You’re right, I’m going to expand my mind be believing that there’s a secret dragon that the US is hiding that breathes tomato’s juice. Better not call me crazy cause I’m not OKAY!???

i should prob just kill myself now lol

But thisonelives

yea well....

That is probably the #1 reason for my bans. Sure, we have actual crazy people here, but they are rare. Classifying curiosity and skepticism as insanity only serves the bad guys. Don't help the bad guys.

I've seen more people called "shills" on this sub than "crazy" by a factor of 10. But no bans for calling someone a shill.

Wah wah wah. When I act like a shill people point it out.

Cry a fucking river.

When anyone's political opinion differs from yours, you get to call them a shill despite Rule 10 depending on the political affiliation of the mods.

Enjoy your protected status.

Okay.

We have a lot more shills than crazy people. Shit, we got more shills than people period.

What's your criteria for determining who's a "shill" and who's simply got a different opinion than yours? Why are some people banned for calling this place a "Department of Defense project" yet others get moderator approval for witch hunting "shills"?

Off to work, can't continue this conversation until later.

Ya, explaining that would help the bad guys, so sorry not going to explain the specifics. But it has to do with attitude and approach to discussion rather than what talking points they are pushing.

I don't know anything about the DoD project thing or the witch hunting. We don't consult each other about every decision that is made. We don't really consult each other at all on day to day business. We also don't generally cross each other's decisions.

Isn't it obvious? Shills don't agree with me. That's why they are shills!

Call someone a troglodytic retard after spending 10 posts in back and forth argument which they blatantly are not even reading and you get an instant ban (unless the mod's feelin' congenial to you).

Call someone a shill because you think they're a shill for saying shilly things and you avoid a ban because the mods agree with you.

And the mods say I'm wrong when I accuse them of utilizing civility rules to enforce political censorship. Maybe you simply don't realize what you're doing.

If we banned everyone that called someone else a shill we would have no more users.

I see you are on a 16day old account with more than passing familiarity with the goings on of our sub. Not only that, but you are trying to frame the mods for wrong doing, injecting the useless partisan nonsense into an otherwise reasonable conversation, and just trying to stir shit up? Tell me why I should not consider you for ban evasion?

I guess that's a lot easier for you than either examination of your behavior and your policy's effects or rational counterargument

Heh.

I AM A FUDGE SACK.
DO NOT CALL PEOPLE CRAZY OR I WILL COME FOR YOUR SACKSSSS

keep this in mind guys. i dont want anyone being hunted down for their fudge sacks

To quote Dave Chappelle: "the worst thing to call somebody is crazy, it's dismissive."

I agree. or this one “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance”

I've never heard that before, thanks.

my favorite albert einstein quote...

What if the people being called crazy are actually being observed as crazy?

In other words: it's not an on lookers job to attmept to understand you better. It's your job to use language as it's intended, and that's to be understood.

If you cant formally and structurally, using language and its rules, promote an idea that others who are trained in that same language and rules to know, youre ot even using the same language.

What happens then, when people babble? Or, when they seem to appear to talk crazy?

They are rightly assumed as such. The available information allowed in context of message speaks volumes more than the content that could be fake -especially here, on conspiracy.

So, EVERY ARGUMENT should be formally produced, with clarity and charity. Only then, can you produce expressions back that are also charitable and clear.

After all, look at all the agreement, but otherwise nonintellectual emotivism that is expressed in response to your simple plea without evidence.

You even lack evidence of this 'calling you crazy', and you rely on that generalization the probability of it happening to you particularly, as a weight in argument.

IN other words, I have yet to be called crazy.

You seem to be called 'crazy'.

If you're not crazy, perhaps the reason is still your fault, in that you fail to offer anything in the way of evidence of not 'possibly being crazy'.

Look at your message. IT's a plea to not be called crazy.

OK. But crazy people also say that. . . just show you have a comprehensive mind capable of communicating information. Simple as that.

Language, at it's best use, is a formal process of two people's minds converging in unified understanding on concepts and the models that are produced of them.

NEXT: if the information is totally counter to the reality most people perceive via the vast majority of information they build their life model after, then you will be perceived as crazy unless your FORM of expression shows you are being serious and have a reason to use other's time.

You are one of billions who don't get to decide what other people think, say or do.

i have been called crazy a couple times. sometimes on the lsd sub I talk about the strange connection between large dose Lsd experiences and alien contact and people just dont get it til they take a large dose and see it for themselves

Are they calling you crazy, or assuming that the LSD made you hallucinate aliens?

its a trap

K-holes, too.

No,

yet, I am trained in language and philosophy.

So, there is that which adds to my weight of argument. Then, there is the logic of the argument and the form in which it is easily understood, that makes it weighted in any-mind that reads it.

So, between those who cant speak well, and those who can - generally by how they organize their mind to speak to themselves - then I do actually hold an authority in language, simply because I speak the understood language.

You're really not informing me about linguistic authority, any more than im informing everyone that logic is structural, and proof is mathematical in form. Hence, why such forms are universally applicative to conceptual-material models that produce space-flight and ballistic accuracy.

IN other words, people can go to space if you explain how well enough.

Are you capable of expressing how well enough, than myself, and if not, I think we just deduced who is an authority in language USE; as a cause has an effect.

