Skeptic Project

Quote from voiceofreason467


Here is the problem with most of the people here: Lying denotes intent, if one is mistaken about something and maybe you bring up something in which the person accuses you having fabricated information about them and it was false, you cannot automatically deduce the person was lying. It may have been that they (in this case myself) was assuming old information held true now. Or in some cases, you believe the information you are putting forth and do not know it is fabricated to begin with and in such a case the person (me) jumped the gun. Either way, lying denotes intent.

Pathologically lying is a different set of circumstances but you need to have an indepth knowledge about a persons psychology, their own friends, what they tell their friends, etc... in order to deduce that. To say I was lying when I accused you of fabricating it is not correct, showing me that maybe I do not know that yahoo messenger changed the rules earlier about how they archive messages is showing ignorance, not lying and I will admit ignorance.

"Why should anyone listen to a liar when he says he wants to make society better? You can't even take care of yourself, what the hell makes you think you have any answers to society's ills? I am so tired of people like you and VTV who sit around doing absolutely fucking nothing but sponging off society while bitching about how awful it is."

Oh yes, VTV does nothing except for running a radio show that gives exposure to many much needed topics on propaganda, war, economics, etc... and you know everything about my life that you know what I do on a day to day basis. I spend most of my time studying jackass and then espousing what I have learned to perhaps be corrected on it later. I have been corrected on it a few times, like yesterday I admitted ignorance about whats going on CA with the medical dispensers.

You know nothing about my life other than what you want to look at through narrow minded glasses and quite frankly, you're still pissed off that you got banned from the forums.

But at any rate, I have to finish my book, "The Web of Debt" which btw is a lot better than "The Creature from Jekyll Island" as it doesn't go off on these irrelevant rants about socialism and these weird conspiracies involving Keynes.

Quote from voiceofreason467

But at any rate, I have to finish my book, "The Web of Debt" which btw is a lot better than "The Creature from Jekyll Island" as it doesn't go off on these irrelevant rants about socialism and these weird conspiracies involving Keynes.

Quote from voiceofreason467

"No bitch, that's still racist as fuck."

So you don't about context which would be when I said, "I only use it [the word nigger] myself to describe a fucking moronic black who is..." so I am describing a specific group of people who act in a specific way that perpetuates a stereotype, thus not racist. I mean if you wanna state that I am being racist then I guess this magazine is also racist:

http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=37

Also let's get our definitions straight.

Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

You will not find a specific comment by me which gives this kind of reference and I have never had this reference or mindset ever.

"I refuse to listen to these videos again. Your voice is anything but YouTube friendly."

What the hell does this have to do what I said?

"So remove that fucking video with the phony Cheif Seattle Speech that promotes the noble savage myth and falsely portrays Native Americans as ideological communal extremists."

I already explained to you that the reason why I put it up was because it was my favorite part in a documentary, nothing more and nothing less.

In fact I had no idea that the quote itself was in question until you brought it up. The entire thing was not about whether it "promotes the noble savage myth," (which by the way I would argue that the natives were not savage because that idea in anthropology is just 19th century American Prejudice and you can see so in the literature)

but was about what it stated, the philosophy. I don't care if it is genuine, I agree with the philosophy so I put it up.

I explained this to you four times and you are still up in arms about that? Geez, take that fucking stick out of your ass already.

"And take down those videos about you not being reaper and microgod. While you're at it, take down the MicroGod videos. Or the videos you said you were going to take down because justintempler showed you distorting my position."

I will do that tomorrow, but as far as me distorting your position? What the hell are you talking about? What videos did I distort your position? Because if I remember correctly every single video in which you responded to me with the exception of one point has been strawman, after strawman, after distortion.

I mean how about the idea that I made the claim that the Austrian School holds to Adam Smith's invisible hand when I said such a thing, or how about when you constantly distorted what I said in your video in which you claim that I went on a strawman symposium...

I think it's obvious what is going on; you just don't like me because I counter the supposed refutations you give as distortions of what was said.

"I saw some of your videos, they were a total disaster. You embarrassed everyone who has a Windows machine. Anyone who defends Alienware is a retard. "

How could you have seen any of my videos? All you saw was about 1% of all the videos I made in which I made some pretty bad mistakes in only one and the other was a guy who kept claiming shit about my Alienware in which I responded. In order to see my videos you have to see them on my account. But hey talk to this guy as he followed me quite regularly:

http://www.youtube.com/user/oOADROo

"No, I'm interested in truth. You are not. You are interested in pwning people on YT but you're too stupid to do it even if you are right."

