rigorousintuition.ca

Peace elfismiles! and consul i rember reading das todesschif by Traven it was a cool book but i didnt finish it. Where's Ahabsotherleg i enjoyed his posts.

compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:33 pm wrote:

Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:57 pm wrote:i\m not playing this game with you, C2W -

YES, whether you like it or not, your post came off as condescending to me.

That's exactly the same as it would be if I said:

• I'm not playing this game with you C_w.
  
  YES, whether you like it or not, when you say "I'm not playing this game with you C2W," it comes off as both an insult and as code for "I refuse to acknowledge that AD and brekin did not post that chart or that I attacked both them and you because I felt like it, then justified doing it by blaming them and you for some non-specific bad act, such as game-playing and making unexampled implications."

Incidentally.

It's an insulting attack disguised as self-defense against an insulting attack, in other words. Same thing as what I was responding to to begin with. Exact same thing. Three times in a row.

I'm sorry if you felt insulted and attacked but this twisting of the scenario is getting very old and tired for me.

the facts are available to you:

- read Searcher's last post to get an idea of the very genesis of the problem on this thread.
- look to to SLAD's posts to understand that this same trick is played over and over and recognize that she has left the board explicitly because of it.
- while brekin and AD may not have posted the flow chart they are engaged in the same yes/no demands and subsequent mocking behaviour

- hear me when I say that I don't need or want to debate with you regarding the way that I understand AD's posts to me.
- allow me to defend myself my way
- go ahead and keep posting really long hard to decipher (for me, maybe others feel differently) defenses of some people and not others all the while claiming that you are just after right, peace and justice if you want, however, I cannot effectively communicate that way and may opt out other than to simply defend a point here or there I have no interest in the autopsy of each and everything you write in response to what I write.

Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:02 pm wrote:2 But I still think David Icke and his pals- basically any person who traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism or denial or might claim that the Protocols are essentially true- brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
is your quote

David Icke AND his pals-
(basically any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)

brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
David Icke and his pals are qualified as indicated

There's a legitimate case to be made that trafficking in Nazi Holocaust revisionism and claiming that the Protocols are essentially true is the kiss of death for any organized political action group that isn't intrinsically dedicated to the premise that Jews are engaged in an evil global conspiracy that makes them functionally omnipotent and have never been all that persecuted.

I'd make that one myself.

Just practical politics.
____________

ON EDIT: Not to say that others aren't free to disagree. But I'd argue that they were making a serious mistake. And I wouldn't do that out of hostility or personal contempt for their views. I'd do it because I think they would be.

compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:42 pm wrote:

Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:02 pm wrote:2 But I still think David Icke and his pals- basically any person who traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism or denial or might claim that the Protocols are essentially true- brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
is your quote

David Icke AND his pals-
(basically any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)

brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
David Icke and his pals are qualified as indicated

There's a legitimate case to be made that trafficking in Nazi Holocaust revisionism and claiming that the Protocols are essentially true is the kiss of death for any organized political action group that isn't intrinsically dedicated to the premise that Jews are engaged in an evil global conspiracy that makes them functionally omnipotent and have never been all that persecuted.

I'd make that one myself.

Just practical politics.

This point is diversionary - the whole of Searcher's post was not about what this response makes it seem like it was about. The part you have selected to respond to was a foundation stone Searcher laid to attempt to illustrate the larger issue.

Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:44 pm wrote:

compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:42 pm wrote:

Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:02 pm wrote:2 But I still think David Icke and his pals- basically any person who traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism or denial or might claim that the Protocols are essentially true- brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
is your quote

David Icke AND his pals-
(basically any person who
traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism OR
denial OR
might claim that the Protocols are essentially true)

brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.
David Icke and his pals are qualified as indicated

There's a legitimate case to be made that trafficking in Nazi Holocaust revisionism and claiming that the Protocols are essentially true is the kiss of death for any organized political action group that isn't intrinsically dedicated to the premise that Jews are engaged in an evil global conspiracy that makes them functionally omnipotent and have never been all that persecuted.

I'd make that one myself.

Just practical politics.

This point is diversionary - the whole of Searcher's post was not about what this response makes it seem like it was about. The part you have selected to respond to was a foundation stone Searcher laid to attempt to illustrate the larger issue.

