prolix

For more on this subject look into Daniel Quinn's excellent book Ishmael http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel)

Really struggling to comprehend what you are trying to communicate here. He posted this on another forum? Because... http://goo.gl/D0OIwb

Ok, when you call people names, like manipulative, you have to support those claims. You are "throwing around" the claim without supporting it. I think it is reckless to do that. That is why I am asking you about it. Yes, I used the word "accusations" because that is all they are until you support them. Which you have not done. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42441-funny-stefan-puppet/?p=388734 First you try and diminish this other guys experience by saying it didn't happen, you were 100% wrong there. People called him names, you denied it, you were wrong, you never replied or took responsibility for that error, but instead you were sarcastic about it. Then here you call me a manipulator without any evidence. I replied to you to tell you that I never said that and you directly put words in my mouth. Again you were 100% wrong. In the time you created this thread you could reply to either of those blatant errors on your part. But instead you make this thread to highlight how manipulative I am being when I ask why you are doing what you are doing. I don't enjoy being called a manipulator without evidence. So that sparked genuine curiosity. Like, all you have to do is tell me why, but you do all this instead, now I am curious about that as well. I didn't say nonfactual things to/about you with negative intentions. No, you did that to me. That is why I am asking. This could not have anything to do with you just being confronted about factual errors you made that were actually pejorative towards other members? Could it? Is it even possible that it was easier to just double down, without any evidence, than to admit that maybe you made some factual errors at the expense of others? Is it not manipulative to post this without context of the other thread where I just confronted you on two nonfactual statements you made which you did not reply to? Isn't that something people would like to know coming into this thread, like, did you just throw around accusations without supporting it, before they evaluate the PM and the real motivations behind posting this.

Do you have a link?

This is really absurd. I was simply asking a question. To Go and start this thread and try and make a big deal out of it is something problematic. All I did was ask a question. To what end would I be manipulating asking a question? How is my phrasing of a simple question more problematic than him starting a thread about a PM? I don't think I need to word things all padded and what not as you suggested. It was a straight question with a small figure of speech that assumes that if he is doing it others, then he likes to do it. And yea, maybe the slight implication that he is doing it a lot, because he is. I think by starting this thread and not answering the question he is being something. I don't even want to call it anything but it is very disturbing to me. Because I was simply asking a question. WasatchMan. I want you to take your standards and apply them to the OP. It was not fair to me for him to make this thread by your standards. He already was calling me manipulative, without supporting that assertion, in another thread. Then whan I simply ask him about it. He makes this thread. Yea, fuck it, nothing manipulative, dishonest and aggressive about that. This thread is very insulting and is typical of the very poor communication I see all over this board. Very disturbing and disappointing indeed. We are suppose to be better than this here...

Yea? I think there is an anagram and some occult symbolism pertaining to building 7 in there also. I was genuinely curious and added that to be clear. And yea, I could have worded it better like, "I have seen you calling people manipulative". But really, spare me the decoding of what I am implicitly saying. I did not mention anything about "without any proof" you just crowbar'd that into my statements. This is all really baffling to me. I really just wanted to know why he was doing this repetitively. Yea, if you go into it looking for deception and manipulation you can find it in anything. but I really wanted to know, I was actually genuinely curious. Now, instead of answering me, he just made this thread to accuse me of being manipulative. Pretty disappointing... I do agree with you on one thing however, you are not very good at this stuff...

And what are the two signs?

So, how did you miss that? You were 100% incorrect, in fact, he was called those names. And now you are being sarcastic about your mistake? I am sorry, I do not understand... So he is a liar because the video was not funny? Or he is a liar because he was trying to be funny by posting in this thread? I do not see what this has to do with anything. And the only reason I am even talking to you is to defend this other guy who has done nothing but be gracious and apologetic about multiple posters calling him names and putting words in his mouth. You don't think the video is funny, great. but you want to go one further and try and insult the guy that just posted a video that, until proven otherwise, is relevant to this forum. I am open to hearing how you feel and this and that about the video. But the treatment of this OP in this thread is, as I said, very disappointing indeed...

Or you could have just replied to my PM...

You wat m8?

Quote me saying that? Otherwise you are just putting words in my mouth. which is another thing that is happening a lot in this thread. Again, very disappointing...

I am sorry. At this point your post just strikes me as malicious and unproductive. I do not have anything to add to what I previously said and I do not feel that you have responded or acknowledged anything I previously posted...