I am interested in responding to others with the misconceptions they have so I can open up a dialogue. It might come out as pwnage to you but I find it interesting that you know nothing about me.

"That's why you gave a list of books that "debunked" Austrian economics to prove a point about The Christ Myth because you didn't have a leg to stand on."

"The funny thing is, 3 of those books had nothing to do with economics"

Which 3 books are you even talking about? Here is a list of books I referenced in the past:

WRONG BOOKS

"1 was a movie about bank bailout"

I assume your talking about Inside Job right? Actually that one is good because the banking crisis in which it references and explicitly states that it was the cause of a refusal to regulate the banks and deregulating them (i.e. repealing the glass stegal act.)

"1 Kant book about a priori"

I don't quite remember referencing that book but I do know that it provides some very good deconstruction of the Austrian core method. The book is called, "Critique of Pure Reason," it was introduced to me in the philosophy club I was in college in my first year.

"1 was a book promoting free-market economics: The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics By Michael Shermer. I confronted you about it and you lied over and over again and tried to say it was some other book with the same title that was about stock market strategies. Here's the chat log of it: http://pastebin.com/2UtDpH98"

And I already explained it to you that there was a specific chapter in that book about the dangers of free market trading. I haven't had the time to even go into that and find the chapter or the argument because I've been resting from occupy sacramento and a lot of other things on my plate. But regardless, you keep saying I lied when in fact it was a MISTAKE.

But whatever, I'm not going to reply to you since you are obviously interested in pushing some kind of bullshit view you know is full of shit just to be a troll.

Quote from voiceofreason467

"No bitch, that's still racist as fuck."

So you don't about context which would be when I said, "I only use it [the word nigger] myself to describe a fucking moronic black who is..." so I am describing a specific group of people who act in a specific way that perpetuates a stereotype, thus not racist. I mean if you wanna state that I am being racist then I guess this magazine is also racist:

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes.The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others" (p. 1127). The effect is about paradoxical defects in cognitive ability, both in oneself and as one compares oneself to others.

Quote from JimJesus

I'm just going to leave this here:

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes.The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others" (p. 1127). The effect is about paradoxical defects in cognitive ability, both in oneself and as one compares oneself to others.

Quote from voiceofreason467

@ Roxette: "Yes, we've heard of it. It's still toilet paper. It's still LaRouchite propaganda. Why can't you pick up a real book, why does it have to be something from a lie factory, crank machine ideology?"

I see, so you're admitting not to have ever read the book itself? I am not at all convinced of everything it gives but it does paint an interesting picture about the history of Debt before the Federal Reserve. Still, I am wondering if you have actually read and done the research on this subject or if you're just regurgitating information that others have said that you agree with regardless? Might wanna check out "The Paradigm Conspiracy" which points out the tendency to reject new information that contradicts the old based on emotional ties to that information, might do you and this entire forum a good thing.

Quote from anticultist

I don't debate with lying morons it only leads to circular debates on side issues they are able understand. In this case very little as he is completely misguided in most everything he discusses.

Hence why Voice Of Racism is getting no time of day from me, I would ban him now before he starts making a mess of the forum with his gnarly spitty mouth.

Unless we are keeping him here out of pure entertainment value, then I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.

Quote from voiceofreason467


"I don't care if there's an article written by a black guy who's making the same point. What you said is racist. Period. Shit is racist as fuck, you filthy honky white trash redneck."

So it's true then, you don't care about something called context. I also stated several times that you're ignoring the context..

I also gave an explanation for that screen cap that you keep showing again and again... it's either up to you to refute it or just ignore it or just concede. You've got a vendetta it's clear to paint me in whatever light you like and you don't give a damn about the other side it seems.

"And it was bullshit."

*yawn*... you seem to have an issue with the fact that I did the act and not the intent behind it which explains the act itself. So you're just looking at a corner of the Mona Lisa and saying it's shitty without even looking at the whole painting, nice.

