Calling all conspiracy theorists - do you believe in this one?

[oldrider]

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/...ow-what-i-saw/

[pritch]

[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?




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]

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/...ow-what-i-saw/

https://www.truthorfiction.com/dr-ra...a-man-fiction/

[oldrider]

[QUOTE=pritch;1131101422]

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?




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.

Exactly! - makes a difference if you read the post for what it is!

[TheDemonLord]

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

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 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]

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

'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

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]

Another perspective - particularly interesting points about the Internet dating data and the double standard between Men and Women in the Dating game...:

[oldrider]

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?

[TheDemonLord]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

The hypocrisy and irony are almost palatable, which is a pity but not unexpected.

I think you mean palpable, bogan.

[Graystone]

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]

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.