions do not stack up, it is only logical to examine the premise behind them?

:killingme... ahhhhh can't ya just taste the enlightenment of it all :tugger:

husaberg

7th July 2018, 15:38

:killingme... ahhhhh can't ya just taste the enlightenment of it all :tugger:
Was it enlightening for you when despite your previous bragging of popularity claims of your personal views you only revived 0.56% of the votes when you ran as an MP.

TheDemonLord

9th July 2018, 08:50

See how I'm playing word games to avoid conceding a point

Fixed.....

Graystone

9th July 2018, 18:02

Fixed.....

I disagree, rationally. Obviously such a thing is beyond your ability.

It's not word games to interpret "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong" as counter to an assertion of an exemption from the argument from authority fallacy. Claiming such only underscores the futility of your position.

Graystone

9th July 2018, 18:34

Was it enlightening for you when despite your previous bragging of popularity claims of your personal views you only revived 0.56% of the votes when you ran as an MP.

Ha, but wasn't there another one recently? It's the trend that is more important right?

TheDemonLord

10th July 2018, 16:15

I disagree, rationally. Obviously such a thing is beyond your ability.

It's not word games to interpret "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong" as counter to an assertion of an exemption from the argument from authority fallacy. Claiming such only underscores the futility of your position.

Except for the whole "The exception is included in the description of the Fallacy" part. It's there for a reason, whether you like it or not.

Which is where your attempts to play word games come in.

The only reason you are resorting to playing such a game is because you've got nothing left to stand on.

And I said - I'm not going to entertain it. If you want to ignore that which is clearly articulated, by the sources that you yourself have cited - go right ahead. But to do so and try and making any claims about "rationality" or to impugn others is, to be frank, laughably ironic.

Graystone

10th July 2018, 19:18

Except for the whole "The exception is included in the description of the Fallacy" part. It's there for a reason, whether you like it or not.

Which is where your attempts to play word games come in.

The only reason you are resorting to playing such a game is because you've got nothing left to stand on.

And I said - I'm not going to entertain it. If you want to ignore that which is clearly articulated, by the sources that you yourself have cited - go right ahead. But to do so and try and making any claims about "rationality" or to impugn others is, to be frank, laughably ironic.

It would be rational to look at the exception to determine it's limits, like "all parties must agree" and "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong". Clearly articulated indeed :laugh:

It has become clear you now realise your error on some level and refuse to go into any detailed discussion around it to maintain a delusion in which you are not in error. It is very common among god-botherers, antivaccers, conspiracy theorists, and morons of all types; it is quite amusing to watch the detail of discussion scale back as they are backed into a corner. It is especially amusing in your case as it is made so much more obvious due to your pedantic nature of going down to silly levels of detail in any discussion you try to participate in, only making it more obvious that your toys are heading out of the cot in this one.

TheDemonLord

10th July 2018, 20:40

It would be rational to look at the exception to determine it's limits, like "all parties must agree" and "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong". Clearly articulated indeed :laugh:

You cling to that part, whilst ignoring the part about it being a valid inductive argument.

And I've already addressed the other caveat.

It has become clear you now realise your error on some level and refuse to go into any detailed discussion around it to maintain a delusion in which you are not in error. It is very common among god-botherers, antivaccers, conspiracy theorists, and morons of all types; it is quite amusing to watch the detail of discussion scale back as they are backed into a corner. It is especially amusing in your case as it is made so much more obvious due to your pedantic nature of going down to silly levels of detail in any discussion you try to participate in, only making it more obvious that your toys are heading out of the cot in this one.

Sargons Law.

Graystone

10th July 2018, 20:58

You cling to that part, whilst ignoring the part about it being a valid inductive argument.

And I've already addressed the other caveat.

Sargons Law.

So what you're saying is it's open to interpretation and not that clear? :laugh: It can be a valid inductive argument as well as having a small chance of being wrong, however you seem to be of the opinion that an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof; to which I sought clarification and then had to duck some flying toys...

Interesting, for Sargon's law to apply the character judgement I make of you; which is your unwillingness to go into detail due to knowing it does not support your argument, would have to apply to me as well. Which is fine, since because I am willing to go into detail it forms an inductive argument that I am right :sunny:

TheDemonLord

10th July 2018, 23:13

So what you're saying is it's open to interpretation and not that clear? :laugh: It can be a valid inductive argument as well as having a small chance of being wrong, however you seem to be of the opinion that an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof; to which I sought clarification and then had to duck some flying toys...

You got your clarification, then you deliberately re-worded it so as to misrepresent it, to avoid conceding the point.

That's the bit at which I lost any and all interest.