"learn what the fuck a noble savage is before you try to debate it, fuckwit"

I know what the term noble savage is, I was pointing out that the term it's using (savage) is not a correct definition of what they would be. It's very interesting that you wanna attack everything I said regardless of the context.

"So turn your computer off and go live off the land, hypocrite."

Um... I'm getting the distinct impression that you did not even pay attention to what was said in the video as it says nothing about living off the land; it's just about living in harmony with nature and not trying to ride against it and as a result destroying what nature provides for us.

"Because you're pissing on an entire heritage to serve your ideological wetdreams, it's demeaning. "

lmfao... you're getting pissed off at a misunderstanding that is propagated by you and you alone and you also refuse to see any kind of explanation to the contrary. I find it funny that you constantly try to talk about you're a cult psychiatrist or some shit like that yet you show the very same behavior that many cult members put forth: demonization of the opposition and a refusal to hear the other side based on a view propagated either by the group mind or the individual.

"You don't know what a strawman is, you just say everything is a strawman then strawman me because you're too stupid to even understand the conversation I was having with GG. Period."

Strawman: The attempt to substitute someone's argument for something the person did not say, and attack it as if the person made that argument in an attempt to make it appear that the person is refuted instead of attacking a STRAWMAN. That is what a strawman is and I point out CONSTANTLY, why that is not my argument and why you just attacked a strawman. I call out strawman wherever it may appear and you yourself are trying to defend your own strawman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TzIWd0FElE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kARPPri-9lk

Can anyone else count how many strawman's Machwon here did to my videos?

"Because you insist that the invisible hand he was talking about was the hand of God. No, Adam Smith was a neoclassical using a metaphor. It's not a position, idiot. "

1. Where did I ever say that he is refering to the hand of god in my videos to you?

2. I referred to it as a form of "dogma" or "holy writ" because he nor anyone ever explains when the Hand is working or how the hell we can detect it working at all.

3. It's a metaphor yes, but a metaphor that is a reference to the actual real world and how it works. Hence, if one cannot explain how it works then it is a worthless metaphor.

"I don't want to, he's probably just as retarded as you."

So, you don't want to engage in any kind of evidence that might contradict your original assumptions? Nice to know you hold steadfast to the dogma of the Austrian School by engaging in a priori, tell me do you a priori everything you do?

"I dunno, why not CHECK THE FUCKING VIDEO RESPONSE FOR THE LIST OF BOOK YOU GAVE ME, YOU FUCKING RETARD"

1. I have over 20 video responses

2. You made the claim and now you want me to do your research for you? Wow, talk about being lazy.

"Yea, because Clinton was an Austrian. Fucking moron."

What does that have to do with anything? It's specifically address the claim that deregulating the market's make things more efficient, yet when you deregulating the banking industry it caused an incredible amount of collapse. It's one of the age old claims made by Austrians; inserting a red herring is not conducive to an actual criticism.

"And that's why Mises used it as the foundation for Human Action, right? Fucking moron."

Um... what does that have to do with the method that Mises uses called "Rationalism."

"No, it was a lie. You never read that book and you lied to me when you said you did. Note how you didn't notice the wrong author until you were backed into a corner."

*double paste ommited on account of VOR being retarded*

Um... you seem to read only what you want to read. Great job in admitting that you have painted a picture in only in where you are right about everything you are espousing about my character, another characteristic of cult behavior.

"It's not like you didn't know who he was, he publishes the Skeptic magazine and is well known in atheist/evolution circles."

Actually I didn't because I never paid attention to the Atheist/Evolution debate beyond what went on with YouTube and he never came up in any of the videos I watched of AronRa, thunderf00t, cdk007, potholer54, etc... I never delved into it beyond looking at YouTube videos because it wasn't interesting to me.

"Yea, because everyone who points out your blatant lies, hypocrisy and failures is a troll."

Every single post that you have made to me thus far have been of the following:

1. Accusations about my character and intent.

2. Not understanding the difference between lying and making a mistake (for which you accused me of day 1).

3. Engaged in strawman fallacies against me and tried to engage in red herrings.

4. Consistently and constantly obsess over me and exposing me when this shows a lack of professionalism that a supposed "cult expert" should have.

I can keep going on, but it's readily apparent that the only thing your out to do is just constantly paint me in a bad light no matter what I say to the contrary or evidence to the contrary.