It seemed intended as an illustration of the personal accusations of anti-Semitism against other posters that you and others feel AD has been making against you.

So I don't see how pointing out that it's a legitimate political argument with no personal implications is diversionary, unless I'm wrong to read it that way.

Please let me know if I am, and in what way.

Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:41 pm wrote: - go ahead and keep posting really long hard to decipher (for me, maybe others feel differently) defenses of some people and not others all the while claiming that you are just after right, peace and justice if you want, however, I cannot effectively communicate that way and may opt out other than to simply defend a point here or there I have no interest in the autopsy of each and everything you write in response to what I write.

Same thing again.

compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:42 pm wrote:There's a legitimate case to be made that trafficking in Nazi Holocaust revisionism and claiming that the Protocols are essentially true is the kiss of death for any organized political action group that isn't intrinsically dedicated to the premise that Jews are engaged in an evil global conspiracy that makes them functionally omnipotent and have never been all that persecuted.

Cosign. Lizards, shmizards.

compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:56 pm wrote:

Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:41 pm wrote: - go ahead and keep posting really long hard to decipher (for me, maybe others feel differently) defenses of some people and not others all the while claiming that you are just after right, peace and justice if you want, however, I cannot effectively communicate that way and may opt out other than to simply defend a point here or there I have no interest in the autopsy of each and everything you write in response to what I write.

Same thing again.

well you're doing it again. I exist to call you on your bullshit.

All of this is, actually:

the facts are available to you:

- read Searcher's last post to get an idea of the very genesis of the problem on this thread.
- look to to SLAD's posts to understand that this same trick is played over and over and recognize that she has left the board explicitly because of it.
- while brekin and AD may not have posted the flow chart they are engaged in the same yes/no demands and subsequent mocking behaviour

- hear me when I say that I don't need or want to debate with you regarding the way that I understand AD's posts to me.
- allow me to defend myself my way

- I've read and responded to them.
- I saw those too.
- Not that I've seen or that anyone has showed me, although I'm willing to see it.
- I do hear you. I think you're wrong, due to not seeing what you're talking about and not being shown it.
- Wouldn't dream of doing otherwise and couldn't if I wanted to.

Those are the facts.

Are you saying that it's an attack for me to point out that you're wrong, because your needing and wanting to be right means that you are whether what you said was justified or not?

Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:00 pm wrote:
Same thing again.

well you're doing it again. I exist to call you on your bullshit.

You deserve much better. And I mean that. I'll desist.

No hard feelings on this end.

That was the same thing again, though, gotcha last. (jk)

_____________

ON EDIT: Oh! This fucking formatting.

compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:08 pm wrote:All of this is, actually:

the facts are available to you:

- read Searcher's last post to get an idea of the very genesis of the problem on this thread.
- look to to SLAD's posts to understand that this same trick is played over and over and recognize that she has left the board explicitly because of it.
- while brekin and AD may not have posted the flow chart they are engaged in the same yes/no demands and subsequent mocking behaviour

- hear me when I say that I don't need or want to debate with you regarding the way that I understand AD's posts to me.
- allow me to defend myself my way

- I've read and responded to them.
- I saw those too.
- Not that I've seen or that anyone has showed me, although I'm willing to see it.
- I do hear you. I think you're wrong, due to not seeing what you're talking about and not being shown it.
- Wouldn't dream of doing otherwise and couldn't if I wanted to.

Those are the facts.

Are you saying that it's an attack for me to point out that you're wrong, because your needing and wanting to be right means that you are whether what you said was justified or not?

ha ha ha ha
lord love a duck. I'm done responding to you in this thread. I am sorry, but that's the way it is.

CW wrote:

- read Searcher's last post to get an idea of the very genesis of the problem on this thread.
- look to to SLAD's posts to understand that this same trick is played over and over and recognize that she has left the board explicitly because of it.
- while brekin and AD may not have posted the flow chart they are engaged in the same yes/no demands and subsequent mocking behaviour

Huh? What trick is being played? Logic? Requests for evidence?
And Slad has hardly left the board. At last look she has a separate thread devoted to trying and lock this one.
I think I missed the kerfuffle regarding MIB's flow chart (was that the mid 50's pages?) but I thought it was rather to the point. But if you don't want to play his board game with his rules then don't play with him.