HINT: you are capable of this feat, only if you utilize your intellect to invest in expressing messages better. That means time and clarity of expression.

These one sentence pleas and augments are not such things.

No,

yet, I am trained in language and philosophy.

So, there is that which adds to my weight of argument. Then, there is the logic of the argument and the form in which it is easily understood, that makes it weighted in any-mind that reads it.

So, between those who cant speak well, and those who can - generally by how they organize their mind to speak to themselves - then I do actually hold an authority in language, simply because I speak the understood language.

You're really not informing me about linguistic authority, any more than im informing everyone that logic is structural, and proof is mathematical in form. Hence, why such forms are universally applicative to conceptual-material models that produce space-flight and ballistic accuracy.

IN other words, people can go to space if you explain 'how' well enough.

Are you capable of expressing how well enough, more than myself, and if not, I think we just deduced who is an authority in language USE; as a cause has an effect.

HINT: you are capable of this feat, only if you utilize your intellect to invest in expressing messages better. That means time and clarity of expression.

These one sentence pleas and augments are not such things.

Give me your epistemology and your ontology.

You first,

Your attempt at assessing non-sequitur variables to a logical-proof in argument, I presented, is called 'rhetoric'.

So, if you want such information, you must make yourself equally vulnerable to non-sequitur attack.

See: formally trained to identity bull-shit

Perhaps, a common condition around these parts is the ability people dont have to be argumentative, thinking they are smart enough to use slippry-tactics that dont relate to the argument, as a relevant reaction.

The only relevant reaction to an argument is to address it.

If you fail to address the argument standing with reason, and instead, seek to argue around the argument itself, you expose an inability to out-argue the standing argument. You're intent is seeking a 'way-out'. The only way through is by going in and then expressing intellectual honesty in agreement or disagreement, WITH REASONS.

As someone who is an authority in words, it seems like you needed a lot of em to say semantics are important. ;)

You failed to point out why you believe this.

Again, argument in form.

Uh, why do I believe my statement? Cause you used a lot of words to get a simple point across...

If you cant formally and structurally, using language and its rules, promote an idea that others who are trained in that same language and rules to know, youre ot even using the same language.

I agree. You should study up on the apostrophe before trying again.

What really gets me, from frequent, lengthy argumentation for over 2 years here, is that a large contingent of users here refuse to argue in good faith. They simply don't read the entirety of the arguments presented to them, and continuously focus on bits and pieces (usually whatever minutiae they latch onto in the first two sentences of your post) to the exclusion of all else. There can never be healthy debate with people like this, and I feel like it's to be expected that the average person, after a lengthy back and forth with someone like this, will be brought to a point of frustration whereupon the natural instinct is to resort to name-calling.

In my experience, the person who thus far has not argued in good faith then immediately mashes the report button, and the mod issues a summary ban for the individual who committed the grievous offense of using a bad word.

The end result is censorship of those who cannot maintain an absolute facade of civility, with absolutely no thought or regard given to what circumstances might have driven them to such a lapse.

I will never understand how anyone can believe an insult mixed into actual content, after being driven to an extreme of frustration, somehow destroys the quality of all discussion, while simultaneously refusing to agree that willful refusal to argue in good faith or even fully read arguments presented does not at the very least diminish discussion in a similar way.

keep this in mind guys. i dont want anyone being hunted down for their fudge sacks

i have been called crazy a couple times. sometimes on the lsd sub I talk about the strange connection between large dose Lsd experiences and alien contact and people just dont get it til they take a large dose and see it for themselves

No,

yet, I am trained in language and philosophy.

So, there is that which adds to my weight of argument. Then, there is the logic of the argument and the form in which it is easily understood, that makes it weighted in any-mind that reads it.

So, between those who cant speak well, and those who can - generally by how they organize their mind to speak to themselves - then I do actually hold an authority in language, simply because I speak the understood language.

You're really not informing me about linguistic authority, any more than im informing everyone that logic is structural, and proof is mathematical in form. Hence, why such forms are universally applicative to conceptual-material models that produce space-flight and ballistic accuracy.

IN other words, people can go to space if you explain how well enough.

Are you capable of expressing how well enough, than myself, and if not, I think we just deduced who is an authority in language USE; as a cause has an effect.

HINT: you are capable of this feat, only if you utilize your intellect to invest in expressing messages better. That means time and clarity of expression.

These one sentence pleas and augments are not such things.

No,

yet, I am trained in language and philosophy.

So, there is that which adds to my weight of argument. Then, there is the logic of the argument and the form in which it is easily understood, that makes it weighted in any-mind that reads it.

So, between those who cant speak well, and those who can - generally by how they organize their mind to speak to themselves - then I do actually hold an authority in language, simply because I speak the understood language.

You're really not informing me about linguistic authority, any more than im informing everyone that logic is structural, and proof is mathematical in form. Hence, why such forms are universally applicative to conceptual-material models that produce space-flight and ballistic accuracy.

IN other words, people can go to space if you explain 'how' well enough.

Are you capable of expressing how well enough, more than myself, and if not, I think we just deduced who is an authority in language USE; as a cause has an effect.

HINT: you are capable of this feat, only if you utilize your intellect to invest in expressing messages better. That means time and clarity of expression.

These one sentence pleas and augments are not such things.

Heh.