Interesting, for Sargon's law to apply the character judgement I make of you; which is your unwillingness to go into detail due to knowing it does not support your argument, would have to apply to me as well. Which is fine, since because I am willing to go into detail it forms an inductive argument that I am right :sunny:

I see you've got an incorrect understanding of Sargons Law aswell...

Graystone

11th July 2018, 20:35

You got your clarification, then you deliberately re-worded it so as to misrepresent it, to avoid conceding the point.

That's the bit at which I lost any and all interest.

I see you've got an incorrect understanding of Sargons Law aswell...

I went from your statement of "it depends on the field - in some fields, inductive arguments are valid." to "That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof", in what way is that a misrepresentation instead of a simplification? If anything that premise is less difficult to prove than your statement is. So why were the toys thrown instead of simply correcting my interpretation?

Why, are there some exceptions to it? :killingme

TheDemonLord

12th July 2018, 05:21

I went from your statement of "it depends on the field - in some fields, inductive arguments are valid." to "That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof", in what way is that a misrepresentation instead of a simplification?

You've changed what I said (and meant) into what you need it to mean for your argument to work.

That's how it's a Misrepresentation.

If anything that premise is less difficult to prove than your statement is. So why were the toys thrown instead of simply correcting my interpretation?

Why, are there some exceptions to it? :killingme

You really are obsessed with the status of my toys... That would be Sargons law, again.

Graystone

12th July 2018, 17:34

You've changed what I said (and meant) into what you need it to mean for your argument to work.

That's how it's a Misrepresentation.

You really are obsessed with the status of my toys... That would be Sargons law, again.

In what way was the meaning changed? Why not clarify that instead of avoiding any discussion, clearly it is not a time/motivation thing as you are still responding to me with all this evasion and ad-hominems.

It's a rather apt euphemism for someone who behaves as you do.

Voltaire

12th July 2018, 20:07

https://i.imgflip.com/jqyrj.jpg

Viking01

13th July 2018, 11:21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fQmkJ5M-8&feature=youtu.be

TheDemonLord

13th July 2018, 16:01

In what way was the meaning changed? Why not clarify that instead of avoiding any discussion,

If the meaning didn't change - why rephrase it?

And you forget, I did clarify, then you tried to reinterpret it.

clearly it is not a time/motivation thing as you are still responding to me with all this evasion and ad-hominems.

Compared to the length and effort I normally put into a post, this is nothing.

Evasion? Nope.
Ad-Hominems? Nope.

You really are patently clueless when it comes to logical fallacies.

It's a rather apt euphemism for someone who behaves as you do.

Uh Huh.

Considering that you were the one that re-instigating this, I'd suggest a survey of both a mirror and your own floor, festooned with jettisoned toys...

Graystone

13th July 2018, 18:27

If the meaning didn't change - why rephrase it?

And you forget, I did clarify, then you tried to reinterpret it.

Compared to the length and effort I normally put into a post, this is nothing.

Evasion? Nope.
Ad-Hominems? Nope.

You really are patently clueless when it comes to logical fallacies.

Uh Huh.

Considering that you were the one that re-instigating this, I'd suggest a survey of both a mirror and your own floor, festooned with jettisoned toys...

Succinctness and validation, if you agree with the way I phrase it, then we would both understand your meaning, if you don't you can correct it and then we both understand your meaning.

See above.

Compared to a rational discussion though, it's much the same.

You keep saying I'm clueless, but it is you who refuses to discuss them and back yourself up. Stop with the evasion and ad-hominems and discuss the topic at hand...

I'm giving you a chance to back yourself up instead of all your usual cop-outs and know-all claims. To not take that chance, is to throw ones toys in a huff.

oldrider

14th July 2018, 08:33

Earth's Global Dust Storm Expanding - can this be good news for the world? - or just another conspiracy theorists rambling! :scratch:

<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q7t3U5_6HDA" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

TheDemonLord

14th July 2018, 13:36

Succinctness and validation, if you agree with the way I phrase it, then we would both understand your meaning, if you don't you can correct it and then we both understand your meaning.

See above.

It is meant, as I phrased it. I'm not going to correct that which I've already clearly stated. The fundamental problem here is that you keep trying to re-frame something to fit your a priori interpretation. I'm simply not interested in entertaining it. You are using the same tactic that Cathy Newman used in her now infamous JBP interview - which is to try and dishonestly re-articulate what I've said into something else.

In fact - case in point:

So what you're saying is...

https://youtu.be/ctqA4kX9jWk?t=24

If you wish to abandon this attempt and actually discuss it with some honesty (which would require quite a number of retractions at this point, which you are clearly not willing to make) - then sure, but you've chosen to stick to this method of response.