What this thread really boils down to is this:

Some people believe Icke, and want to believe Icke without rational reasons. They get mad when tenets of Icke's philosophy is criticized or held to a standard of proof because it is challenging a belief system of theirs that is based on faith. Now, nothing wrong with having a belief based on faith. We all do. But people can't frequent a board where we dissect and pick apart numerous belief systems and then think that a man who believes lizard-human hybrids secretly control the world will be immune.

let's give it a rest for now

brekin » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:16 pm wrote:CW wrote:

- read Searcher's last post to get an idea of the very genesis of the problem on this thread.
- look to to SLAD's posts to understand that this same trick is played over and over and recognize that she has left the board explicitly because of it.
- while brekin and AD may not have posted the flow chart they are engaged in the same yes/no demands and subsequent mocking behaviour

Huh? What trick is being played? Logic? Requests for evidence?
And Slad has hardly left the board. At last look she has a separate thread devoted to trying and lock this one.
I think I missed the kerfuffle regarding MIB's flow chart (was that the mid 50's pages?) but I thought it was rather to the point. But if you don't want to play his board game with his rules then don't play with him.

What this thread really boils down to is this:

Some people believe Icke, and want to believe Icke without rational reasons. They get mad when tenets of Icke's philosophy is criticized or held to a standard of proof because it is challenging a belief system of theirs that is based on faith. Now, nothing wrong with having a belief based on faith. We all do. But people can't frequent a board where we dissect and pick apart numerous belief systems and then think that a man who believes lizard-human hybrids secretly control the world will be immune.

for some of us this thread is about more than that.

it is about guilt by association, taboo topics, the different opinions on what constitutes "evidence" and several other ideas and dynamics are at play, too.

Of course we can pick apart any belief system. I like to pick apart Scientism and lots of people lose their shit when I do. I've done it here vis a vis the 'what constitutes evidence' strain of the discussion.

What has got some of us tripped up and is now being exacerbated is the perception that the OP has tried to insinuate that Icke is dangerous and that people who follow him in any way are either willfully blind to that danger or are wrong to not see a danger or, worse - they are racists or deep New Agers themselves.

Even in your post here, brekin, you seem unable to stop using insult against the people with whom you disagree. That's part of the meta discussion here, too.

EDIT TO ADD: your timing and "missing things" is unfortunate, shall we say? You seem to miss all of the things that would make my posts meaningful to you and to help you to respond appropriately. For example, I guess you missed SLAD's thread called "I'm Leaving." She did post a few minutes ago, but that's again just unfortunate timing (for me of course. it works for you)

Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:25 pm wrote:

brekin » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:16 pm wrote:CW wrote:

- read Searcher's last post to get an idea of the very genesis of the problem on this thread.
- look to to SLAD's posts to understand that this same trick is played over and over and recognize that she has left the board explicitly because of it.
- while brekin and AD may not have posted the flow chart they are engaged in the same yes/no demands and subsequent mocking behaviour

Huh? What trick is being played? Logic? Requests for evidence?
And Slad has hardly left the board. At last look she has a separate thread devoted to trying and lock this one.
I think I missed the kerfuffle regarding MIB's flow chart (was that the mid 50's pages?) but I thought it was rather to the point. But if you don't want to play his board game with his rules then don't play with him.

What this thread really boils down to is this:

Some people believe Icke, and want to believe Icke without rational reasons. They get mad when tenets of Icke's philosophy is criticized or held to a standard of proof because it is challenging a belief system of theirs that is based on faith. Now, nothing wrong with having a belief based on faith. We all do. But people can't frequent a board where we dissect and pick apart numerous belief systems and then think that a man who believes lizard-human hybrids secretly control the world will be immune.

for some of us this thread is about more than that.

it is about guilt by association, taboo topics, the different opinions on what constitutes "evidence" and several other ideas and dynamics are at play, too.

Of course we can pick apart any belief system. I like to pick apart Scientism and lots of people lose their shit when I do. I've done it here vis a vis the 'what constitutes evidence' strain of the discussion.

Amazing.