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

[Katman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Of course you will.

It's hit too close to the bone.

[TheDemonLord]

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.