Compared to a rational discussion though, it's much the same.

Yes Cathy.

You keep saying I'm clueless, but it is you who refuses to discuss them and back yourself up. Stop with the evasion and ad-hominems and discuss the topic at hand...

Okay - here is what an Ad Hominem looks like:

You're wrong because you're an idiot.
or
You're wrong because you're a Racist.

I've not called you any names, or intimated that your argument is false because of any Character flaw (attributed or actual).

I've said that I'm not willing to let you try and redefine something, in order to fit your narrative - but that's not an ad hominem. I've referred to it as Dishonest debate - but again, this is not an Ad Hominem - since the logical form is not "Your argument is false because you are being dishonest".

I'm giving you a chance to back yourself up instead of all your usual cop-outs and know-all claims. To not take that chance, is to throw ones toys in a huff.

And I did back myself. That is where your accusation falls flat, that you didn't accept it and then tried to re-word it is no black stain against me.

As for the claims - it's simple - you spent half the argument attesting that there was categorically, definitively and without question - no exception to the argument from Authority fallacy. I've maintained all along that there was. Lo and Behold! when you cited the definition of the fallacy - there's a section titled "Exceptions" (you know - that thing you said didn't exist).

Same again with the accusation of an Ad Hominem, Strawman etc. If just once, you used a fallacy correctly, perhaps I wouldn't be so scathing, but as of yet...

Graystone

14th July 2018, 14:26

It is meant, as I phrased it. I'm not going to correct that which I've already clearly stated. The fundamental problem here is that you keep trying to re-frame something to fit your a priori interpretation. I'm simply not interested in entertaining it. You are using the same tactic that Cathy Newman used in her now infamous JBP interview - which is to try and dishonestly re-articulate what I've said into something else.

In fact - case in point:

https://youtu.be/ctqA4kX9jWk?t=24

If you wish to abandon this attempt and actually discuss it with some honesty (which would require quite a number of retractions at this point, which you are clearly not willing to make) - then sure, but you've chosen to stick to this method of response.

Yes Cathy.

Okay - here is what an Ad Hominem looks like:

You're wrong because you're an idiot.
or
You're wrong because you're a Racist.

I've not called you any names, or intimated that your argument is false because of any Character flaw (attributed or actual).

I've said that I'm not willing to let you try and redefine something, in order to fit your narrative - but that's not an ad hominem. I've referred to it as Dishonest debate - but again, this is not an Ad Hominem - since the logical form is not "Your argument is false because you are being dishonest".

And I did back myself. That is where your accusation falls flat, that you didn't accept it and then tried to re-word it is no black stain against me.

As for the claims - it's simple - you spent half the argument attesting that there was categorically, definitively and without question - no exception to the argument from Authority fallacy. I've maintained all along that there was. Lo and Behold! when you cited the definition of the fallacy - there's a section titled "Exceptions" (you know - that thing you said didn't exist).

Same again with the accusation of an Ad Hominem, Strawman etc. If just once, you used a fallacy correctly, perhaps I wouldn't be so scathing, but as of yet...

It was not clearly stated. Nor am I trying to re-frame or dishonestly interpret what you are saying, what I'm doing is seeking clarification. Please stop with the evasions and ad-hominems and just clarify what you have said.

Why are you trying to now discuss ad-hominems? You clearly can't understand the 'argument from authority fallacy' so why try to move on to the next thing?

You have not backed yourself, you simply fall back on an earlier explanation from which I have requested clarification, it is obvious that you cannot clarify it without proving yourself to be wrong, hence the evasion.

To clarify your erroneous interpretation of half my argument, I have maintained from the start that the 'argument from authority' has no exceptions in the context of proving a point. That you continue to ignore my clarification to instead dishonestly represent what I meant sounds like sargon's law for your first paragraph. Clarifications should be embraced, not ignored!

TheDemonLord

14th July 2018, 16:16

It was not clearly stated. Nor am I trying to re-frame or dishonestly interpret what you are saying, what I'm doing is seeking clarification. Please stop with the evasions and ad-hominems and just clarify what you have said.

Why are you trying to now discuss ad-hominems? You clearly can't understand the 'argument from authority fallacy' so why try to move on to the next thing?

You have not backed yourself, you simply fall back on an earlier explanation from which I have requested clarification, it is obvious that you cannot clarify it without proving yourself to be wrong, hence the evasion.

To clarify your erroneous interpretation of half my argument, I have maintained from the start that the 'argument from authority' has no exceptions in the context of proving a point. That you continue to ignore my clarification to instead dishonestly represent what I meant sounds like sargon's law for your first paragraph. Clarifications should be embraced, not ignored!