1. Or maybe he just wanted to share a funny video he saw. The video is about stefan and this is his board, so... it kinda seems to me that it is more possible and realistic than the thing you made up. Mostly because that is what he has repeatedly said about his intentions. Your comparison falls flat immediately if we are to take him at his word and not try to cipher out what he "really" meant "if xyz". Are you calling him a liar? 2. I understand you are confused. So firstly. Me and lifegoesonbrah; right here and right now. I can go on and on. I definitely can easily go get the last few times that this has happened to me. And I can provide a few usernames off the top of my head. Out side of that I am going to have to go do a whole lot of digging. Which I am super open to doing, except for one thing; This very disappointment that I am asking for empathy about right now. As soon as someone shows curiosity about this subject and I can connect with them; I am more than happy to do this little research project and dig up the many examples from my memory and probably find many others. But here is the thing. When you yell "WHO are the good communicators with virtuous intent who being rejected?", when me and lifegoesonbrah are right here, when that happens, I do not feel very present in the conversation. I do not feel connected to you. So I am not inclined to put much effort into compiling a super detailed list if you missed that me and lifegoesonbrah are on that list for sure, right now. So I rest my statements on any curious parties who want to know details and I trust the average reader to judge for themselves when they see a user getting many negative rep points. I am simply pointing out a principle for consideration. I am merely relaying my experience, are you calling me a liar? I can also point to factual instances. but I really just want people to be more considerate, that is win-win right? If people are more considerate then everybody wins...

I think insults of Stefan, or anyone, should be addressed. I just can't connect with any of the given arguments on how this is offensive/insulting to Stef or FDR. Can someone explain it to me?

Ha ha, he knew that the majority of this board cannot process comedy, and he was right. You are going way to deep to find a way to get a "gotcha moment" by hanging on his latter statements about confrontation. He knew ahead of time the thoughtless and unemphatic responses he would get that did not recognize his intent. Which was also right there in his INITIAL post, "Its a joke, for the lul" as long as we are focusing so intently on the OP. Intent means something and you are working really hard here to obfuscate that. Disregarding intent is very un-empathetic. I find this board is rampant with this. People kinda want to emulate stef and catch people up on their own words. And so they should, but not at the expense of another intent and just to notch your "logic and reason" belt. Because after all it is not logical nor reasonable to disregard anothers intent in these discussions. In minority this is a good board, and I am 100% team FDR till I die, howeverut this forum is very disappointing in this regard. Now look down at all the negative reps I got for expressing my experience. Case and point. I really urge this community to really think about the way they interact with unpopular ideas here and criticisms of FDR subjects in general. It just is my experience that yes, some people should be expelled from this community, but that also other people who should not be expelled are being expelled because some kind of rigid group mentality. Bad communication and people with bad intent should be rejected. Totally. But good communicators with virtuous intent are rejected because they differ in peripheral ways or are willing to play devils advocate and entertain a controversial idea to the majority here. I take full responsibility for my expectations of this board. But I must share my experience, I am very disappointed. Now this is just my fantasy, just my imagination. But if Stefan had an alternate account here and posted anonymously he would challenge enough people here and bring enough new perspectives that I am so confident he would get negative reps and feedback. Just my over active mental creativity. Now let the un-empathetic responses ensue...

Not funny...

I am going to go full "David Icke Full-Tilt Conspiracy" on the issue of child molestation. I have seen research that suggests that it is wide and deep in western culture and that it is somewhat organized. Really super sad if you think about it. It just can't be talked about, and like things that just can't be addressed, it just festers under the surface and rots and infects further into a culture. This community is the only significant ray of light in this abyss. Listening to the call in show really opened my eyes to how deep and inter-generational abuse is in culture today...

I am sorry, you made points? I really do not think you did. You espoused opinions, that is all. Do you know the difference between preferences and arguments? Between justified belief and opinion? I ask because you tend to avoid justified belief and move toward opinion. That is just what i observed. From wiki ;;; Epistemology the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. If you made arguments and responded to arguments, you would not have gotten negged. Also being overtly rude will do it also. You were not rude, so we are left with one option. This is not my preference. This is a fact that supports my premise that this is a philosiphy conversation and thus, epistemology will be relevant. Go back, look at your posts, it is all opinion. And that is why the convo dissolved. Now if you want to resist this then this convo will dissolve. The convo about vegans went nowhere. but the conversation, that you started, about negs does not have to go nowhere, unless you want it to. Facts, this is a epistemology conversation. Fact is, you were voted down. Fact is non-epistemological and rude statements are negged. That is how you support a supposition. That is how I support the premise that you were negged and the conversation was non-productive because you are being irrational and not respecting the difference between arguments and opinion, or justified belief and preference, or aesthetics and epistemology ....