Let's assume that I think you are being genuine here (and for the record - you burnt that bridge several pages ago) - Let's look at what you did:

On one of your statements I said it was incorrect because it was missing a Caveat (and I outlined what that Caveat was), now - if (as you say) there was confusion on your part or you required clarification - you wouldn't restate what you had said sans caveat - you'd ask for information on it. Deliberately omitting something that has been pointed out as missing isn't honest debate.

Then, let's deal with your statements about denying Don Brash's expertise in the field - not once have you actually cited a reason why his credentials don't stack up, despite being directly challenged on this point.
If you were being Genuine - you'd outline a concern about why you don't think he is a credible authority - you've failed to do so, only dismissing it out of hand. FWIW - in the Exception this is exactly why it exists - to stop healthy Skepticism from turning into denialism.

Lastly You've tried on at least 3 separate occasions to try and re-word the exception into something that fits your a priori position, as opposed to what is written in multiple sources.

Am I to believe that you are incapable of comprehending, from multiple sources, the same definition of the Exception? As that is what an honest position would require me to do - and yet, I know you to be smarter than that - so if it's not through honest mistake, what is left except deliberate manipulation?

I'm not moving onto Ad Hominems - I'm just pointing out that I've not committed that Fallacy either - and this further reinforces the over-arching point that you don't know how to correctly apply Fallacies. Remembering - you brought it up, not me.

I'll end with - the Exception is that an Authority can be used as a valid, inductive argument. Whether you consider that Proof or not for a given field is beside the point. I've agreed that in a strictly scientific sense, such an argument wouldn't be acceptable, but I've also stated that there are other fields where inductive proof is acceptable. And as such, I did not commit the fallacy.

Your closing line is telling - Honest Clarifications are fine, dishonest word games aren't - and your manner of argumentation has been in the same vein as Cathy Newman - to re-interpret what has been said into what you want to be said.

Graystone

14th July 2018, 16:28

Let's assume that I think you are being genuine here (and for the record - you burnt that bridge several pages ago) - Let's look at what you did:

On one of your statements I said it was incorrect because it was missing a Caveat (and I outlined what that Caveat was), now - if (as you say) there was confusion on your part or you required clarification - you wouldn't restate what you had said sans caveat - you'd ask for information on it. Deliberately omitting something that has been pointed out as missing isn't honest debate.

Then, let's deal with your statements about denying Don Brash's expertise in the field - not once have you actually cited a reason why his credentials don't stack up, despite being directly challenged on this point.
If you were being Genuine - you'd outline a concern about why you don't think he is a credible authority - you've failed to do so, only dismissing it out of hand. FWIW - in the Exception this is exactly why it exists - to stop healthy Skepticism from turning into denialism.

Lastly You've tried on at least 3 separate occasions to try and re-word the exception into something that fits your a priori position, as opposed to what is written in multiple sources.

Am I to believe that you are incapable of comprehending, from multiple sources, the same definition of the Exception? As that is what an honest position would require me to do - and yet, I know you to be smarter than that - so if it's not through honest mistake, what is left except deliberate manipulation?

I'm not moving onto Ad Hominems - I'm just pointing out that I've not committed that Fallacy either - and this further reinforces the over-arching point that you don't know how to correctly apply Fallacies. Remembering - you brought it up, not me.

I'll end with - the Exception is that an Authority can be used as a valid, inductive argument. Whether you consider that Proof or not for a given field is beside the point. I've agreed that in a strictly scientific sense, such an argument wouldn't be acceptable, but I've also stated that there are other fields where inductive proof is acceptable. And as such, I did not commit the fallacy.

Your closing line is telling - Honest Clarifications are fine, dishonest word games aren't - and your manner of argumentation has been in the same vein as Cathy Newman - to re-interpret what has been said into what you want to be said.

What caveat was deliberately missed out to make it incorrect? Can you clarify that.

The Don Brash thing relies on you understanding how the Argument From Authority Fallacy works; no need to put the cart before the horse here.

I have not reworded or re-fit the exception at all. Perhaps you should provide clarification.

As a case in point to show you are still willing to discuss fallacies ;) so let's finish the first one.

"Whether you consider that Proof or not" is precisely the point, if you seek to prove you are correct in something. That is why I got to the two premises:

1) The fallacy's exception is when a recognized expert's opinion counts as proof
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof

One of which omitted the 'in some fields' caveat as it doesn't change the meaning at all, as saying it 'can' form a valid proof in some fields, is the same (or less burdensome actually) as saying it 'can' form a valid proof; that's basic english dude.

I disagree, all I am asking for is honest clarifications.