Sorry man, you are not being rational. You must have missed the facts because you can't disagree with facts. You basically moved past the facts to invent assumptions to disagree with that I did not make, thas a strawman. But just saying you disagree is pointless, you have to support that otherwise it is futile and we are just stating preferences. Here is an example. I point out the facts of what fish HAVE NOT done. Instead you want to comment on what is going on inside the head of a fish. The former is a fact, the latter is something that can never be known and has nothing to do with my points, which you perpetually ignore. Just like the point in my very first post that you ignored. I never said that eating meat was "necessary" but you just slam it in as if it is what I said. Nobody is going to be able to communicate with you if this is how you behave. Sorry, but I got to disengage, this discourse has been very unsatisfying for me for reasons I have already noted. If anything you are strengthening my arguments by showing that you have no capacity or intention of actually dealing with the points I brought up and supported by fact...

Sorry man, you are not making any arguments. Calling me "speciest" is not an argument. Videos of fish swimming is not an argument. Quoting a 19th century proto-scientist is not an argument. Sorry, but where are the arguments? My post was packed full of facts and arguments, all of which you have managed to ignore. Plain old facts. What you are offering here has no philosophical value, it is purely emotional, you have a feeling, and you refuse to support it with facts...

And it is really hard to have a debate with someone who is only going to throw around pejoratives, even if they are made up... See this is anthropomorphising animals, and also totally false. It has not been universally accepted. If it was, then vegan would be universally accepted. Is there any chance you could make an argument as opposed to whatever it is you are doing here?

You are obviously being defensive. Where did I say anything was wrong? If you look at my post, I actually advocate for just that; "They should be fighting for something realistic and attainable like getting chickens and cows out of factory farms and into the fields where they belong." Now that I can get behind, but that is not what vegans do is it? Sorry, but everything alive is food. Everything. All living beings will die and be eaten, by bacteria or by predators. Suffering is suffering, dying is not suffering. Dying is dying. All things die, all things suffer, but dying is not suffering. When an animal is eaten, suffering is not inherent. So, which is more harmful? Neither, because what is "harm" in this question? Some ethereal "harm"? Killing animals to eat them is not "harm" it is survival, it is ecology, it is biology. Do you think that animals will live forever if we don't eat them? Do you think that animals reflect back on "what could have been" when led to slaughter, all the wile lamenting and reflecting on all the lost possibilities of their untimely ending? Would a cow advocate for your well-being? Are chickens going to send nukes to asteroids in a collision path with earth? Did fish end slavery, cure any diseases or do anything other than wait there to sustain the lives of other creatures, ever? When you are done with human omnivores, is your plan to move on to animal omnivores, then get around to carnivores, then move the moon and stars around in the sky? Anthropomorphising anything can lead to much confusion. If you think that cows and chickens are having a human experience, then the vegan argument makes sense. But since they do not, then the vegan argument just becomes an exercise in anthropomorphising animals to total confusion and to no fruitful end...

These Vegan activist people conveniently ignore the fact that their vegan lifestyle also costs plenty of animal lives. ie., mass harvesting crops kills small ground dwelling animals.They should be fighting for something realistic and attainable like getting chickens and cows out of factory farms and into the fields where they belong. Bloodties - Kerasote http://www.amazon.com/Bloodties-Nature-Culture-Kodansha-Globe/dp/1568360274

I think I can make an argument for minimum wage although I am 100% anarchist/voluntarist . Ok, so because of all the state intervention and regulation the not-so-free-market, the socialist market, is suppressed. The fiat printing of money and criminal behavior of finical institutions are driving inflation. State debt, foreign wars, crony capitalism and the list goes on; All these things are creating a very unequal and distorted distribution of wealth in the western world, especially in North America. Is minimum wage really the fulcrum of this issue? Is minimum wage proportionately as effectual as all the other factors previously listed in this economy? I would say no. Minimum wage is more like saline solution and asprin for someone who has just been in a car accident. The economy is distorted on all these levels, the car wreck, and a small amount of relief from this is raising the minimum wage, the asprin. Is asprin particularly good for you? No. Would you take it if you hadn't been injured? No. But it eases the pain of this other disaster. Minimum wage is just a minor correction for another set of major involvements in the market. ​Yes, the market will react to the minimum wage in moderately less than desirable ways. But that reaction will be raised prices and fewer jobs over time to a degree that is small when compared to trillions of debt and trillions of fiat and state protection of corporations. I think it is like imagine you are a cop, imagine you discover that someone is beating and raping captives in his basement. But then you discover that he is feeding them terrible quality food that would almost be criminal, like dogfood or something. Then you get really vocal and outspoken about the poor food conditions and want to prosecute based on the food conditions totally at the expense of the capture/rape/abuse situation. Yes it is state involvement in the market, it is immoral, but at least this time it kinda benefits some of the lower class for a change. I am just thinking out loud and playing devils advocate right now. Really curious about arguments against this...

Nice one. But I always throw out the fact about hitting kids lowering IQ points. Can't think of a better bumper sticker mantra that isn't a 20 min. rant....